In addition, their portfolio is so vast that any large business will likely have something else that can be leveraged in any discussion ("don't like our db pricing? Let me cut the renewal price of this other product you bought last year. Or what if I throw in a few licenses of that other product you were already evaluating?"). This also allows one good product to cover for the shortcomings of others ("ok, this project failed horribly, but that other thing last year was hot stuff! You got to give us another chance!").
Of course, they already are on the list of approved vendors, so there is no bureaucracy or exposure for whoever signs the purchase order. CYA rules.
If you want to get really technical, however, most Oracle products will just "tick all boxes". They might not be the best option, the fastest one or the easiest to maintain (and they are never the cheapest), but they're likely the most feature-complete. For example, the db: want multiple active-active instances? can do. Active-passive? can do. Multiple names for same instance? can do. Multiple instances on same box? can do. Cross-platform? can do. Working without DNS? can do. Objects? can do. XML? Can do. Your company has weird storage requirements? No prob. Maintenance tools? More than you will ever use. And so on and so forth. On paper (which is where executives live), it's hard to justify anything else; problems only come up when you actually try to use the beast.
Regarding the last paragraph, I was once in a meeting at a very large company in which an AVP asked me and several other experienced engineers: "Ignore the technical details; is there any reason we shouldn't purchase this large suite of Oracle products?" That was the litmus test, so yes, it's purely a safety play for many.
So for most companies UX is more important than how messy your backing store is. And yes, delivering good UX requires quick iterations, and that probably means a good operational support for experimenting with various data access patterns, but - again - SQL is enough. Just throw more Hadoop at it, if not. (For specialized data stores. Or just more hardware and even more 12c instances and use that as your key-value store. Doesn't matter. Wrap it and spend more time on UX and features.)
Yes, disrupting them with better technical skills is possible, but don't forget that in the end you have to provide value, and rarely a "contains only F/OSS" sticker is enough.
Also, Oracle is pretty good at achieving vendor lock-in. For example they introduced a rapid web application development platform called "Apex" [1] about a decade ago and shipped it with every Oracle database (even the "free" Oracle Express Edition). In my experience, developers who use it tend to like it, it does achieve rapid development, and there's really nothing else like it outside of Oracle. Once an organization has Apex apps, though, there's no migration path to Postgres that doesn't involve completely redeveloping the Apex applications from scratch.
Finally, despite all of the ways in which Oracle seems to be business and developer unfriendly, for a developer or DBA trained and experienced and entrenched in the Oracle ecosystem (and for whom license costs and sales tactics are not a concern), it's really not such a bad place to be IMHO. I personally would not choose Oracle for my own ventures but in the cases where Oracle has been chosen for me, I enjoy working in the ecosystem.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Application_Express
The database is a solid product, but there is a lot of stuff bolted on and configuration and management is more complicated that it should be and too many features that should be part of the core are expensive extra-cost options. I have a love/hate thing with this company - decent support, over-priced products, and a horrid sleazy sales team that I avoid like the plague.
Here is the cynical view: the majority of "enterprise" S/W development happens in companies whose CTOs knows very little about software development other than the powerpoint slides they saw from sales or consultants. And all their CEOs can do to improve their technology is to throw more money to those CTOs, who in most cases can only spend those money by buying expensive services/support, hiring AAA brand consultants and hiring as many managers as it takes to "improve the productivity." Well, what else can they do, good engineers don't want to work there.