Hacker News Reader

Comment by 10ren | Hacker News Reader

Just for some market cap context:

    AAPL	Apple Inc.			251.57B
    MSFT	Microsoft Corporation		218.24B
    IBM		Intl. Business Machine...	164.21B
    GOOG	Google Inc.			156.21B
    ORCL	Oracle Corporation		138.24B  <----
    HPQ		Hewlett-Packard Company	 	 88.76B
    SAP		SAP AG (ADR)			 57.22B
    DELL	Dell Inc.		 	 24.21B
    CA		CA, Inc.		 	 10.55B
    NOVL	Novell, Inc.		 	  2.15B
    PRGS	Progress Software Corp.	 	  1.25B

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:ORCL

View on HN

Market cap has no bearing on whether the keynote was or not horrible.

But, come on, what did the writer expect at an Oracle conference?

The SUN keynotes were more interesting, I guess he expected that the merger would have some effect on Oracle's culture.

Scott McNeally was an endless source of fun. He should start a new company solely dedicated to make fun of Microsoft.

A keynote can only be assessed with respect to a value system.

It's impossible to understand or influence someone without knowing their value system.

So, if the company valuation is good, the keynote will be good.

I fail to see any possible correlation.

The point I'm making is that Oracle probably measures the quality of its keynote in terms of profit, not in terms of how enjoyable or ethical it was. In these terms, perhaps the keynote was in fact good. An interesting thought experiment, no?

Of course, it's hard to measure whether this sales-pitching, partner-insulting keynote will result in greater profits, until those profits appear (and even then, hard to judge its causative role - if any.) I certainly don't approve or agree with it - I'm just saying that that is a fruitful (in a scientific sense) way to think about it. Whether it was enjoyable and/or ethical for a particular person is also important, but it's unlikely to aid understanding or prediction of Oracle, and very unlikely to make any difference.

We can however look at how Oracle has behaved in the past, and how that worked out for them. I've observed them be quite unkind and changeable, though pragmatic in providing working products etc - and to be profitable.

I think we had different interpretations on who was wasting time and money on conferences like this.

It seems I interpreted as the attendants were wasting time and money. It seems you interpreted as Oracle wasting time and money. I agree with you that, for Oracle, this is a good form of promotion.

I wasn't thinking of anyone wasting time and money, but I see now that attendants might feel that (though these things are often more about networking.) Yes, it's (probably) good promotion for Oracle.

I'm thinking also that Oracle feels it is in a very powerful and dominant position, owning a whole stack, and they're letting everyone know it. It's not all bad though - like Apple and console makers, they can then integrate the stack to make a better whole product (and charge more for that greater value.) They can also charge more through lock-in, but doing that alone is a terrible long-term strategy, because it gives oxygen to new entrants.

Like "paranoia" Intel and "crown-stealing" Microsoft, I think Oracle well-understands that they won't keep their success automatically

I see what you mean now; you can see it as a point of view change (or as a value-system change.)

I feel I've been a bit callously analytical, like the "Life goes on, folks" post near the end of A Fire Upon the Deep, but I'm not happy about how Oracle is acting, or what it may do next. Like the Blight, it is very powerful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com