Conference ulysse::rdb_vms_competition

    How can I get a copy of this report.  I need four copies ASAP.
    
    --gerry

    Since it is a copyrighted report, I suggest that you talk directly
    to Paine Webber.  The author is Robert Therrien of their Technology
    Group (his phone number is (212) 713-4921).
    
    Geo.

    I took your advice and called.  He laughed and said "Oh you want
    THAT article...." and transfered me to Andy Winton who promptly
    wanted $200 dollars for the artical. Is it really worth it ?
    
    If you want it:
    
    Pain Webber
    Attn: Andy Winton
    1285 Avenue of the Americas
    9th Floor
    New York, New York
    10019
                     
    Enclose a check for 200.00
    
    
    Peter

Can Digital get a "master" copy with the right to re-distribute it?  I know 
it will cost a bundle, but I think it'll help in competitive situation.

Thomas

    Didn't PW also suggest last year that Oracle's financials looked
    "unattractive" but thay still came up with approx. 90% profit? Is
    credibility an issue here or have I got my wires crossed?
    
    John.

    Due to popular demand, here are the major sections of the Paine
    Webber report on Oarcle, along with the major themes:
    
    
    Recent financial performance (net cash position negative, days
    receivable increased from 144 to 123 days)
    
    
    DEC's bundling of Rdb bad news for Oracle (Oracle's comments about
    Rdb sound like the incorrect and self serving comments about DB2
    made by Cullinet in 1985; track record of Rdb enhancements is quite
    impressive and Rdb developers have access to new hardware designs
    which Oracle does not have)
    
     
    Short term results obscure underlying problems (net cash position
    (cash minus debt) has dropped sharply, receivables account for more
    than income and distancing revenue increases)
    
    
    Cullinet 1985 vs. Oracle 1989 Similarities and Differences (big
    chart and text)
    
    
    Bad idea to find solace in buying intention data (PWebber believes
    that the bundling of Rdb will force massive changes in industry's
    pricing structure and will slow the customer's sales cycle
    considerably - just like DB2 in 1985)
    
    
    The holes in Oracle's "hardware independence" argument (trading
    hardware dependence for software vendor dependence, sights the
    following points:
    1. shortage of financial resources
    2. not-so-friendly proprietary software
    3. questionable commitment to upgradability
    4. timeliness of upgrades)
    
    
    Increased competition from other quarters (IBM, RTI, Sybase,
    Ashton-Tate, Cullinet)
    
    
    Product problems (sights the following points:
    1. Oracle's SQL*Plus is a poorly designed language - not compiled,
    no loop structure
    2. PL/SQL appears to be incompatible with SQL*Plus - no transparent
    upgrade path
    3. "Two database strategy" - process architecture evolving to server 
    architecture
    4. Tool set weak - "just because a vendor says its tools are
    world-class doesn't make them world-class"
    5. Version 6 is late; its reportedly buggy in VAX Clusters.
    6. Weak distributed processing - works in query mode only,
    implementation is very slow
    7. Time-to-market concerns - an unfocused and too diverse set of
    hardware platforms)
    
    
    Earning outlook and recommendation
    
    Long term outlook- "If Digital and IBM are successful with their
    strategies (or even simply force Oracle's pricing lower), Oracle
    will be forced to emphasize the worksdtation market, where we believe
    its product is unsuitable. We have this view for two reasons.  First,
    PCs are the most popular workstation.  Oarcle's PC product is both
    unfriendly and needs more than the standard 640K configuration to
    run.  In addition, workstations need to connect to the VAxes, other
    minis, mainframes, and PC database servers - mostly platforms where
    hardware vendors and/or other third parties have what we believe
    are either better or more cost effective solutions than Oracle."
    
    

    We are working on getting reprints.
    
    ---- Michael Booth

ORACLE Corp. results for their latest fiscal year are:

                                          4th QUARTER
                                          -----------

                                 FY88            FY89        Increase %   
                                ------          ------       ----------

          REVENUES:             $104.2M         $215.9M        107%

          NET INCOME:           $ 19.1M         $ 33.5M         76%

          AVG. SHARES:           133.1M          136.1M          3%

          EPS:                  $ .14           $ .25           79%






                                           FISCAL YEAR
                                           -----------


                                  FY88           FY89        INCREASE %
                                 ------         ------       ----------


           REVENUES:             $282.1M        $583.7M        107%

           NET INCOME:           $ 42.9M        $ 81.8M         91%

           AVG. SHARES:           132.9M         135.1M          3%

           EPS:                  $ .32          $ .61           91%



***Note:  All numbers adjusted for 2-1 stock split in June 1989


Regards,

Mark