Oracle buys Sun & get's MySQL [Archive]

Dave-ros

04-20-2009, 12:41 PM

Bad Sector

04-20-2009, 01:40 PM

MySQL is opensource, therefore fork-able. Drizzle (https://launchpad.net/drizzle) is such a fork, so even if Oracle screws MySQL, there are alternative replacements.

peoplessi

04-20-2009, 03:55 PM

Having used Oracle at work, I can only conclude they're going to screw the free MySQL users and force everyone to use their awful product. It's almost like they're drug dealers: according to our Oracle team at work, you buy a basic package, then you have to pay extra for modules to do even the simplest things (like being able to close a search box without deleting the text in it) :doh:

^ this, I have heard this story a lot :) Too bad it's also true! Makes it even worse. Too bad SUN board didn't accept IBM's offer, and in my eyes Oracle payed a bit too much for SUN. HP won't be delighted if they pursue the SUN hardware side.

What will happen to Solaris? Oraclis?

Dave-ros

04-20-2009, 04:19 PM

The Register came up with the bon mot as usual, suggesting Suckle (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/20/oracle_buys_sun/) :D

IwantMORE

04-20-2009, 04:27 PM

Oracle certainly caught everyone off guard. I think they may keep Solaris and could well build a closed system of Oracle on Solaris with Sun hardware being the preferred deployment of Oracle.

I bet IBM, HP and MS are none to happy, if Oracle make their databases run best on their hardware and OS then most business will just buy their package if they want Oracle. Most corporation are still going to prefer Oracle to the opposition for very large or important databases so IBM and HP have some tough thinking to do. It will also put them in a huge position in the online DB market with MySQL and Oracle it must put MS SQL in a distant 2nd place.

Very clever on Oracles part as long as it don't become and AOL/Netscape type merger that brings the whole company down. But I can't see that happening. All the talent they will have with Sun and Oracle staff should put them in a good position.

I bet the conversation at IBM now is 'We should have got Sun at any price!'. I wonder if it was the Oracle deal that made Sun walk away from the IBM negotiations.

Let just hope that with the extra revenue streams they will have it means cheaper better databases and not more expensive as there is less competition.

Jiminator

04-20-2009, 05:00 PM

So I guess that means oracle db will be going open source? :P

peoplessi

04-20-2009, 05:19 PM

IWM, I bet IBM knows better, SUN would have overlapped on many fronts. In my eyes, the offer was fair, SUN rejected - fair deal IBM moves on. It's not their style to pay premium over nothing.

IwantMORE

04-20-2009, 05:27 PM

IBM wanted to kill Sun buy buying it up and taking their clients, now they have a stronger competitor. I don't think IBM will see this a a good move, they are getting more and more competition in all areas of their operations and IBM buying Sun would have strengthened them.

Then again the Sun board and shareholders may not have liked the IBM move as it would have been the death of Sun. I wonder if Oracle will keep the Sun name or will we get Oracle Java!

peoplessi

04-20-2009, 06:03 PM

There is a right price for everything, IBM has been succesfull on their chosen path, the whole "killing" is only speculative. It would have costs them even more money. IBM has never been afraid of competition, they've been in this industry for eons, and still manage to adapt and stay focused. Bad business deals, those they've avoided. Overall there is less overlapping between Oracle and SUN, than there is between IBM and SUN.

IwantMORE

04-20-2009, 06:20 PM

I'm not saying it's going to kill IBM, but things can change. GM were the No 1 car manufacturer for 77 Years! Now it's Toyota...

Jiminator

04-20-2009, 08:45 PM

Bad business deals, those they've avoided. bad business deals, like having microsoft develop ibm-dos and allowing them to license a similar version on the side? I'd say that was a pretty huge one.

Bad Sector

04-20-2009, 08:49 PM

Oracle offered to buy MySQL AB a while ago and MySQL declined. Then Sun bought them. Now Oracle buys Sun (somewhere someone said a "ha ha" there :-p).

IBM offered to buy Sun and Sun declined. Now Oracle buys Sun.

IBM can still buy Oracle :-P.

(or Google, but that wouldn't fun - besides Google can always buy IBM but given Google's trend, they'll probably make their own IBM)

IwantMORE

04-21-2009, 03:06 AM

Bad business deals, those they've avoided.

Like that thing with the the Nazi's, the great success of working with MS on OS2, the fact they managed to have losses of 8 billion in 1992 and even Apple dropping IBM chips because they could not make them fast enough and efficient enough.

They have their fair share of success stories too but they are not immune from bad business deals.

On a side not Oracle obviously have some plan for MySQL, after all the did try to buy them last year. Still not sure what they want to do with it.

IBM can still buy Oracle

I do hope you are joking, there is no way they could afford that ;) Now Google buying IBM that would be funny.

Bad Sector

04-21-2009, 03:42 AM

IBM has more than four times the earnings Oracle has:
Oracle earnings in 2008 (http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/update-oracle-posts-strong-q4-full-year-results-707) ($22.4 billion)
IBM earnings in 2008 (http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q08/press.phtml) ($103.6 billion)

So they can more than afford it. Interstingly, Google in 2008 had just a little less income than Oracle (http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/revenues_q408.html) ($21 billion).

FWIW, Microsoft had "only" $60.42 billion (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY08/earn_rel_q4_08.mspx). I expected more from the so-called software giant :-P.

Seems actually that if anyone can buy Oracle, this is IBM.

IwantMORE

04-21-2009, 04:38 AM

IBM has more than four times the earnings Oracle has:

Now I don't know much about these things but I do know the difference between turnover and profit ;)

IBM revenue of $103.6 billion = Total money coming in.
pre-tax profit of $16.7 billion = Profit before the governments get their cut.

So IBM's earnings are about $16 billion not $103 billion.

Oracle's was $5.5 billion which is a higher percentage because they don't make stuff. IBM's profit is about 1/6 of their turnover as they have to make the computers, Oracle's is about 1/4 as they are a software house.

Also MS's profit was about $17.5 billion which shows a great profit margin for a mixed software/hardware company. That must be the MS tax...

Also I'm sure that to buy a company it's much more to do with stocks than turnover. You have to buy all the stock to own a company. This means to work out how much you need to buy a company you take the stock price and multiply it by the number of shares.

I think this would put Oracle in the region of $70 billion to buy. IBM may just about be able to get enough cash to do this but it would probably wipe out all their reserves.

peoplessi

04-21-2009, 07:19 AM

There is only 1 reason why Oracle can still exists, they have no real competition going against them. They have monopoly in their field, which is databases.

And for IBM's decisions, since the resurrection they've made solid decisions. Losing Apple contract wasn't as big as you would like to think, and in the end the Apple's are just PCs now, so we all are happy.

IwantMORE

04-21-2009, 07:59 AM

There is only 1 reason why Oracle can still exists, they have no real competition going against them. They have monopoly in their field, which is databases.

What about MS SQL, DB2 or PostgreSQL?

Yep and I know loosing Apple was not that big a deal for IBM, although I bet Intel don't mind the fact they sold 30+million more chips and IBM did not since Apple changed. ;)

peoplessi

04-21-2009, 08:25 AM

Well, IBM has found new places to place their chips - consoles - which has shipped similar numbers. So you have to prioritize, their capacitety is used in the other ventures, so it's not idle. Besides Apple was moving away from PPC anyway. So whats the harm? I know you are a Apple fanatic but that's bit too much, to bring it to every thread you make.

Others combined reach the value Oracle has in databases, so yes, I would think they are quite happy where they are. The deal wouldn't have changed a thing for IBM.

Bad Sector

04-21-2009, 08:31 AM

Actually i believe consoles did a much greater number than macs :-P

IwantMORE

04-21-2009, 08:43 AM

I know you are a Apple fanatic but that's bit too much, to bring it to every thread you make.

I just mentioned that Apple moved away from IBM, your the one making a big deal about it.

IMO OS/2 was much worse screw up for IBM, it's like when Sony worked with Nintedo just before releasing the PS2, IBM worked with Microsoft just before they brought out Windows 95 and then took over the world. If IBM had got OS/2 right, marketed it right, were not so protective about it only working on their hardware and made 3rd part drivers. Then MS could well be the size of Adobe and the war would probably be Apple V IBM not MS.

Cheating at chess to make that big blue thing win was not nice either ;)

IBM are not going to die, not over night anyway, but competition is getting tougher all the time for everyone in the tech world. Apple will probably go before IBM do though as IBM have more history.

"Actually i believe consoles did a much greater number than macs"

Almost certainly, then again it;s not like IBM would have lost the console market if they had stayed with Apple. It's a totally different area of their business. I'm not sure if IBM even sell the PowerPC chips anymore.

Jiminator

04-21-2009, 12:18 PM

Also I'm sure that to buy a company it's much more to do with stocks than turnover. You have to buy all the stock to own a company. This means to work out how much you need to buy a company you take the stock price and multiply it by the number of shares.

I think this would put Oracle in the region of $70 billion to buy. IBM may just about be able to get enough cash to do this but it would probably wipe out all their reserves.
it would be based on the market cap, and is shown when viewing a stock (96.88 billion @ 19.42 http://www.google.com/finance?q=oracle ). it is important to note that stock price is not a real thing, it is imaginary based on the "market". Only a few people buying or selling the stock can make big changes in the price, but that does not necessarily reflect the intrinsic value of the stock.

A great example of this is microsoft + yahoo. Original microsoft offer was $28 but yahoo wanted more, because the year before they had hit $33, and before that they had hit $41 in 2005 and $100 before the dot-com bust. I think microsoft went as high as $33, but that was turned down. End result = they are trading now at $14.39. Shareholders got the shaft.

Anyway buyers want deals, and they will usually pay a premium on current share price, but in most cases they want to pay less than the high a company has had. shareholders obviously want as much as they can get, but outright selling will drive the stock price down as it upsets the supply demand equation. So for that reason they may accept less than what you would expect, as long as there was a profit involved.

unforgiven

04-21-2009, 07:12 PM

sounds like they have plan to discontinue MySQL ... :(

RiP MySQL

Phayzon

04-21-2009, 08:52 PM

I'm not sure if IBM even sell the PowerPC chips anymore.

I'd have to double-check, but Im almost certain the XBox 360 uses a tri-core PPC.
EDIT: Just checked, it is. The Wii is also PowerPC-based, and the PS3's Cell is also an evolution of PPC.

Crosma

04-22-2009, 05:59 AM

If IBM had got OS/2 right, marketed it right, were not so protective about it only working on their hardware and made 3rd part drivers.IBM were going to force particular hardware in an effort to stop clones, but Microsoft insisted otherwise. OS/2 never required IBM-specific hardware.

Anyone can make an OS/2 driver. OS/2 always came with loads and there's loads more on the Net. That's never been much of an issue. Indeed, while OS/2 was on sale (and long after), releasing OS/2 drivers was the norm for any sensible hardware manufacturer.

The problem with OS/2 was that Windows 3.0 sold unexpectedly well, so Microsoft dumped OS/2 unto IBM, taking their OEM deals with them. When none of the clones were willing to ship machines with OS/2 pre-installed, it didn't stand a chance. Shame really, because from a technical stand-point, Windows wasn't competitive for years.

Windows 3.0 was a sort-of joke release. The current OS/2 GUI with the old rubbish Windows kernel, sold for a pittance, done on the cheap. Microsoft's resources were all in OS/2 at the time. Strange how things work out.

Bad Sector

04-22-2009, 06:37 AM

I remember reading that the 386 protected mode features of Windows (3.1?) were done as an experiment from some MS programmers at their spare time and it actually worked :-P but it wasn't planned.

IwantMORE

04-22-2009, 06:43 AM

IBM were going to force particular hardware in an effort to stop clones, but Microsoft insisted otherwise. OS/2 never required IBM-specific hardware.

I got that bit from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2)...

"Much of its success was because Windows 3.0 (along with MS-DOS) was bundled with most new computers. OS/2, on the other hand, was only available as an expensive stand-alone software package. In addition, OS/2 lacked device drivers for many common devices such as printers, particularly non-IBM hardware."

MS's BIG advantage was always it's ability to get hardware manufactures to put it's OS on their machines and to get developers to write software for their systems. IBM was just too tied into their own hardware to see the big picture.

Phait

04-22-2009, 06:09 PM

sounds like they have plan to discontinue MySQL ... :(

RiP MySQL

Are they?! That'd really blow ass, cause I occasionally develop in PHP and have yet to learn a database.

peoplessi

04-22-2009, 06:20 PM

Overview and Frequently Asked Questions (PDF) for customers and partners (http://www.oracle.com/sun/sun-faq.pdf)

"What does Oracle plan to do with MySQL?

MySQL will be an addition to Oracle’s existing suite of database products, which already includes Oracle Database 11g, TimesTen, Berkeley DB open source database, and the open source transactional storage engine, InnoDB." -above pdf

That tells you that they aren't going to discontinue it.

Phait

04-22-2009, 06:29 PM

That's what I initially read, but then Unforgivens post confused me :tinyted:

IwantMORE

04-22-2009, 06:33 PM

Considering they tried to buy MySQL a year ago it's unlikely they would sell it or discontinue it.

Also as it's open source if they tried to do anything too radical it would just splinter off and there would be another database that would take over as the open source one.

They may try and slow development, or maybe even push development to make it easy to migrate from MySQL to Oracle so some of the up and coming companies using MySQL might be tempted to move over to Oracle as they get bigger. The truth is we just don't know.

What will they do with Java though?