On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 08:02:02PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> >Of course, there might be some other conclusion, logical or illogical,
> >but I can't think of one.
> >
>
> As someone else suggested, it is a chess game. Salesforce is
> currently an Oracle shop. All the cat fighting aside, they need to
> maintain a relationship with Oracle for the foreseeable future.
> Oracle released earnings on June 20th and their stock immediately
> tanked 8%+. They need to show forward momentum. The market
> specifically called out their lack of success in making more money
> with the hardware assets they got from Sun and their trailing the
> trend to cloud computing. Not surprisingly the deals they have been
> touting recently address both those issues. Notably lacking in the
> press releases/stories are any hard numbers on actual dollar amounts
> involved, so I would definitely take a wait and see attitude.
Yes, no question Oracle is hurting --- they missed financial targets in
4 of their past 9 quarters:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323998604578565912150575302.html
and someday the press is going to clue in that Postgres is part of that.
The issue with Salesforce is the length of the deal --- 9 years. It is
hard to call that just "maintain a relationship with Oracle".
Now, if that 9 years is somehow _optional_ on Salesforce's part, then
there might be something to the "maintain a relationship", but I have
not seen anything suggesting that.
I guess my point is that I don't know the details either, but logically,
it suggested Salesforce moving away from Postgres.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
