From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <107gjob$3ir9s$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >On 8/9/2025 5:39 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article <1075dda$qq7j$2@dont-email.me>,   
   >> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>> On 8/8/2025 1:42 PM, bill wrote:   
   >>>> On 8/8/2025 11:05 AM, Chris Townley wrote:   
   >>>>> You would think that Oracle would have details of customers who have   
   >>>>> bought RDB licenses in the past   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But then, you also might think that Oracle would just much like   
   >>>> to see them all go away so they could stop spending resources on   
   >>>> something that is not a profit maker.   
   >>>   
   >>> I am rather confident that Rdb is making a profit. The list   
   >>> price of Rdb is pretty high and even with a solid discount   
   >>> to good customers, then Oracle should be able to make   
   >>> a profit.   
   >>   
   >> Define "profit".  If Oracle feels that the engineering resources   
   >> being devoted to Rdb would make more money if devoted to   
   >> something else, then they may take that delta into account when   
   >> calculating profits.  So even if they felt like the total   
   >> engineering cost were strictly less than total generated   
   >> revenue, they may view it as a loss due to missed revenue   
   >> opportunity.   
   >   
   >Opportunity cost is not profit for alternative development, but   
   >extra profit from having them do the alternative development   
   >compared to other developers.   
   >   
   >Which I expect to be approx. zero. I would expect the Rdb team   
   >to be 10X developers on Rdb, but not on any of the other   
   >Oracle database products.   
   >   
   >Rdb is very different. Different database architecture,   
   >different programming language, different platform,   
   >some very old stuff (RDO etc.).   
      
   Your statement is predicated on the assumption that Oracle cares   
   about the engineers rather than the engineering resources (which   
   are simply a cost function).   
      
   Evidence of their actions, as a company, do not support that   
   assumption.   
      
   >>> Oracle DB, Oracle ERP & CRM (whatever its current name is),   
   >>> Oracle cloud etc. are huge business areas making tens   
   >>> of billions in revenue and billions in profit.   
   >>>   
   >>> So if Rdb talk about growing revenue by 10 M$ and Oracle cloud talk   
   >>> about growing revenue by 10 B$, then senior management will not   
   >>> spend many seconds on Rdb.   
   >>   
   >> USD $10M is not a lot of money when amortized over the amount of   
   >> time required to bring Rdb for x86_64 to market.  How many   
   >> people are working on this thing?  How many will be required for   
   >> maintenance?  How long do they project those revenue numbers to   
   >> hold?   
   >   
   >Customers pay annual software update license on Alpha and Itanium   
   >today.   
   >   
   >And if they get the x86-64 port out the door, then customers   
   >will pay pay annual software update license on x86-64.   
   >   
   >So annual revenue and annual cost. Hopefully with a profit.   
      
   I wouldn't have asked how long they expect those revenue numbers   
   to hold if I hadn't understood that, so sorry, but this really   
   doesn't change the point at all: USD $10M/an is a tiny amount of   
   money relative to costs, and again, how long do they expect   
   those revenue numbers to hold?   
      
   >But point being that the profit is relative small in the   
   >bigger Oracle picture.   
   >   
   >If they don't get the x86-64 port out the door then   
   >both annual revenue and annual cost will eventually   
   >move to zero.   
      
   Yup.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)