Conference ulysse::rdb_vms_competition

    ...besides our "endorsement," that is.
    
    dir/title="oracle financials" yields
    
    
    note 613
    
    Bruce

    From Digital Review/November 12, 1990
    Page 34
    
    "DATABASE ACCOUNTING `A GODSEND' FOR SOME"
    
    [long sidebar about customer experiences using financial packages
    integrated with relational databases, including the story of 
    Qualcomm, in San Diego.]
    
    "Qualcomm... recently adopted Oracle Financials to maintain the
    company's books... running on a MicroVAX 3900."
    
    [long interval about application and benefits]
    
    "All these gains have not been without their cost, Sjeldheim said.  The
    MicroVAX 3900 has begun to struggle under the load, so the information
    systems department is planning to replace it with a larger, more
    powerful, Sparc-compatible system from Solbourne Computer of Longmont,
    Colo. ...
    
    "Qualcomm chose the Solbourne system over a system from DEC because of
    the cost combination of DEC's higher hardware prices and Oracle's price
    structure.  The latter favors computers such as Solbourne because
    buyers  can obtain a license for a non-DEC platform with equivalent
    power for less money, according to Sjeldheim...
    
    "The upshot, Sjeldheim concluded, was that `we couldn't afford DEC's
    prices anymore.'"
    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    
    Looks like the ABUs have done Digital a great favor by "teaming" (and I
    use the word loosely) with Oracle for their financials.  I bet Bill
    Demmer is happy, too.  More brilliant "cooperative" agreements like
    this and it'll be early retirement for all of us, whether we want it or
    not.
    
    

    Re.2
    I view this as Digital's failure to successfully compete against 
    Solbourne.  We have comparable products (Oracle Financials), and
    therefore the primary consideration according to this story is
    price/performance.  If we can't effectively compete in the RISC
    market, don't blame the customer's installed software.  The account
    was ours to lose from a system perspective, and we did just that.
    
    Mark
    

RE: -.1

Fair enough Mark; however what about this paragraph which you didn't make any
comment on?:

    "Qualcomm chose the Solbourne system over a system from DEC because of
    the cost combination of DEC's higher hardware prices and 
>>  Oracle's price structure.The latter favors computers such as 
>>  Solbourne because buyers can obtain a license for a non-DEC platform 
>>  with equivalent power for less money, according to Sjeldheim...

Seems to me that Oracle's pricing structure differentiates also against VAXen?

Steve Simpson

    I totally agree that Oracle's prices are lower on the Solbourne than on
    a VAX....virtually any software product (even directly from DEC except
    for Rdb rt) will be more expensive on a VAX than a low cost RISC
    system.  I would like to know if we bid a DECstation or DECsystem 
    platform, and then look at the software price comparison.  If the
    Oracle prices on the Solbourne are lower than the equivalent DECstation
    or DECsystem, then I'll be the first to get the 2x4 out & give em the
    whacks they deserve 8^).  Can we find out what we bid?
    
    Mark
    

    Re .5
    
�    platform, and then look at the software price comparison.  If the
�    Oracle prices on the Solbourne are lower than the equivalent DECstation
�    or DECsystem, then I'll be the first to get the 2x4 out & give em the
    
    Hold on a sec.  How did we get into such a close relationship without
    first verifying that their pricing was fair on our platforms?
    
    If during a sales situation you find that the s/w vendor is priced too
    high on your platform.  YOU END UP WITH A LOST SALE !!!  You either
    need to know before hand, or preferably the relationship agreement with
    the s/w vendor should ensure equitable pricing.
    
    
    

>>    I totally agree that Oracle's prices are lower on the Solbourne than on
>>    a VAX....virtually any software product (even directly from DEC except
>>    for Rdb rt) will be more expensive on a VAX than a low cost RISC
>>    system.  I would like to know if we bid a DECstation or DECsystem 
    
    Whilst I'd be the last to want to promote Oracle Finacial's, there is
    validity in what Mark says.
    
    We recently had an Oracle Finacials platform switch from VAX 6000
    series to a Sequent.  The Sequent is cheaper and faster, and the
    software is priced accordingly.
    
    Now the Sequent version of UNIX may be as "kludgy" as some infer (I
    have not seen it myself), but if 99% of users are only seeing the
    application interface - SO WHAT.
    
    Our problem at the moment is that VMS is great, but RISC chips make
    whatever O/S is on top seem good enough because of price/performance.
    Digital will only solve this when we get more powerful RISC systems
    which support ULTRIX, and maybe eventually VMS.
    
    The reasoning for buying mid-range systems is just PC reasoning:
    	It may not be the best - but it's value for money.
    
    Cheers, Martin (who thinks we should have bought Ingres)

    re.6
    
    While we understand our CSOs pricing strategies, it believe it is 
    illegal to try to force them to change pricing to show favoritism
    on our platforms.  Most CSOs price according to users or systems
    performance/capability/power (even DEC does this), and we can work with
    CSOs to understand how our platforms fit into their pricing strategy.
    I am happy to work any pricing issue with Oracle which you think is
    discriminatory on our platforms.  
    
    Mark