Thanks, Turs. Caught the article myself yesterday. After reading page 1, then the next page, but before finishing article, I thought, gee, if ORCL's product are so bad, and their support is so bad, how did the Company ever achieve the success that it has, not in database, but in the apps market over the past two years? If I were to give any credulity to the author(s), who for apparent reasons prefer not to attach his (their) name(s), it would be fair to conclude that much of what is claimed of ORCL is not that much different than most of its competitors in the industry.
Let's face it, selling software is extremely competitive, and the best product does not always win. Notwithstanding the merits of the article, which I tend to seriously doubt, ORCL has been known to continually improve its products with each subsequent release, and apparently is able to ultimately keep the customer happy . . . or they wouldn't be where they are today. No company gets to be in their position by continually delivering products that simply don't work.
I would also conjecture as the motivation of the authors here, and the timing of release of this article. My favorite question to ask is "why now?" Why wasn't this article written a year ago? Or six months ago? Or a month ago? Why did publication wait until ORCL announced the beginning of a turn around of its business which has sent the stock up by almost 30 percent in a month's time? What does the latest heightened competition between ORCL and IBM have to do with it? I think the more intelligent investor is adept to sift through what's fact and what is utter BS in the article. JMO. |
