Richard:
Sorry if I responded too strongly. Just that your original statements were made without any basis & were facially absurd. I, however, appreciate the effort you took to respond in a more intelligent fashion. So I extend apologies to you. Let's try again.
Statement 1: "Don't think that Oracle has much of a chance against Microsoft-Compaq and IBM."
I still don't understand how you can say this. Explain to me how MSFT, CPQ & IBM are going to lead to the demise of ORCL. Your arguments appear to have some merit (if I can more fully understand them as explained below), but your conclusion that ORCL doesn't have a chance does not, even if I accept everything you say, appears plausible, but rather a bit premature -- & biased.
Maybe you can explain how ORCL & CPQ & IBM are going to lead to the utter demise of ORCL. Is IBM truly in the MSFT camp? I don't think so. I don't see how IBM, which got screwed by MSFT in the past, is going to set forth a strategy (with Lew Gerstner at the helm) that will foster another MSFT effort to dominate the forthcoming paradigm shift to the network, whether it be internet-based or otherwise.
I would sincerely appreciate if you can educate me more on your vision & describe in some greater detail the battle lines you see drawn by the MSFT-CPQ alliance. Frankly, maybe I'm the ignorant one here. I'm a bit confused because your response, now that I've read it a few times, speaks in generalities & non-sequiturs. So please be explicit in what you are talking about. For example, could you explain why you are talking about MSFT and CPQ/DEC-Tandem, then add this:
"Oracle has SUN as its strategic partner. But Sun will be adopting the 64-bit INTEL Merced chip for its most popular line of UNIX boxes - Sun Solaris. This bodes well for an Intel-based enterprise solution for small - medium sized businesses(under $2 billion in annual sales)."
So, in summary on this issue -- that ORCL doesn't have a chance -- I remain confused by your response. Explain how IBM fits into your "ORCL is dead" hypothesis & why ORCL's alliance with SUNW in the "small to medium sized market is so relevant.
Statement 2: "Oracle doesn't offer an integrated solution"
You respond: "Mainly because Oracle had to give up on the development of its back office applications - e.g Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint and similar IBM/Lotus products. This core of back office applications is holding people to Microsoft and Windows NT. Oracle cannot dislodge Microsoft from the top of the mountain without penetrating this market."
This is good statement, Richard. But it does not support your conclusion that "Oracle doesn't offer an integrated solution." ORCL does offer an integrated solution to its customers. Ask them. Your reference to "direct competition with SAP, BAAN, and Peoplesoft in the applications area" belies your assertion that an integrated solution is necessary to compete with MSFT. I get the impression that you think that MSFT will annihilate SAP, BAAN & PSFT because they don't offer a integrated solution either. Ever hear of open standards? And consumer choice?
MS applications have become the de facto standard ONLY by virtue of its dominance of the desktop with its OS. Unfortunately for MSFT, this is not the case with networks, nor will it be, nor will IBM, ORCL, SUNW, or the US Gov't for that matter, ever let it be. So once the migration to the network appears on the desktop, the "run on only one operating system" foundational support of MS applications will vanish.
Hence, I believe your faith in MS desktop applications as the pillar of MSFT's assured success to dominance in networks is a bit overblown. MSFT achieved its dominance in desktop applications over the past decade. But going back just as little as 5-7 years ago, competing products such as WordPerfect & Lotus 1-2-3 existed on many desktops. Today, these applications have virtually vanished -- solely due to MSFTs clear monopolistic control of the desktop OS. Past users of these virtually defunct applications have more recently weaned on MS applications over the past 3-4 years, with little choice courtesy of the economic & technological advantages afforded MSFT with the advent of Windows 95.
But just as these users have recently been weaned to MS applications they can be weaned away, with the right user interface. Granted, it may take some time, but I think consumers generally have a short memory & will not be adverse to non-MS applications so long as there is a degree of backward compatibility & ease of transition. Consumers prefer choice, simplicity, ease of use. And in the networking era, I think choices will be available. Standards will be open, & MSFT will have to play that game if it wishes to succeed. Competing with close standards as it does on the desktop will make MSFT less, not more, attractive to the networking customer.
Today, the impact of the computer & application software goes beyond the desktop. In addition to the network, consider the handheld PC, the cellular phone, the TV. MSFT does not control the OS for these "clients." Central to these clients will be the network. So I agree with the view of SUNW; the network IS the computer. MSFT is now realizing this & is re-directing its strategy accordingly. The only difference now is that it DOES NOT have a stronghold on the OS.
So, in reference to Statement 2, this whole discussion has turned out to be about desktop applications, not the "integrated solution" of your original statement. Your point is desktop applications. For ORCL to concentrate on the desktop before the network is in place would be a losing battle, which I'm sure you will agree. To do so, would be analogous in the construction of a building, to first install the windows & doors before you pour the foundation & build the structure. What ORCL has been doing with the NC is laying the foundation for the network. The structure, the network running open-standard JAVA-based applications, is now being constructed. The final stage will be installing the "desktop windows & doors."
Statement 3: "Microsoft will also introduce a data warehousing product targeting Oracle's core database business."
So? This certainly doesn't assure ORCL's demise. I'm sure MSFT will establish for itself a niche at the low-end of the database market. But I don't think the low-end is ORCL's "core" database business. Or were you just referring to the database business as a whole as ORCL's core business. I couldn't tell from your original statement.
For MSFT to compete in the higher-end market it will have to improve its scalability, as well as convinced the multitude of ORCL ORCL, who have been of extremely content using ORCL products for sometime now, that they offer a better solution. Price competition, which has been at the "core" of MSFT's business, will not be as much of a factor as it has been on the desktop. So I disagree with your over-generalized statement "[c]ompanies are looking for quick and inexpensive ways to create data marts (i.e. departmental data warehouses). Microsoft will be able to provide that at low cost."
Some companies will decide on price. Mostly likely these will be the smaller operations. But how complicated & how large a capacity do such businesses want from their database products & hardware? Will the company remain small, or does management expect the business to grow rapidly? If the latter, it would be imprudent for such a company to purchase from MSFT on the basis of price? The type of consumer mentality, that MSFT employed with the desktop will necessarily work with the corporate customer. The corporate customer thinks more strategically, has a longer-term view of his purchase, desires a product than can grow with his company.
Hope this is enough to chew on, Richard. I await your response. Again, I apologize if I responded to strongly, but if you take an OBJECTIVE look at your original post, your statement are not only facially without merit, but are misrepresentative of the issues you now raise. |
