Global CIO: Is Larry Ellison Hurting Oracle By Hammering Competitors?
Excellent industry analyst Josh Greenbaum says Ellison's recent words and deeds are doing damage to Oracle, but I believe the opposite is true.
Josh Greenbaum is one of the enterprise-software industry's top analysts, and his "Enterprise Matters" blog posts are always thoughtful, timely, and compelling. Josh is also a friend, but that flaw in his judgment shouldn't be held against him.
So I have three objectives with this column: first, for those who haven't seen it, a look at Josh's probing analysis; second, to offer some counterpoints to Josh's thinking with regard to Ellison, Oracle, and why they do the things they do; and third, to argue that while Ellison's us-against-the-world approach can be seen as corrosive (Josh's opinion), it can also be seen as bold new leadership (my view).
These issues are incredibly vital right now because the enterprise software business—on which all of the world's mid-sized and large corporations run (and think about that for a second)—is, as Josh says in his headline, undergoing some profound realignments and transformations.
So are Larry Ellison's recent moves hurting Oracle, or preparing it for its next waves of growth and influence? Here's a 5-point checklist in which Josh and I each offer our own diagnoses—and because Josh's piece came first, I'll start each point with a comment from Josh, followed by my reaction to his assertion.
1) Larry Ellison's take-no-prisoners competitiveness.
Josh writes, "Larry Ellison makes no bones about it, he’s willing and able to compete to the death, or at least to the near death, with any and all who stand in his way."
My take: Josh frames Ellison's crusade as battling fiercely against "any and all who stand in his way." For myself, that's the sort of CEO I would want to work for, and the sort of company I'd want to invest in: set a strategy, commence execution, and steamroll whatever impediments stand in the way. Appeasement is the strategy embraced by those that can't or won't compete.
2) What does Oracle owe to HP, SAP, and IBM?
Josh writes, "So, despite the billions of dollars in joints sales between Oracle and SAP, HP, and IBM, Ellison has been directly, and at times, viciously, attacking these three companies in very public and very over the top ways. These are not some of Ellison’s finest moments."
HP last week trashed Oracle's acquisition of Sun, saying it was a money-losing outfit whose products even under the new Oracle banner still rank near the bottom of the server standings. Is this vicious? Over the top? Or is it appropriately aggressive and forceful advocacy for HP's servers, which are the top sellers in the world? If it's okay for HP to hammer away at Oracle—and I certainly feel it is—then why is it vicious and over the top when Ellison does it? As for IBM, the last two comments I can find from Ellison about IBM are, in fact, rather graceful and respectful.
A couple of weeks ago, in rolling out Oracle's new Sparc Superclusters, Ellison said this about IBM:
Google in the Enterprise SurveyThere's no doubt Google has made headway into businesses: Just 28 percent discourage or ban use of its productivity products, and 69 percent cite Google Apps' good or excellent mobility. But progress could still stall: 59 percent of nonusers distrust the security of Google's cloud. Its data privacy is an open question, and 37 percent worry about integration.
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Nov. 10, 2014Just 30% of respondents to our new survey say their companies are very or extremely effective at identifying critical data and analyzing it to make decisions, down from 42% in 2013. What gives?