Thread: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
Tom Lane wrote: >That's a really interesting angle --- not only does Oracle get rid of >what they may or may not see as serious competition, but they get a >chance to make some money at the same time. I'm not convinced about the >"only one table handler" part of your story. Oracle certainly has the >resources to fix up multiple handlers if they wish, and they wouldn't >want to leave a loophole that MySQL AB could use to claim that their >version is better. The only one I'd see them dropping, in this >scenario, is BDB (unless they could buy out Sleepycat too, which is >perhaps not out of the question). > > There is another possibility too... I don't really see Oracle trying to force MySQL to be GPL-only because that would have the potential to materially harm their own market position. Kill MySQL AB and just maybe the community might become less MySQL AB-centric. What is a larger possibility is to use this to contain MySQL AB. Jack up the license fees to the point that MySQL is no longer the super-low-cost alternative. This would also cut into MySQL's profitability at the same time and help slow down the pace of development. The only real downside is that I could see MySQL developing a FirebirdSQL table handler if too much pressure is put on them. This might actually work OK since Firebird has an embeddable engine. If they do this then Oracle might end up with basically the personnel from the Innobase acquisition and very little else. Of course MySQL has progressed to the point where larger license fees might not alienate too many customers. >I've been trying to figure out what it is that Oracle gets out of this, >assuming that they don't see MySQL as a serious threat to their core >business. The most they can do is force MySQL AB to waste a year or so >reimplementing something equivalent to InnoDB; which would hurt them but >it's hardly likely to kill them. > A year delay with MySQL's pace of development and track record? > But with your scenario Oracle might >actually make money out of the deal, which makes it make some sense. > > I was assuming that this deal was primarily done to scare customers away from using MySQL. The timing could not have been more deliberate-- right before 5.0 is supposed to be released. I think that the first message was to scare business customers away from MySQL. Secondly they may want an additional inroad into FOSS. Third, they may be after personnel (i.e the buyout may be really a hiring bonus). Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Attachment
> There is another possibility too... I don't really see Oracle trying to > force MySQL to be GPL-only because that would have the potential to > materially harm their own market position. Kill MySQL AB and just maybe > the community might become less MySQL AB-centric. > > What is a larger possibility is to use this to contain MySQL AB. Jack > up the license fees to the point that MySQL is no longer the > super-low-cost alternative. This would also cut into MySQL's > profitability at the same time and help slow down the pace of development. > I think Oracle will buy MySQL too eventually and then pose that as a low-cost alternative. They started with InnoDB because that is likely to lower the price tag of MySQL more then they paid for InnoDB. MySQL's existing customer base is very attractive to Oracle. Regards, Thomas Hallgren
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I think Oracle will buy MySQL too eventually No, MySQL AB is a private company and would probably never sell to Oracle. > They started with InnoDB because that is likely to lower the > price tag of MySQL You seem to misunderstand the power and wealth of Oracle. The cost of buying MySQL AB would be insignificant to them. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200510170831 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFDU5nYvJuQZxSWSsgRAp4NAKCmi4/GxxNgJtFE++FLaEtbcGK9bwCg+bIP 836Cs+vqXe0qxVQZzJriA7Y= =Ozsu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >> I think Oracle will buy MySQL too eventually > > No, MySQL AB is a private company and would probably never > sell to Oracle. > Huh? And since when are private companies not interested in being bought? >> They started with InnoDB because that is likely to lower the >> price tag of MySQL > > You seem to misunderstand the power and wealth of Oracle. The cost of > buying MySQL AB would be insignificant to them. > I'm not sure the cost is insignificant to them, but even if it is, how do you figure that affects my idea negatively? I think it's the opposite. The acquired customer base is huge and that's what matters. But, speculating is pointless. Time will tell. Regards, Thomas Hallgren
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >> I think Oracle will buy MySQL too eventually > > No, MySQL AB is a private company and would probably never > sell to Oracle. > >> They started with InnoDB because that is likely to lower the >> price tag of MySQL > > You seem to misunderstand the power and wealth of Oracle. The cost of > buying MySQL AB would be insignificant to them. Not only that, "potentially crippling" MySQL by pulling InnoDB out from under them would not only reduce MySQL's worth, but also has a massive potential of reducing their marketshare, long term. Until MySQL has to re-negotiate their contract with Inno^H^H^H^HOracle, its all speculation though ... don't know when that comes due, but their might be enough time between now and then for MySQL to recover on their own (ie. come up with an alternative to InnoDB) ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >>> I think Oracle will buy MySQL too eventually >> >> No, MySQL AB is a private company and would probably never >> sell to Oracle. >> >>> They started with InnoDB because that is likely to lower the >>> price tag of MySQL >> >> You seem to misunderstand the power and wealth of Oracle. The cost of >> buying MySQL AB would be insignificant to them. > > Not only that, "potentially crippling" MySQL by pulling InnoDB out from > under them would not only reduce MySQL's worth, but also has a massive > potential of reducing their marketshare, long term. > And in what respect would that be negative for Oracle? There will be enough customers stuck on MySQL to make a purchase worth while anyway, reduced market share or not. Oracle has two ways of making money from the InnoDB acquisition: 1. They charge for InnoDB licenses and thereby remove MySQL's profit. MySQL will probably die if they do this and their customers will seek alternatives. I think PostgreSQL is a far more likely alternative then Oracle. Especially if Oracle is the one who provokes the change. 2. They buy MySQL and charge the customers what they are charged today. Everyone is happy and Oracle just expanded their customer base. > Until MySQL has to re-negotiate their contract with Inno^H^H^H^HOracle, > its all speculation though ... don't know when that comes due, but their > might be enough time between now and then for MySQL to recover on their > own (ie. come up with an alternative to InnoDB) ... > In which case Oracle would gain nothing from its purchase of InnoDB. I don't see that as a very likely scenario. Regards, Thomas Hallgren
Thomas Hallgren wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: >> >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> >>>> I think Oracle will buy MySQL too eventually >>> >>> >>> No, MySQL AB is a private company and would probably never >>> sell to Oracle. >>> >>>> They started with InnoDB because that is likely to lower the >>>> price tag of MySQL >>> >>> >>> You seem to misunderstand the power and wealth of Oracle. The cost of >>> buying MySQL AB would be insignificant to them. >> >> >> Not only that, "potentially crippling" MySQL by pulling InnoDB out >> from under them would not only reduce MySQL's worth, but also has a >> massive potential of reducing their marketshare, long term. >> > And in what respect would that be negative for Oracle? There will be > enough customers stuck on MySQL to make a purchase worth while anyway, > reduced market share or not. > > Oracle has two ways of making money from the InnoDB acquisition: > 1. They charge for InnoDB licenses and thereby remove MySQL's profit. > MySQL will probably die if they do this and their customers will seek > alternatives. I think PostgreSQL is a far more likely alternative then > Oracle. Especially if Oracle is the one who provokes the change. > 2. They buy MySQL and charge the customers what they are charged > today. Everyone is happy and Oracle just expanded their customer base. #2 could be done after #1. Depending on the way Oracle proceeds, they might be able to do this without pissing off the community too much. An extreme (and illegal) example of this sort of behavior was when AT&T executives used to provide a list of telco's they were interested in purchasing to J.P. Morgan and then J.P. Morgan would make sure their loans were called, bankrupting comptetitors, so AT&T could purchase them for pennies on the dollar (this was a major part of AT&T's earlier antitrust case, which resulted in a consent decree in 1956). > > >> Until MySQL has to re-negotiate their contract with >> Inno^H^H^H^HOracle, its all speculation though ... don't know when >> that comes due, but their might be enough time between now and then >> for MySQL to recover on their own (ie. come up with an alternative to >> InnoDB) ... >> > In which case Oracle would gain nothing from its purchase of InnoDB. I > don't see that as a very likely scenario. I think that MySQL was blindsided by this. Just a little before this, they said that they wanted to be the Ikea of the database market in part because they didn't want to attract Oracle's attention... Best Wishes,
greg@turnstep.com ("Greg Sabino Mullane") writes:
>> I think Oracle will buy MySQL too eventually
>
> No, MySQL AB is a private company and would probably never
> sell to Oracle.
A significant portion of it belongs to a sizable set of venture
capital organizations to whom money talks pretty loudly.
A good offer from Oracle ought to be attractive to them...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #25. "No matter how well it would perform,
I will never construct any sort of machinery which is completely
indestructible except for one small and virtually inaccessible
vulnerable spot." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
On Monday 17 October 2005 14:17, Chris Browne wrote:
> greg@turnstep.com ("Greg Sabino Mullane") writes:
> >> I think Oracle will buy MySQL too eventually
> >
> > No, MySQL AB is a private company and would probably never
> > sell to Oracle.
>
> A significant portion of it belongs to a sizable set of venture
> capital organizations to whom money talks pretty loudly.
>
> A good offer from Oracle ought to be attractive to them...
Hey, don't forget MySQL AB is a European company. This won't fly like it would in the US, the anti-trust laws are
stricter.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 03:22:49PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
> On Monday 17 October 2005 14:17, Chris Browne wrote:
> > greg@turnstep.com ("Greg Sabino Mullane") writes:
> > >> I think Oracle will buy MySQL too eventually
> > >
> > > No, MySQL AB is a private company and would probably never
> > > sell to Oracle.
> >
> > A significant portion of it belongs to a sizable set of venture
> > capital organizations to whom money talks pretty loudly.
> >
> > A good offer from Oracle ought to be attractive to them...
>
> Hey, don't forget MySQL AB is a European company. This won't fly like it would in the US, the anti-trust laws are
stricter.
One can always hope... it would allow a friend of mine at a company with
some funding from a MySQL investor to ditch MySQL.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Robert Bernier wrote: > > >Hey, don't forget MySQL AB is a European company. This won't fly like it would in the US, the anti-trust laws are stricter. > > Why not? One would be hard to argue that removing MySQL from the market place would have any adverse effect on competition. Are competitors then never allowed to merge in the EU? Besides who would have standing to sue? IANAL though and I am an American so I could misunderstand something pretty fundamental. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
On Monday 17 October 2005 17:47, Chris Travers wrote: > Robert Bernier wrote: > >Hey, don't forget MySQL AB is a European company. This won't fly like it > > would in the US, the anti-trust laws are stricter. > > Why not? One would be hard to argue that removing MySQL from the market > place would have any adverse effect on competition. Are competitors > then never allowed to merge in the EU? Besides who would have standing > to sue? IANAL though and I am an American so I could misunderstand > something pretty fundamental. In canada we have a thing called the competition bureau, a company is not allowed to buy another company if its to reducecompetition
On Monday 17 October 2005 18:09, Robert Bernier wrote:
> On Monday 17 October 2005 17:47, Chris Travers wrote:
> > Robert Bernier wrote:
> > >Hey, don't forget MySQL AB is a European company. This won't fly like it
> > > would in the US, the anti-trust laws are stricter.
> >
> > Why not? One would be hard to argue that removing MySQL from the market
> > place would have any adverse effect on competition. Are competitors
> > then never allowed to merge in the EU? Besides who would have standing
> > to sue? IANAL though and I am an American so I could misunderstand
> > something pretty fundamental.
>
> In canada we have a thing called the competition bureau, a company is not
> allowed to buy another company if its to reduce competition
>
By that definition no company could ever buy any other company even if they
wanted a mutual merger, so I don't think that is the case. Oracle buying
my$ql wouldn't even cause the legislature to blink... if you dont believe me
just look at the track record of oracle with peoplesoft/sap, a market where
there really isn't much competition, unlike the db market where there are a
least a dozen legitimate competitors in the field. More importantly, my$ql
has said themselves numerous times they "don't compete with oracle" so using
there own words you can't put oracle on an anti-competitive practice
(whoops!).
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Robert Treat wrote: > On Monday 17 October 2005 18:09, Robert Bernier wrote: >> On Monday 17 October 2005 17:47, Chris Travers wrote: >>> Robert Bernier wrote: >>>> Hey, don't forget MySQL AB is a European company. This won't fly like it >>>> would in the US, the anti-trust laws are stricter. >>> >>> Why not? One would be hard to argue that removing MySQL from the market >>> place would have any adverse effect on competition. Are competitors >>> then never allowed to merge in the EU? Besides who would have standing >>> to sue? IANAL though and I am an American so I could misunderstand >>> something pretty fundamental. >> >> In canada we have a thing called the competition bureau, a company is not >> allowed to buy another company if its to reduce competition >> > > By that definition no company could ever buy any other company even if they > wanted a mutual merger, so I don't think that is the case. And, actually, that isn't the case (or, at least, there are ways around it) ... two of Canada's largest Nickel mines in Sudbury just merged (to the chagrin of their respective unions) ... if that isn't reducing competition, I'm not sure what is :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Monday 17 October 2005 21:43, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> In canada we have a thing called the competition bureau, a company is > >> not allowed to buy another company if its to reduce competition > > > > By that definition no company could ever buy any other company even if > > they wanted a mutual merger, so I don't think that is the case. > > And, actually, that isn't the case (or, at least, there are ways around > it) ... two of Canada's largest Nickel mines in Sudbury just merged (to > the chagrin of their respective unions) ... if that isn't reducing > competition, I'm not sure what is :) True, I could have explained more. A competition board's mandate is by law to examine if two companies together is for thepublic good. Sure there's big merges going on..... BUT only after they go through the process. Sorry, I thought this wasobvious.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 06:09:59PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
> In canada we have a thing called the competition bureau, a company
> is not allowed to buy another company if its to reduce competition
Yes. Like Air Canada and Canadian Air. . . oops. Wait.
It's a bureaucratic leap, for sure, but if the target company is in
sufficiently bad straits, nobody will stop it. Being unable to
control your central technology might well qualify.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
Robert Bernier wrote: > On Monday 17 October 2005 14:17, Chris Browne wrote: >> A significant portion of it belongs to a sizable set of venture >> capital organizations to whom money talks pretty loudly. >> >> A good offer from Oracle ought to be attractive to them... > > Hey, don't forget MySQL AB is a European company. This won't fly like it would in the US, the anti-trust laws are stricter. > InnoDB is^h^hwas European ;-) Regards, Thomas Hallgren
On 10/18/2005 11:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 06:09:59PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote: > >> In canada we have a thing called the competition bureau, a company >> is not allowed to buy another company if its to reduce competition > > Yes. Like Air Canada and Canadian Air. . . oops. Wait. > > It's a bureaucratic leap, for sure, but if the target company is in > sufficiently bad straits, nobody will stop it. Being unable to > control your central technology might well qualify. There are similar control mechanism in Germany and I guess most other countries. The goal of them however is NOT to increase competition as much as possible, but rather to avoid any monopol building mergers or acquisitions. Oracle swallowing MySQL would create a monopol? Cough! Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #