Thread: SMH on Salesforce-Oracle

Anyone have any insight into what's going on with this Salesforce-Oracle love connection?  Seems kind of odd to hire Tom and a bunch of other guys, then announce a 9-year commitment to Oracle a few weeks later....

On 06/26/2013 03:38 PM, Ned Lilly wrote:
> Anyone have any insight into what's going on with this Salesforce-Oracle love
> connection?  Seems kind of odd to hire Tom and a bunch of other guys, then
> announce a 9-year commitment to Oracle a few weeks later....

The problem with a question like that is that anyone who knows the
answer can't post it.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

On 06/26/2013 03:38 PM, Ned Lilly wrote:
> Anyone have any insight into what's going on with this Salesforce-Oracle
> love connection?  Seems kind of odd to hire Tom and a bunch of other
> guys, then announce a 9-year commitment to Oracle a few weeks later....
>

Covering the bases. Salesforce can't afford to make Oracle mad at this
point.

>
> --
> Ned Lilly
> President and CEO
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com

Onsdag 26. juni 2013 18.38.04 skrev Ned Lilly:
> Anyone have any insight into what's going on with this Salesforce-Oracle
> love connection?  Seems kind of odd to hire Tom and a bunch of other
> guys, then announce a 9-year commitment to Oracle a few weeks later....

One might easily imagine the mentioning of a stick & a carrot in circumstances
like these. I believe that some kind of coercion may have been going on, but
then I'm just a simple guy from Norway reflecting about things and in no
position to convey anything but my own imaginations.

regards, Leif

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 06:38:04PM -0400, Ned Lilly wrote:
> Anyone have any insight into what's going on with this
> Salesforce-Oracle love connection?  Seems kind of odd to hire Tom
> and a bunch of other guys, then announce a 9-year commitment to
> Oracle a few weeks later....

Well, logic suggests that Salesforce was considering moving to Postgres
but, either because they got a good deal from Oracle or they were just
bluffing about moving to Postgres, they are no longer considering it.
The size, scope, publicity, and duration of the deal support this
conclusion:

    http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/1964798

The press release specifically mentions Oracle Database.

Of course, there might be some other conclusion, logical or illogical,
but I can't think of one.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

<div id="BB10_response_div" style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif;
color:rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It sounds like a chess game and
postgresis the board. </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif;
color:rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br /></div><div style="width:
100%;font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial;
background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);">Robert Bernier </div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family:
Calibri,'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><br/></div><div id="response_div_spacer" style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate
Pro',sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br
style="display:initial"/></div><div id="_signaturePlaceholder" style="font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate
Pro',sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sent from my
BlackBerry10 smartphone.</div><table style="background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td
colspan="2"id="_persistentHeaderContainer" style="font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255,
255,255);"><div id="_persistentHeader" style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223);
border-top-width:1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; font-family: Tahoma, 'BB Alpha Sans', 'Slate Pro'; font-size:
10pt;"><div><b>From:</b>Leif Biberg Kristensen</div><div><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:55 PM</div><div><b>To:
</b>pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org</div><div><b>Subject:</b>Re: [pgsql-advocacy] SMH on
Salesforce-Oracle</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><divid="_persistentHeaderEnd" style="border-style: solid none
none;border-top-color: rgb(186, 188, 209); border-top-width: 1pt; font-size: initial; text-align: initial;
background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><br /><div id="_originalContent" style="">Onsdag 26. juni 2013 18.38.04
skrevNed Lilly:<br />> Anyone have any insight into what's going on with this Salesforce-Oracle<br />> love
connection?Seems kind of odd to hire Tom and a bunch of other<br />> guys, then announce a 9-year commitment to
Oraclea few weeks later....<br /><br />One might easily imagine the mentioning of a stick & a carrot in
circumstances<br />like these. I believe that some kind of coercion may have been going on, but <br />then I'm just a
simpleguy from Norway reflecting about things and in no <br />position to convey anything but my own imaginations.<br
/><br/>regards, Leif<br /><br /><br />-- <br />Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)<br
/>Tomake changes to your subscription:<br />http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy<br /></div> 

On 06/26/2013 06:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 06:38:04PM -0400, Ned Lilly wrote:
>> Anyone have any insight into what's going on with this
>> Salesforce-Oracle love connection?  Seems kind of odd to hire Tom
>> and a bunch of other guys, then announce a 9-year commitment to
>> Oracle a few weeks later....
>
> Well, logic suggests that Salesforce was considering moving to Postgres
> but, either because they got a good deal from Oracle or they were just
> bluffing about moving to Postgres, they are no longer considering it.
> The size, scope, publicity, and duration of the deal support this
> conclusion:
>
>     http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/1964798
>
> The press release specifically mentions Oracle Database.
>
> 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.


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com

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. +

On 6/26/2013 11:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

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 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 guess time will tell...

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?

> I guess time will tell...

Robert Bernier's quote is looking more profound to me, "It sounds like a
chess game and Postgres is the board."  No matter what the truth, there
is a lot of chess in here.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On 06/26/2013 06:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 06:38:04PM -0400, Ned Lilly wrote:
>> Anyone have any insight into what's going on with this
>> Salesforce-Oracle love connection?  Seems kind of odd to hire Tom
>> and a bunch of other guys, then announce a 9-year commitment to
>> Oracle a few weeks later....
>
> Well, logic suggests that Salesforce was considering moving to Postgres
> but, either because they got a good deal from Oracle or they were just
> bluffing about moving to Postgres, they are no longer considering it.
> The size, scope, publicity, and duration of the deal support this
> conclusion:

I seriously doubt they were bluffing. They are instead likely realizing
what a major undertaking it will be for them to migrate. A migration to
PostgreSQL for Salesforce is not just about rewriting queries. They are
going to need to modify postgresql itself. I bet it is a 5 year project
minimum for them to migrate.

Further, just because they are using Oracle doesn't mean they aren't
using PostgreSQL.

JD




>
>     http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/1964798
>
> The press release specifically mentions Oracle Database.
>
> Of course, there might be some other conclusion, logical or illogical,
> but I can't think of one.
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
    a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats

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

On 6/26/13 11:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The issue with Salesforce is the length of the deal --- 9 years.  It is
> hard to call that just "maintain a relationship with Oracle".

There are two major problems with this thinking:

-It assumes there is only one Oracle application inside of Salesforce.
Just at a very high level, in addition to their namesake CRM application
there's also their cloud database at http://database.com/ and that
announcement was filled with cloudy stuff.

-A gigantic database installation can easily take 9 years to migrate to
a new platform, before every instance is converted.

The Salesforce/Oracle announcement reeks of co-marketing announcement.
It isn't necessarily connected to their infrastructure plans at all.
The real about-face going on there is Oracle's changed stance on the
whole "cloud database" concept.  That topic is a much more interesting
one for this advocacy list to me.

--
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com

Hi there,

Le jeudi 27 juin 2013 à 08:00 -0700, Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
> On 06/26/2013 06:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 06:38:04PM -0400, Ned Lilly wrote:
> >> Anyone have any insight into what's going on with this
> >> Salesforce-Oracle love connection?  Seems kind of odd to hire Tom
> >> and a bunch of other guys, then announce a 9-year commitment to
> >> Oracle a few weeks later....
> >
> > Well, logic suggests that Salesforce was considering moving to Postgres
> > but, either because they got a good deal from Oracle or they were just
> > bluffing about moving to Postgres, they are no longer considering it.
> > The size, scope, publicity, and duration of the deal support this
> > conclusion:
>
> I seriously doubt they were bluffing. They are instead likely realizing
> what a major undertaking it will be for them to migrate. A migration to
> PostgreSQL for Salesforce is not just about rewriting queries. They are
> going to need to modify postgresql itself. I bet it is a 5 year project
> minimum for them to migrate.

Il really agree to this.

> Further, just because they are using Oracle doesn't mean they aren't
> using PostgreSQL.
> JD

Indeed. We don't know about their strategy. I bet that some kind of new
products running on PostgreSQL instead of ORA-600 will show up in some
months. Something like Salesforce Light Version for low and medium range
companies :-)

I also agree with Magnus when he states about the various angles of a
deal like that. A 9 year contract, ok, but what does it covers really?

What I'll remind about all that story is that PostgreSQL has been
presented to the world as the real ORA-600 opponent, if not the only one
today.

That's a kind of recognition our project deserves :)


Cheers,

> >
> >     http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/1964798
> >
> > The press release specifically mentions Oracle Database.
> >
> > Of course, there might be some other conclusion, logical or illogical,
> > but I can't think of one.
> >
>
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  509-416-6579
> PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
> High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
> For my dreams of your image that blossoms
>     a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats
>
>


--
Jean-Paul Argudo
www.PostgreSQL.fr
www.Dalibo.com