The Top 3 Things to Look for In a Cloud Service Provider

Executive Summary

  • Companies often can use help in what to look for in a cloud service provider.
  • These are our top three items.

Introduction

Before moving into cloud service provider selection, it is important to establish some of the following principles for selection.

How Companies Tend to Approach Cloud Migration

Customers often approach cloud migration with an inappropriate framework, and this is right from the beginning of the evaluation process. Normally, they begin by comparing cloud service providers to each other (AWS versus Azure versus GCP).

This is a natural approach, but it is not an approach that will lead to the best outcome.

How We Recommend Setting the Framework for Selection

  • In our view, the best framework is to compare each service provider to their own IT.
  • Essentially, cloud adoption means that customers outsource IT service management. This is a viable option only if the service provider is more efficient than the customer’s own IT. If not, customers end up with less agility, less availability, and higher TCO.

Let us move to the three primary selection criteria. 

#1: Agility

If a company moves to the cloud, they expect their business agility to increase, and certainly not to decrease. We know a few customers who recently migrated to a cloud services provider in the US. After moving their applications, their support tickets are now measured in days instead of the hours it previously took their own internal IT staff.

Why?

Because problem tickets and change requests are handled internally on the provider side by multiple teams (product support and hosting operations). The operations teams have no product expertise and vice versa. Moreover, each team has its own set of SLAs. Each customer request triggers multiple internal change requests involving multiple teams operating in different locations and time zones.

#2: Availability

Consider release management. When the service provider applies a patch or upgrade, it gets applied by the operations group to all customers on the same application version. This causes days of downtime.

Why?

Because each customer has specific configuration and extension environment. These changes are not tracked by the hosting service provider.

  • In the past, application owners and administrators had to coordinate change management with their own IT who tracked all changes into their ITSM databases.
  • When customer IT released a patch or upgrade, they knew exactly the status of each specific application environment and they incorporated the latest changes into their release packages.

Another scenario is increased downtime compared to customer’s own IT service level agreement (SLA).

Why?

Because some cloud service providers have a dependency on their colocation facility provider. This means that customers have to deal with multiple sources of planned and unplanned downtime. We covered this in detail in the article The Problem with the Oracle Cloud and Colocation.

Moreover, customers have to deal with multiple SLAs instead of one SLA with their own internal IT.

Companies love using the term “one throat to choke.” However, whose throat do you choke for a 24-hour production outage?

#3: TCO

Customers often compare the TCO of different cloud providers to each other.

As we stated earlier, this is not the most helpful framework.

Why?

  • Because customers want lower TCO than their own in-house IT.
  • If a customer’s IT has lower TCO than a specific provider, they end up spending more not less.
  • A cloud service provider can deliver lower TCO than a customer’s in-house IT in specific scenarios. Customers should verify these scenarios as they plan their cloud migration journey.

Let’s look at some examples.

Example 1: Self-service (Automation) Versus Manual Service Provisioning

Service providers vary vastly in their service delivery capabilities. On one end, customers need to open a ticket to provision an instance or increase the capacity of an attached storage volume. In this case, the work is performed manually by teams that support hundreds or thousands of customers across dozens of time zones and the cost of labour increases with every new customer onboarded.

Example 2: The Cost of Labor Has to be Transferred to Customers.

On the other end, there are providers with mature self-service and automation capabilities. This means that less manual labour is needed for most customer requests. For example, with AWS CloudFormation, a customer can create an entire data centre (or VPC) using a single script file including all the resources needed across all regions and accounts. Labour-intensive service providers have higher TCO due to the increased cost of labour. Moreover, labour-intensive service providers have lower agility due to manual work and rework introduced by human errors.

Example 3: Right-Sizing Infrastructure Versus Rehosting (Lift and Shift)

Customers often assume, incorrectly, that the cost of cloud infrastructure must be lower than their in-house IT. In some cases, cloud infrastructure TCO can be much higher than on-premises for the same workload. The first factor is scale. If the service provider operates at scale, they can command the highest volume discounts from manufacturers and they can pass part of these cost savings on to customers. Niche providers lack the economies of scale and the associated cost savings.  

The second factor is infrastructure technology. Some service providers operate a single-tenant dedicated infrastructure where customers have to commit to a multi-year contract. In this case, customers end up with the same over-provisioned infrastructure footprint they had on their own premises and their TCO will surely increase not decrease, at least by the cost of the migration.

The hardware refresh cycle for most companies is 3-5 years. This means that when they procure infrastructure, they have to plan for maximum capacity projected over 5 years of user and data growth. Invariably, they end up with over-provisioned in-house infrastructure with all the associated capital and operational expenses. This, of course, is one of the major benefits of cloud service providers. 

The result.

Cloud service providers capable of rightsizing customer workloads elastically can provide significant TCO gains anywhere between 30% to 60%.

This issue with over-provisioning was covered in our book How to Understand On-Premises Proprietary Servers and Server Vendors, hardware vendors make their money selling servers, and they have overstuffed customers with servers, and have done little to enable their customers to improve the efficiency of their previous purchases? There is a little incentive as it would simply reduce the number of servers they could sell.

Conclusion

Agility, availability and TCO are the three most important criteria to apply when selecting cloud service providers. Our approach pushes against the comparison between service providers in the initial phase of selection. Instead, customers should benchmark cloud services against their own IT. If multiple providers are found to offer higher agility, availability, and lower TCO than the customer’s own IT, then we can move to comparing service providers against one another.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

Neither this article nor any other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle, SAP or their competitors. As part of our commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research; no paid media placements, commissions or incentives of any nature are allowed.

Search Our Other Cloud and Multicloud Content

References

https://www.bain.com/insights/rightsizing-your-way-to-the-cloud/

AWS and Google Cloud Book

How to Leverage AWS and Google Cloud for SAP and Oracle Environments

Interested in how to use AWS and Google Cloud for on-premises environments, and why this is one of the primary ways to obtain more value from SAP and Oracle? See the link for an explanation of the book. This is a book that provides an overview that no one interested in the cloud for SAP and Oracle should go without reading.

Is SAP a Cloud Provider or a Cloud Buyer?

Executive Summary

  • SAP presents itself as a cloud provider.
  • We evaluate whether this presentation matches how it operates its businesses.

This article focuses on SAP, but the lessons cloud just as well be applied to Oracle. 

Introduction

This article began as a response to the following quotation from Vinnie Mirchandani.

The Quotation

“After two decades of cloud applications (NetSuite and Salesforce were born in late 1990s) if you look at a grid of applications by industry, by geography there is only 20% or soin the cloud. Most cloud apps are concentrated in HCM, CRM, accounting areas, not operational areas or industry functionality. Even there, if you look for support for Brazil or China or the Czech Republic your choices drop off very quickly. These industry and regional white spaces won’t last forever. We are seeing startups target them, in industries like financial services, big banks are developing solutions to sell to others. The opportunities are limitless, but SaaS vendor investments have been grudging.” – Vinnie Mirchandani

Not true in SAP’s case.

But this gets to a basic question and a question that people tend to gloss over before jumping into discussions on SAP’s cloud offerings and strategy. And that is…

Is SAP a Cloud Vendor?

Our conclusion is that SAP is not a SaaS vendor. SAP is a SaaS buyer. Let us take a look at the evidence.

  • Buying SaaS Applications: Every single SaaS application SAP sells is acquired. Their choices are therefore limited to SaaS companies they can buy since they don’t internally develop any SaaS apps. In November of 2018, SAP spent $8 Billion on Qualtrics, which we covered in the article Does SAP’s Acquisition of Qualtrics Make Any Sense? and another $2.2 Billion on Callidus in April 2018. And no one really has a very good handle on how these applications complement what SAP offers and in our view, both acquisitions just added more noise to SAP’s offering and increased their cost and management overhead. We analyzed C/4HANA (which Calladus has been rolled up into) and found the overall solution to be lost in space as we covered in the article How Accurate Was Bluefin Solutions on C4HANA? Overall, none of these acquisitions looks like they are actually for SAP, rather they are made to boost the stock price in the short term and to increase executive compensation. That is the major misinterpretation of many software acquisitions, many of them are for the executives, not for the company. 
  • The CEO said they want to focus on CRM and front office. So SAP is investing in front office technologies at a time when CRM is already saturated and dominated by Salesforce. Now SAP must integrate all their front office and SaaS apps with their back-office ERP to deliver the promised complete customer experience combining X data and O data.

Remember X and O data? This was all the rage back in November when SAP acquired Qualtrics and trying to tell investors, customers and the media what a great acquisition Qualtrics would be, but it will probably be an expired concept by the time you finish reading this sentence. SAP’s marketing department may be on to a new slide. 

Where Are We Again?

SAP also invested in HANA and now they are competing with Oracle and Microsoft as a databases company and they are competing in IaaS and PaaS with AWS, Azure, and GCP as a cloud company. And they are competing in AI and ML and RPA and and and… Don’t forget that SAP also acquired SuccessFactors for $3.4 Billion, Ariba for $4.3 Billion, and Concur for $8.3 Billion.

That’s a lot of investment. A lot of investment for applications that don’t have much to do with SAP’s primary offering. We found this quote of interest with respect to SuccessFactors. 

“In the SAP Universe, SuccessFactors is no longer really new, but integration in perfect ERP / ECC 6.0 (E2E) processes has not been successful to date. “We are working on it and know exactly about our deficits,” – E3

SuccessFactors was acquired in 2011 — how can we still be discussing integration deficits in 2019?

They even invested in Ticket-Web: A ticket system for sports and entertainment. This is because ticketing systems are……naturally connected to ERP? 

SAP has a strategy for all of these applications. Follow me on Twitter and be informed when we figure out what it is. 

The Strategy is Everything

The one-stop shop for everything model, as proposed by SAP and so many SAP consulting firms? 

How is IBM doing with this model? 

SAP spent $10 Billion on Qualtrics and Callidus to go after the CRM market and integrate back-office ERP with front office apps and upgrade hundreds of thousands of ECC customers to S/4 by 2025 and become the best database in the world and the best cloud platform and the best AI and make the best vertical apps in specific industries to compete with HP in telecom and Bosch in IIOT.

And that is a lot of “ands.”

However, Volkswagen Group and Amazon Web Services just announced they are developing the Volkswagen Industrial Cloud together.

  • Where was SAP when this happened?
  • What about the SAP Cloud that SAP has spent so much time promoting? 
  • How likely is it that SAP pitched SAP Cloud to VW for this initiative and lost this opportunity to AWS (hint..very)

VW is a German company and SAP is right around the corner and they have a long-standing relationship. Why did VW reach out to far geographies when they can’t see opportunities in auto manufacturing inside Germany? 

Conclusion

SAP poses as a cloud provider, but they really aren’t one. They are a cloud buyer.

SAP feels they need to try to maintain the illusion of being a cloud provider because their cloud strategy for cloud services is to coerce (often through broadscale application discounts) customers to buy cloud services through them. This is so SAP can upcharge the actual cloud services providers as we covered in How to Understand SAP’s Cloud Upcharge on AWS Storage.

This is ultimately a short term strategy. But to pull it off, SAP will continue to pose as a cloud services provider, so this is what they will do. As with Oracle, there will be a lot of discussion around the cloud, but not much cloud.

As for SAP’s SaaS acquisitions, none of them is important to SAP’s strategy or to their long term viability.

The Problem: A Lack of Fact-Checking of SAP

There are two fundamental problems around SAP. The first is the exaggeration of SAP, which means that companies that purchased SAP end up getting far less than they were promised. The second is that the SAP consulting companies simply repeat whatever SAP says. This means that on virtually all accounts there is no independent entity that can contradict statements by SAP.

Being Part of the Solution: What to Do About SAP

We can provide feedback from multiple SAP accounts that provide realistic information around SAP products — and this reduces the dependence on biased entities like SAP and all of the large SAP consulting firms that parrot what SAP says. We offer fact-checking services that are entirely research-based and that can stop inaccurate information dead in its tracks. SAP and the consulting firms rely on providing information without any fact-checking entity to contradict the information they provide. When SAP or their consulting firm are asked to explain these discrepancies, we have found that they further lie to the customer/client and often turn the issue around on the account, as we covered in the article How SAP Will Gaslight You When Their Software Does Not Work as Promised.

If you need independent advice and fact-checking that is outside of the SAP and SAP consulting system, reach out to us with the form below or with the messenger to the bottom right of the page.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

Neither this article nor any other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle, SAP or their competitors. As part of our commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research; no paid media placements, commissions or incentives of any nature are allowed.

Search Our Other SAP Cloud Content

References

https://mailchi.mp/b4bmedia/die-meinung-der-sap-community-1707-315765

AWS and Google Cloud Book

How to Leverage AWS and Google Cloud for SAP and Oracle Environments

Interested in how to use AWS and Google Cloud for on-premises environments, and why this is one of the primary ways to obtain more value from SAP and Oracle? See the link for an explanation of the book. This is a book that provides an overview that no one interested in the cloud for SAP and Oracle should go without reading.

What Is Different About the Q1 2019 SAP and Oracle Layoffs?

Executive Summary

  • The recent SAP and Oracle layoffs are different from prior rounds of layoffs.
  • The layoffs are byproducts of broad internal restructuring plans. 

Introduction

The recent Oracle layoffs and SAP layoffs had the following characteristics.

  • Oracle’s board approved the restructuring plan for fiscal 2019 of up to $432 million.
  • The company spent $297 million on restructuring through the first nine months of its fiscal year, which ends May 31.
  • In SAP’s case, the approved restructure budget was $1 billion to be completed by June 2019.

Understanding the Oracle Layoffs and SAP Layoffs, Starting with the Organizational Chart

An important aspect of both plans is the departure of the most senior product executives from SAP and Oracle.

The confirmed exits include:

  • Thomas Kurian (president of product development) and Amit Zavery (VP cloud platform) were among the recent high-profile departures from Oracle. Both have joined Google.
  • Kurian as Google Cloud’s chief executive and Zavery as VP of engineering heading the Apigee team.
  • Most of the headcount reductions are concentrated in Oracle’s development and cloud hosting organizations.

At SAP, the changes to the top level org chart are equally significant.

The confirmed exits include:

  • Björn Goerke: SAP CTO and president of SAP cloud platform.
  • Bernd Leukert: member of the executive board, products & innovation.
  • Rich Heilman: Director, HANA labs.
  • Rodolpho Cardenuto: Head of SAP partner organization.

(We could not confirm 3 more senior level departures at the time of this writing so we will not include them here).

Bernd Leukert is gone.  Bjorn Goerke is gone. Ken Tsai, who had global product marketing responsibilities for HANA, SAP Data Hub, SAP Vora, is now vice president of Adobe’s Experience platform. All of Bjorn’s product teams are slaughtered: ABAP, HANA, UI, JAM, Big data, Mobile and many more. Not just Neo, but any SAP proprietary service on any platform. Everything related to Cloud Platform & Mobile in North America was shuttered – several teams across several cities. Didn’t matter how old/young, good/bad. Layoffs announced in US, India, Japan, Hungary, Germany, Singapore, Canada, UK, China, Ireland, Malaysia, France, and Vietnam. SAP’s engineering culture died this week.

What is Oracle’s Plan After the Oracle Layoffs?

At Oracle, the Oracle layoffs resulted in the restructuring which covers two major organizational changes. The first is the significant downsizing of Oracle cloud infrastructure group (OCI) and the second is merging advanced customer support (ACS) organization with Oracle managed cloud services (MCS) organization.

According to our sources, OCI has been operating at a net loss for years. Both sales and renewals are commercially insignificant. The OCI downsizing and headcount reduction aim to reduce operating costs. Merging ACS and MCS, on the other hand, mean that Oracle legacy support personnel (think EBS and JDE) will be utilized for cloud operations support. A number of roles on both sides were made redundant as a result of this merger.

Downsizing OCI and merging ACS with MCS are complementary moves. To understand the rationale behind the plan, we need to understand the evolution of OCI. OCI is Oracle’s infrastructure as a service (IaaS) business. OCI started life in 2013 with Oracle’s acquisition of Nimbula. Nimbula was founded 2008 by Chris Pinkham and Willem Van Biljon who developed the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2). Nimbula Director software allows users to implement IaaS-style private, public, and hybrid clouds.

As a business, however, OCI always operated at a loss.

The problem with Oracle cloud is now well-understood in the industry. And the critical factors are the following:

  1. Oracle came late to the cloud party. Almost forced by Wall Street’s love affair with SaaS companies and their predictable recurring revenue business models.
  2. Oracle realized that building cloud infrastructure is extremely expensive and time-consuming. It takes years to buy land, build, equip, and staff facilities, and lay private fiber underneath metropolitan centers and oceans around the globe. Oracle simply did not want to make the investment as Oracle has a short investment horizon built around getting quick hits. 

If They Come, We Will Build It

Oracle’s solution was to adopt the “If they come, we will build it” mantra and instead of building their own cloud, Oracle started leasing colocation space from Cologix and Digital Realty.

This seemed like a solution until customers started complaining from long and repeated outages sometimes lasting for 24 hours, which was a topic we uncovered and published in the article The Problem with the Oracle Cloud and Colocation.

  • With 100% of Oracle’s facilities operated by third-parties, customers had to deal with planned and unplanned downtime from multiple parties each with a different set of SLAs.
  • Oracle cloud customers do not receive service credits for either planned or unplanned downtime.

Comparing AWS, GCP and Azure’s CAPEX to Oracle’s CAPEX

In 2017, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft each spent more on CAPEX than Oracle has in its entire history.

CAPEX spending on cloud infrastructure is both a leading indicator of the ability to compete at scale and a confirmation of success with customers. In cloud computing, CAPEX is the ultimate form of putting your money where your mouth is because no amount of jawboning alone will conjure up data centers or pack them with millions of servers.

The $75 billion in cumulative buybacks since 2012 have boosted Oracle’s earnings per share even as the company’s operating income declined over the same period. The capital return program depleted Oracle’s FCF, depriving it of investment dollars into cloud infrastructure and driving leverage to record highs.

Oracle is unlikely to keep up the current pace of buybacks, which are running $10 billion per quarter. Even a reversion back to the historical average buyback of $3 billion per quarter over the coming years will be inadequate to meet consensus estimates.”

What is SAP’s Plan?

At SAP, the internal change in product strategy and organization is much wider.

The SAP Cloud Platform (SCP)

SAP is clearly extending its third-party IaaS strategy into PaaS. Instead of building an in-house PaaS offering, SAP is adopting third-party solutions from technology partners like AWS, Azure, and GCP. This shift will extend to IoT, ML, data management and analytics.

According to Diginomica’s founder Dennis Howlett:

“It seems that SAP has determined that it cannot realistically compete with AWS, Google and Microsoft for cloud platform offerings and is, therefore, scaling those back.”

and…

What is more worrying is that sources tell me that SAP’s cloud retention rate is not as good as they would like.

E3zine presents a similar explanation:

SAP is charging way more than other cloud providers, but is unable to offer quality consulting. The result? Many customers turn away from SAP Cloud and consult with SAP partners to install a system based on AWS or Azure.

According to E3zine editor in chief, Peter M. Färbinger:

Bill McDermott basically admitted defeat when he introduced the motto “Embrace” to SAP FKOM 2019. This is at least a hint at a clear direction: SAP wants to embrace hyper scalers and squeeze their money out of them.

Brightwork research has confirmed that SAP is up-charging customers as we covered in the article How to Understand SAP’s Upcharge as a Service Cloud. For example, AWS sells storage in Europe/Frankfurt for $2.3 per 100 GB/month. SAP resells the same storage block in the same region for $7.86 per 100 GB/month. That’s a 342% premium.

Customers realized they can cut out the expensive middleman and go directly to AWS, Azure, and GCP.

Moreover, SCP has severe technical problems that make enterprise adoption practically impossible. For instance, SCP still runs on HTTP 1.1 instead of 2.0. That’s a security and performance show-stopper.

SCP also has no support for VPC and SCP IOT has no native support for MQTT, which we covered in the article AWS and Google Cloud Versus SAP Cloud with HTTP 2.0.

SAP Products Outside of Cloud

This article has focused on cloud reasons behind the two restructurings, but here are some other issues SAP has for restructuring.

HANA

According to Josh Greenbaum, the principal analyst at Enterprise Applications Consulting:

“HANA is no longer differentiated. Entrepreneurs and developers can find similar technologies on AWS, Azure and other clouds. SAP HANA ranks 20th in popularity according to DB-engines. SAP is no longer vying to become the dominant database on the market. SAP is not going after that strategy anymore.”

The HANA motivation for restructuring was something we covered in the article SAP’s Layoffs and a Brightwork Warning on HANA.

Leonardo

Sam George, director of Microsoft Azure Internet of Things, announced during MWC on February 25th, that SAP will be offering Azure IoT platform, device management, and edge connectivity to SAP Leonardo customers. We declared Leonardo as a dead product in Our 2019 Observation: SAP Leonardo is Now Dead. And after great fanfare when first released and a planned pivot point from SAP to move the emphasis away from HANA, Leonardo is now little mentioned. This is something we predicted in Why Leonardo Seems so Fake and Is Leonardo Necessary to Ensure Frozen Ice Cream Delivery?

S/4HANA

Holger Mueller explains in his Enterprise Software Musings blog:

“SAP realized in spring of last year that it cannot deliver on the SAP S/4 value proposition – which was R/3: The integrated end to end ERP+ suite. It was taking Leukert and team too long, Salesforce was gaining, C/4HANA was created. All this is history – but it does not make Klein’s job easier. S/4HANA will likely be the SAP Finance system, everything more is on the test stand.”

We covered S/4HANA’s lack of go-lives in the article A Study into S/4HANA Implementations and How Accurate Was SAP on S/4HANA’s Go Live Numbers?

Holger is quite correct S/4HANA has made very slow development progress and has already passed its fourth anniversary, and still, it is difficult to find customers live on S/4HANA.

Due to a lack of demand on some of its most highly promoted products, SAP is reducing developer headcount in multiple product areas including HANA, S/4HANA, SCP, and Leonardo. SAP pundits and SAP resources have asked that we not focus on these developments within SAP, the logic goes that it is insensitive to analyze layoffs and what they mean. This position is reinforced by the new CTO Juergen Mueller in what SAP has framed as “dramatic and impressive transformation.”

“Honestly, I read some of these articles and they are basing assumptions about SAP HANA on a restructuring program that was announced earlier this year. I don’t want to minimize the anxiety that a restructuring creates for employees who are impacted. In cases where individuals make comments about their feelings or they question specific decisions, this is understandable. Personally, my hope is that SAP or our partners retain as many of these colleagues as possible. The facts about the strategy itself are what I have explained here. The restructuring is designed to invest more of our resources in areas where SAP customers tell us they expect us to invest. New SAP HANA innovation is one of those key priority areas.”

We hope that readers appreciate what Mueller is saying….layoffs in HANA for a product that has not met expectations does not mean anything. Oh, and layoffs and restructurings are no longer actually layoffs and restructurings, they are now dramatic and impressive transformations.

Restructuring Specifics

  • Oracle: The Oracle layoffs restructuring plan is a “cleanup” of Thomas Kurian’s development organization. The purpose of OCI headcount reductions is to cut the costs of running an unprofitable cloud business.
  • SAP: At SAP, the plan aims to remove the current development leadership and associated developer costs. SAP’s acquired SaaS applications (Ariba, Concur, Fieldglass, Hybris, SuccessFactors) remain fragmented. The HANA migration plans were never met including the internal pilot of migrating SAP’s own Employee Central to HANA. None of the acquired ML technologies was successfully integrated into SAP apps. The PaaS play with SCP has clearly failed to attract developers and the dream of the intelligent enterprise looks more distant than ever before.

Conclusion

The story overall is that both entities aren’t adjusting to the cloud. This might be difficult for many readers to process, but this is because readers may be paying more attention to what Oracle and SAP say about their cloud versus the reality of where Oracle and SAP are in the cloud.

If neither company is going to offer their own cloud services, and if both companies are simply going to put an overlay onto other cloud service providers, neither company need those employees.

Our Prediction for SAP and Oracle with Cloud Services

There is no real way that SAP or Oracle can get back into the cloud game. They have made extremely little progress in their cloud offerings and are out of the running. This is in part why the SAP layoffs and Oracle layoffs were necessary.

The choice for both companies is simple. They can either stick with the approach of making their own cloud — undermining their application business, or they move to outsource the cloud to AWS/GCP/Azure/etc.. and focus on their actual business.

SAP gave up running their own cloud services (please do not confuse this with SAP’s SaaS acquisitions, here we are discussing cloud services), something they said they were 100% dedicated to building just a few years ago and stating that they refused to outsource cloud services to AWS/GCP/etc as we covered in the article Diginomica, Steve Lucas on HANA, Oracle, IBM, AWS, Azure. However, within one year of holding to this stated policy, they rolled out the multicloud policy, as we covered in the article How to Best Understand SAP’s Multicloud Announcement. They performed a full 180, without almost any IT media entity or IT analyst pointing out this dramatic switch.

Now Oracle is fighting reality that they cannot compete as a cloud service provider — but it is inevitable — Oracle will have to follow SAP and give up on any pretense of being a cloud service provider. Like SAP, Oracle will eventually try to use their account control to markup the cloud services of the public and private cloud service providers.

While many pro-SAP and pro-Oracle resources will likely find this characterization offensive, Salesforce, a company with far more cloud knowledge than either SAP or Oracle outsourced their infrastructure to AWS years ago. There is no reason to assume that application or database companies have any particular domain expertise in being cloud service providers.

The Problem: A Lack of Fact-Checking of Oracle

There are two fundamental problems around Oracle. The first is the exaggeration of Oracle, which means that companies that purchased from Oracle end up getting far less than they were promised. The second is that the Oracle consulting companies simply repeat whatever Oracle says. This means that on virtually all accounts there is no independent entity that can contradict statements by Oracle.

Being Part of the Solution: What to Do About Oracle

We can provide feedback from multiple Oracle accounts that provide realistic information around a variety of Oracle products — and this reduces the dependence on biased entities like Oracle and all of the large Oracle consulting firms that parrot what Oracle says. We offer fact-checking services that are entirely research-based and that can stop inaccurate information dead in its tracks. Oracle and the consulting firms rely on providing information without any fact-checking entity to contradict the information they provide. This is how companies end up paying for items which are exorbitantly priced, exorbitantly expensive to implement and exorbitantly expensive to maintain.

If you need independent advice and fact-checking that is outside of the Oracle and Oracle consulting system, reach out to us with the form below or with the messenger to the bottom right of the page.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

Neither this article nor any other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle, SAP or their competitors. As part of our commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research; no paid media placements, commissions or incentives of any nature are allowed.

References

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/problem-oracle-cloud-ahmed-azmi/

[2] https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/19/03/13334842/oracle-cant-keep-up-10b-in-buybacks-per-quarter-nomura-

[3] https://diginomica.com/saps-restructuring-hunger-games-game-of-thrones-or-both/

[4] https://e3zine.com/2018/11/29/hybrid-cloud-first/

[5] https://e3zine.com/2019/03/21/embrace-cloud-trends/

[6] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/iot-platform-review-sap-ibm-aws-ahmed-azmi/

[7] https://www.cmswire.com/information-management/a-tale-of-two-saps/

[8] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/mwc-2019-azure-iot-customers-partners-accelerate-innovation-from-cloud-to-edge/

[9] https://enswmu.blogspot.com/2019/02/musings-sap-democratizes-product.html

*https://news.sap.com/2019/03/sap-cto-juergen-mueller-five-questions/

AWS and Google Cloud Book

How to Leverage AWS and Google Cloud for SAP and Oracle Environments

Interested in how to use AWS and Google Cloud for on-premises environments, and why this is one of the primary ways to obtain more value from SAP and Oracle? See the link for an explanation of the book. This is a book that provides an overview that no one interested in the cloud for SAP and Oracle should go without reading.

How Accurate is Oracle’s “Cut Your AWS Bill in Half”​ Guarantee?

Executive Summary

  • Oracle has made many claims about cutting the bill of AWS customers dramatically.
  • We investigate this claim by Oracle.

Introduction

We caught SAP lying about its promise to reduce the costs of customers using AWS. After reviewing how Oracle constructed this premeditated lie, This is the kind of BS that makes you so angry you want to drown puppies.

Note to Oracle customers, even though dealing with Oracle pushes one to the limit, it is still not ok to take it out on puppies.

Oracle cannot compete with AWS on price.

Anyone can verify this by using the pricing calculators to compare specific service pricing. However, when Oracle claimed they will cut your AWS bill in half, we actually thought Oracle finally had become serious about cloud and decided to subsidize their cloud services with their vast monopolistic support revenue instead of spending tens of billions every year on stock buybacks.

But we knew that Oracle services are priced much higher than AWS so lowering their prices by at least 50% across the board sounded too good to be true. We decided to do what we do best at Brightwork Research.

Here’s the offer. You can verify it for yourself on Oracle’s website at this link.

Reading the Fine Print from Oracle

All you have to do is read the fine print at the bottom.

The guarantee is valid until the 31st of May 2019.

Workloads must run in Oracle’s Automated Data Warehouse Cloud or Oracle Autonomous Transaction Processing Cloud.

The offer only applies to the Bring Your Own License of the above services.

Why is This “Guarantee” Only Valid Until 31st of May 2019?

Oracle Automated Data Warehouse Cloud and Oracle Autonomous Transaction Processing Cloud (the only services to which this offer applies) requires the Oracle Multi-Tenant database option as a pre-requisite.

Until the 31st of May 2019, Oracle is waiving the cost of this option. After 31st of May 2019, it will be mandatory for customers to have licenses in place for Multi-Tenant ($17,500 list price per Processor + 22% annual support) and in the case of over 16 OCPUs (cores), Real Application Clusters ($23,000 + 22% annual support).

Source : P59 of Oracle PaaS and IaaS Universal.

Additionally, customers who use the standby option will have to license Active Data Guard ($11,500 list price per Processor + 22% annual support).

This means that customers using Oracle’s Automated Database / Data Warehouse Cloud services will see $40,500 per OCPU cost increase from June 1st, 2019 when this promotion expires. At which time, they will be required to buy licenses for Multi-Tenant and Real Application Clusters.

Why Does the Offer Apply Only to “Bring Your Own license”?

Oracle wants to keep customers locked into the same on-premises processor core licensing model. When you pay by the processor core, you pay ALL the time regardless of actual usage.

  • You pay for test/dev licenses when no work is done on holidays and weekends.
  • You pay when production systems are idle after hours.
  • You pay for 30% utilization as much as other customers pay for 90% utilization.

A key economic benefit of cloud services is paying only for what you use either by the hour, storage, query, API call or reads/writes. With AWS Redshift, you simply pay by the hour or you can use Redshift Spectrum pricing and get billed $5 per terabyte of data scanned.

The Real Cost Comparison of AWS Redshift Versus Oracle ADW

We did our own cost comparison between AWS Redshift and Oracle ADW. We used the exact same AWS instances and storage Oracle quoted in their performance benchmark comparison at this link: – https://go.oracle.com/database-comparison-aws. This comparison reflects the typical database usage (24 X 7) and consequently costs likely to be incurred.

This 1-month consumption projection is based on AWS and Oracle website pricing at the time of this writing (Late Feb 2019). 1 month = 744 hours (31 days) continuous usage. Oracle price based on Pay as You Go. AWS price based on demand.

OCPU is assumed to equate to 1 core of a physical processor. vCPU is assumed to equate to 1 thread of 1 core of a physical processor. Storage has been matched based on available AWS instance-based storage. AWS EU (London) Region used. All figures exclude licensing.

As you can see, AWS Redshift is between 40% and 50% cheaper than Oracle ADW. Remember, no license costs were included. If we include license costs, Oracle’s costs go up by $40,500 / core (multi-tenant + RAC) and $52,000 / core (standby) starting June 1st, 2019.

Conclusion

AWS cut their prices 70 times since 2006. That’s an average of 5 price reductions every year. They can do this because they operate at such a massive scale, they command the highest volume discounts from suppliers. Amazon buys hardware not only for the millions of AWS customers but also for their e-commerce business. A business that processes 51% of all US e-commerce transactions. At their meteoric rate of growth, they can afford to pass these savings on to customers and still make a margin. Growth drives down cost per customer which drives down prices leading to more growth.

Oracle is trapping customers. There are no price reductions and no savings. With Oracle, you get shafted, guaranteed.

References

Oracle’s Autonomous Database Cloud service offering and guarantee here.

Oracle PaaS and IaaS Universal Credits Service Descriptions here.

Screenshot from Oracle’s ADW service descriptions (a near-identical description is also present for the Oracle Autonomous Transaction Processing)

Oracle Autonomous Data Warehouse Pricing used (25th February 2019)

AWS Pricing Used (25th February 2019)

The Problem: A Lack of Fact-Checking of Oracle

There are two fundamental problems around Oracle. The first is the exaggeration of Oracle, which means that companies that purchased from Oracle end up getting far less than they were promised. The second is that the Oracle consulting companies simply repeat whatever Oracle says. This means that on virtually all accounts there is no independent entity that can contradict statements by Oracle.

Being Part of the Solution: What to Do About Oracle

We can provide feedback from multiple Oracle accounts that provide realistic information around a variety of Oracle products — and this reduces the dependence on biased entities like Oracle and all of the large Oracle consulting firms that parrot what Oracle says. We offer fact-checking services that are entirely research-based and that can stop inaccurate information dead in its tracks. Oracle and the consulting firms rely on providing information without any fact-checking entity to contradict the information they provide. This is how companies end up paying for items which are exorbitantly priced, exorbitantly expensive to implement and exorbitantly expensive to maintain.

If you need independent advice and fact-checking that is outside of the Oracle and Oracle consulting system, reach out to us with the form below or with the messenger to the bottom right of the page.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

Neither this article nor any other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle, SAP or their competitors. As part of our commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research; no paid media placements, commissions or incentives of any nature are allowed.

Search Our Oracle Cloud Content

References

AWS and Google Cloud Book

How to Leverage AWS and Google Cloud for SAP and Oracle Environments

Interested in how to use AWS and Google Cloud for on-premises environments, and why this is one of the primary ways to obtain more value from SAP and Oracle? See the link for an explanation of the book. This is a book that provides an overview that no one interested in the cloud for SAP and Oracle should go without reading.

Why Oracle Cloud is Not Multi-tenant

Executive Summary

  • Oracle has made some curious claims regarding Oracle Cloud’s multitenancy.
  • In this article, we review the problems with these claims.

Introduction

Oracle very frequently compares its Oracle Cloud to AWS and to GCP and Azure. Notice the table below.

Comparisons like this assumed that each of the items is comparable. However, Oracle Cloud is not comparable to any of the major clouds. One reason is that Oracle Cloud is not self-service, as we covered in the article The Problem with Oracle OCI’s Machine Sizing. Another problem is that Oracle is not multitenant, while the other cloud service providers are. 

What is SaaS According to Oracle?

What Oracle calls SaaS is actually hosted on-premise products none of which are multi-tenant. Multi-tenancy permits a vendor to apply a software upgrade once and have it automatically work for dozens or hundreds of customers simultaneously. In a single tenant solution, the software vendor must apply the changes one customer at a time. The latter approach is very expensive and potentially error-prone. This explains the high frequency of outages experienced by Oracle cloud customers, especially for Oracle apps which we covered in the article The Problem with Oracle Cloud and Colocation.

The Example of Oracle EPM Cloud

The Hyperion suite includes planning (HPL), financial management(HFM), BI+, and uses Essbase as the database. Essbase is not a multi-tenant database so each customer has their own schema. When Oracle applies an upgrade, each customer must be upgraded individually because the customers don’t share a common (multi-tenant) database. Moreover, because the product is a single-tenant solution, different customers are on different versions of the product.

This means that patching and upgrading must be done individually because each version has a different patch and upgrade files.

Oracle and SAP on-premises apps are all single tenant. Between 10 customers you may have 3 or 4 different versions, 2 web servers, 2 different IAM solutions, etc… So each customer has a unique configuration, including a different database and even 2 customers using Oracle may be using different versions. one on 9i and the other on 11.

Conclusion

Oracle provides more false information about cloud that accurate information. And the issue of multitenancy is another area where Oracle pretends their clouds is like other cloud service providers but actually is not.

The Problem: A Lack of Fact-Checking of Oracle

There are two fundamental problems around Oracle. The first is the exaggeration of Oracle, which means that companies that purchased from Oracle end up getting far less than they were promised. The second is that the Oracle consulting companies simply repeat whatever Oracle says. This means that on virtually all accounts there is no independent entity that can contradict statements by Oracle.

Being Part of the Solution: What to Do About Oracle

We can provide feedback from multiple Oracle accounts that provide realistic information around a variety of Oracle products — and this reduces the dependence on biased entities like Oracle and all of the large Oracle consulting firms that parrot what Oracle says. We offer fact-checking services that are entirely research-based and that can stop inaccurate information dead in its tracks. Oracle and the consulting firms rely on providing information without any fact-checking entity to contradict the information they provide. This is how companies end up paying for items which are exorbitantly priced, exorbitantly expensive to implement and exorbitantly expensive to maintain.

If you need independent advice and fact-checking that is outside of the Oracle and Oracle consulting system, reach out to us with the form below or with the messenger to the bottom right of the page.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

Neither this article nor any other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle, SAP or their competitors. As part of our commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research; no paid media placements, commissions or incentives of any nature are allowed.

Search Our Oracle Cloud Content

References

AWS and Google Cloud Book

How to Leverage AWS and Google Cloud for SAP and Oracle Environments

Interested in how to use AWS and Google Cloud for on-premises environments, and why this is one of the primary ways to obtain more value from SAP and Oracle? See the link for an explanation of the book. This is a book that provides an overview that no one interested in the cloud for SAP and Oracle should go without reading.

The Problem with the Oracle Cloud and Colocation

Executive Summary

  • Oracle presents the Oracle Cloud as if it is a competitive cloud offering.
  • In addition to functionality shortcomings, Oracle Cloud has location shortcomings as well.

Introduction

It all started with a conversation. The customer was angry. I listened, asked a few questions, and decided to investigate. You can read the customer story in his own words here.

The problem is repeated outages with Oracle cloud. Why so many and why do they last so long? Also, the standard practice with AWS, GCP, and Azure is that outages are compensated with service credits. Why are Oracle’s cloud outages different? Why don’t they come with cloud credits!

We decided to investigate and answer three questions:

  • Why does Oracle cloud have an unusually high number of outages?
  • Why do outages last so long?
  • Why customers don’t receive service credits for these outages?

Let us go over each item.

Why Does Oracle Cloud Have an Unusually High Number of Outages?

Oracle cloud is offered in 5 locations: Phoenix, Ashburn, London, Frankfurt, and most recently, Toronto.

Are these data centers owned or operated by Oracle?

The answer is NO.

These are all leased colocation facilities owned and operated by Digital Reality and Cologix. You can read the announcements by these colocation operators in the links provided. Oracle also uses Equinix and other interconnectivity providers. Here’s the announcement from Digital Reality:

And the recent announcement for the Toronto facility from Cologix:

Oracle cloud is entirely made up of leased colocation facilities operated by third-party providers. These third party providers have their own maintenance schedules for systems maintenance, updates, and upgrades. They also experience their own frequent unplanned downtime. Third party downtime adds additional downtime to Oracle’s own planned and unplanned downtimes. Customers have to deal with downtime from Oracle PLUS downtime from third-party colocation providers. This explains the Oracle Cloud’s high frequency of outages.

Why do Outages Last So Long?

When something breaks, there’s no single throat to choke. Oracle support blames the colocation provider and the provider turns around and blames Oracle. The provider often blames an ISP or the interconnect operator. Too many moving parts and no single ownership. This makes problem resolution extremely difficult and time-consuming. Keep in mind that these third-party providers don’t have a private fiber network connecting their facilities to other provider facilities. All communication has to go through the public internet. With so many cross-connects with backbone and regional networks, troubleshooting problems get exponentially harder and take much longer.

Why Customers Don’t Receive Cloud Credits for Outages?

There are two reasons.

First, Oracle cloud SLA doesn’t recognize outages caused by third parties as eligible for service credit. This applies to metered and un-metered services as you can read on page 5, section 3.3, The Definition of Unplanned Downtime.

When downtime, planned or unplanned, is caused by a third party provider, customers get no service credits.

Secondly, Oracle does NOT credit customers for Oracle’s own planned maintenance downtime. It actually says that in the Oracle cloud policy!

This means that downtime caused by Oracle maintenance, updates, and upgrades either for Oracle OCI or customer specific environments doesn’t count toward any customer service credits.

Conclusion

The problem with Oracle’s cloud is Oracle’s low level of commitment to the cloud. This is clear from Oracle’s anemic CAPEX spend on cloud infrastructure compared to other providers like AWS, Microsoft, and Google.

Instead of building and operating their own data centers and private fiber network, Oracle leases colocation facilities from different operators. This introduces a number of problems for customers such as the one showcased here. Namely, an unusually higher number of outages and much longer resolution times. Moreover, Oracle cloud customers do not receive service credits for either planned or unplanned downtime.

The Problem: A Lack of Fact-Checking of Oracle

There are two fundamental problems around Oracle. The first is the exaggeration of Oracle, which means that companies that purchased from Oracle end up getting far less than they were promised. The second is that the Oracle consulting companies simply repeat whatever Oracle says. This means that on virtually all accounts there is no independent entity that can contradict statements by Oracle.

Being Part of the Solution: What to Do About Oracle

We can provide feedback from multiple Oracle accounts that provide realistic information around a variety of Oracle products — and this reduces the dependence on biased entities like Oracle and all of the large Oracle consulting firms that parrot what Oracle says. We offer fact-checking services that are entirely research-based and that can stop inaccurate information dead in its tracks. Oracle and the consulting firms rely on providing information without any fact-checking entity to contradict the information they provide. This is how companies end up paying for items which are exorbitantly priced, exorbitantly expensive to implement and exorbitantly expensive to maintain.

If you need independent advice and fact-checking that is outside of the Oracle and Oracle consulting system, reach out to us with the form below or with the messenger to the bottom right of the page.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

Neither this article nor any other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle, SAP or their competitors. As part of our commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research; no paid media placements, commissions or incentives of any nature are allowed.

Search Our Oracle Cloud Content

References

AWS and Google Cloud Book

How to Leverage AWS and Google Cloud for SAP and Oracle Environments

Interested in how to use AWS and Google Cloud for on-premises environments, and why this is one of the primary ways to obtain more value from SAP and Oracle? See the link for an explanation of the book. This is a book that provides an overview that no one interested in the cloud for SAP and Oracle should go without reading.

What Oracle’s Cloud Strategy Means for Customers

Executive Summary

  • Oracle has a strategy for the cloud that will lead to long-term issues for Oracle customers.
  • We cover the problems and how customers should interpret what Oracle is doing.

Introduction

Listen to Oracle’s cloud pitch in the OpenWorld 2018 sessions. The narratives invariably lead to one destination: Database. When Oracle talks about infrastructure technology, they really mean database. That’s Oracle’s cloud strategy. That’s Oracle’s compelling reason for Oracle cloud.

If you want the Oracle database, you must use Oracle cloud. When Oracle uses the term cloud, there are issues with the accuracy of this usage as Oracle’s cloud is about lock-in, which is of course not cloud. 

Why Oracle Follows this Strategy

Cloud customers have options. Why Oracle and not AWS, Azure, or GCP?

Oracle needs a compelling reason for customers to choose their cloud. However, the following reasons forced Oracle into a corner:

Oracle’s Tiny CAPEX Spend on their Cloud Infrastructure

Building cloud infrastructure is expensive. If Oracle matches the CAPEX spend of AWS, Microsoft, or Google their operating margins and EPS would plummet. Oracle’s executive compensation is built around high operating margins NOT growth.

The Inability of Oracle to Compete Monopolistically by Acquiring Competitors

Oracle competitive playbook’s simple: acquire competitors you can’t beat. Today, Oracle can’t acquire any of its cloud competitors. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are too big for Oracle to swallow. As of January 04, 2019 Oracle’s market cap is $193B. Amazon hit the Trillion dollar valuation in September 2018.

Oracle’s Hard Core On-Premises DNA

To be commercially competitive in public cloud, companies need massive scale. Operating at scale means that cloud vendors get massive discounts from hardware manufacturers. At these discount rates, vendors can offer hardware at low price points and still make significant margins.

However, operating at scale requires very advanced operational competencies because vendors must host customer software and data for billions of users worldwide. Moreover, vendors need to develop advanced automation capabilities to manage millions of server farms and globally distributed data centers and ensure high levels of service availability. In other words, the game isn’t so much about software features and functions. The bigger challenge is site reliability and operational efficiency.

Oracle’s DNA for the past two decades has been to acquire, rebrand, and sell on-premises software. It was always the customer, not Oracle, who had to install, operate, tune, upgrade, and integrate the software. Thomas Kurian realized that Oracle didn’t have the DevOps DNA and tried to push using third-party cloud infrastructure to host software. That strategy was shut down by Oracle executives and investors and Thomas left Oracle to lead Google cloud operations.

How Does Oracle Enforce their Strategy?

Licencing

Oracle uses database licensing to drive customers toward Oracle cloud. In January 2017, Oracle removed their core licensing factor (CLF) effectively doubling their DB license cost on AWS, Azure, and GCP.

Certification

Oracle does NOT certify new product releases on competing clouds. Database 18c autonomous is only available on Oracle cloud.

Cloud Only

Oracle does NOT offer new database releases for on-premises deployment. Oracle 18c autonomous database analytics DW and transaction processing are only available as cloud services.

Conclusion

Most of Oracle’s cloud strategy is itself a bit misleading, as the Oracle Cloud is not cloud. However, whatever it is called, there are many factors to “it” that are a long-term problem for customers. After years of cloud talk, Oracle still behaves as a dyed in the wool on-premises vendor. Oracle consulting partners will never explain these issues to their clients, as ultimately their control by Oracle through the partnership agreement means that there are few sources that will provide the real story on this topic.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

Neither this article nor any other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle, SAP or their competitors. As part of our commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research; no paid media placements, commissions or incentives of any nature are allowed.

Search Our Cloud Services Content

References

AWS and Google Cloud Book

How to Leverage AWS and Google Cloud for SAP and Oracle Environments

Interested in how to use AWS and Google Cloud for on-premises environments, and why this is one of the primary ways to obtain more value from SAP and Oracle? See the link for an explanation of the book. This is a book that provides an overview that no one interested in the cloud for SAP and Oracle should go without reading.

How Gartner Rates Oracle and IBM as Tier 2 Clouds

Executive Summary

  • Gartner rates Oracle and IBM as tier 2 clouds.
  • We explain what does this mean for these companies and their cloud future.

Introduction

  • Audience: IT and business executives – IT procurement & operations professionals – Developers.
  • Summary: As of April 2018, Gartner classifies AWS, Microsoft, and Google as Tier 1 clouds. IBM and Oracle as Tier 2.
  • Recommendations: Organizations are advised to consider Gartner’s evaluation before making strategic cloud computing purchase decisions to reduce the risks of their business critical projects.

Why Oracle is Tier 2 Cloud?

According to Gartner:

“Oracle cloud offering remains a bare-bones “minimum viable product,” and it is arguably too minimal to be viable for a broad range of common cloud IaaS use cases. It has limited enterprise customer traction. Oracle has just begun to build a partner ecosystem, and Gartner clients report that MSPs are sometimes reluctant to support OCI. Customers need to have a high tolerance for risk.”

Why IBM is Tier 2 Cloud?

According to Gartner:

“IBM has repeatedly encountered engineering challenges that have negatively impacted its time to market. Customers must thus absorb the risk of an uncertain roadmap. This uncertainty also impacts partners, and therefore the potential ecosystem.

The IBM Cloud experience remains disjointed. SoftLayer infrastructure is available in 16 countries, and the container service in 12 countries, but the rest of IBM Cloud (Bluemix) is available in only four countries and in just two U.S. cities. Consequently, customer infrastructure placement options are very limited”.

Tier 1 vs. Tier 2 vendors by CAPEX spend

Tier 1 vendors vastly outspend Tier 2 counterparts in cloud infrastructure. This is reflected in CAPEX spend.

The trend is also clear when we consider CAPEX spend as a percent of revenue.

What are Your Tier 1 Cloud Options?

Gartner classifies AWS, Microsoft, and Google as Tier 1 clouds. The best choice depends on your own specific use case. For example, Gartner recommends Google for

“Big data and other analytics applications, machine learning projects, cloud-native applications, or other applications optimized for cloud-native operations.”

The Tier 1 cloud leader.

According to Gartner..

“AWS is the provider most commonly chosen for strategic adoption; many enterprise customers now spend over $5 million annually, and some spend over $100 million. While not the ideal fit for every need, it has become the “safe choice” in this market, appealing to customers that desire the broadest range of capabilities and long-term market leadership”.

Gartner also says that “AWS is the most mature, enterprise-ready provider, with the strongest track record of customer success and the most useful partner ecosystem”.

Reference

Gartner April 2018 IaaS MQ report. Download full report here.

The Problem: A Lack of Fact-Checking of Oracle

There are two fundamental problems around Oracle. The first is the exaggeration of Oracle, which means that companies that purchased from Oracle end up getting far less than they were promised. The second is that the Oracle consulting companies simply repeat whatever Oracle says. This means that on virtually all accounts there is no independent entity that can contradict statements by Oracle.

Being Part of the Solution: What to Do About Oracle

We can provide feedback from multiple Oracle accounts that provide realistic information around a variety of Oracle products — and this reduces the dependence on biased entities like Oracle and all of the large Oracle consulting firms that parrot what Oracle says. We offer fact-checking services that are entirely research-based and that can stop inaccurate information dead in its tracks. Oracle and the consulting firms rely on providing information without any fact-checking entity to contradict the information they provide. This is how companies end up paying for items which are exorbitantly priced, exorbitantly expensive to implement and exorbitantly expensive to maintain.

If you need independent advice and fact-checking that is outside of the Oracle and Oracle consulting system, reach out to us with the form below or with the messenger to the bottom right of the page.

Financial Disclosure

Financial Bias Disclosure

Neither this article nor any other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle, SAP or their competitors. As part of our commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research; no paid media placements, commissions or incentives of any nature are allowed.

Search Our Oracle Cloud Content

References

AWS and Google Cloud Book

How to Leverage AWS and Google Cloud for SAP and Oracle Environments

Interested in how to use AWS and Google Cloud for on-premises environments, and why this is one of the primary ways to obtain more value from SAP and Oracle? See the link for an explanation of the book. This is a book that provides an overview that no one interested in the cloud for SAP and Oracle should go without reading.