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: Richard Habib who wrote (9593)	2/13/1999 10:12:00 PM
From: Hardly B. Solipsist	Respond to of 19080

You must have read the Forbes article. If 8i was just a database, then your model might be correct.

To: Richard Habib who wrote (9593)	2/15/1999 6:12:00 PM
From: John Wright	Respond to of 19080

Hi Richard, thanks for your feedback. I'm not sure where you got your ERP apps market share #'s from but I'll suppose that they are correct. As an investor, I'm less than interested in the past, slightly interested in the present, and very deeply interested in the future. So I'll keep my comments along those lines. I agree, future ERP growth will be generated in the mid mkt. segment(i.e. Companies with Revenue of $50 - $500m). However, I think your estimation of who the winners will be in this segment of the might be open to debate. In my view, I really question how many IT managers in the mid market will openly expose themselves and there data storage to MSFT's SQL Server 7. We're still talking about fairly decent sized companies with a vested interest in reliability and performance. I really doubt that MSFT's SQL Server pricing is actually 2/3's lower. But let's say it is, wouldn't that still seem somewhat expensive for a product that's comparative to where a similar Oracle product was 5 years ago? On a final note, ERP players, like JDEC, who were making there money in the mid market now have to compete against Oracle. I really doubt whether they have the financial or technical resources to survive longterm. I'll be long Oracle as well as certainly buying Put options (or shorting) on Baan, JDEC, PSFT,... Thoughts, opinions, anyone? John

To: Richard Habib who wrote (9593)	2/15/1999 6:45:00 PM
From: Sonki	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19080

orcl vs. sap. i would not argue w. what the market is telling me. techstocks.com while orcl is trading at their historical hi valuations ....most of the leading stocks are at much higher then their historical valuations. look at dell, csco intc etc... while ez mony in orcl has been made...there is plenty left. sap even w. slightly better erning growth is still xpensive that is why the trend...and sap now getting to be at a reasonable price. biz.yahoo.com (this is where the big mony is being made) ... good luck.

To: Richard Habib who wrote (9593)	2/15/1999 11:47:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19080

MSFTs SQL 7 is a viable alternative to ORCLs products in that market, and although having less features it's less than 1/3 the price. MSFTs aggressive pricing and freebie services not to mention their NT leverage could be a problem for ORCL maintaining the growth rate in databases required to support present lofty valuations. Richard: Your statement (opinion) is so far from being accurate & current, that one can only question your motives for posting here. 1) FACT: SQL 7.0 is NOT a viable alternative to ORCLs database products. If you were an IT manager & you purchased databases I think you would know this. 2) Having 1/3 the sticker price is not the true cost of the purchase decision on SQL 7.0. The customer is purchasing an unproven product that is bound to cost the customer much more than the sticker price. Think about costs one might incur FOLLOWING the purchase of SQL 7.0. Notwithstanding corporate dollars here, the decision to purchase SQL 7.0 by an IT exec at a respectably-sized firm could very likely cost him his job should SQL 7.0 present problems once operational. Since we're all familiar with MSFT's desktop products, what's the likelihood of the existence bugs with SQL 7.0? Would you bet your career on SQL 7.0? Richard, your post merely repeats the same crapola we heard last year when the stock was on the skids due to erroneous market perception of ORCL's prospects going forward. Obviously, the fact that the stock has just about tripled from the lows of that period hasn't convinced you that the hypothesis you speak of has not held up. ORCL has continually beat estimates & has surprised pundits with their ability to create new markets for their products & services. Its called "vision," a word not found in the MSFT employee manual. MSFTs aggressive pricing and freebie services not to mention their NT leverage could be a problem for ORCL maintaining the growth rate in databases required to support present lofty valuations . Now you're talkin," Richard. You've got us convinced MSFT has a better mouse trap. 1) NT leverage? What NT leverage? ORCL sells more databases that run on Windows NT than does MSFT. Moreover, the last I heard the growth rate of ORCL databases sales running on Windows NT continues to outpace MSFT's efforts with SQL. I'm sure SQL 7.0 will help to reverse the trend ORCL has established on NT. But the time MSFT has made a dent into re-establishing its database market on Windows NT, it is foreseeable that the market will drift away from relying upon Windows NT to run databases. So, if MSFT wishes to pursue a larger piece of a shrinking pie, I don't think ORCL, or more importantly, the market will care that much. 2) Lofty valuations. Maybe this is the point of your post, Richard.