Re: SMH on Salesforce-Oracle

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "adrian(dot) klaver" <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ned Lilly <ned(at)xtuple(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SMH on Salesforce-Oracle
Date: 2013-06-27 15:06:32
Message-ID: CABUevEw8cDXeChmZViHZLO56ewOv1o2w-tQ65dp++WzmwyNrnA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On Jun 27, 2013 4:50 PM, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:40:57AM -0400, Ned Lilly wrote:
> > >Now, if that 9 years is somehow _optional_ on Salesforce's part, then
> > >there might be something to the "maintain a relationship", but I have
> > >not seen anything suggesting that.
> > I would be really surprised if Salesforce went for that deal. Got
> > to believe that they have the option to do other stuff. The more I
> > think about it, the weaker Oracle looks in this exchange.
>
> I think the big question is what would motivate SalesForce to go for
> that deal? SalesForce certainly has been hostile to Oracle in the
> past, so why the big "hug" now? Mentioning Postgres in an Oracle
> negotiation has been known to reduce prices, so was this just a huge
> example of that?

Money, yes. Perhaps a guarantee against price increments during that time.
Which when you're an oracle customer that big is a *huge* pile of money.

There was also the whole integration of their app with oracles offerings,
where oracle is supposed to help drive sales of sales force I'm sure.

There are a lot of angles to a deal like that, and we're never going to
learn what all of them were anyway...

/Magnus

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2013-06-27 15:12:46 Re: SMH on Salesforce-Oracle
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2013-06-27 15:00:10 Re: SMH on Salesforce-Oracle