On Jun 27, 2013 4:50 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:40:57AM -0400, Ned Lilly wrote:
> > >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 would be really surprised if Salesforce went for that deal. Got
> > to believe that they have the option to do other stuff. The more I
> > think about it, the weaker Oracle looks in this exchange.
>
> I think the big question is what would motivate SalesForce to go for
> that deal? SalesForce certainly has been hostile to Oracle in the
> past, so why the big "hug" now? Mentioning Postgres in an Oracle
> negotiation has been known to reduce prices, so was this just a huge
> example of that?
Money, yes. Perhaps a guarantee against price increments during that time. Which when you're an oracle customer that big is a *huge* pile of money.
There was also the whole integration of their app with oracles offerings, where oracle is supposed to help drive sales of sales force I'm sure.
There are a lot of angles to a deal like that, and we're never going to learn what all of them were anyway...
/Magnus
