Thread regarding Oracle Corp. layoffs

The turd that sank Oracle

It does not take any imagination to figure out how mass layoffs reduction in salaries, replacing workers with cheaper and inexperienced labor, hiring mediocre developers and the cheapest support possible can have a negative impact on a company. The market does not care what employee morale is like at Oracle it cares about the move to the cloud.

With out the cloud Oracle is peddling the modern day version of the mainframe and cobol. They needed a turn around technical champion. Instead they got a gross, tactless, talent-less individual that knows only how to cut costs and reduce head count. In the days of the mainframe this might have worked. But the new nimble, highly intelligent competitors that actually invest in infrastructure and talented developers, and top notch sales teams have won the day and are the incumbents and the first to market. Oracle is rightfully seen as a laggard.

Instead of the right person to lead the charge to the cloud they got a numbers and spin guy. And now after years of doing the wrong things at Oracle the wheels have come off and the Oracle race car has begun the inevitable spin off the track.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-biggest-movers-oracles-no-good-very-bad-day-1521584229

While Oracle’s bottom line beat expectations, investors weren’t happy about its revenue miss or its cloud business update, which led to analyst downgrades. Oppenheimer’s Brian Schwartz reiterated a Perform rating on the stock, writing that the stock is still a “show me” story on disappointing cloud trends

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oracle-stock-heads-for-worst-day-since-2013-analysts-run-for-shelter-after-cloud-bursts-2018-03-20

Oracle stock heads for worst day in nearly 5 years, analysts run for shelter after cloud bursts

Late Monday, the business-software company reported a fiscal third-quarter profit that beat expectations but sales that missed slightly amid disappointing growth and a downbeat outlook for its fast-growing cloud business. Tuesday morning, at least two analysts downgraded the stock, and at least four analysts reduced their target prices on the stock, according to FactSet

And how does LE respond?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobevans1/2018/03/20/larry-ellison-oracles-self-driving-database-most-important-thing-companys-ever-done/#482dede63b9c

And Ellison pulled no punches in framing his view of how truly disruptive the Autonomous Database will be:

Requires no human labor: no need for DBAs to tune, apply security patches, back-up the system, recover the system So, huge cost savings

Also more secure: eliminating human labor eliminates human errors.

Underscoring those advantages with an ironic twist, Ellison told the analysts, "So you can have a much more reliable system—but, you've got to be willing to pay less, because human beings cost a lot of money and we've automated them out of the system.

He touts MH's philosophy, and writes code to eliminate jobs. The market wants to see cloud databases and cloud applications. MH and LE want to eliminate human jobs. See how Oracle misses the mark?

I think the only jobs the autonomous database will really eliminate will the current holders of the CEO and CTO positions.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oracle-stock-falls-as-earnings-outlook-fuel-doubts-about-cloud-software-growth-2018-03-19

Oracle Corp. shares declined in the extended session Monday after the enterprise software company’s quarterly earnings report and forecast did not show the cloud-software growth Wall Street expected.

Oracle ORCL, -9.43% shares fell 3.7% in immediate after-hours trading following release of the report, a gap that expanded to more than 6% after Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz provided the fourth-quarter forecast in a conference call. That forecast was short of expectations in total cloud sales, after the third-quarter numbers came up slightly short in cloud-software growth, fueling fears that Oracle’s cloud transition is slowing down.

But the competition is doing well, and growing like crazy, leaving Oracle in the dust trying to nothing more than eliminate jobs.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/20/oracle-falls-most-in-six-years-as-slowdown-seen-in-cloud-growth/

“They missed the cloud number, which is the key to this transition story,” said Pat Walravens, an analyst at JMP Securities. “Investors were expecting strength in new licenses, and that decreased. This is a quarter when Salesforce and Adobe told you that IT spending was strong, but Oracle hasn’t benefited from that.”

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/26/oracle_preaching_cloud_to_the_oracle_converted/

Comment If Larry Ellison earned a dollar for every cloud-hyped phrase he made, Oracle's market share in cloud infrastructure wouldn't be the miserly 0.3 per cent – by Gartner's calculations – that it is today.

Big Red has spent years playing make-believe with cloud, trying to convince the world that it could simultaneously underinvest in data centres while reaping maximum profit. Oracle is finally learning that it must invest in order to collect on its cloud ambitions.

As such, the company recently announced that it will build 12 new data centres, despite claiming it didn't need more because its databases and computers are so much faster than those at AWS or Microsoft Azure. Even with this loosening of pursestrings, it's unclear whether Oracle has much chance of bridging the gap with its cloudier competitors.

Pot, meet kettle

Oracle has become more caricature than competitor, regularly spouting off in ways that makes its executive suite seem foolish at best. Back in 2009, as an excuse to start falling behind Amazon Web Services, then-CEO Ellison ranted: "Everyone looks around and is like, 'Yah! Like everything is in the cloud.' My objection is it's absurdity – it's nonsense... What are you talking about? It's not water vapor. It's a computer attached to a network!"

And, of course, no one was better than Oracle at computers attached to networks.

The problem is that, in fact, "cloud" is neither "water vapor" nor as simple as attaching a few computers to a network. Oracle's unwillingness to take the trend seriously (along with peers at IBM and elsewhere) led AWS CEO Andy Jassy to say in 2017: "I don't think in our wildest dreams we thought we would have a six to seven-year head start." But they did, and Ellison's hubris played a big part in ensuring that.

by
| 1771 views | | 9 replies (last March 6, 2019) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+Si7C6QE

9 replies (most recent on top)

I think LE knew that MH was a numbers and spin guy. I don't think LE intended to take Oracle into new tech or at least he thought it was unlikely. I think LE sees Oracle as an extension of himself.

He only needs Oracle around for as long as he is alive. He thought it was time to just milk the Oracle machine for a few more years and he hired MH to do that. I think MH is doing what LE wants him to do. It's too difficult for the old guys to grasp the new world, and they don't intend to try.

Just keep the cash flowing for a few more years.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @5Exeg+Si7C6QE

Riding in a Uber with recent Stanford computer science grad and the comment was: work at oracle ? You must be joking. I would never work there. They aren’t a serious tech company anyone who wants to do cool things works for. The complacent computer science grads go to work at oracle. The real talent goes elsewhere in Silicon Valley . Laughter.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1byx+Si7C6QE

Will the self driving database develop itself? Without developers and applications, the database might as well be an anchor. No one will want to put their data in that thing.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qng+Si7C6QE

Absolutely, it's all over with. Honestly, I think that what LE should do, is to forget about cloud apps and become the back-end engine/database for all other cloud companies. They could do that well. Spending more money on the cloud is just a lot of money down the drain, too late, with no real development direction or coordination. That's something really difficult to change, because it involves the way entrenched people in development have been working for years. And that's not going to change without mass replacement of people. Moving developers to India may cut costs, but doesn't change the ineffective development management.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @uut+Si7C6QE

Certainly no shortage of bad press for LE and Oracle. I particularly like the last story. LE really missed the call.

I think the only jobs the autonomous database will really eliminate will the current holders of the CEO and CTO positions.

LOL to the "autonomous database" that isn't really the database.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rmp+Si7C6QE

This is a great summary and agree completely. Turd is an employee morale killer and most of the smart and better compensated employees have moved to competitors. Turd has replaced them with college kids and outsources labor and we are wondering why Amazon, Salesforce and Microsoft are eating Oracles lunch.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @jdh+Si7C6QE

Building new data centers isn’t going to do anything to address and resolve the technology and software issues that exist between their disparate cloud based SaaS acquisitions. Those acquisitions come with their own stand alone data center infrastructures and are not remotely integrated In Any way to oracle fusion (rehashed client server apps like people soft and jd edwards to morph to cloud apps — remember oracle is a hardware co that aquires software technology and who does NOT know how to build cloud software OR INNOVATE and who is “trying” to retrofit these old client server software acquisitions for the cloud ).

One word: DISASTER

The oracle cloud is not cohesive or connected or synchronized In Any way. Patchwork quilt more like.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @njc+Si7C6QE

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/26/oracle_preaching_cloud_to_the_oracle_converted/

Even as Oracle stiff-armed the future, its core licensing business was in terminal decline. As highlighted by Redmonk analyst Stephen O'Grady in 2013, Oracle has increasingly struggled to sell software to anyone except those already buying. Even its cloud strategy has targeted a relatively small niche: existing customers looking to shed data centre applications and move them to the cloud.

Unsurprisingly, in its last quarter, Oracle's new licence revenue was stunted, even as its SaaS business blossomed 55 per cent to $1.1bn and its overall PaaS business (which includes IaaS) went up just 21 per cent to $396m. This cloud business is growing faster than the declines in its legacy business, but not nearly fast enough to keep pace with market leaders AWS, Microsoft and Google.

If you build it, will they come?

Clearly, Oracle's strategy hasn't worked. That strategy, in part, has inexplicably depended on the firm managing to save its way to cloud glory. Even as AWS, Microsoft and Google shovelled $41.6bn into data centre build-outs last year, up 33 per cent over the year previous, to bring their collective total to hundreds of data centres, Oracle was hard-pressed to announce just three data centres in 2017, spending just over $2bn.

Even then, Oracle wanted the world to think this was all by design. CEO Mark Hurd tried to explain away Oracle's paltry investments in data centres: "If I have two-times faster computers, I don't need as many data centers. If I can speed up the database, maybe I need one fourth as many data centers." The reason for Oracle's parsimonious approach was simply that it's the greatest at everything. Never mind that for all its bragging about having "custom-built" infrastructure, so, too, does everyone else. The difference, however, is that AWS, Microsoft and Google have dramatically more scale and experience with custom-building their hardware and software. Oracle is a neophyte.

Keeping up with the cloudy Joneses

Can Oracle catch up? That's hard to imagine. While the company can (and must) dramatically expand its data centre footprint to even be credible, it's hard to see how it can catch the market leaders. Putting aside raw capacity, even Microsoft Azure, a distant second place to AWS in market share, has struggled to add features and services at the pace of AWS. Oracle isn't even in the same universe as AWS when it comes to cloud services, but also can't get into the same zip code as Azure or Google Cloud. Again, the database giant is hoping to lure existing customers with offers like automation across "pretty much" all its services, but has yet to demonstrate that it can compete head-to-head with the cloud heavies.

But Oracle is not simply relying on sizzle to sell this product – it has been tuning the sales machine, hiring away the sales and engineering staff of more experienced rivals while massively increasing bonuses and changing the structures to target renewals. Licence experts report Oracle customers being offered cloud as a means to bring down the bill on any licence non-compliance issue.

Small wonder, then, that Deutsche Bank Securities Inc analyst Karl Keirstead has declared that it's already "game over" for Oracle in the IaaS market.

Nor is Oracle'sh--herto impregnable database fortress looking quite so secure these days. Modern data looks a lot more like Amazon DynamoDB or Microsoft Azure CosmosDB than the neat ones and zeroes of relational databases of yesteryear. Oracle – unlike AWS, Microsoft and Google – has no experience building next-generation cloud applications at massive scale so is always going to struggle to build modern data infrastructure.

As such, Amazon has helped migrate 50,000 database instances to AWS, much of them from Oracle, as AWS CEO Andy Jassy has proclaimed. The pace of those migrations seems to be accelerating to roughly 5,000 per month. As Gartner analyst Merv Adrian told me in an interview, Oracle has dropped database market share every year for the past four years. While the company still has 40 per cent of the market, its absolute dominance is no longer assured.

Is there any positive news for Oracle? Sure. While Oracle is a rounding error in IaaS and can muster 2 per cent market share in PaaS, it can claim a more respectable fourth-place SaaS with 5.6 per cent market share. Ellison may boast that Oracle is "completely transforming the way all companies buy and use cloud by providing flexibility and choice", but the best the company can claim is that it remains relevant in SaaS. That's a big market, and a big deal.

Meanwhile, Oracle gets to experiment with the cloud market because it's bankrolled by a massive installed base of enterprises paying maintenance on all those old database instances. A recent Rimini Street survey indicated that as much as 74 per cent of those customers run the legacy database unsupported, yet pay all the same. That's high-margin revenue Oracle can use to fund its aspirations in cloud.

Twelve more data centres is one way to spend that cash. Will it be enough? No. But it just may give Oracle the ability to convince more of its customer base to give it a chance with their cloud-leaning applications. That will be worth a few billion a year, even if the competition is counting in tens of billions now (AWS) or in the not-so-distant future (Microsoft and Google). ®

Matt Asay is Head of Developer Ecosystem at Adobe.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @egr+Si7C6QE

Post a reply

: