|
Recent Articles |
Convert A MySQL Injection Script For Use In Microsoft...
MySQL Server is the most widely used database management system in the world, primarily because it is open source and free. Hence, most databases you may get from outside sources will probably be in the form of a MySQL injection script. This is fine if you use MySQL...
Developing Countries Breeding Grounds...
Red Herring's Falguni Bhuta predicts "More (Open Source) momentum in developing countries": "Open-source software's transparent nature and low-cost will make it more popular among developing countries such as China and India (see India State: Linux In, MS Out). Marten Mickos, CEO of open-source database company...
SQL Server Triggers
Triggers are stored procedures which are fired when data is modified in an underlying table. They can evaluate data being added to a table for validation purposes, or can make changes in that or other fields depending on the value of that data. You can use them even to execute a separate stored procedure, or to roll...
SQL Server 2000 Data Types
SQL Server requires that each variable and column in a table should be defined with respect to the type of data it will store. From a bit to a huge image and binary storage types, the allocation is supposed to help the user conform to the data required, and help the engine allocate space and processing speed efficiently...
Using DataTables More For Improving Performance
There are some features in the System.Data.DataTable class that a lot of developers don't utilize. I base that statement on different code samples I've seen on blogs and article bases during the last couple of years. Some of these features can improve the performance.
Open Source SQL Full Text Search Engine - Sphinx
I came across Sphinx via the MySQL Performance Blog (which has some good entries you might want to check out). It is an Open Source Full Text SQL Search Engine. It can be installed as a storage engine type on MySQL, and from what I hear can beat the pants off of...
CLR Vs T-SQL And Stored Procedures In SQL Server
CLR or TSQL? That is the question. More are more developers are struggling to find the right answer, but the answer really depends n the developer's individual needs. For classic SQL tasks, the good old TSQL is recommended. On the other hand, CLR works...
|
|
|
02.06.07
MySQL IPO, Oracle Unbreakable Support For MySQL?
 By Savio Rodrigues
Matt Aslett writes that Oracle may be considering Unbreakable Support for MySQL and that MySQL Co. is likely to IPO later this year.
When MySQL files for IPO, we'll get to view their financials. We'll get to compare their performance metrics against Red Hat (which, until now, has been the only pure-play OSS player with public financials) and traditional vendors. I'm willing to bet that their metrics will be (surprisingly) close to metrics from traditional software vendors.
BTW, in case we're keeping score, yes, Oracle is already distributing MySQL with their Linux distro. But, Oracle isn't providing support for the copy of MySQL that you get with Oracle's Linux distro. Here's my take on the Oracle support rumor (which could just have been a passing threat in an Oracle/MySQL meeting).
Unbreakable Support for MySQL is likely the first step towards an acquisition:
There's really little long-term benefit from Oracle providing support to a competitor's database. In doing so, you're validating the competitor, and not really doing anything to "bury the competition". With the Oracle Unbreakable Support for Linux, they're going after a related market, and failure doesn't have any direct competitive consequence. Sure failure means that Red Hat gets bigger, but that's not a big deal (until/unless Red Hat acquires a leading open source database support provider). But failure with the MySQL support would result in a much stronger direct competitor (MySQL Co.).
The more likely option here is for Oracle to buy MySQL. After the acquisition, if Oracle tried to move the user base onto Oracle DB products, add restrictive support conditions, raise prices, etc. then an alternative support provider would have room to grow. Otherwise, MySQL customers would likely continue to get support for MySQL through Oracle. Oracle would need to consider the impact of the MySQL product set on the Oracle DB portfolio. Issues like, customer confusion, pricing, customer negotiation tactics, etc. However, I think Oracle could deal with these issues.
 Worried about cannibalization? It's going to happen to a certain degree, but the alternative is losing business to a competitor without a fight. Oracle can respond by giving customers choice. Cannibalization that occurs will be much, much, smaller than the potential revenue that Oracle can drive using a mixture of open source & traditional software. IBM took this approach with the WebSphere Application Server business (with great success) and Oracle could do the same with their database business.
The result would be two database platforms (MySQL & Oracle DB), which get closer over time, but likely don't merge (at least for the next 5 years). Customers can choose (remember, choice is good) to use the light-weight MySQL product for a good portion of their needs, and the high-end Oracle DB products for other projects. Let's not forget that the majority of Oracle DB customers will stick with Oracle DB for products that are already running today (i.e. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"). And when these customers want to use something more light-weight, simpler to use, Oracle has an offering for them. Leave no customer behind!
After the acquisition, Oracle cold shift some of their development efforts away from Oracle DB (except in the high end product category) and put those resources into the Oracle Applications business which is where they want to grow revenue. MySQL products would deliver support stream revenue; very much in keeping with Oracle's huge maintenance revenue.
Less focus on selling new Oracle DB licenses, and more on selling Oracle DB & MySQL (after acquisition) support would be a big win with Wall Street which looks for steady and continuous revenue. Forget the upfront license cost, and just pay for support & maintenance. Move some development resources to the higher-value offerings. Neutralize a competitor by providing customer choice (with something that a customer wants; not just a crappy offering under the guise of choice). It all sounds interesting. Let's see how this plays out!
[The image is from flickr user net_efekt - it made me laugh and seemed to be a good way to represent the worry of cannibalization in the face of a serious competitor.]
Comments
About the Author:
I am taking a semi-break from IBM life as I return to finish a PhD in Industrial Engineering. I've held roles in market intelligence, strategy and product management. I'm ex-product manager of IBM WAS Community Edition, and blog about enterprise open source topics.
|
