Let's see...MySQL brings in ~50M a year, Sun is losing 100M a month. Makes no sense why Oracle would want to delay, except for monopolistic reasons.
Last I heard, Oracle doesn't want to delay. It's the European Commission that wants to delay Oracle.
As for "monopolistic reasons": Between IBM, Microsoft, Teradata, PostgreSQL, etc, how can Oracle possibly be said to have a monopoly on databases?
You seem to be suggesting that Oracle wants to destroy the market for MySQL. As the largest database vendor in the world, how does it benefit Oracle to destroy any market for databases, however large or small?
And that's assuming it's even possible for Oracle to do what you suggest. Even if the goal is merely to destroy the market for low-cost databases, I don't see how Oracle could do that. There is no shortage of low-cost (free) alternatives to MySQL -- PostgreSQL, Firebird, SQLite, the list goes on.
If Oracle doesn't immediately cave in to the European Commission, have you considered the possibility that it might be because Oracle plans to grow the MySQL market, and that even at $100 million/month, it has not yet sacrificed enough profit to make up for all the money it plans to make from MySQL in the coming years?
As for "monopolistic reasons": Between IBM, Microsoft, Teradata, PostgreSQL, etc, how can Oracle possibly be said to have a monopoly on databases?
The job of the EC anti-trust commission is to prevent monopolies before they happen, not punish them when they do (the way the Sherman act works in the US). So their fear is not that Oracle would be a monopoly, but that it comes too close to being able to corner the market. You don't need a monopoly for that, just a commanding influence.
What monopoly? Is IBM, SAP, Microsoft, Sybase, etc all just going to disappear and give up competing with Oracle just because Oracle now owns MySQL? Exactly what market are they going to corner with such fierce competition from other huge multi-national corps.
everyone else is under 5%. No, it's not a monopoly. But an Oligopoly [wikipedia.org] isn't much better for the market, consumers and (minor) competitors.
Gartner has published their market share numbers by operating system for 2008 based on total software revenues. According to Gartner, Oracle
* Continues to be #1 overall with 48.9 per cent share
* Continues to hold more market share than its six closest competitors combined
* Continues to be #1 on Linux with 75.8 per cent share
(*) Source: Market Share: Relational Database Management System Software by Operating System, Worldwide, 2008 - Colleen Graham, Bhavish Sood, Horiuchi Hideaki, Dan Sommer - June 12, 2009
It's not the number of competitors that matters. It's relative market share. WalMart has millions of competitors - all the tiny shops selling anything that WalMart also sells. But almost all of them don't matter and their market share wouldn't appear anywhere within the first five digits.
May I recommend you spend the same time with Google that it takes you to post these questions the first Google hit would answer? Oh, what am I expecting from an american. Here, bite-size ready: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/index_en.html [europa.eu]
This isn't true, so far both these comments have shown remarkable ignorance.
It is not all about monopolies, it can be about making the market less competitive. All mergers or takeovers do this, but if the EC decides that it is going to remove too much competitiveness from the market, they will not approve it.
This is up to the EC to decide, I am sure they do more than just toss a coin.
TheRegister's theory (aside from MySQL competing with M$) is that the Europeans are more receptive to open software because all the big closed source software outfits (leaving aside SAP) are U.S. companies. So they, well, the EC anyway, see FOSS a way to compete against the Americans and reduce the amount of money the give to the Americans for software. Personally, I hope they separate MySQL from Oracle just to kick Ellison in the balls.
But for the serious reader: The difference is that a crime is a behaviour, and to prevent it you would have to violate basic personality rights in order to predict human behaviour. A monopoly is a market development and can be predicted with publicly available information and some easy extrapolation. Even if we would grant a company personality rights, they would not be violated by such activities.
You seem to be suggesting that Oracle wants to destroy the market for MySQL. As the largest database vendor in the world, how does it benefit Oracle to destroy any market for databases, however large or small?
"Destroying market for MySQL" is not the same thing as "destroying market for databases". It means that most people involved migrate from MySQL to some other database. Presumably Oracle would get at least a slice of that pie, especially if they would offer an "enterprise grade support" migration path.
"Destroying market for MySQL" is not the same thing as "destroying market for databases". It means that most people involved migrate from MySQL to some other database. Presumably Oracle would get at least a slice of that pie, especially if they would offer an "enterprise grade support" migration path.
But how does Oracle profit more from your scenario than if it just sold commercial MySQL licenses, honored all the support contracts Sun/MySQL AB has now, and tried to win more MySQL customers?
In other words, why would Oracle kill the golden goose? Just out of spite?
Remember, if Oracle owns MySQL, then every commercial MySQL customer becomes a potential sales lead for Oracle. Sure, Oracle might put more effort behind selling Oracle databases than MySQL databases -- but how is that any different from right n
There are a lot of databases out there.
But a large number of them are MySQL. I don't know of many web hosting sites that don't have a MySQL option if they offer Linux servers. I haven't seen that many with PostgreSQL. None with IBM, Firebird, or SQLite. I'm sure you could load them on a dedicated server.
Now think of all the businesses that are currently using MySQL and have significant databases on them. It's no easy job to move data to something like PostgreSQL and then rework the interfaces to be
> The only thing that would probably appease the EU is if a fork of MySQL was established that would allow an easy transition or as others have mentioned that MySQL is spun off.
Aren't there about a dozen forks of MySQL already?
You seem to be suggesting that Oracle wants to destroy the market for MySQL. As the largest database vendor in the world, how does it benefit Oracle to destroy any market for databases, however large or small?
If the EC makes them spin it off (become a competitor) then just maybe they will. That's what the EC is after, right?
Oracle's reasons *are* monopolistic! (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's see...MySQL brings in ~50M a year, Sun is losing 100M a month. Makes no sense why Oracle would want to delay, except for monopolistic reasons.
Re:Oracle's reasons *are* monopolistic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see...MySQL brings in ~50M a year, Sun is losing 100M a month. Makes no sense why Oracle would want to delay, except for monopolistic reasons.
Last I heard, Oracle doesn't want to delay. It's the European Commission that wants to delay Oracle.
As for "monopolistic reasons": Between IBM, Microsoft, Teradata, PostgreSQL, etc, how can Oracle possibly be said to have a monopoly on databases?
You seem to be suggesting that Oracle wants to destroy the market for MySQL. As the largest database vendor in the world, how does it benefit Oracle to destroy any market for databases, however large or small?
And that's assuming it's even possible for Oracle to do what you suggest. Even if the goal is merely to destroy the market for low-cost databases, I don't see how Oracle could do that. There is no shortage of low-cost (free) alternatives to MySQL -- PostgreSQL, Firebird, SQLite, the list goes on.
If Oracle doesn't immediately cave in to the European Commission, have you considered the possibility that it might be because Oracle plans to grow the MySQL market, and that even at $100 million/month, it has not yet sacrificed enough profit to make up for all the money it plans to make from MySQL in the coming years?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for "monopolistic reasons": Between IBM, Microsoft, Teradata, PostgreSQL, etc, how can Oracle possibly be said to have a monopoly on databases?
The job of the EC anti-trust commission is to prevent monopolies before they happen, not punish them when they do (the way the Sherman act works in the US). So their fear is not that Oracle would be a monopoly, but that it comes too close to being able to corner the market. You don't need a monopoly for that, just a commanding influence.
Re: (Score:1)
So their fear is not that Oracle would be a monopoly, but that it comes too close to being able to corner the market.
But how can they corner the market when there are at least half a dozen or more competitors?
Re: (Score:1)
What monopoly? Is IBM, SAP, Microsoft, Sybase, etc all just going to disappear and give up competing with Oracle just because Oracle now owns MySQL? Exactly what market are they going to corner with such fierce competition from other huge multi-national corps.
Re: (Score:2)
The only numbers I could find so quickly (source: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=507466 [gartner.com]):
Oracle: 47.1%
IBM: 21.1%
MS: 17.4%
everyone else is under 5%. No, it's not a monopoly. But an Oligopoly [wikipedia.org] isn't much better for the market, consumers and (minor) competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Because - and this story was posted proudly by Oracle on their own website (http://www.oracle.com/database/number-one-database.html):
Gartner 2008 Worldwide RDBMS Market Share Reports 48.9% Share for Oracle (*)
Gartner has published their market share numbers by operating system for 2008 based on total software revenues. According to Gartner, Oracle
* Continues to be #1 overall with 48.9 per cent share
* Continues to hold more market share than its six closest competitors combined
* Continues to be #1 on Linux with 75.8 per cent share
(*) Source: Market Share: Relational Database Management System Software by Operating System, Worldwide, 2008 - Colleen Graham, Bhavish Sood, Horiuchi Hideaki, Dan Sommer - June 12, 2009
It's not the number of competitors that matters. It's relative market share. WalMart has millions of competitors - all the tiny shops selling anything that WalMart also sells. But almost all of them don't matter and their market share wouldn't appear anywhere within the first five digits.
Re: (Score:2)
So is their job to prevent monopolies or prevent commanding influences?
Re: (Score:2)
May I recommend you spend the same time with Google that it takes you to post these questions the first Google hit would answer? Oh, what am I expecting from an american. Here, bite-size ready: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/index_en.html [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't true, so far both these comments have shown remarkable ignorance.
It is not all about monopolies, it can be about making the market less competitive. All mergers or takeovers do this, but if the EC decides that it is going to remove too much competitiveness from the market, they will not approve it.
This is up to the EC to decide, I am sure they do more than just toss a coin.
Re: (Score:2)
TheRegister's theory (aside from MySQL competing with M$) is that the Europeans are more receptive to open software because all the big closed source software outfits (leaving aside SAP) are U.S. companies. So they, well, the EC anyway, see FOSS a way to compete against the Americans and reduce the amount of money the give to the Americans for software. Personally, I hope they separate MySQL from Oracle just to kick Ellison in the balls.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from it not being a crime, you mean?
But for the serious reader: The difference is that a crime is a behaviour, and to prevent it you would have to violate basic personality rights in order to predict human behaviour. A monopoly is a market development and can be predicted with publicly available information and some easy extrapolation. Even if we would grant a company personality rights, they would not be violated by such activities.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to be suggesting that Oracle wants to destroy the market for MySQL. As the largest database vendor in the world, how does it benefit Oracle to destroy any market for databases, however large or small?
"Destroying market for MySQL" is not the same thing as "destroying market for databases". It means that most people involved migrate from MySQL to some other database. Presumably Oracle would get at least a slice of that pie, especially if they would offer an "enterprise grade support" migration path.
Re: (Score:2)
"Destroying market for MySQL" is not the same thing as "destroying market for databases". It means that most people involved migrate from MySQL to some other database. Presumably Oracle would get at least a slice of that pie, especially if they would offer an "enterprise grade support" migration path.
But how does Oracle profit more from your scenario than if it just sold commercial MySQL licenses, honored all the support contracts Sun/MySQL AB has now, and tried to win more MySQL customers?
In other words, why would Oracle kill the golden goose? Just out of spite?
Remember, if Oracle owns MySQL, then every commercial MySQL customer becomes a potential sales lead for Oracle. Sure, Oracle might put more effort behind selling Oracle databases than MySQL databases -- but how is that any different from right n
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, why would Oracle kill the golden goose? Just out of spite?
It's Oracle, so yes.
Re: (Score:2)
But a large number of them are MySQL. I don't know of many web hosting sites that don't have a MySQL option if they offer Linux servers. I haven't seen that many with PostgreSQL. None with IBM, Firebird, or SQLite. I'm sure you could load them on a dedicated server.
Now think of all the businesses that are currently using MySQL and have significant databases on them. It's no easy job to move data to something like PostgreSQL and then rework the interfaces to be
Re: (Score:2)
> The only thing that would probably appease the EU is if a fork of MySQL was established that would allow an easy transition or as others have mentioned that MySQL is spun off.
Aren't there about a dozen forks of MySQL already?
Re: (Score:2)
If the EC makes them spin it off (become a competitor) then just maybe they will. That's what the EC is after, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Your .sig could be more ... informational, Bill ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Your .sig could be more ... informational, Bill ;)
sorry, I'm failing to comprehend tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
if you're the bill_mcgonigle that's also my FB and RL friend, you would probably earn a Golden Porc the same way I did, by virtue of my .sig
Otherwise, you're a different bill, and I'm a random crazy person. All good ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, this morning I'm a bit less dense. We'll let them think we're crazy ... for now.
Re: (Score:2)
The perl is in the river. Commence operation mayhem!