Point-by-point:
I don't have sales figures handy, but the same question could be asked re Intel and Microsoft with, I suspect, a similar answer. Logically, you could just as easily assert that Intel and Microsoft would not have been as successful without Sun and Oracle (although IBM is probably more to the point)! And businesses were already embracing computers long before the PC (granted, some of those were based on Intel chips, but many were not).
I don't think either Oracle or Sun have ever asserted that they are in their "own little universe" so I don't understand what you're saying. In fact, I think Sun's slogan is something to the effect that the "network is the computer," which suggests connectivity to, rather than isolation from, the world.
I still don't understand why you think Sun's and Oracle's success was particularly augmented by Microsoft. I would have thought a better argument could be made that Sun's success was helped by changes in AT&T, while Oracle's success was tied to IBM's.
I haven't seen the Ellison comment, so can't comment, and I don't know what statements of McNealy's you refer to, so again can't comment. |
