Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud Oracle

Amazon Cloud Chief Jabs Oracle: 'Customers Are Sick of It' (cnbc.com) 81

It's no secret that Amazon and Oracle don't see eye to eye. But things are far from improving, it appears. From a report: On Wednesday, two months after Oracle co-CEO Mark Hurd called Amazon's cloud infrastructure "old" and claimed his company was gaining share, Amazon Web Services chief Andy Jassy slammed Oracle for locking customers into painfully long and expensive contracts. "People are very sensitive about being locked in given the experience they've had the last 10 to 15 years," Jassy said on Wednesday on stage at Amazon's AWS Summit in San Francisco. "When you look at cloud, it's nothing like being locked into Oracle." Jassy was addressing a cultural shift in the way technology is bought and sold. No longer does the process involve the purchase of heavy proprietary software with multi-year contracts that include annual maintenance fees. Now, Jassy says, it's about choice and ease of use, including letting clients turn things off if they're not working.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Cloud Chief Jabs Oracle: 'Customers Are Sick of It'

Comments Filter:
  • Oracle: We own our software ... and our customers.

    Amazon: We own our software ... and we are our customers' assistants.

    • Re:Attitudes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Thursday April 20, 2017 @03:35PM (#54271949)

      Me: I don't want your clouds, why should I waste my bandwidth and endure slow access times when I can store my files and my backups locally?

      • Re:Attitudes (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Thursday April 20, 2017 @03:41PM (#54271977)

        Me: I don't want your clouds, why should I waste my bandwidth and endure slow access times when I can store my files and my backups locally?

        If you're storing your files and backups locally, then you don't really have "backups", you just another copy of data that will be lost in the fire/flood/tornado, whatever.

        • Re:Attitudes (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ranton ( 36917 ) on Thursday April 20, 2017 @03:48PM (#54272009)

          Me: I don't want your clouds, why should I waste my bandwidth and endure slow access times when I can store my files and my backups locally?

          If you're storing your files and backups locally, then you don't really have "backups", you just another copy of data that will be lost in the fire/flood/tornado, whatever.

          When I read his comment I can't tell if he was mocking anti-cloud IT folk or actually is one. It's too hard to tell.

        • Then encrypt your backups yourself using your own tools, and THEN put them in the cloud. If your backups are local, you can do what you like with them.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Grandpa, Mom says you've had your 20 minutes of internet time today, time to get offline.

        • by sehlat ( 180760 )

          Grandpa, Mom says you've had your 20 minutes of internet time today, time to get offline.

          Get off my lawn!

      • by Trogre ( 513942 )

        Quiet, you'll upset their gravy train!

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          You will only upset bad lawyers. Really long contract you don't like, not a problem. Create a company, contract computer services to that company on a yearly basis and then have that company contract to the supplier for stupidly long contract. The supplier sucks, drop you annual contract with your computer services company and bugger they go broke, forcing you to spend money on creating a new computer services company which you contract out to and who signs onto the new better long term contract. Now if you

      • Me: I don't want your clouds, why should I waste my bandwidth and endure slow access times when I can store my files and my backups locally?

        Because most likely AWS provides a level of redundancy and failure tolerance that you will never be able to achieve. If it works for you, good for you. Stick to it. But don't pretend your requirements match the ones found in general.

        But the most important reason why, the real answer to you question lies in the following decision: your infrastructure costs, do you want them to be capex or opex? Which one do you really need in order to operate, or even to get off the ground?

        If you don't understand this,

      • "The Cloud" is overhyped beyond belief these days, but it really does have a place for specific tasks.

        For instance: backups and offline storage. Yes, make a local backup, but you need offsite as well. It's just *stupid* not to use a service like Amazon S3 or Glacier for this. Of if you need a turn-key solution for a bit more, Carbonite, etc.

        Scalable loads is another one. You can rent HUGE numbers of CPUs to crunch all sorts of data, or push all sorts of traffic to load-test systems. Owning all this har

  • Since when? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Thursday April 20, 2017 @03:47PM (#54272001)

    Since when is SaaS not all about lock in?

    • by XXeR ( 447912 )

      Since when is SaaS not all about lock in?

      I'd argue it's not about SaaS being "about lock in" or not. It's more about implementation time and/or upfront investment for whatever you purchase.

      If a SaaS service requires no upfront investment of hardware and takes little time/effort to implement, then lock in is a silly thing for which to strive via licensing and will push potential customers to the competition. On the other hand, if either are true, lock in occurs by default to some extent...with or without licensing.

  • Bring it on! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday April 20, 2017 @03:53PM (#54272053) Journal

    I like the fight: competition in action. I wish telecoms would bash each other over forced bundling, lousy reliability, lousy customer service, etc. etc. etc. etc.

  • by DeplorableCodeMonkey ( 4828467 ) on Thursday April 20, 2017 @03:56PM (#54272071)

    Oracle is such an entrenched, parasitic, rent-seeking corporate shit pile compared to most of the industry that they make even staunchly conservative capitalists tempted for a split second to raise the sickle and hammer after dealing with them.

    • Oracle is such an entrenched, parasitic, rent-seeking corporate shit pile...

      And yet they seem to be able to attract an increasing number of big customers. Perhaps they do in fact offer some value for the money?

      I have never quite understood the hostile attitude towards Oracle - nobody quite seems to be able to explain their feelings without descending into irrational abuse. On the other hand, I am able to appreciate them for a number of things, while I accept that there are things to criticise as well. As far as I can see, they not only produce what is arguably the best RDBMS with d

      • We used Oracle here, both the RDBMS and B2B platforms. Our instances were installed entirely by consultants sourced by our Oracle sales rep. A few years after installation, Oracle audited us. They found that one of our testing servers was apparently installed with the Data Warehousing option enabled, an option that we had not requested nor were licensed for. Oracle hit us up with an extra six figure invoice for that DW option. Keep in mind, we never requested it, never used it, and their own representa

        • That seems absurdly harsh - I have worked for a company where I know for a fact that we used some 50+ instances of different versions the Enterprise Edition with different options (I installed them), some of them RAC, all for testing and development. We never had an audit, but I used their support heavily and never made a secret of our installations. Never a problem in the 13 years I worked there. What you describe certainly doesn't match my experiences - we had one server instance that over time became sor

          • It was all good until the audit. We ran 8i for over a decade, the non-licensed DW instance was part of a newer 10g installation.

  • by Blaskowicz ( 634489 ) on Thursday April 20, 2017 @04:02PM (#54272105)

    Speaking of old, why not hook up a mainframe to the "cloud"? It's all built around I/O, partitioning and billing the user anyway.
    Let's have a single computer datacenter. We can achieve the classic vision of one computer per continent.

    I believe curious people might try to use it. I know there are emulators and a freeware IBM OS version from before I was born, so it is certain that millions of people never had the chance to try doing something, anything at all with a mainframe.

    I have a pitch for it : "The state of the art in NoSQL and consolidation."

    • I was sitting right next to people working on such a thing. Then their main product was bought by another company, they ended up quitting instead of being transferred, and IBM lost that expertise.
  • Yeah, fuck these rich cocksuckers, and if you care about your business or data at all, do not use either of them.

  • "No longer does the process involve the purchase of heavy proprietary software with multi-year contracts that include annual maintenance fees. "

    I guess the two sides really don't know how each other works....
    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      AWS doesn't have much to do with Amazon retail - they even have different CEOs.

      • by dszd0g ( 127522 )

        A rose by any other name is still a rose. Last year Amazon changed the job title of Andy Jassy and Jeff Wilke to CEO along with Jeff Bezos.

        As far as I can tell, in reality Andy Jassy is still VP of AWS and Jeff Wilke is VP of everything else ("Worldwide Consumer") and Jeff Bezos is still CEO. Calling a VP a CEO is stupid IMO.

        http://www.geekwire.com/2016/a... [geekwire.com]
        http://fortune.com/2016/04/07/... [fortune.com]

        Google basically did the same thing when it re-organized under Alphabet where Larry Page still oversees all the "CEOs

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          I have a rather different view, as the change happened soon after the Fire phone debacle, Bezos's pet project. Seemed like the bigger investors were getting nervous about him, and moved him to a more honorary position.

          In any case, the only long-term contracts I've ever seen for any AWS product is the long-term discounts for servers. Everything else seems to be hourly (or by the millisecond for Lambda, but I've yet to find a use for that). Pretty much the opposite of Oracle.

    • "No longer does the process involve the purchase of heavy proprietary software with multi-year contracts that include annual maintenance fees. " I guess the two sides really don't know how each other works....

      What does AWS have to do with Prime? And what type of license lock-in do they have that compares to Oracle's? You can cancel anyone at any time almost without penalty (other than forfeiting a refund if you cancel before your contract), nor do you have a pervasive multi-thousand-dollar per-core license lock-in with either, do you?

      I've worked in multiple Oracle shops, so I know what that lock-in entails. With that comparison of yours, I don't you know what you are talking about?

      • "No longer does the process involve the purchase of heavy proprietary software with multi-year contracts that include annual maintenance fees. " I guess the two sides really don't know how each other works....

        What does AWS have to do with Prime? And what type of license lock-in do they have that compares to Oracle's? You can cancel anyone at any time almost without penalty (other than forfeiting a refund if you cancel before your contract), nor do you have a pervasive multi-thousand-dollar per-core license lock-in with either, do you?

        I've worked in multiple Oracle shops, so I know what that lock-in entails. With that comparison of yours, I don't you know what you are talking about?

        Additionally, as long as you don't really lock yourself to a AWS-specific framework or architecture, like, say, AWS Lambda, you really have little lock in. Whether is is a JEE system or a Ruby system or whatever backed by any major data store (MySQL, Postgress, Cassandra, whatever), if you are deploying on an AWS instance, you very much can do the same with a local instance using the same OS.

        OTH, and I known from experience, when you work with the Oracle stack, not just the database but also any or all pr

  • I see two ends of the spectrum:
    Want an own DB?
    Use FOSS.
    MariaDB, MySQL, Postgres, Mongo, Couch, ... tons of really cool stuff, all of it industry-grade software.
    I see virtually no usecase at all for non-FOSS DB technology in a fresh project these days.

    Want to do the cloud DB thing?
    Use Google Spanner [google.com].
    That's what Oracle should be afraid of ... and probably is.

    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      Amazon's thing is Aurora, which is some MySQL and Postgres-compatible thing I don't really understand, but they claim it's very fast. But as long as it's MySQL-compatible, I'm not really locked in.

    • Why would you use spanner? It has proprietary APIs (ok, yes you can run a SELECT, but only using their database drivers if available for the language/framework you use, but not INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE etc.), isn't faster than Aurora (http://2ndwatch.com/blog/benchmarking-amazon-aurora/), and is more expensive for the same performance.

      These days, Google seems to be spending more effort on PR than engineering ...

  • Java is even older than AWS! Should I stop using it?? I'm so confused!
  • Andy Jassy is almost correct, except that he's listing all the benefits of open source instead of them being 'cloud' benefits.

Modeling paged and segmented memories is tricky business. -- P.J. Denning

Working...