Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Oracle Corporation (ORCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7211)	5/27/1998 6:49:00 PM
From: zc66	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19080

It seems that ORCL's revenue growth has never been lower than 23% in 8 years. MSFT revenue growth was 18% in last quarter, wasn't it?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7211)	5/27/1998 7:28:00 PM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19080

>Look at the apps, when orcl lost mkt share there, orcl owned the >engine! Talk about a competitive advantage! What happened there? Here is your own thought on what the backend db means to apps users. "I said its a commodity as a base platform for the apps. That means if you are a baan shop, and you have orcl as a dbms, vs. ifmx you see no real difference as a user". I quoted you from reply Message 4532036 Well, if apps users don't care about the backend db, how can oracle obtain any leverage? Even if there is leverage, that is totally different from the leverage MSFT is getting. Oracle can't bundle its apps with its database and tell everyone apps is part of the database. >You don't see why orcl would want either of them??? Based on their >technical architecture?? Give me a break! Supply Chain is the hottest >sector in applications today - growing well over 100%, and many, many >customer care more about their SCM package than the ERP (check out >Dell). Just because it is hot doesn't mean you need to buy the company. There are cheaper ways to leverage off each other. SAP/Oracle/PSFT are all lacking in that area and they are all partnering with I2/MANU. Oracle and PSFT will come out with their own supply-chain software soon. So it is really not true that Oracle is losing to SAP and PSFT because of the lack of SCM. Okay, I do agree with you that maybe Oracle should come out with SCM/Sales Automation even before I2/MANU/SEBL. But if you want to call Oracle's management lame because of that, do the same to SAP/PSFT's management. >Tell me honestly who has a clear business strategy and future - Nscp >or Yahoo? I still think the comparison between the two are not improper. Yahoo has a clear business strategy because that is the only strategy they can have given the nature of the business. On the other hand, Netscape has a lot more choices. Just two years ago very few people believe that those search engine companies have any long term future, who would have thought Yahoo can trade at over 100 after a 2-1 split on the top of very little earning. In fact there are still a lot of people including me who still doubt the long-term future for those search companies. When Netscape was hot and Yahoo was still private, people were hoping Yahoo can become the next Netscape. Now Netscape is in trouble, Yahoo's stock is skyrocketing, people are hoping Netscape can be more like Yahoo. Now everyone is praising Yahoo's business model, will the same people still say the same when Yahoo's stock return to a more reasonable valuation? (I don't want to start discussing Yahoo's valuation now) Besides, in this fast-changing and highly competitive environment, a sound business model now can be obselete in a couple of month. So the real question is how fast can you adapt? I think Netscape is doing a very good job so far at swallowing her pride and adapting to the environment. -Eric

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7211)	5/28/1998 5:29:00 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19080

Michelle: Re: Eric's comment regarding MSFT's ability to leverage on their operating system to compensate for taking "its eye of the ball" in the past" you state: "Right. Msft has made a few mistakes and recovered - you claim this is due to their O/S leverage. Well Orcl made a few mistakes and did not recover - and had about the same leverage. Look at the apps, when orcl lost mkt share there, orcl owned the engine! Talk about a competitive advantage! What happened there? Explain to me how ORCL's leverage over the applications market was about the same as MSFT's over the browser. Sorry, I just don't see how the desktop & enterprise application markets may be compared in terms of evaluating the ability of the market leader of the underlying software to leverage its position to dominate emerging markets which rely upon that leader's underlying software. One must look not only to market position of that market leader, but the nature of the market & the ability of competing products to emerge & provide the customer with choice. With the desktop, I don't think the latter really exists, & that is why when "missing the ball" MSFT succeeded with IE, where, as we now debate, ORCL may not.