[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference ulysse::rdb_vms_competition

Title:DEC Rdb against the World
Moderator:HERON::GODFRIND
Created:Fri Jun 12 1987
Last Modified:Thu Feb 23 1995
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1348
Total number of notes:5438

525.0. "Oracle as CMP Survey" by DPDMAI::DAVISGB (Gil Davis DTN 554-7245) Tue Jan 02 1990 23:42

    I have answered...and seen numerous answers to, a survey that was
    requested from CIM marketing.  Apparently there is a effort going on to
    determine whether it would be good for DEC to make Oracle a CMP. 
    
    If you would like to send in your $.02 regarding this subject, send
    them to Toni Lee Rudnicki @MEL or CIMNET::RUDNICKI.  Toni is gathering
    commentary and passing on upward.  
    
    I spoke with a person in US Sales Support regarding this, and asked for
    a reason why.  The one reason I could see is that the CMP agreement is
    very restrictive, and would limit Oracle's ability to negatively
    advertise against Digital.  Seems like an extremely weak argument which
    would be far outweighed by a number of other reasons.    I don't  like
    to post others mail in notes files, but I encourage you all to post
    yours here to make our feelings know, (Or at least those we have
    forwarded on as part of the survey).  Mine follow in .1
    
    Cheers,  and Happy New Year....!
    
    Gil
    
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
525.1Care to Join me?DPDMAI::DAVISGBGil Davis DTN 554-7245Tue Jan 02 1990 23:46123
    

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     29-Dec-1989 12:12pm CST
                                        From:     GIL DAVIS
                                                  DAVIS.GIL
                                        Dept:     SCA Software Services
                                        Tel No:   (505)857-7245

TO:  Toni Lee Rudnicki @MEL

Subject: RE: request for input RE: Oracle CMP Status

    Toni,
    
    In answer to your request for comment regarding the possibility of 
    Oracle Corporation becoming a CMP......
    
    I am totally opposed to this type of action.  It would be an 
    extremely counterproductive move on the part of Digital.  There are 
    many reasons why.
    
    1. THE KILLER COMPETITOR  Oracle competes with Digital in a very 
    aggressive and unflattering way.  Witness the advertising that they 
    place in the front cover of Digital review (December 11th issue for 
    example).  Their advertising is not very exemplary of what I would 
    call a 'business partner',  although Oracle regularly uses this term 
    when talking to customers about their relationship with Digital.  
    This is one of the reasons why the Gartner Group calls Oracle a 
    'Killer Competitor'.  Oracle's president, Larry Ellison, has been 
    quoted in numerous publications with such comments as 'It's not 
    enough that we succeed, all others must fail'.   Is this the type of 
    company we should be partnering with?
    
    2. ORACLE UNDERCUTS DIGITAL PROFITS   When we make a sale that 
    includes Oracle, we have just given away the most profitable portion 
    of the sale, the Software.  You probably won't hear much from sales 
    about this possible agreement being a bad move.  Regardless of 
    whether Oracle or Rdb were sold, sales representatives would still 
    make budget, but Digital as a corporation would realize lower profit 
    from the sale.  If we sell our own products, then we retain the 
    profit, rather than giving it to Oracle.  
    
    3. NO IMPROVEMENT IN DIGITAL'S MARKETING POSITION  If we were to 
    partner with Oracle, nothing would change in our ability to sell a 
    solution.  Whether they are a CMP or not will make little difference 
    in the customer choosing Oracle and Digital.  We can utilize Oracle's 
    product set if it becomes necessary to close a sale.  All the 
    agreement would contribute would be in Oracle's behalf and to 
    Digital's detriment.  Oracle would use the CMP status as an 
    gimmick on one advertising page while bashing Digital products on the 
    next. 
    
    4. LACK OF SUPPORT  As was seen at DU:IT, most of the field Sales 
    Support and delivery consulting staff are opposed to partnering with 
    Oracle (they were all wearing 'NO-ORACLE' stickers on their badges).
    It would be a slap in the face of those who are trying to promote 
    our own products if we were to endorse Oracle by making them a CMP.  
    We are actively competing against Oracle in the field, and winning.  
    Action such as making Oracle a CMP would send an extremely confusing 
    message to both field support and our customer base.
    
    5. WRONG USE OF CMP STATUS  The CMP program usually has members who 
    provide a component that Digital cannot, and therefore enhances our 
    marketing ability.   Making ORACLE a cmp would be equivalent to 
    making SYSTEMS INDUSTRIES a CMP.  In both cases, the 3rd party sells 
    a component that runs on a VAX and is in direct competition with 
    Digital.  Have we partnered with Systems Industries as a CMP?  No, 
    because doing so would not improve our selling ability.  The same is 
    true for Oracle.
    
    6.  BENCHMARK TESTING?   Digital has published a number of benchmark 
    reports over the past year.  They were tests of various software and 
    hardware configurations, including ACMS and RDB.  Interestingly 
    enough, there were no tests of competing database products such as 
    Oracle.  The reason?  Oracle has a clause in their license agreement 
    which prevents the user (in this case Digital) from revealing 
    performance information to third parties.  The net effect is that we 
    can test Oracle all we want, but never publish the results.  
    With Oracle however, the rules are different.  On page 2 of the 
    12/18/89 Issue of Digital Review is an ad for Oracle's latest 
    benchmark test that trumpets 'ORACLE certified over twice as fast as 
    Rdb'.  Contrary to what we have heard from numerous customers about 
    performance limitations, what is revealed in the press is only what 
    Oracle chooses to be revealed.  And they do it at the expense of 
    Digital products!  Can you tell me if this type of negative 
    advertising will cease after we Oracle becomes our 'Cooperative 
    Marketing Partner'?  I doubt it.
    
    7.  BUSINESS PRACTICE   Oracle on numerous occasions has acted in 
    ways which I would not classify as representative of a 'business 
    partner'.  One of the main reasons that we see people stay with 
    Oracle is the huge investment in the SQL*FORMS product in terms of 
    developed applications.  Customers are also agonizing over the cost 
    or ORACLE licenses and maintenance, and the lack of standard software 
    practices such as Automatic Software Distribution for customers under 
    maintenance agreement (ORACLE has none).   
    Recently Oracle dropped their maintenance costs in an offer to retain 
    a customer (major Oil company) only AFTER there was serious 
    consideration to migrate to VAX Rdb/VMS.  Although the customer had 
    numerous systems, both Digital and non-Digital, Oracle made the offer 
    for only the VAX systems running VMS.  I have a copy of the letter 
    that Oracle wrote to the customer if you would like to see it.  
    There are numerous examples of they way Oracle deals with 
    customers which I would be happy to discuss with you in person.
    
    Once again, I am totally opposed to signing any kind of marketing 
    agreement with Oracle Corporation.  To do so, would be playing into 
    their hands, provide no additional benefit for Digital, and would be 
    extremely counterproductive.  By the way, I keep hearing requests for 
    comment as to why we shouldn't.  I still haven't heard a good 
    argument as to why we SHOULD sign an agreement with Oracle.  What 
    benefit is there for Digital?
    
    Regards,
    
    Gil Davis
    Software Consultant - Transaction Processing/Database
    South Central Area Sales Support
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    
    
525.2Hollow threats don't count.PHLACT::QUINNWed Jan 03 1990 06:4012
    Gil,
    
    Sorry to burst whoever's bubble but, the argument that being a CMP
    will, by the terms of the agreement, limit ORACLE's negative ads
    doesn't flow. ORACLE ALREADY HAS BEEN A CMP ON ULTRIX. (Is this still
    true.)
    
    Secondly, unrealized threats (have we ever actually DUMPED a CMP,
    publically?) merely reinforce negative behaviours.
    
    thomas
    
525.3This must be stopped...BRILLO::BIRCHI think I think, therefore I might beWed Jan 03 1990 14:0831
    My 2p worth (the currency's different over here)
                     
    Gil's arguments are right on the button.
                     
    1. We in the field work hard to try and promote our own products,
    both to customers and to sales. Any formal agreement with Oracle
    will confuse both these parties, and seriously weaken the credibility
    of those who seek to maximise Digital's revenue, profit, and account
    control in the database area.
                                       
    2. Whatever the CMP agreement actually states, Oracle will use it
    to increase their credibility with our customers; we know from bitter
    experience that once Oracle are in one of our accounts, attempts
    to divert the customer from VAX and VMS are not long in coming,
    so ultimately Digital will not only lose the software sale, we'll
    lose hardware and account control.
                     
    3. Oracle are unethical, devious and treacherous in my experience
    (I've been on the receiving end of their behaviour a number of times).
    This is not the kind of company Digital should be making relationships
    of any kind with.
                                                                        
    Sorry if I rambled a bit; but I am strongly against this proposition,
    as I feel it will undo a great deal of work I and many others have
    done over the last couple of years. It smacks to me of 'if you can't
    beat them join them'. We can beat them; we don't need a non-aggression
    pact with someone who won't honour it anyway.
       
    PDB
       
       
525.4Mr Saviers agreed then...?BRILLO::BIRCHI think I think, therefore I might beWed Jan 03 1990 14:5053
    Whatever happened about this? It suggests Mr Saviers would not wish
    to see us in bed with Oracle...
    
Regards
From:   NAME: Grant Saviers                 
        FUNC: Storage & Info. Mgmt.           
        TEL: 223-9765                         <SAVIERS.GRANT AT A1 at CORA @ 
CORE>
Date:   27-Sep-1989
Posted-date: 28-Sep-1989
Precedence: 1
Subject: ORACLE STRATEGY
To:     See Below
CC:     See Below
    
    
I have met with Oracle's Senior Management with the objective of 
establishing a more productive relationship between our two companies.  
Oracle's longer term strategy appears to be aimed at becoming a 
primary enterprise integrator by leveraging from the Database.  Our 
objective is to get them to support NAS with their applications and to 
be a publicly constructive partner with Digital.
    
Oracle is experienced in dealing with Digital as a customer, and 
competitor.  They are exploiting every opportunity worldwide to get an 
agreement (CMP, distribution, etc.) with Digital that they can exploit 
to their advantage in the market and media.  We should adhere to the 
following strategy until we reach conclusion of the current discussion 
(hopefully by the end of Q2):
    
   1.  Compete vigorously with Oracle for all DB sales.
    
   2.  "Do what is right" for our customers already committed to 
       Oracle.  Site by site this might range from working with Oracle 
       to insure the customer succeeds to the other extreme of 
       "unhooking" Oracle where they can not do the job, such as in 
       clusters.
    
   3.  Avoid general explicit or tacit relationships with them - e.g. 
       recommending Oracle on UNIX, entering into any CMP or 
       distribution agreements, etc.
    
It would be helpful to our negotiations if your organizations followed 
this strategy.  Please let me know if there are problems supporting 
it or if you have any input that might help our discussions with 
Oracle's management.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
525.5not a CMP, I thinkFENNEL::SILVERBERGWed Jan 03 1990 16:227
    I do not believe ORACLE is a CMP as stated here.  I believe they are
    a participant in the DDS program, as are most of our other 3rd
    parties who have similar products on our platforms.  If anyone knows
    differently, please advise.
    Thanx
    Mark
    
525.6$0.02AUNTB::GETTYSBIBill Gettys @RTPWed Jan 03 1990 18:4141
                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     27-Dec-1989 02:44pm EST
                                        From:     Bill Gettys @CEO
                                                  GETTYS.BILL
                                        Dept:     Software Services
                                        Tel No:   704.357.5376

TO:  BOURDEAU                             ( BOURDEAU@CIMNET@MRGATE@GENDEL@MRO )


Subject: RE: request for input RE: Oracle CMP Status

Oracle is a very real threat to Digital in many of our accounts.  
There are numerous documented cases of Oracle recommending that their 
customers change to a different vendor's hardware, but keep their 
Oracle software.  Their knee-jerk response to any performance 
complaints is to blame Digital's hardware and suggest a change.  In 
their user publication two years ago, they suggested that their users 
could get better price/performance by replacing VAXes with H-P 
machines.  At one of the largest VAX sites in the Carolinas, Oracle is 
recommending that the customer buy a Sequent in place of the VAX 9000 
we are proposing.  (The VP of MIS spoke at the 9000 announcement.  
Wouldn't it be painful if these folks decided they didn't need a 9000 
after all?)

Before the sale, they sing a different song:  They tell their 
customers that they have a strong, high level relationship with 
Digital.  If we enter into a CMP arrangement with them for 
manufacturing software, they will use that agreement as evidence of 
our endorsement of their database engine.  It doesn't matter that it 
isn't true.  These people are all former used car salesmen and 
representing facts honestly and completely isn't high on their agenda.  
Some of my customers see through this junk.  Most don't. 

A CMP agreement with Oracle will cost Digital many millions of 
dollars.

Bill Gettys
SWS - Sales Support
Carolinas District
525.7balance is important for a healthy lifeFENNEL::SILVERBERGWed Jan 03 1990 23:1457
    
    On the other hand.....
    
    If Digital and ORACLE were ever to reach a point of CMP participation,
    it would probably be in the FABS application market on ULTRIX.  It
    does not appear to be viable under VMS, nor in the data management
    market given the Rdb situation.  In addition, I don't see any chance
    of CIM Marketing looking for their MRPII products, nor our Office
    Marketing folks looking at their mail, etc. products.  However, a
    possible CMP agreement with ORACLE in the FABS Open Systems market
    is a very long shot at this point, so any discussion is conjecture
    and pure speculation.
    
    ORACLE has stated that their goal is not necessarily a CMP agreement
    in the FABS market, but a good working relationship which encompasses
    marketing, sales, and technical support in the Open Systems Market.
    This is the fastest growing portion of our market, and will be very
    important for the future.
    
    My view is that although ORACLE certainly owns most of the blame for
    the current situation, Digital has probably contributed its share.
    We are doing our best to foster a hostile environment, hoping that
    ORACLE will go away.  Well, it will be interesting to see how long
    they last.  Obviously, we will outlast them in the long run, but how
    long & how costly would it be?  
    
    I feel that if Digital spent some time & effort to build a better
    relationship, some, or many of the issues would be minimized, or
    perhaps eliminated.  ORACLE, like most 3rd party software vendors,
    tends to work with hardware vendors who work with them, and they
    tend to promote those hardware environments which respond in kind.
    I always am amazed how ORACLE can leverage perhaps more Digital 
    hardware, software & service revenue than any other 3rd party in
    the market, and yet we spend most of our energy, time and money
    on beating them to a pulp.  ORACLE will be a $1B software vendor
    in a year or so.  It will not be easy to ignore their presence
    and strength in the market.  If they leverage $500M total in 
    hardware, sw & svce for system vendors, how much of that do we want
    to be Digital?  Remember, for every dollar we push away, HP, 
    Sequent, Tandem, IBM, Ncube etal get.  Perhaps we need to be
    sure who the competition is...IBM, HP etal or ORACLE?
    
    So, let's spend our energy solving the problem, and not spend our
    energy on beating up on someone who wants to work with us to insure
    we are both successful against IBM.  Let's try to solve the technical,
    sales, marketing, and working relationship problems instead of fanning
    the fires of discontent.  I don't think we need to impress anyone 
    else that we have an acute problem..we already understand the issues. 
    Not working with ORACLE will not solve the problem; it will only cause
    us to focus our energy on them as a competitor, and as such will cause
    us to take some energy away from the real enemy, IBM.
    
    Mark
    
    
    
    
525.8Uh...are you SURE of their motives in the long run?DPDMAI::DAVISGBGil Davis DTN 554-7245Thu Jan 04 1990 02:4214
    Mark,  you present some good points except...
    
    	"..we are both successful against IBM."
    
    How can we work towards mutual success when their CEO makes statements
    like "it's not enough that we succeed, everyone else must fail."
    
    ??
    
    I have asked some of those who have responded to Toni's survey If I
    could post their responses here....two more follow this note..
    
    Gil
    
525.9$.02 moreDPDMAI::DAVISGBGil Davis DTN 554-7245Thu Jan 04 1990 02:4329
                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     02-Jan-1990 10:17am CST
                                        From:     JEANRENE NICOLET @WNO
                                                  NICOLET.JEANRENE AT A1 at CGOO01 at CGO
                                        Dept:     SOFTWARE SERVICES
                                        Tel No:   

TO: See Below

Subject: RE: request for input RE: Oracle CMP Status

      Hello and Happy New Year !
      
      
      I strongly agree that any close relationship with Oracle (short of 
       buying them out...) would we a disaster for Digital for all the 
       reasons listed and many more (see other responses to the request). 
       Oracle is just like St Petersburg on one of Kathrin of Russia's 
       visits: nicely painted fake streets with nothing behind them. Worse, 
       there are troops hidden with guns pointed at us !
      
      DON'T DO IT !!!!   PLEASE !!!
      
      
      Jean-Rene

Distribution:  (deleted...)
525.10More responses...DPDMAI::DAVISGBGil Davis DTN 554-7245Thu Jan 04 1990 02:4552
                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     02-Jan-1990 09:48am CST
                                        From:     DENNIS ROUTLEDGE @NYO
                                                  ROUTLEDGE.DENNIS AT A1 at HOCUS at PCO
                                        Dept:     
                                        Tel No:   212-856-3073

TO: See Below

Subject: RE: Oracle as a CMP ... Just say NO !!!


	The situation with ORACLE to me, seems fairly straight forward.  From a 
competitive point-of-view ORACLE is the a 'compromise' for a database system if 
you are running over a wide variety of Digital competitors's hardware.  Every 
enhancement ORACLE develops is the least common denominator for a wide variety 
of hardware which ORACLE does not sell. Differences in machine architecture and 
performance benefits of a particular architecture are negated.  ORACLE positions  
the platform that their software runs on as a commodity

	From Digital's prospective selling ORACLE over RDB is at best short 
sighted for several reasons:

	1. Decision to purchase a database system is not made every year by a 
corporation.  The decision 'locks' a corporation into a commitment that is long 
term(5 years or more due to cost).  The vendor of the database system has 
tremendous leverage in influencing future software and hardware purchase 
decisions.  ORACLE has no real reason to push Digital hardware over a competitor  
since they are selling software at a significant cost.

	2. If Digital sells ORACLE as part of a solution and ORACLE for what 
ever reason does not meet expectations. Digital is part of the problem not the 
solution.  Better to sell the devil you know than the devil you have no control 
over.

	3. The fact that when you buy Digital you buy the complete line of 
Digitial software and hardware solutions and architectures and long term 
commitment to cost effective computing power should effectively in sales 
situation negate ORACLE marketing 'noise'.  

	4. I have worked at Digital for 3 months so far.  I have been for 18 
years an 'abuser' of Digital and IBM services.  I have extensive experience with  
Digital's Codasyl database, DB2 and Datacom DB.  Bottom line in any database 
decision is cost of development, maintenance costs and cost of recovery from 
database problems.  Digital has resources to address the above problems!!


Dennis Routledge  DTN 352-3073
    
Distribution: (deleted...)
525.11More than a provider of RDBMSZPOV03::JEFFREYCHOYHardly trained Thu Jan 04 1990 08:2032
    
    
    Hello,
    
    I just want to say that Oracle latest marketing strategy is not just
    talking about a portable RDBMS for multiple hardwares but with their
    latest MANUFACTURING software package, they are now starting to put emphasis
    on application portability. This is far more formidable than just being
    a provider for RDBMS. Oracle now can position themselves as a provider
    of solution.
    
    To a MIS manager it would mean that he has much job
    mobility and personnal value in terms of possesing a skill set that he
    can be employed in many places with different hardwares. To the
    management of a company, investing on an Oracle solution would mean
    an end to future upgrading problems and it also deemed to be good
    investment decision.
    
    Once customer decided to purchase an Oracle solution, it would be
    unlikely that customer would want a change after some years of
    operation. Nobody is mad enough to upset a working production system,
    be it an MRP or insurance system if all they need is to upgrade to a 
    bigger box. In this respect the customer has switch from being hardware
    dependent to software dependent.
     
    
    Do we still want to have Oracle as a CMP ??
    
    
    
    Best Regards, Jeffrey
    
525.12Competition made America greatCISM::MORANWhen Money Speaks The Truth is?Thu Jan 04 1990 19:3127
    I'm sure everyone can agree to the general statement that competition
    is healthy in a free market.  However, in reading several notes
    in this file, I get the impression that we have NIMBY's (Not In My
    Back Yard) when in comes to competition with Oracle.  First off
    I agree that Oracle is a thorn in the side of anyone measured on
    RDB sales (by the way are any salespeople measure on RDB #'s?).
    I'll also agree that it is far more preferable to have RDB win than
    Oracle but this Oracle bashing is IMO counterproductive. If some
    of our competitiors had the same attitude we would not be buying
    tape drives from IBM?  Or chips from Intel?  
    
    If it was not for Oracle- RDB would not be as successful - think
    about that!  When our customers needed a database what did we have
    - ZIP.  So now that we have a competitive (actually better on VMS)
    product we scream that Oracle is no good, unfair, terrible liars.
    Digital is a big company and if senior management feels that the
    database is important then they should put measurements and resources
    in place to support that belief.
    
    Should we make them a CMP - in the UNIX financials space YES -
    (remember folks like our earlier history we have nothing there and
    we make no margin on competitors hardware)
    
    Should we make them a CMP when we have a competitive product NO.
    
    I would like Digital to take an equity position in Oracle just to
    protect our installed base.
525.13My $.03DPDMAI::DAVISGBGil Davis DTN 554-7245Thu Jan 04 1990 21:36110
    Re .12
    
   >(by the way are any salespeople measure on RDB #'s?).
   
    Not that I know of,.  Therein lies part of our (Digital's) problem. The
    salesperson is goaled with a $$ budget.  For the most part is doesn't
    matter what the sales looks like, only that it equates to a certain
    total amount by year (quarter/month) end.  In our case (US) having the
    Oracle sales rep help out by selling the software (Database,
    application etc) eats up the biggest profit maker in the sale (The
    software).  In Canada they DOhave sales people measured on RDB sales (I
    met one at DU:IT).
    
    >I'll also agree that it is far more preferable to have RDB win than
    >Oracle but this Oracle bashing is IMO counterproductive. 
    
    I think a lot of us are extremely frustrated with this point.  Why is
    one called an 'Oracle-basher' for bringing up competitive information
    and relating real-life experiences from sales situations while the
    Rdb-Bashing we endure in Digital Review is called 'advertising' or at
    worst 'negative advertising'?
    
    >If some of our competitiors had the same attitude we would not be buying
    >tape drives from IBM?  Or chips from Intel?  
    
    Or disks from Systems Industries? Or memory from Emulex?  
    
    >If it was not for Oracle- RDB would not be as successful - think
    >about that! 
    
    Agreed that Oracle was the first to bring SQL to market (even before
    IBM), but how is Oracle responsible for Rdb's success?  
    
    > When our customers needed a database what did we have
    >- ZIP.  So now that we have a competitive (actually better on VMS)
    >product we scream that Oracle is no good, unfair, terrible liars.
    
    Ingres has a reasonable market share on VMS, and is a good company to
    do business with.  I don;t see a lot of Ingres-bashing going on.  The
    difference is our experience in how Oracle competes, treats our
    cstomers, and bashes us in the press.  It's interesting that the other
    database vendors pretty much don't negatively advertise against Digital
    products and are all pitted against Oracle in THEIR advertising. (Like
    Ingres with the Blah Blah ad).
    
    >Digital is a big company and if senior management feels that the
    >database is important then they should put measurements and resources
    >in place to support that belief.
    
    Some geographies have done this (notably GIA, with much success). 
    Unfortunately there is a move afoot to give Oracle some preferred
    status (such as CMP).  From what we have seen, Oracle probably won't
    use this status in the way it was intended. Specifically they will will
    resort to 'Why buy Rdb, when Digital THEMSELVES has endorsed us as a
    Cooperative Marketing Partner.  If we weren't the best, why would they
    partner with us?'  
    
    Also, you hit the nail on the head in stating that 'Digital is a BIG
    company'.  Big companies have lots of issues and it's EXTREMELY hard
    for one to surface and get attention.  Witness the meeting I had with a
    group from EDS.  We had 4 hours to sell them on Digital in terms of
    networking, database, OLTP, VAX, PCSA, everything...one shot.  They had
    to leave at 1:00.  Why were they leaving?  Because they were spending
    the afternoon with a DATABASE COMPETITOR.  We have many options and
    solutions to bring to the table.  One of them is Database Management. 
    Oracle has ONE area of selling to pound on.  Who's going to win the
    database? The one who is most in the customers mind.  (By the way, we
    did manage to whet their appetite enough so thay they came back for
    more at a later date.)
    
    Digital is a company that believes in survival of the fittest (in terms
    of product development) and letting the products sell themselves (based
    upon functionality, rather than marketing effort).  Unfortunately, lots
    of customers are barraged with Oracle advertising which sets the stage
    and forces us to address THEIR issues. 
    
    >Should we make them a CMP - in the UNIX financials space YES -
    >(remember folks like our earlier history we have nothing there and
    >we make no margin on competitors hardware)
    
    Do you think Oracle will segregate this in their advertising?  The same
    ads that bash RDB will have the "Cooperative Marketing Partner" logo
    appearing down in the corner.  Oracle salesreps will use it as a
    leverage.  I understand that there is a lack of software in the
    Unix/Ultrix financials space, but why provide this endorsement for
    Oracle?  WHAT BENEFIT IS THERE FOR DIGITAL THAT OUTWEIGHS THE NEGATIVE
    IMPACT UPON OUR OWN PRODUCTS?
    
    >Should we make them a CMP when we have a competitive product NO.
    
    We may fools ourselves into believing that they are only a CMP for
    financials, but Oracle will use this information across the board (how
    will that impact Ross Systems, who sell financials on VMS?
    
    >I would like Digital to take an equity position in Oracle just to
    >protect our installed base.
    
    Does this equate with CMP status or are you saying we should buy a
    chunk of stock?  And would this change they way they do business?
    
    I understand how there are some within Digital who's job it is to
    cultivate and nurture relationships on the Unix/Ultrix platform, but I
    have maintained all  along, when we have a competitive product we
    should not be forming alliances with any particular vendor.  VAX
    Rdb/VMS is a competitive product, and based upon past experience,
    Oracle will (regardless of how much we attempt to 'bound' them with 
    the agreement) use CMP status to our detriment.
    
    By the way, don't consider me a VMS or Rdb bigot. I'm consulting on  a
    sale in Texas which is all Unix...
525.14From the heartland ...MAIL::DUNCANGGerry Duncan @KCOFri Jan 05 1990 05:19133
                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     28-Dec-1989 05:25pm CDT
                                        From:     Gerry Duncan @KCO
                                                  DUNCAN.GERRY
                                        Dept:     Sales Support
                                        Tel No:   DTN:452-3445

TO: See Below

Subject: Oracle as a CMP ... Just say NO !!!

Toni,

I encourage you to "just say NO" to making Oracle ANY kind of marketing 
partner for ANY reason.   Oracle's "way" of doing business is very 
different that Digital's way of doing business.  They lie to customers 
about us, berate our products, and blame us for their problems.  

Partners in any kind of business venture usually have many traits in
common.  It is a pleasure to work with Focus, Smartstar, and Ross
professionals for they are interested in working WITH us to provide
solutions.  No matter what Oracle is whispering in your ear, they are not
interested in working WITH us AFTER getting in the customer's door. They
just want to use us ! 

I have been involved with numerous Oracle projects, meetings, and
conferences.  Some of the things that happened and were said by the Oracle
people are detailed below and were, frankly, unbelieveable.  You know how
it goes, you're having a decent meeting and then the Oracle guy opens his
mouth and you can't believe it ...  like your worst experience ever.

Believe me, IF you partner with Oracle you'll get to spend all your extra 
time trying to keep your hand over the Oracle saleman's mouth so he can't 
encourage your valued DEC customer to use PCs for development, Sequent for 
transaction processing, and MacIntosh for executive/end-user processing.
And, oh by the way, if your customer wants to connect to an IBM host, 
Oracle will be more than happy to help them buy and Interlink box instead 
of our SNA gateway.  And, oh, by the way, if you and your customer have 
been accustomed to using cluster technology to provide long-term planning, 
you can kiss that goodbye since Oracle V6 doesn't run in a cluster so there
goes a key piece of our uniqueness right out the door.  And then you'll get 
to hear your customer tell you he can't upgrade his VAX (even though he 
needs and wants to) because he can't afford the Oracle license fees.

If you "... just say yes ..." NOW, you can "... just say no more ..." to 
account control.  Oracle doesn't give a damn about our workstations,
Digital, or anyone else and don't you ever believe they do. 

Even if the customer doesn't want it, Oracle's strategy is to CREATE a
multi-vendor, multi-network environment such that ONLY Oracle can provide
the systems integration, consulting, and network management. 

If you "... just say yes ..." NOW, you'll get to hear these kinds of 
statements from Oracle that I have heard in the last year in the presense 
of important customers:

- "...we used to develop our database on VAX, but we've moved to Sun and 
Sequent since they're so much faster ..."

- "... the problem with Oracle in a VAXcluster is not really Oracle's 
problem .... it's the VMS lock manager ... in fact, we're going to write 
our own lock manager .."

- "... our interconnect to DB2 uses the Interlink box because your SNA 
gateway runs soooo slow ..."

- "... we traded in those old/slow 8840's we bought and MADE Digitial give 
us 62xx systems .... they're a lot faster that the 8840 because the 8840 
has that old/slow bus ..."

- "... well, if that 8840 isn't fast enough, maybe we better look at a 
Sequent ... it's real fast and, of course, Oracle is optimized for the 
parallel processor ... we're thinking about doing the same work on the 
VAX version"

- "... we support DECnet but, in all honesty, TCP/TP is a lot faster .."

- ".... you'll need all the latest features from Oracle Financials.  Since 
the financials are developed on Sequent, you should consider Sequent for
the financials.  Oh sure, you'll be able to get the same enhancements on 
VAX, but it takes time to port the financials from Sequent to the other 
environments."

Finally, you should be aware that there are many Digital customers who 
"standardized" on Oracle who are looking to get rid of Oracle FOR ANYTHING 
ELSE because the license fees are killing their budgets AND poor performance 
is killing their VAXes.  With no money to buy VAXes, the customer has no 
choice but to buy Sequent or other "hot" boxes.  Oracle has their license 
fees set such that the Oracle database on just about any VAX you pick IS 
MORE THAN THE HARDWARE.

I have one customer where we lost the sale of a 6000-420 to Sequent because
the customer had Oracle financials because they had Oracle database. We
did, however, win the sale of several other 6000-4xx systems BUT ONLY after
discounting 30-35% in order to be competitive with Sequent who was cheaper
AND was low-balling.  Here's at least one explanation of our margin woes. 
The sad part of this particular event was that Oracle got a po for over
$600k.  Money the customer could (and should) have spent with us, over
time.  So, when you consider the the discount amount when combined with the
Oracle license fees, we left a significant amount of money on the table. 

Toni, we in the field keep hearing that you are taking these suggestions
to the top.  The problem is, you never tell us WHO you are taking them to.
I'm just about fed up with this "Oracle as a CMP" crap.  If you are one of 
those annoited ones who sits on high and thinks this is such a good deal 
for Digital, why don't you:

1) send a mail message to the 46 end user sales district managers and ask
them how they like losing to Oracle and their various hardware partners
(Sequent, Pyramid, HP et al) and ask them how they like heavy discounting 

2) Send a mail message to the sales support managers and ask them how much 
time their database or OLTP specialists spend combating Oracle's unethical 
fact sheets and lies about our products.

3) come work in the field .... not the way it was in the past (if you are 
from the field) ... but the way it is NOW

Attached is a copy of the memo that Don Bell-Irving wrote to a number of
Digital executives which describes another view of why partnering with 
Oracle is bad.  

Look, I've got an answer for you and your metrics.  You can escape this 
lifetime embarassment by coming to work in my unit since we have an opening.
That way you won't have to live with the idea you sold out and did not do 
what was right for Digital AND the customer.

Best regards,

Gerry
    
525.15Source of the number?SQLRUS::BOOTHWhat am I?...An Oracle?Fri Jan 05 1990 22:258
    .7 references an interesting number. That number is the "$500 M" of
    Digital sales that is "leveraged" by Oracle. How was that measured? Is
    that the number Oracle claims? Do they count the VAX sold by Digital
    where Oracle then walked in and sold the database? I can't imagine that
    Oracle drives that much revenue for Digital.
    
    
    ---- Michael Booth
525.16What's wrong with ORACLECOOKIE::BERENSONWords are a deadly weaponFri Jan 05 1990 22:39119
Competition IS healthy, and I sure don't mind competing with ORACLE.  What I
mind is a company which decides to STIFLE competition by stabbing its own 
product in the back.  What exactly do I mean?  Well, to be a competitor you
need a number of things:

1) You need a competitive product.  We've got one, and the effort to continue
    to maintain a competitive position goes on.

2) You need support.  This is particularly true in the primary markets for
   database systems.  We have some strengths, and some weaknesses here.  Below
   I'll explain what this has to do with my central theme.

3) You need marketing.  Digital has a very fragmented approach to marketing.
   Basically, we give the group responsible for a particular product a small
   stipend to let them prepare some literature, etc.  But the real marketing
   dollars go into industry and application marketing groups.  How this impacts
   the central theme comes later...

4) You need sales.  Someone has to be out their getting the customer to buy.
   Further explanation below.

Now, each of our software competitors has all 4 of the above, and in spades.
In particular, they have massive marketing budgets FOR THEIR PRODUCT and a
dedicated sales force.  When ORACLE and INGRES go at it, they fight on all
four of the above planes.

What about Digital?  Well, Digital is strong in having product and (once the
product is successful) strong in support.  But, we don't do very well in
marketing or sales.  One of the major reasons is that we fail to line up
marketing and sales behind a product and fragment our efforts between our own
product's and 3rd party "competitors".  The corporate business model assumes
that Rdb/VMS (or any product) will get adequate marketing because each
industry (and application and channel) marketing group will be pushing it as
part of its product set, therefore we don't need a massive product marketing
effort.  But, what is reality?

CSG ends up pushing Cullinet, IBI/FOCUS, etc. more than Rdb/VMS because they
    want to get into the datacenters already using those products on IBM

CIM ends up pushing CINCOM's database more than Rdb/VMS because CINCOM's
    MRP package is a winner and it happens to require their database system

FABS ends up pushing ORACLE because they have the best Open Systems Financial
    package.

FSG ends up pushing SYBASE because they have a secure database product

etc.

None of these marketing groups gets MEASURED on the marketing of Rdb/VMS,
so the corporate assumption that we don't need massive product marketing
is invalid.  Another way of looking at this is that at ORACLE or INGRES, every
dollar spent on engineering is matched by a dollar (or two or three or) spent
on marketing (of ORACLE or INGRES).  On some global level, for every dollar
Digital spends on engineering Rdb/VMS it also allocates a dollar (or...) for
marketing.  BUT, 10 cents goes to market SYBASE, another 20 cents goes to
market ORACLE, etc.

This lack of focus at the marketing level combined with the lack of a 
measurement system at the field level combine to dilute the sales effort.
Sales Reps have little incentive to really SELL against ORACLE, INGRES, etc.
The marketing groups aren't telling them this is essential and the company
isn't measuring them on it, so following the path of least resistance is
the course of choice.  Sure, selling Rdb/VMS helps them meet their budget
with its relatively large price tag and associated service.  But, without
the strong marketing support behind them and with ORACLE et al willing
to devote substantial sales and marketing effort AS EITHER A PARTNER OR
COMPETITOR, the SALES REP's margin on an Rdb/VMS sale may be very low!

What does a CMP agreement mean?  Well, one thing it means is that we ENCOURAGE
our sales force to bring in the third party.  In fact, we reward them for
selling the CMP product while at the same time making it easy for them to get
help.  In other words, we improve their personal margins.  At the same time
the CMP agreement causes the Digital marketing group to provide some marketing
support for the CMP, FURTHER DILUTING THE EFFORT ON Rdb/VMS!

Now, why is this bad.  Well, the CORPORATION has made a decision that Database
is a key technology for our future.  We must be at roughly an industry
leadership position in order to survive the 90s.  We are investing engineering
dollars to ensure that we have the products and the people expertise.  But, like
all things, the company is always watching the bottom line.  They want to
see a return (and a short-term return at that) on their investment.  Well,
if the marketing and sales effort isn't in place then the return will
never be what it should.  The database market is THE MOST COMPETITIVE software
market, yet Digital is playing without a significant marketing investment.

When a marketing group endorses a 3rd party database competitor for a
particular niche, it stifles Rdb/VMS' ability to compete.  When we fail to
give our salesreps the backup they need to sell, we stifle Rdb/VMS' ability to
compete.  When we fail to give them quotas for Rdb/VMS sales (or dedicate
sales resources), it stifles Rdb/VMS' ability to compete.

Why is ORACLE so bad?  Well, first because they play the game at a different
level of ethics than the rest of us.  Secondly, because they have the marketing
clout we refuse to give Rdb/VMS.  The combination of factors says that they
will help you make a sale one moment and stab you in the back the next.  It
says, that nothing short of making them our primary database product will
satisfy them.  It says, that they (ALREADY) get more marketing on Digital
gear through our various 3rd party programs than we give our own product.  It
says that an arrangement for just a piece of their product set (Financials, 
tools, whatever) will be parlayed by them into a major marketing thrust for all
of their products.  It says, that the only kind of partnership they want is 
a partnership where they dominate.  And, they have the ability and desire to
make themselves the de-facto dominant partner.

So, I'm against a CMP agreement with ORACLE because it further damages our
ability to compete by diverting Digital marketing and sales resources to ORACLE.
I'm against it because it will be misused, as every other Digital 3rd party
program ORACLE is involved in has been misused, within ORACLE's marketing
programs.

If the corporation were to back up their engineering investment in Rdb/VMS
with the kind of marketing and sales programs that are needed in this
competitive market, I would feel much better about CMP and other 3rd
party deals.  Why? Because if we had the marketing muscle then these deals would
only impact the niche's they intend to.  As things stand, every one of these
agreements ROBS RESOURCES FROM Rdb/VMS.

Hal
525.17Just say no way!DPDMAI::DAVISGBGil Davis DTN 554-7245Sat Jan 06 1990 03:1517
    
    Ditto to everything Hal said in .16  ...except that half of that answer
    could be entitled "What's wrong with DIGITAL".
    
    Just got off the phone with yet another sales rep who's customer bought
    Oracle Financials in Houston in Nov '88.  They haven't been able to
    close their books for THREE MONTHS due to performance problems on a
    6410 (which was upgraded from a 6310.)  CPU at 30%, Memory usage at
    50%, I/O eating them alive....Oracle's fix is to "upgrade" to version 6.
    
    In her own words...'And now Oracle wants them to pay for version 6. 
    A new License charge!  Oracle is bleeding my customer...."
    
    Why should we encourage our sales reps to get themselves into this type
    of situation by giving Oracle CMP status and making it simpler to bring 
    this 3rd party into their account?
    
525.18$500m is all not all DEC'sFENNEL::SILVERBERGMon Jan 08 1990 17:0911
    re:15
    The $500m is a reference to the total hardware/sw/svce system leveraged
    revenue for all hardware systems vendors (DEC, HP, SEQUENT, TANDEM,
    IBM, NCUBE, PYRAMID, WANG, DATA GENERAL, etc) potential when ORACLE
    hits a billion in revenue in a year or so.  The number I keep hearing
    (but have no way to confirm) is that ORACLE leverages approx. $200M
    of DEC system revenue per year.  They also purchase approx $8-10M
    per year from us directly for their development use.
    
    Mark
    
525.19One more negative replyHSOMAI::SPARKSI think, Therefore I am Mon Jan 08 1990 19:3128
    re .14
    
    This isn't entirely related to this note, but couldn't resist.
    
< - ".... you'll need all the latest features from Oracle Financials.  Since 
< the financials are developed on Sequent, you should consider Sequent for
< the financials.  Oh sure, you'll be able to get the same enhancements on 
< VAX, but it takes time to port the financials from Sequent to the other 
< environments."
    
    I thought ORACLES big strength was portability, what does this above
    statement mean?????  When ORACLE designs a product using their own
    product they can't do it using only their own tools??? Why else would
    it be a problem to port from one platform to another.  Sounds like
    shooting off you foot to me.
    
    I also would vote no on the CMP agreement.  If we signed such an
    agreement we would be in effect stating that we agree with their
    ridiculous advertising claims.  240 tps with V 6.0.  I've personally
    tried to get a performance increase with V6 over V5, it's just not
    there.
    
    In fact in higly reporting and query situation the V6 that I tested was
    actually slower in retrieval.  I would not endorse the product and my
    sympathy goes out to any specialist sold with a VMS/Oracle sell that is
    supposed to accomplish what Oracle has told the customer it will.
    
    Glenn Sparks
525.20Interesting VAX/Oracle site....NOVA::FEENANBack from Yugoslavia to row for RdbTue Jan 09 1990 07:1325
         <<< CHEFS::DISK$APPLICATION:[NOTES$LIBRARY]VIA_FORUM.NOTE;2 >>>
                                 -< VIA FORUM >-
================================================================================
Note 280.0                     Another ex-VAX site                    No replies
BAHTAT::DEIGHTON                                     19 lines   2-JAN-1990 10:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracted from the European_Retail_Industries notes conference...

================================================================================
Note 3.5                UK Retail Account Wins/successes                  5 of 5
YUPPY::PATEMAN "After you Mr Senna"                  11 lines  22-DEC-1989 10:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            -< Don't Quote Harrods >-

    Harrods no longer a reference site
    
    For the record, after a long and painful two years, Harrods are
    about to install a Sequent processor to replace their VAXes. The
    whole sorry saga has been down to appalling application design by
    Harrods under Oracle, and their refusal to take advice from any
    suppliers or to accept any responsibility for there errors. The
    Sequent is undercutting a 6420 by over 150K so you could say they
    are buying the business.
    
    Paul
525.21CYANOVA::NEEDLEMANyesterdays technology tomorrowTue Feb 06 1990 02:0530
    In my role as consultant relations manager, I just finished talking to
    an independent consultant.

    In the conversation Oracle came up. What follows is an abbreviated form
    of his comments.

    Many customers who bought into the "offload the mainframe" argument are
    dumping VAX and going back to IBM and DB2.

    The reason is simple - ORACLE sales tactics.  They were sold
    under-configured systems (including ms-dos), forced into expensive
    upgrades, then switched to Sequent hardware (he said this was a triple
    sale for the Oracle rep.). All the while they were  paying large
    support fees and receiving poor service and or performance.

    I admit that the original hardware sale helped a salesrep's short term
    quota problems. IF this pattern is repeated however it harms Digital
    long term corporate goals.


    Take heed.

    On the plus side, he said many of the custoemrs he is encountering are
    stating to take longer deeper looks at Oracle and are opting for Rdb or
    other 3rd party database products.


    Barry