On May 14, 10:36 pm, Sean <sean.c.comerf...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was just using Glassfish as an example... but you kind of made my > point: IBM is so big that there isn't much Sun has that IBM doesn't > already have a competitor for.
Agreed - there's much more overlap with IBM than with Oracle, so more Sun products will probably survive this way. > IBM uses Geronimo in IBM clothing (WAS > CE) as the entry level free starter for Websphere. Now all of a sudden > they're gonna tell people Glassfish is the Websphere starter kit? They would have picked one to survive and maybe added some pieces from the other one to it. That's what Oracle will probably do with its three IDEs - they've been a strategic member of Eclipse from the beginning, still have their re-branded BEA workshop (Oracle Eclipse Enterprise Pack) and lead a bunch of Eclipse projects, they have JDeveloper and now they have Netbeans. My bet is that they oust JDeveloper, port their Application Development Framework and JSF tools to Netbeans and remain an Eclipse supporter (since that is what most Java developers use). > Oracle could (potentially) keep Glassfish as the entry level "feeder" > server for Weblogic. Agreed. > Likewise for MySQL... more or less everyone agrees that $$$ aside, > Oracle is the best DB solution out there. But obviously many can't / > won't pay what Oracle demands. So MySQL gets Oracle's foot in the door > at those shops now so they can now try to sell them things like > Coherence, WebLogic, etc, etc. That's what's likely to happen, though MySQL seems to be in a bad shape. The company I work for uses MySQL in its commercial products. Over the last three years, the license cost for MySQL went up 50%, and we have many problems with replication in 5.0 which worked a lot better in 4.1. MySQL certainly is in turmoil: There's a MySQL-derived project at Sun called Drizzle for web applications (apparently MySQL isn't good enough for that anymore; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/04/mysql_drizzle/), there's an internal MySQL re-engineering project at Sun to, among other things, "reduce the number of bugs introduced with new features" (http://lists.mysql.com/internals/36630), there are various community distributions with bug and performance fixes patches not in the official release, and Sun recently announced the new 5.4 release with Google patches (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/25/ sun_mysql_5_4). The two MySQL founders left Sun already, one of them (Monty Widenius) is actually calling for MySQL developers that don't want to work for Oracle to come to his new company, presented a new alliance to unite all MySQL forks (http://www.theregister.co.uk/ 2009/05/14/mysql_database_alliance) and thought MySQL 5.1 was too buggy upon release (http://www.linux-magazine.com/online/news/ mysql_founder_warns_5_1_not_ready). That's why my company wants to move to Postgres (Apache license - no license fees! :-) as soon as possible. > I'm not sure but I believe IBM already > has a low cost (maybe even free) scaled back version of DB2 for this > very purpose. Both Oracle and IBM have "$5,000" editions of their database to compete with Microsoft's SQL Server. IBM also invested in EnterpriseDB (which imploys a lof of the Postgres developers) shortly after Sun bought MySQL (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/25/ enterprisedb_ibm_investment_dev_updates) and will use the EnterpriseDB's Postgres-based product in DB2 to provide Oracle- compatibility (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/22/ oracle_ibm_enterprisedb_compatibility/) . > Ultimately, who knows what will happen. But at least in my eyes, there > would clearly seem to be less of an overlap between Sun/Oracle product > lines vs IBM/Sun... which to me implies maybe Oracle will keep more of > Sun's stuff around. And IBM's track record on acquisitions is slash > and burn - take the customers, cherry pick any great tech and axe > everyone/thing else. Do you really think Oracle will act any different? Come on, Larry Ellison runs a very tight ship. Oracle already announced that it will "run Sun at substantially higher margins" and that Sun will contribute about $1.5 billion in Oracle’s non-GAAP earnings in the first year of the deal closing and $2 billion the year after that (http:// seekingalpha.com/article/131774-oracle-buys-sun-becomes-a-hardware- player). Now Sun lost $200m each in the quarters ending December 2008 and March 2009, which only includes only two weeks of "Sun for sale" rumors. And the quarter ending June will probably be disastrous, with the economy in a global recession, customers and prospects holding back to see what Sun products survive, server sales in the toilet across the industry and a lot of Sun sales / marketing people looking for jobs elsewhere (Oracle has a very aggressive sales force, and it seemed that sales and marketing were never strong parts of Sun, so I think most of them will be laid off). So how does Oracle turn the Sun business from losing $200m per quarter to having $400m profit instead (assuming the Sun earnings are comparable to the non-GAAP earning contributions plans from Oracle)? Oracle could lower cost by laying off people or increase revenue by hiking prices or selling off parts of Sun. I think it will do at least the first two of them, because for reasons laid out above, I can't see Sun suddenly selling more products (which would help by increasing revenue). After it bought BEA, Oracle increased the prices for databases and app server 15-20% on average, with the WebLogic Server Enterprise Edition going up 47% (http://www.theregister.co.uk/ 2008/06/20/oracle_license_increase/). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
