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.