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.