Conference ulysse::rdb_vms_competition

    Assume you're talking about the US ??  So, here goes:
    
    The Oracle account manager for Digital is in Boston.  His name is
    Doug Collins 617-862-7339.  (He is also the account manager for
    IBM I am told.)  His goal is to insure that Oracle is sold on our
    products.  Another fellow works for him and handles what we know
    as the central, southern, and southwest areas.  He is in Dallas
    and is named David Pickerell 214-401-5800.  I've talked to Pickerell
    several times in the last month in order to try to get his help to win
    Oracle on VAX vs Oracle on Sequent.  Pickerell's goal is $4m on
    Digital hardware.
    
    We have the ability to sell Oracle on Ultrix and MS-DOS and they
    are listed in the price book.  If the customer wants one-stop
    shopping, we can also sell Oracle on VMS.  Beyond that, the only
    relationship we have with Oracle that I am aware of is the normal
    ISV type stuff.  Oracle would like to have your customer believe
    that we have this really tight relationship but it couldn't be further
    from the truth.  
    
    A better way to talk to your customer is to have them find out 
    what Oracle's committement to Digital is ???  Given the fact that
    they keep bad mouthing our equipment and jerking our customers around
    with high prices, poor support, and lies, I would question their
    "partnership".  Call me tomorrow if you want to talk more.
  
    

DIGITAL DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ORACLE AND THEY DO NOT
FIGURE INTO ANY OF OUR LONG TERM PLANS (OTHER THAN AS A *COMPETITOR*).

They are a 3rd party supplier like any other 3rd party.  EXCEPT, they
are also a leading software competitor AND they are increasingly a
hardware competitor via reference selling other people's hardware to DEC
customers who have ORACLE.

DO NOT LET ORACLE INTO YOUR ACCOUNT IF YOU CAN AT ALL HELP IT.

    What is the Sequent relationship with Oracle? I'm hearing more about
    this, more often. Did the big "O", sign an agreement with Sequent
    last fall?
    
    The hardware is cost competitive.
    
    hy

    Oracle and Sequent have a marketing agreement. Oracle appears to be
    pushing Sequent with Oracle's new financial package. They have prepared
    material that shows Sequent to be a much better investment than a VAX.
    
    Sequent is very competitive (read much cheaper) than VAX on a $/MIPS
    basis. However, be aware that Sequent is a parallel processing Unix
    system with up to 16 30836 Intel processors. But the database software
    that runs on Sequent does not utilize the PP capability of the
    hardware. Neither does Sequent do any parallel parsing of queries (that
    is, until RTI finshes its development work for Sequent). There is no
    hardware/software fault tolerance. Sequent is NOT Tandem, and Oracle is
    not NonStop SQL!
    
    In other words, the high end Sequent machine is 16 3-MIP processors.
    That's 48 MIPS.
    
    The Oracle benchmark on Sequent showed 124 TPS (unaudited I might add).
    The Oracle benchmark on a VAX 6240 showed 43 MIPS on a 12-MIP machine.
    So there would seem to be about a 28% discrepency in favor of VAX. Who
    knows why, given the type of benchmarks Oracle ran.
    
    Nonetheless, the argument is that Oracle/Sequent is a better
    price/performance combination that Oracle/VAX. Well that is definitely
    true. But the Rdb/VAX vs. Oracle/Sequent PP ratio is very competitive.
    
    It should come as no surprise that we cannot effectively compete
    Oracle/VAX to Oracle/Sequent since Oracle is attempting to leverage
    Sequent sales with the Oracle financials, and Oracle does set its own
    software prices.
    
    The Sequent agreement also begins to get a Unix parallel processing
    system recognized prior to the Oracle port to NCUBE which is a
    massively parallel system, and will probably have a "very close"
    relationship for Oracle.
    
    In simple terms, we need to win every new sale we can against Oracle,
    and do what we can to get current Oracle accounts over to Rdb.
    
    ---- Michael Booth

    For the DDS agreement we have with ORACLE on ULTRIX, you might contact
    Haywood Gandy @ZKO for our current status.  We have no formal agreement
    with ORACLE for their ULTRIX based financials, but given they have
    the best ULTRIX based financials on the VAX and RISC platforms today,
    we are working with them in a reference fashion to capture the growing
    open system demand in the market until we can get other applications
    on our platforms.
    
    ORACLE has sought marketing relationships with HP, SEQUENT, TANDEM,
    DEC, and others.  As of now, HP, TANDEM, and SEQUENT have signed
    cooperative marketing agreements with ORACLE, and ORACLE will tend
    to work with those companies in sales situations.  With the Digital
    feeling of not wanting to work with ORACLE (but we do with CINCOM
    & other DBMS competitive vendors) we should not expect a complementary
    working environment.
    
    Mark
    

    We have an agreement with Cincom. That is true. Cincom makes a
    database, Supra, that has 0.16% of the VAX market. 
    
    Further, Cincom does not spend millions porting to an unknown hardware
    company, nor do they advertise "Cincom has it now".
    
    Comparing tiny Cincom, who has helped us bring users in from the HP
    world, tied their Mfg software nicely to the VAX, and generally stayed
    out of hardware issues to Oracle is a little ludicrous.
    
    An agreement with Oracle for their financials on Ultrix would create
    more confusion. We have agreement with Ross, and M&D on VMS. Ross has
    acknowledged Rdb as their direction. M&D might.
    
    The Ultrix financial market has been extimated at $3-$5 million/year.
    If that infinitesimal amount of revenue is a valid reason for
    "partnering" with a company that is costing us many times that in lost
    sales, we have a serious problem.
    
    ---- Michael Booth
    
    
    ---- Michael Booth

    re .5
    
    Also....how do we know they're the "best financials in the Ultrix
    market" ???
    
    Sounds like another Oracle claim!  Like if Tootsie Roll uses them, they
    must be good?
    

    They may well be the best. The Unix financial market is tiny. The major
    financial players operate on MVS, VM, and VMS. What is interesting is
    that some companies would risk using Unix for financial work, given
    Unix's horrible reputation for security.
    
    ---- Michael Booth

    This is getting off the original topic.  As the marketing person
    responsible for ULTRIX based financial products, I will respond
    via mail to you directly.  The market is growing, and we have 
    done a functional evaluation of the financials.  Many of our
    LARGEST accounts are working with us as a partner to help them develop
    a long term computing strategy based on OPEN SYSTEMS.  The Financials
    are just on one their mission-critical applications that they expect
    Digital to work with them on. There is also $1B worth of revenue
    to be gained in the ULTRIX/UNIX FABS market in FY90.  How much should
    we give up due to not having good applications...all of it??
    Mark
    

    
    Mike T.
    
    Pity you didn't make the database/TP sales roadshow I did in Birmingham
    the other week. Mike Hudgell (UK DECtp Product Marketing Manager)
    and myself created a presentation based arounf the UK DECtp Marketing
    plan. We also had a competitive section. The people there were left
    in NO DOUBT about the relationship with Oracle in the UK. They are
    our number 1 database competitor - period.
    
    We related a number of horror stories and was given some more by
    salesmen at the roadshow. They basically revolve around our friends
    at Oracle doing an about turn and running with HP at the last moment
    and losing us major sales. Contact myself or Mike for help in fighting
    Oracle.
    
    Ken

    Along those lines....here's one I heard from a salesrep in El Paso...
    
    Oracle beat us by basically giving the customer a second license free
    (there were 2 systems involved in the sale).  After Oracle had the
    Purchase Order, they came back and said 'Oops! We forgot to put
    maintenance in!'  They then sent the customer a bill for 30% additional
    (That's 15% times 2 licenses - one was 'free', remember?)  
    
    The customer asked for their P.O. back.  Last I heard, they were still
    arguing.  Apparently, Oracle doesn't give PO's back easily...
    
    

    
    It's confusing, and I think reflective of some of the ways that Digital 
    does business, to get mixed messages regarding Digital's "relationship"
    with Oracle.  Past notes here denote that Oracle is our #1 database
    competitor, horror stories of Oracle "cutting off the oxygen" abound,
    and Larry Ellison makes it very clear that they are out to conquer the
    world.
    
    While Digital says, in response to the relationship question, "Well, it
    depends...," or "Not really, it's like this...", or "They have an ISV
    relationship, which isn't really a stamp of approval..." etc. etc.
    
    So here I am at Desktop DUIT, and who do I see, amongst others, 
    demonstrating their "latest and greatest solutions" for the desktop
    marketplace?  (Yes, it's an easy question.)
    
    I've notes it before:  I just don't understand why we let them into our
    buildings and in front of our people (heck, we even gave them badges!)
    if we're in direct competition with them on something so serious as a
    database sale.  Seems to me like one army inviting the other one into
    their headquarters so that army-1 can use their weapons at closer
    range!
    
    Sigh, 
    
    It ain't gonna get easier out there because of this.
    
    Bob

Digital is split in to numerous product business units (PBUs) as well as
marketing groups.  The marketing groups are measured to a large extent
on how they help sales via 3rd party arrangements.  The PBUs are
measured on how successful their particulary business is.  No one is
charged with the responsibility OR authority to make sure that all activites
of these groups support a detailed overall strategy or that one group is
not stepping on another groups strategy.

So, Database Systems PBU has ownership of the company's database
strategy.  But, the desktop people don't need our permission to go off
and sign a deal for 3rd party database products for desktops.  The
Government people don't need our permission to go off and sign a deal
for a 3rd party database product that is popular in their market.  The
Ultrix people don't need our permission.  The OIS people don't need our
permission.  No one needs our permission or approval.  Its even worse
than that, we have little ability to stop them even when we have advance
warning of what they are up to.  Fighting these deals is a HUGE resource
drain that ALWAYS has to be taken to the VP or Sr. VP level.  Not only
do we not have the time and energy to fight them all, we usually don't
win! At best we delay or force limits on the scope of the deal.

I'd love to work on a solution to this problem, but that's like tilting
at windmills (and its far from my job responsibilities as well).  I
believe a complete solution requires Executive Committee action.

    I have been told that my customer is one of Oracles largest customers.
    They are a worldwide customer but decisions about almost everything
    are made within each country.  The US has gone with Oracle but the
    UK has gone with RDB.  However,  what they buy from Oracle or Digital
    is small change compared to what my client can leverage for each
    company.  My customer is a Big 6 accounting firm.
    
    Currently, when we are working on large opportunities (one is for
    $ 150 Million in hardware over 6 years that Oracle has already one)
    it appears Oracle has already won the hearts and minds of not only
    the Customer but the consultants.  The consultants have developed
    a large practice of implementing database systems on Oracle.  What
    that means is if  their client has not decided on a database
    then with their inventory of skilled implementors on Oracle who
    do you think will win?   Have we agressively pursued any of the
    consultants to show them how they can make $$ implementing RDB?
    
    I believe that Oracle today leverages more DEC hardware than RDB.
    I can't get to mad at them for that :').  They have what customer
    want and on multiple platforms.  They run on more of our platforms
    than RDB.  Their message is simple - vendor independance.  They
    were first and that gives them a significant advantage.  Maybe we
    ought to declare victory and buy them!
    
    If we feel, and I believe we do, that the database market is
    strategically important.  Then all the crying foul and Oracle bashing
    is not going to help us win the war.  We have to give the customers
    want they want. If that means multiple platforms on multiple OS
    with multiple vendors then do it! 
    

    Does Oracle leverage that business for Digital. No, the accounting firm
    does.

    In almost all cases, Oracle sells to the Digital installed base. We
    sell the box, they sell the software.

    Is portability an issue? Yes. Has it also undermined DB2? No. Why not?
    Because IBM customers get the clear message that if they buy something
    other than DB2, they are out of the mainstream of IBM directions (SAA,
    OfficeVision, et all). Has portability undermined Ashton-tate? Well,
    they still control 73% of the PC market. Has lack of portability
    undermined HP? HP owns 80% of the databases on HP hardware. They own
    more than 50% of the databases on their new risk machines!

    So what you are saying is that lack of portablity doesn't hurt IBM, HP,
    Ashton-Tate, or Tandem for that matter. It only hurts Digital. Oracle
    is only a major player in Digital's market --- nowhere else.

    That being the case, I would submit that the problem is not Rdb's lack
    of portability since such a deficiency is not hurting the other
    hardware vendors' databases. The problem must lie elsewhere.

    Perhaps one manifestation of the problem is present in the "leveraging
    hardware' argument. IBM is using SAA to leverage software sales with
    hardware implementations, thereby driving up their earnings. The whole
    industry is moving to this model in which software is the major concern
    and hardware becomes almost irrelevant. In that context, "leveraging
    hardware" becomes secondary to owning and selling and leveraging
    software.

    I guess the issue can be summed up this way. If Rdb were portable, and
    your account used Rdb on different platforms, would you be as enthused
    seeing Rdb leveraging sales for Sun, PS/2, and HP (or even IBM)? Or is
    it the leveraging of hardware that's so important to you. The market
    direction is toward software and toward the relative unimportance of
    the box. We need to adjust our perspectives to deal with this major
    change. Software will be the leverager of consulting, services, and
    hardware. To be beholden to third parties puts our entire future
    outside the control of our company. That strikes me as a little
    unhealthy.

    ---- Michael Booth

    Re: -1
    
    The consulting firm sometimes leverages business for DEC or HP or
    IBM etc.  Oracle also sometimes leverages business in the same manner.
    To say that Oracle only sells to the installed base IMO is somewhat
    naive.   Often, because the client has already installed VAXen,
    the database will be developed on VAX.  That makes sense but to
    say that does not leverage additional sales of more hardware, I
    don't buy it.
    
    In the case I mentioned in my note, the customer has already decided
    on the database, Oracle.  My client is the System Integrator.  The
    hardware RFP will be issued on Nov 2nd.  HP, IBM, and DEC (I believe
    we are ranked higher) will be in the running.  If Oracle did not
    run on any of the above they (hardware vendor) would be out of the bid 
    process.  Now tell me how IBM, HP are not affected?  Oracle has
    gotten us into IBM sites because it runs better on our platform.
    Now tell me how that does not affect IBM!          
    
    I agree that we have to become more aggressive with RDB and it is
    in our long term strategic direction to do so.  But Oracle today
    is more friend than foe.  Databases that do not run on our platforms
    are the real competition.  They completely lock us out of the account.
    
    Digital has not acted in a serious manner when it comes to owning
    the Database.  Measurements drive sales.  At many oportunities RDB
    is not in contention because sales is looking at the harware more
    seriously.  You want more RDB sales, then belly up to the bar and
    make it more enticing to the sales rep.   If an rdb sale is involved
    then double the certs.  If Orascle wins then decrease the available
    hardware cert.  You never know -- we might get some valuable feedback
    on our market and product.  You'll certainly get Oracle's attention.
    
    

   re .14-.16
    
    The real issue with Oracle is you never know from one sales call
    to the next IF they are going to be friend or foe.  The same Oracle
    salesman can be your buddy one day and Freddy Creuger the next.

    The point is that when you introduce anyone else (Oracle, FOCUS,
    Ingres) or any other technology (Unix) into YOUR solution, the risk is
    that you lose control of the relationship, the results, AND the
    annuity business.

    Let me give you an example.  We recently closed a $2.1m HARDWARE
    order for some 6000 systems and related disks.  This hardware was
    sized to provide processing growth for 18-24 months.  Since the
    customer "had already" chosen Oracle, we had to discount around
    35% and sell like hell to keep the order away from Sequent EVEN
    THOUGH WE BEAT SEQUENT IN OUR BENCHMARKS.  
    
    Did we make any money on this deal ?? Not much. 

    Will they buy more HARDWARE next year ?  Probably not. 
    
    Did we get any software consulting ? No ... it went to Oracle.  

    Will the customer buy consulting from us next year ?  No ... but
    will from Oracle.
   
    What will we do for business next year ??  Find a new customer and
    begin the long, EXPENSIVE (both in $ and resources) process of creating
    a relationship and trying to get some business.

    I have seen how the Oracle field people work.  The same fellow will
    be back in my account in two months (when he needs to make his number)
    looking for more business FROM OUR INSTALLED BASE.  Surely you know
    John that it is easier to get additional business from existing
    customers than to create new customers.  This IS exactly what Oracle
    does.  Once you let them in the door, under any condition, you
    (Digital) has lost account control.  
        
    This customer paid Oracle $600k license fees.  When you combine
    that with the $300-500k we "left on the table" by being forced to
    discount, you can understand why Oracle is such a threat to Digital's
    PROFITABILITY !!!  Just think, we lost $500-$1m in margin.

    Re -1
    
    I have been in your shoe's and will be in them again. I know it's
    not easy but your bitch isn't with Oracle but with Digital.  Do
    we have people skilled to sell into our INSTALLED BASE a product
    that competes with Oracle??  If we can't compete with Oracle then
    how in heavens name can we compete with IBM or HP.  The reason why
    competition is healthy is basic.  Competition keeps every one on
    their toes.  Competition drives innovation.  Competition expands
    the market opportunities. It appears that many here feel that Oracle is
    implementing their product and marketing strategy better than Digital.
    It's healthy because it is forcing us to counter that and become
    better as a company in the long term.
    better than we are