Thread: Oracle's Rapidly Sliding License Revenues
..among other things. Hey, all... earlier today I posted a (long) article to my weblog about the prospects for proprietary content management firms, and about Oracle's rapidly declining database license revenue in the face of "current conditions" and competition from the likes of PostgreSQL. I thought it might be useful to note it here... http://www.skippingdot.net/2002/11/12 If you ever wonder why more people don't seem to "Get It" about open source software, well, it may be that more people get it than even we hear about, because they sure aren't buying Oracle like they used to. Of course, there are a lot of factors at play here, but there's no doubt in my mind that PostgreSQL is on the list of contributors to this trend. For those who don't have time to read the whole thing, here's a tidbit: -===- First, [Oracle's] license revenue overall has dropped at Internet speed: - FY 2002 software license revenue was down 25% from FY 2001. - First-quarter FY 2003 license revenue is down another 23% from the same quarter in FY 2002. That compound attrition is unprecedented, and there is no reason to believe that it won't continue. There is no economic reason for it to turn around. Second, licenses for Oracle's core database products contribute ever-smaller proportions of the company's revenues. - Database licenses slid from 41% of revenue in FY 1997 to 28% in FY 2002, and - in Q1 2003, database license revenue was only 21.6% of overall revenue. Oracle has a huge and well-established consulting business, which is a good thing, because they're going to wind up pretty much entirely a services organization, whether they like it or not. -===- Feel free to use the info in that article wherever and whenever you like. I'll be watching this trend quarterly from now on, of course. Thanks, Shane McChesney President, Wesearch Information Services Inc.
This is interesting because I just read this article (http://www.sdtimes.com/cols/middlewatch.htm) that talks about how postgresql is at a disadvantage compared to other open source databases because it is produced under a BSD license, and won't have enough license revenue to sustain long term viability of postgresql inc, the main company behind postgresql. Robert Treat On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 18:14, Shane McChesney wrote: > ..among other things. > > Hey, all... earlier today I posted a (long) article to my weblog > about the prospects for proprietary content management firms, and > about Oracle's rapidly declining database license revenue in the face > of "current conditions" and competition from the likes of PostgreSQL. > > I thought it might be useful to note it here... > > http://www.skippingdot.net/2002/11/12 > > If you ever wonder why more people don't seem to "Get It" about open > source software, well, it may be that more people get it than even we > hear about, because they sure aren't buying Oracle like they used to. > > Of course, there are a lot of factors at play here, but there's no > doubt in my mind that PostgreSQL is on the list of contributors to > this trend. > > For those who don't have time to read the whole thing, here's a > tidbit: > > -===- > > First, [Oracle's] license revenue overall has dropped at Internet > speed: > > - FY 2002 software license revenue was down 25% from FY 2001. > - First-quarter FY 2003 license revenue is down another 23% from the > same quarter in FY 2002. > > That compound attrition is unprecedented, and there is no reason to > believe that it won't continue. There is no economic reason for it to > turn around. > > Second, licenses for Oracle's core database products contribute > ever-smaller proportions of the company's revenues. > > - Database licenses slid from 41% of revenue in FY 1997 to 28% in FY > 2002, and > - in Q1 2003, database license revenue was only 21.6% of overall > revenue. > > Oracle has a huge and well-established consulting business, which is > a good thing, because they're going to wind up pretty much entirely a > services organization, whether they like it or not. > > -===- > > Feel free to use the info in that article wherever and whenever you > like. > > I'll be watching this trend quarterly from now on, of course. > > Thanks, > > > Shane McChesney > President, > Wesearch Information Services Inc. > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
On 13 Nov 2002, Robert Treat wrote: > This is interesting because I just read this article > (http://www.sdtimes.com/cols/middlewatch.htm) that talks about how > postgresql is at a disadvantage compared to other open source databases > because it is produced under a BSD license, and won't have enough > license revenue to sustain long term viability of postgresql inc, the > main company behind postgresql. license revenue? damn, were ppl supposed to be sending us license revenue? *scratch head* *puzzled look* thank god that wasn't part of our business plan ... > Robert Treat > > On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 18:14, Shane McChesney wrote: > > ..among other things. > > > > Hey, all... earlier today I posted a (long) article to my weblog > > about the prospects for proprietary content management firms, and > > about Oracle's rapidly declining database license revenue in the face > > of "current conditions" and competition from the likes of PostgreSQL. > > > > I thought it might be useful to note it here... > > > > http://www.skippingdot.net/2002/11/12 > > > > If you ever wonder why more people don't seem to "Get It" about open > > source software, well, it may be that more people get it than even we > > hear about, because they sure aren't buying Oracle like they used to. > > > > Of course, there are a lot of factors at play here, but there's no > > doubt in my mind that PostgreSQL is on the list of contributors to > > this trend. > > > > For those who don't have time to read the whole thing, here's a > > tidbit: > > > > -===- > > > > First, [Oracle's] license revenue overall has dropped at Internet > > speed: > > > > - FY 2002 software license revenue was down 25% from FY 2001. > > - First-quarter FY 2003 license revenue is down another 23% from the > > same quarter in FY 2002. > > > > That compound attrition is unprecedented, and there is no reason to > > believe that it won't continue. There is no economic reason for it to > > turn around. > > > > Second, licenses for Oracle's core database products contribute > > ever-smaller proportions of the company's revenues. > > > > - Database licenses slid from 41% of revenue in FY 1997 to 28% in FY > > 2002, and > > - in Q1 2003, database license revenue was only 21.6% of overall > > revenue. > > > > Oracle has a huge and well-established consulting business, which is > > a good thing, because they're going to wind up pretty much entirely a > > services organization, whether they like it or not. > > > > -===- > > > > Feel free to use the info in that article wherever and whenever you > > like. > > > > I'll be watching this trend quarterly from now on, of course. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Shane McChesney > > President, > > Wesearch Information Services Inc. > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
Robert Treat wrote: > > This is interesting because I just read this article > (http://www.sdtimes.com/cols/middlewatch.htm) that talks about how > postgresql is at a disadvantage compared to other open source databases > because it is produced under a BSD license, and won't have enough > license revenue to sustain long term viability of postgresql inc, the > main company behind postgresql. It's seems to be a very much MySQL propaganda style article, with the author pushing his preferred database without checking reality for facts. A *lot* of companies choose PostgreSQL, and a significant number of them are doing so because the BSD license makes it easy for them to start. GPL licensed stuff has a "enforced sharing" mindset attached with it that a lot of companies seem to be unhappy about using, whereas BSD licensed stuff can be used by anyone, anytime, anywhere, and is more able to be viewed as "infrastructure". My view on this is that when someone adds good code to a BSD licensed project, they've just raised the bar by that much for *everyone* worldwide, permanently. It's whether or not *everyone* worldwide knows about it is the dilemma. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > Robert Treat -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
the thing that I enjoy reading about the whole MySQL stuff is the fact that it now "supports transactions" ... but, my understanding is that its disabled by default, so you have to remember to enable it ... in fact, since its a third-party add on (to the best of my knowledge), you not only have to remember to enable it, but you have to remember to compile it in ... what happens if you download some software that uses MySQL for a backend that makes use of transactions, and you don't have it compiled in? Does it test and warn you? or does it run without letting you know that your data integrity is at risk? On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Justin Clift wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: > > > > This is interesting because I just read this article > > (http://www.sdtimes.com/cols/middlewatch.htm) that talks about how > > postgresql is at a disadvantage compared to other open source databases > > because it is produced under a BSD license, and won't have enough > > license revenue to sustain long term viability of postgresql inc, the > > main company behind postgresql. > > It's seems to be a very much MySQL propaganda style article, with the > author pushing his preferred database without checking reality for > facts. > > A *lot* of companies choose PostgreSQL, and a significant number of them > are doing so because the BSD license makes it easy for them to start. > > GPL licensed stuff has a "enforced sharing" mindset attached with it > that a lot of companies seem to be unhappy about using, whereas BSD > licensed stuff can be used by anyone, anytime, anywhere, and is more > able to be viewed as "infrastructure". > > My view on this is that when someone adds good code to a BSD licensed > project, they've just raised the bar by that much for *everyone* > worldwide, permanently. > > It's whether or not *everyone* worldwide knows about it is the dilemma. > > :-) > > Regards and best wishes, > > Justin Clift > > > Robert Treat > > -- > "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those > who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the > first group; there was less competition there." > - Indira Gandhi > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> writes: > It's seems to be a very much MySQL propaganda style article, with the > author pushing his preferred database without checking reality for > facts. > > A *lot* of companies choose PostgreSQL, and a significant number of them > are doing so because the BSD license makes it easy for them to > start. Well, the author's criticism of the BSD license is purely from a "business perspective" (he thinks companies selling BSD-licensed software won't be able to survive). He then concludes that since the PostgreSQL-related companies won't be able to make as much money as, say, MySQL-related ones, they won't have as much money to put back into the product, thereby making it inferior to MySQL in the long run. Of course, I disagree with him (both that BSD-based businesses don't work, and that you need commercial involvement to develop complex software), but I don't think it's a completely absurd position, nor is it propaganda. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
Robert, > This is interesting because I just read this article > (http://www.sdtimes.com/cols/middlewatch.htm) that talks about how > postgresql is at a disadvantage compared to other open source databases > because it is produced under a BSD license, and won't have enough > license revenue to sustain long term viability of postgresql inc, the > main company behind postgresql. The guy's an idiot. "Candian-Based PostgreSQL?" For that matter, except for Microsoft, license revenue is a *declining* part of the software picture. The article writer is talking based on what he learned selling software for Compaq 10 years ago*, not on any knowledge of the current market. (*=hypothetically, I don't actually know the writer's background) -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco