[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

348.0. "Thank you Paine Webber - again" by MERIDN::MATTHEWS (A High Std. of Standardness!) Tue May 09 1989 21:15

    Paine Webber has issued another analysis of Oracle, dated April
    19, 1989.   As with its March 1988 study, their rating is still
    "unattractive".  The report covers financials as well as product
    problems.  Makes for great reading (for us and our customers) !
    
    BTW, the subtitle of the report is "Oracle 1989 = Cullinet 1985? 
    Caveat emptor"
    
    Geo.
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
348.1Gotta' Have a CopyMAIL::DUNCANGGerry Duncan @KCOTue May 09 1989 23:473
    How can I get a copy of this report.  I need four copies ASAP.
    
    --gerry
348.2Go right to the source...MERIDN::MATTHEWSA High Std. of Standardness!Wed May 10 1989 19:005
    Since it is a copyrighted report, I suggest that you talk directly
    to Paine Webber.  The author is Robert Therrien of their Technology
    Group (his phone number is (212) 713-4921).
    
    Geo.
348.3200$ and its yoursEIGER::OLLODARTExpatriateWed May 10 1989 19:4317
    I took your advice and called.  He laughed and said "Oh you want
    THAT article...." and transfered me to Andy Winton who promptly
    wanted $200 dollars for the artical. Is it really worth it ?
    
    If you want it:
    
    Pain Webber
    Attn: Andy Winton
    1285 Avenue of the Americas
    9th Floor
    New York, New York
    10019
                     
    Enclose a check for 200.00
    
    
    Peter
348.4Maybe Digital should get a "master" copyMTA::NGThomas K. Ng, NYFD, 334-2435Wed May 10 1989 22:444
Can Digital get a "master" copy with the right to re-distribute it?  I know 
it will cost a bundle, but I think it'll help in competitive situation.

Thomas
348.5Is the article worth it?HGOVC::DEANGELISTie me kangaroo down sportThu May 11 1989 11:435
    Didn't PW also suggest last year that Oracle's financials looked
    "unattractive" but thay still came up with approx. 90% profit? Is
    credibility an issue here or have I got my wires crossed?
    
    John.
348.6Here's the Cliff Notes version of the reportMERIDN::MATTHEWSA High Std. of Standardness!Fri May 12 1989 03:5973
    Due to popular demand, here are the major sections of the Paine
    Webber report on Oarcle, along with the major themes:
    
    
    Recent financial performance (net cash position negative, days
    receivable increased from 144 to 123 days)
    
    
    DEC's bundling of Rdb bad news for Oracle (Oracle's comments about
    Rdb sound like the incorrect and self serving comments about DB2
    made by Cullinet in 1985; track record of Rdb enhancements is quite
    impressive and Rdb developers have access to new hardware designs
    which Oracle does not have)
    
     
    Short term results obscure underlying problems (net cash position
    (cash minus debt) has dropped sharply, receivables account for more
    than income and distancing revenue increases)
    
    
    Cullinet 1985 vs. Oracle 1989 Similarities and Differences (big
    chart and text)
    
    
    Bad idea to find solace in buying intention data (PWebber believes
    that the bundling of Rdb will force massive changes in industry's
    pricing structure and will slow the customer's sales cycle
    considerably - just like DB2 in 1985)
    
    
    The holes in Oracle's "hardware independence" argument (trading
    hardware dependence for software vendor dependence, sights the
    following points:
    1. shortage of financial resources
    2. not-so-friendly proprietary software
    3. questionable commitment to upgradability
    4. timeliness of upgrades)
    
    
    Increased competition from other quarters (IBM, RTI, Sybase,
    Ashton-Tate, Cullinet)
    
    
    Product problems (sights the following points:
    1. Oracle's SQL*Plus is a poorly designed language - not compiled,
    no loop structure
    2. PL/SQL appears to be incompatible with SQL*Plus - no transparent
    upgrade path
    3. "Two database strategy" - process architecture evolving to server 
    architecture
    4. Tool set weak - "just because a vendor says its tools are
    world-class doesn't make them world-class"
    5. Version 6 is late; its reportedly buggy in VAX Clusters.
    6. Weak distributed processing - works in query mode only,
    implementation is very slow
    7. Time-to-market concerns - an unfocused and too diverse set of
    hardware platforms)
    
    
    Earning outlook and recommendation
    
    Long term outlook- "If Digital and IBM are successful with their
    strategies (or even simply force Oracle's pricing lower), Oracle
    will be forced to emphasize the worksdtation market, where we believe
    its product is unsuitable. We have this view for two reasons.  First,
    PCs are the most popular workstation.  Oarcle's PC product is both
    unfriendly and needs more than the standard 640K configuration to
    run.  In addition, workstations need to connect to the VAxes, other
    minis, mainframes, and PC database servers - mostly platforms where
    hardware vendors and/or other third parties have what we believe
    are either better or more cost effective solutions than Oracle."
    
    
348.7...WorkingQUILL::BOOTHWhat am I?...An Oracle?Fri May 12 1989 23:473
    We are working on getting reprints.
    
    ---- Michael Booth
348.8Can't fault these FY89 numbersNUTMEG::SILVERBERGThu Jul 13 1989 20:2847
ORACLE Corp. results for their latest fiscal year are:

                                          4th QUARTER
                                          -----------

                                 FY88            FY89        Increase %   
                                ------          ------       ----------

          REVENUES:             $104.2M         $215.9M        107%

          NET INCOME:           $ 19.1M         $ 33.5M         76%

          AVG. SHARES:           133.1M          136.1M          3%

          EPS:                  $ .14           $ .25           79%






                                           FISCAL YEAR
                                           -----------


                                  FY88           FY89        INCREASE %
                                 ------         ------       ----------


           REVENUES:             $282.1M        $583.7M        107%

           NET INCOME:           $ 42.9M        $ 81.8M         91%

           AVG. SHARES:           132.9M         135.1M          3%

           EPS:                  $ .32          $ .61           91%



***Note:  All numbers adjusted for 2-1 stock split in June 1989


Regards,

Mark