Larry Ellison on SAP and Salesforce Paying Oracle for DB Licenses

Executive Summary

  • Larry Ellison enjoyed observing how SAP, Salesforce and Workday pay large amounts of money for Oracle database licenses.
  • We cover how PostgresSQL as an Oracle replacement.

Introduction to Oracle’s Outrageous Statements

On Jun. 17, 2015 Business Insider published the article Larry Ellison: SAP and Salesforce pay Oracle a LOT of money.

In this article, we will review the article for accuracy.

Article Quotations

“Oracle reported its fourth quarter earnings on Wednesday and, as we’ve come to expect from the company’s flamboyant billionaire founder, Larry Ellison threw a few barbs at his major competitors.”

On SAP

“He slammed SAP’s Oracle-killer database HANA on a conference call with analysts like this:

“SAP does not use HANA in the cloud very much. I know that because they keep paying us. They paid us again, this quarter, for Oracle for Concur, Oracle for Ariba, Oracle for SuccessFactors,” he said, naming three cloud companies that SAP acquired over the past few years to jump start its cloud business.

“If they’re using HANA for anything, I don’t know about it,” Ellison chuckled.”

Expanding upon what Larry said, HANA is used for only a small portion of SAP’s applications. HANA is compatible with more applications than it is generally used for, but up until now, the vast majority of HANA implementations are with only one application, which is SAP BW.

“Like other Oracle customers, SAP must have found that it isn’t easy to rip and replace a database, even though it must be excruciating to write checks to Oracle.

One of Oracle’s CEOs, Safra Catz, explained why Oracle doesn’t have that problem. Oracle makes all the hardware and software it needs to build its own cloud. This means that Oracle’s cloud can be run more profitably than competitors, she said.”

That may be true, but it is not a reflection of how most of Oracle’s database business is delivered. Most of Oracle’s database business is still delivered on premises. Furthermore, this quote does not have much to do with why HANA is not more prevalent.

On Salesforce

“Ellison agreed and used a slam at Salesforce as an example:

“Salesforce paid us a lot of money for their platform. They buy Exadata from us to run their data center, they buy the Oracle database. They paid a LOT of money for the Oracle database,” he said, referring to a 9-year deal signed in 2013 between the two competitors.”

The parallel between SAP and Salesforce paying Oracle a lot of money simply is not there. It is not relevant (at least vis-a-vis SAP) that Salesforce pays Oracle a lot of money as unlike SAP, Salesforce has not put all of its chips on pushing HANA into their customer base. In fact, Salesforce does not even focus on the database when it discusses its solution with customers. Salesforce focuses on the business value or ease of use of its applications.

The Relevance of Salesforce on Oracle

The relevance is however between Salesforce, which does use Oracle, versus Workday, which does not use Oracle. Workday is along with Salesforce one of the largest SaaS vendors in the world.

“As the two companies became more competitive, and the two men had a falling out, Salesforce was rumored to be trying to move to an open source database known as Postgres. That would have been a bad precedent for Oracle, showing other cloud companies how they could migrate off Oracle, too.”

Postgres is picking up steam as a highly respected heavy duty database that can in many cases replace Oracle 12c. And Postgres’ rise is of concern to Oracle.

“Instead the two men buried the hatchet, momentarily, and cut a deal estimated to be valued at $300 million, where Salesforce would continue to buy Oracle’s products for another nearly decade. It was said to be a pretty good deal for Salesforce.”

On Workday

“As for Oracle’s other arch rival in the cloud, Workday?

Ellison dissed Workday in the usual ways, saying that it was winning 10 times more deals than Workday for a cloud version of the financial application known as enterprise resource planning (ERP).

We know that Workday doesn’t use Oracle’s database or any of Oracle’s technology. Ellison has said so.

So, every customer that leaps to Workday is a double loss for Oracle, both in the sale of the cloud contract, and the sale of the infrastructure that runs Workday’s cloud.

“They’re basically—this small company is basically going to have to build all of their own database technology. I mean, they need recovery, they need query processing, they need ad-hoc reporting, they need all of these things. They’re gonna have to build out that tool set themselves rather than relying on us like Salesforce.com does,” said Ellison, who also mentioned in the same context Netsuite, SuccessFactors, and SAP.”

It is not just Workday, but many other SaaS companies that have the scale are bypassing Oracle to develop their databases or using open source databases. Google mostly does not use Oracle. Quite obviously, Larry is going to be negative on this strategy. Yet the trend of not building your own or using open source databases is growing not shrinking. There are many cloud vendors that are choosing not to use Oracle for their database.

How is Oracle Situated

Oracle is better situated when they market to an end customer. But large SaaS vendors have the scale to develop their own versions of databases, and to leverage open source databases like Postgres without facing the backlash that a person might receive in an IT organization for not choosing Oracle, IBM or Microsoft.

“This has caused Wall Street analyst, Jefferies analyst John DiFucci to report that Oracle has been behaving “irrationally” to win deals from Workday for over a year.

Oracle is offering such steep discounts to customers when competing for deals against Workday, that Oracle is willing to go into the red on these deals, Jefferies analyst John DiFucci tells Business Insider.”

That makes sense. If Workday shows success without Oracle as a database, it is a signal to other SaaS vendors. One of the major marketing pitches of Oracle is that for really big and important implementations you use Oracle because it is so tested, so stable, etc.. But if Workday, which uses a multi-tenant database, and has major volume, cannot choose Oracle, then it is a beacon to those who would also choose a different path.

How This Lock-In Works According to Mark Hurd

Oracle CEO, Mark Hurd told analysts that he felt very safe from database replacement in Oracle customers. And he gave a specific reason related to the history of databases.

“The third largest database in the world is IBM DB2, and it’s been going out of business for 20 years,” Hurd said in a characterization that IBM (IBM, -0.64%) would dispute. “If it was so easy to replace databases, DB2 market share would be zero.”
“That is because most databases—which companies rely on as the basis for core accounting and financial operations—run custom programming, which is hard to move.”

Mark Hurd should not feel so comfortable. This is because there are very important differences between IBM DB2 and the options available in AWS and Google Cloud.

  1. The past 20 years did not have the cloud options that we have today or the number of open source databases that we have today. For decades Oracle and IBM could say the open source alternatives were not ready for the “big time.” But not anymore. It is increasingly difficult for this assertion to be made and to be accepted.
  2. RDS and Cloud SQL offers cloud migration and testing and the ability to bring up and close down instances without committing to hardware.

Therefore, while it is true, there is “stickiness” in databases, with the most substantial sticky factor being application certification. However, the growth of AWS is undeniable. Companies are migrating; Oracle is going to lose a lot of business because of these cloud alternatives combined with open source alternatives. And we predict customers will be the winners.

Conclusion

This article by Business Insider replays the quotes from the different actors, but it does not seem to know what they mean. It hits on several important points, such as the fact that some SaaS vendors have turned away from Oracle. It also gets the fact that SAP still mostly uses Oracle.

But overall, it is not clear the author understands these topics at sufficient depth to write an article on the subjects being covered. It appears that this article could be split into two, one covering the topic of SaaS vendors that use non-Oracle databases, and the other being how even after years of promoting HANA, SAP still primarily runs on Oracle (and DB2).

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 Other Database Content

References

https://www.businessinsider.com/larry-ellison-sap-and-salesforce-pay-oracle-a-lot-of-money-2015-6

[Why Workday Is Different by Design, and Why It Matters](https://blogs.workday.com/why-workday-is-different-by-design-and-why-it-matters/)

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/workday-ceo-reveals-how-his-company-is-taking-share-from-sap-oracle.html

[Oracle is ‘irrational’ towards Workday – Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/oracle-is-irrational-towards-workday-2015-5)

https://www.zdnet.com/article/look-at-what-google-and-amazon-are-doing-with-databases-thats-your-future/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2012/03/22/larry-ellison-calls-out-workday-for-two-fundamental-mistakes/#47c14614141c

SQL Server is About to Pass Oracle as the Most Popular Database

Executive Summary

  • According to DB-Engines, a site that ranks the popularity of databases, MySQL and SQL Server are about to pass Oracle as the most popular databases.
  • The decline in Oracle’s database will cause a decrease in purchases of add-on applications and negatively impact the company’s overall profitability.

Introduction: The Logic for a Changing of the Guard

The database market is changing, with lower price and open source database options nipping at Oracle’s heels. You will learn about the reasons for these changes in the database market.

Oracle’s Dominance

Oracle’s dominance in databases has been so great for so long that it is taken as a given. However, according to DB-Engines, something interesting is about to happen in the next year, and this is shown in the graphic below:

Understanding the DB-Engines Ranking

DB-Engines ranking is a site that uses a method that combines a series of factors to result in a rank of how widely a particular database is used. So what factors do they use? Well, I have listed the description of their method below:

“Number of mentions of the system on websites, measured as number of results in search engines queries. At the moment, we use Google, Bing and Yandex for this measurement. In order to count only relevant results, we are searching for <system name> together with the term database, e.g. “Oracle” and “database”.

General interest in the system. For this measurement, we use the frequency of searches in Google Trends.

Frequency of technical discussions about the system. We use the number of related questions and the number of interested users on the well-known IT-related Q&A sites Stack Overflow and DBA Stack Exchange.

Number of job offers in which the system is mentioned. We use the number of offers on the leading job search engines Indeed and Simply Hired.

Number of profiles in professional networks in which the system is mentioned. We use the internationally most popular professional networks LinkedIn and Upwork.

Relevance in social networks. We count the number of Twitter tweets, in which the system is mentioned.” – DB-Engines

This seems like a reasonable way to perform a ranking.

Oracle’s Negative Database Growth Rate

To begin, let us review the usage/popularity list from DB-Engines. This is for June.

Oracle’s DB-Engines Ranking

The June column shows the growth since the past month (as this snapshot was taken July). The month to month change moves around quite a bit. So the next column, July 2016, shows the change since the same month last year and is a more reliable guide to what is happening long term.

  • As one can see, Oracle has lost 66% of its popularity since July of 2016.
  • We can look at the base popularity; it is 1,374 units. If Oracle continues at even 1/2 this rate of decline for the next year, in July 2018, Oracle will sit at 906 units.
  • If nothing else were to happen, both MySQL (also owned by Oracle) and SQL Server would pass by Oracle. However, SQL Server is growing at 33% per year.
  • This means that in a year, its 1226 base would be 1630. This would far exceed Oracle.

If we conservatively take Oracle’s decline from 2016 and 2017 and cut it in half, while keeping the other three databases at their number from the previous year, then the 2018 database rankings would look like this:

2018 Projected Database Rankings

  1. Microsoft SQL Server: 1630 Units
  2. MySQL: 1160 Units
  3. Oracle: 906 Units
  4. PostgreSQL: 583 Units

Interestingly, Seeking Alpha has noticed this as well. In their article, The Death of the Commercial Database, they stated the following:

“We see the $29.6b commercial database market contracting 20-30% by 2021, and do not believe Oracle (NYSE: ORCL) can transition its revenue streams (from legacy commercial database to cloud-based subscription offerings) fast enough to offset the decline of this market, which represents a major legacy core of its revenue.

The commercial database market – 80% of which is an oligopoly of Oracle, IBM (NYSE:IBM), and Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) – has remained one of the most stable and sticky in all of tech for over two decades. However, we think the velocity and magnitude of its decline is likely to surprise many investors.

Faster growth in use cases such as social media, IoT, and unstructured/semi-structured data that are ill-suited to the SQL standard upon which the database oligopoly is based;

Revenue from database software represented ~36% of Oracle’s total FY16 revenue and ~55% of its operating profit.”

Understanding Oracle’s Profits

This statement is quite interesting because it means that of all of Oracle’s acquisitions, none were as profitable as its database business.

According to SeekingAlpha, Oracle’s 2016 profits break down the following ways:

  1. Database Software: $1,445 Million
  2. On-Premises Applications: $1,022 Million
  3. Database Infrastructure: $250 Million
  4. Hardware Support: $125 Million
  5. Cloud Revenues: $83 Million

The Counter Argument to Oracle’s Database Decline Versus SQL Server

Oracle’s databases have many proponents, and it was interesting to find a counter-argument to the Seeking Alpha article, which I have pasted below:

“Articles like this were written 20 years ago. In 1997, the Oracle database was going to decline because it did not fit modern use cases and new document data types (HTML, XML) like the new extensible databases such as Illustra and Polyhedra. Oracle was not “object oriented”, so OODBMS like Poet, Versant, and Object Store would soon rule the day. With 64-bit computing mainstream, in-memory databases like TimesTen, ANTS, and SolidDB were on the “right side of Moore’s law.” In data warehousing, Red Brick and IQ were a lot faster due to advanced indexing. Most of all, Oracle was going to be replaced by cheap or free open source databases, especially MySQL. Here we are in 2017, and of the vendors just mentioned, only TimesTen and MySQL still survive” – as part of Oracle Corporation.

Predicting Oracle’s Database Market Share Decline?

The issue with this analysis is that just because Oracle’s database decline was predicted due to new technologies in 1997, and did not occur, does not mean that this new prediction will not occur. HTML and XML were greatly overblown in the late 1990s, and they never affected databases they were projected to have had. The same applies to object-oriented databases. It is also true that open source databases did not replace Oracle, although MySQL has undoubtedly reduced Oracle’s proprietary database growth.

But the problem with arguing this is that the popularity of Oracle’s proprietary databases is declining. And Oracle is nowhere near as popular in the NoSQL database market as it is in the SQL database market.

Conclusion

If Oracle’s control over databases declines, it causes two issues.

  1. Overall Profitability: One is the direct profitability issue, as Oracle receives so much of its profits (although less of its revenue) from databases. Oracle’s 12c is (depending on a number of variables) a million dollar database per server and has high yearly maintenance costs (it is very complex and can do quite a lot). Losing sales on such a high-profit item is going to cost profits. This is pointed out by the Seeking Alpha article.
  2. Account Control Issues: But a second issue is that Oracle uses its database (through account exposure and account control) to leverage customers to purchase its applications. Oracle has an enormous number of acquired applications that are less impressive comparatively than when they were purchased. This is the normal state when one software vendor acquires another software vendor. But with a lower ability to control accounts, this means the on-premises applications will (I predict) decline as well.

There is a massive amount of discussion as to whether Oracle is moving to the cloud fast enough, but Oracle appears to have a bigger issue at hand: it’s swiftly eroding market share in its core profitable product.

On the other side of the issue is Microsoft’s fortunes, as they appear poised to surpass Oracle in database popularity. This actually won’t matter all that much for Microsoft.

SQL Server sells for a much smaller amount of money than Oracle does with its database, at roughly $14,000 for an enterprise version. Estimates are that SQL Server and all other databases by Microsoft (principally Access) drive roughly 5% of revenues for Microsoft.

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 Other Database Content

References

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4044813-death-commercial-database-oracles-dilemma

Does MongoDB Overstate The Applicability of Its Database?

Executive Summary

  • We live in a time where many database vendors overstate the use cases for their databases.
  • Is MongoDB another example of this overstatement?

Introduction

Many RDBMS vendors are fighting back against multibase offerings by stating that customers can perform non-RDBMS processing in their databases. IBM has enlarged the footprint of DB2 but adding AI, which we cover in the article How Reality Based is IBM Adding AI to DB2?

It is curious to now see an exaggeration of the proper use of database coming from open source vendors.

MongoDB’s Statements Around the Appropriate Use for Their Database

MongoDB does not merely state that its database is useful for traditional NoSQL use cases, but proposes replacing even application databases. MongoDB has been able to do this because (in part) their introduction of transactions in 4.0. Most NoSQL databases cannot perform or manage transactions. And transactions have always been the dividing line between databases that can support applications, and those that are used for analytics or other purposes. And performing transactions means the database is ACID (atomic, consistent, isolated, durability) An ACID compliant database posts transactions correctly 100% of the time and has a mechanism in place for rolling back transactions that are not completed.

Transactions are aggressively promoted on MongoDB’s website. 

MongoDB’s marketing essentially describes its database as a replacement for every type of database processing category. This is explained in the excellent graphic from Nemil.

As one can see, MongoDB is recommended on the left of just about everything. For this to be true, MongoDB would have to be superior to every other database type and it would mean that MongoDB has essentially no weaknesses. 

Nemil states that MongoDB holds to the concept that their database is so revolutionary that the best approach is to replace most of the current database with their database. Knowing what MongoDB is, which is a document database, it is very difficult to see how this can be true. From a design perspective, a document database is simpler to develop than a RDBMS.

In fact, document databases are hierarchical, and hierarchical databases preceded RDBMSs, and eventually lost out to them.

Here is an example of a hierarchical schematic from the MongoDB website.

MongoDB as the Universal Database?

From the Nemil article, the following is explained about MongoDB’s view of their database.

“Even today, 10gen argues that 60-80% of “applications” benefit from using it. Going further, MongoDB’s CTO feels that nearly 90% of database installations would benefit from switching to MongoDB. Many engineers I know — who value MongoDB at their own companies — would disagree with 10gen’s view.”

This type of overstatement generally leads to problems, and this is expressed in the following quotation, also from Nemil.

“The MongoDB docs tell you what it’s good at, without emphasizing what it’s not good at. That’s natural … But as a result, it took us about six months [and] a lot of user complaints … to figure out that we were using MongoDB the wrong way.” – Sarah Mei

Conclusion

Comments about the universality of one database type should be taken with a grain of salt. At Brightwork we recommend using the best database for the task, and for the type of database processing required. However, what pushes back on this is the desire of IT departments to narrow the tools they use as much as possible.

Nemil’s article on this topic is highly recommended.

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 Database Content

References

https://www.nemil.com/mongo/3.html

https://www.mongodb.com/transactions

https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/applications/data-models-tree-structures/

https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/core/write-operations-atomicity/

The Public Cloud Revolution

The Public Cloud Revolution: How Open Source is Displacing IT Mega Vendors

Interested in how to open source is powering public cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud and what this means for the different modalities of computer hardware (cloud, on-premises proprietary server, mainframe, and appliances?). This book covers many topics that are greatly underrepresented in the common IT media coverage of these topics.

The Problem with the Term NoSQL and Document DBs

Executive Summary

  • NoSQL was created as a term to describe non-relational databases.
  • We cover the problems with this term.

Introduction

NoSQL has become the common term to describe non-relational databases.

The Problem

However, NoSQL does not mean NoSQL, but “Not Just SQL.”

Well those guys who thought that “NoSQL” was a good representation of the meaning “Not only SQL” need to brush up on semantics. No SQL, is exclusionary. Its literal interpretation is there will be no SQL. SQL and More would have been better. But the naming should have been based upon the storage difference I think. Or perhaps non-relational?

But that is not true either!

Another explanation for NoSQL is that it schema-less, but that is also not true. You need relations, but they are different.

“However, while document databases don’t require the same predefined structure as a relational database, that doesn’t mean that they don’t support it. In fact, MongoDB allows relationships between documents to be modeled via Embedded and Referenced approaches.”

A Proper Name for Document Databases

So maybe Easily Adjustable Schema and Hierarchical Document Databases? EASHDD?

NoSQL databases permutated. In the beginning, the emphasis was to minimize SQL — but that that changed as it became impractical, and they had to do SQL. So now the name is really a problem.

Conclusion

The inaccurate term of NoSQL will negatively impact the development of the market for what are non-relational databases. This is because it focuses on the API to the database rather than what actually separates the databases from the database RDBMS type.

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 Database Content

References

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology

The Public Cloud Revolution

The Public Cloud Revolution: How Open Source is Displacing IT Mega Vendors

Interested in how to open source is powering public cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud and what this means for the different modalities of computer hardware (cloud, on-premises proprietary server, mainframe, and appliances?). This book covers many topics that are greatly underrepresented in the common IT media coverage of these topics.

The Problem with the MongoDB Startup Program

Executive Summary

  • MongoDB created a successful program for startups.
  • We cover the inherent conflicts of interest in this program.

Introduction

In the article How Appealing is the Oracle Global Startup Ecosystem?, we covered how the Oracle startup program was filled with false claims. In this article, we will review MongoDB’s startup program.

MongoDB Startup Program Website

The following are screen captures from the MongoDb website.

MongoDB offers credits for their database to startups. 

Now, these two areas of the program are what piqued our interest. 

MongoDB lists the following items as prerequisites for taking advantage of the program. 

Fewer than 15 employeesPrivately held

In business for less than 2 years

Bootstrapped, seed funded and/or pre Series A

Less than $1M in annual revenue

Building a product or service (agencies are not eligible)

Willing to participate in co-promotion with MongoDB

Have not previously participated in the MongoDB Startup
Accelerator program”

Therefore, as a startup, you must be willing to promote MongoDB, and in turn to be promoted by MongoDB. And what is MongoDB really looking for? It is easy to guess, case studies that they can market.

MongoDB states the reason for the program, and it is important to review.

“This is our way to give back to the startup community by helping the next generation of founders.”

This motivation is highly unlikely.

If that were its motivation, it would not require the startup to participate in co-promotion with MongoDB. The very existence of such a statement from a profit-oriented company indicates that this is camouflage. The program is presented as “win-win” and on the basis of “community” when this is not at all how private companies function. Startups may benefit from the program, but this program exists for one reason, to benefit MongoDB.

Interestingly, the program only lasts for 12 months, which means that after the startup participates for 12 months, it goes back to being a normal paying customer.

The Problems With These Types of Programs

The program is a quid pro quo for helping MongoDB receive marketing benefits. And of course the startup also receives marketing benefits, but the startup also now has an incentive to overstate the benefits of MongoDB. This means that any announcement by a startup that is part of the MongoDB startup program is doubly unreliable, as MongoDB will have control over both when, and how the success of the program is presented.

This is explained by the quotation from the Nemil blog.

“As engineers, we often discuss technical attacks (e.g., DDoS, Sybil attacks, security vulnerabilities), but need to spend time debating how to protect ourselves from marketing “attacks”. Today, developer marketing is subtle — third party blog posts, content marketing disguised as engineering lessons, biased talks, and sponsored hackathons — not clearly marked content from vendors. As such, startup engineering decisions can hinge on sources that are not impartial.”

Being on stage at a conference raises the profile of the presenter and establishes him/her as a thought leader on a particular topic … [Independent] consultants have established themselves as experts on MongoDB through their speaking engagements [at our conferences and events], and I suspect many have gained business as a result.

If you make substantial revenue off MongoDB consulting, how motivated would you be to highlight the downsides of MongoDB? How about if you sold MongoDB training materials like an online course or bootcamp?

At industry analyst firm Red Monk, James Governor argued in May 2012 that MongoDB was the “SF architect’s default database choice” on flimsy evidence — and he would be quoted in multiple MongoDB blog posts. Today, Red Monk counts MongoDB as a customer. Mongo’s strategy — used by many other dev tools companies — has some similarities to astroturfing, where a sponsored message is masked to appear as if it primarily comes through authentic, grass roots support.

Conclusion

Startup programs like the one created by MongoDB are great for MongoDB, but it floods the market with inaccurate information about the product. One does not know if MongoDB was selected by startups because they thought it was the best database for their needs, or if they desired the credits and the marketing attention it would bring them.

Programs like this create the specter of “fake go-lives,” where the startup announces they are relying upon one product for something, when in fact they are using something else. This is extremely common in the SAP space, where not startups, but SAP consulting companies pretend to go live with SAP applications in order to sell SAP services as we covered in our S/4HANA Implementation Study.

Our view of these programs is that they are a form of corruption. This program is significantly less corrupt than the Oracle startup program, by virtue of the fact that Oracle was promising to allow its startups to sell into Oracle’s enormous customer list. But it is still problematic.

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 Database Content

References

https://www.nemil.com/mongo/3.html#fn15

The Public Cloud Revolution

The Public Cloud Revolution: How Open Source is Displacing IT Mega Vendors

Interested in how to open source is powering public cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud and what this means for the different modalities of computer hardware (cloud, on-premises proprietary server, mainframe, and appliances?). This book covers many topics that are greatly underrepresented in the common IT media coverage of these topics.

The Brightwork Comparison and Scoring of Google BigQuery

Executive Summary

  • This is our data warehouse rating for Google BigQuery across the most important criteria for data warehouse usage.

The Rankings

Our rankings allow comparisons across the various data warehouse. The scores in each category are from one to five, with the higher the value, the better that data warehouse is rated in that area.

The Scores Per Criteria

 

The Brightwork Database and Data Warehouse Scoring Criteria

CriteriaCriteria Definition
1. Database TypeDoes the database fall into the category of a relational, document, column, graph, etc..
2. Core MarketThis is where the database tends to be used with the highest frequency.
3. Memory Optimized or All In-MemoryDetermines whether the entire database is run as loaded into memory.
4. Price ScorePrices vary greatly for databases, a major reason being the comparison of open source and commercial databases.
5. Maintenance Overhead ScoreOne of the least discussed features of a relational database. Maintenance overhead is determined by factors ranging from the SQL used by the database, to the ease or difficulty of configuration to the documentation that supports the database.
6. Licensing / Audit Liability ScoreDatabases are often purchased without considering the long term licensing and audit liabilities. And even among commercial vendors (there is no auditing for open source), there is a large variance in audit likelihood per vendor, as well as the potential payouts.
7. Usability (i.e Loved/Hated Score)This score is taken from Stack OverFlow's "most loved and most hated" which is their poll of developers preferences with respect to databases. In the case of HANA, it is not rated by Stack OverFlow, because it is little used, so we inserted our own value based upon feedback from the field on HANA.
8. Functionality ScoreThis is what the database is capable of doing. This is not a scoring of how easy or difficult it is to bring up functionality within the database.
9. Managed Service / No DBA to Install, Patch or UpgradeIs the database offered as part of a managed service like that offered by AWS.
10. Autopartitioning / AutoscalesThe ability to automatically adjust to scale.
11. Pay Per Section / Per HourA function of the availability of the database on cloud service providers that off this capability.
12. Pay Per Storage Used / Not Per ProcessorThis is a function of how the database is priced. Oracle, for instance, is priced per processor.

View the Index

Back to see the index of all of the data warehouse rankings.

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 Database Content

References

All of the database rankings are co-authored by Ahmed Azmi.

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology

The Public Cloud Revolution

The Public Cloud Revolution: How Open Source is Displacing IT Mega Vendors

Interested in how to open source is powering public cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud and what this means for the different modalities of computer hardware (cloud, on-premises proprietary server, mainframe, and appliances?). This book covers many topics that are greatly underrepresented in the common IT media coverage of these topics.

The Brightwork Comparison and Scoring of Snowflake

Executive Summary

  • This is our data warehouse rating for Snowflake across the most important criteria for data warehouse usage.

The Rankings

Our rankings allow comparisons across the various data warehouse. The scores in each category are from one to five, with the higher the value, the better that data warehouse is rated in that area.

The Scores Per Criteria

 

The Brightwork Database and Data Warehouse Scoring Criteria

CriteriaCriteria Definition
1. Database TypeDoes the database fall into the category of a relational, document, column, graph, etc..
2. Core MarketThis is where the database tends to be used with the highest frequency.
3. Memory Optimized or All In-MemoryDetermines whether the entire database is run as loaded into memory.
4. Price ScorePrices vary greatly for databases, a major reason being the comparison of open source and commercial databases.
5. Maintenance Overhead ScoreOne of the least discussed features of a relational database. Maintenance overhead is determined by factors ranging from the SQL used by the database, to the ease or difficulty of configuration to the documentation that supports the database.
6. Licensing / Audit Liability ScoreDatabases are often purchased without considering the long term licensing and audit liabilities. And even among commercial vendors (there is no auditing for open source), there is a large variance in audit likelihood per vendor, as well as the potential payouts.
7. Usability (i.e Loved/Hated Score)This score is taken from Stack OverFlow's "most loved and most hated" which is their poll of developers preferences with respect to databases. In the case of HANA, it is not rated by Stack OverFlow, because it is little used, so we inserted our own value based upon feedback from the field on HANA.
8. Functionality ScoreThis is what the database is capable of doing. This is not a scoring of how easy or difficult it is to bring up functionality within the database.
9. Managed Service / No DBA to Install, Patch or UpgradeIs the database offered as part of a managed service like that offered by AWS.
10. Autopartitioning / AutoscalesThe ability to automatically adjust to scale.
11. Pay Per Section / Per HourA function of the availability of the database on cloud service providers that off this capability.
12. Pay Per Storage Used / Not Per ProcessorThis is a function of how the database is priced. Oracle, for instance, is priced per processor.

View the Index

Back to see the index of all of the data warehouse rankings.

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 Database Content

References

All of the database rankings are co-authored by Ahmed Azmi.

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology

The Public Cloud Revolution

The Public Cloud Revolution: How Open Source is Displacing IT Mega Vendors

Interested in how to open source is powering public cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud and what this means for the different modalities of computer hardware (cloud, on-premises proprietary server, mainframe, and appliances?). This book covers many topics that are greatly underrepresented in the common IT media coverage of these topics.

The Brightwork Comparison and Scoring of Databases

Executive Summary

  • This is our database rating introduction page.
  • Our database ratings score database among what we consider to be the most important criteria.

Introduction

These ratings were developed to provide a comprehensive scoring system for those interested in selecting databases.

Interpreting the Ratings

These ratings cannot be read as simply choosing the database with the highest combined rating. For example, PostgreSQL might be the database with the highest combined rating, but it only has certain areas where it is appropriate.

The Fit with Requirements

IT departments generally have far more options than they can analyze. There are many issues to mix and match including the current skills for different databases, the time necessary to test and stand up databases the IT department is unfamiliar with, etc.. Historically, IT departments have kept the databases used to a minimum, and they have tried to force the requirements to the database, with a strong emphasis on relational databases. This will not be an effective strategy in the future, as there is far more choice in the database market, and each database category is so clearly superior for its type of processing versus general databases. This comparison is designed to help readers make sense of these many different databases.

The Databases

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

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology

The Public Cloud Revolution

The Public Cloud Revolution: How Open Source is Displacing IT Mega Vendors

Interested in how to open source is powering public cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud and what this means for the different modalities of computer hardware (cloud, on-premises proprietary server, mainframe, and appliances?). This book covers many topics that are greatly underrepresented in the common IT media coverage of these topics.

The Brightwork Comparison and Scoring of SAP BI/BW

Executive Summary

  • This is our database rating for SAP BI/BW across the most important criteria for database usage.

The Rankings

Our rankings allow comparisons across the various databases. The scores in each category are from one to five, with the higher the value, the better that database is rated in that area.

The Scores Per Criteria

 

The Brightwork Database and Data Warehouse Scoring Criteria

CriteriaCriteria Definition
1. Database TypeDoes the database fall into the category of a relational, document, column, graph, etc..
2. Core MarketThis is where the database tends to be used with the highest frequency.
3. Memory Optimized or All In-MemoryDetermines whether the entire database is run as loaded into memory.
4. Price ScorePrices vary greatly for databases, a major reason being the comparison of open source and commercial databases.
5. Maintenance Overhead ScoreOne of the least discussed features of a relational database. Maintenance overhead is determined by factors ranging from the SQL used by the database, to the ease or difficulty of configuration to the documentation that supports the database.
6. Licensing / Audit Liability ScoreDatabases are often purchased without considering the long term licensing and audit liabilities. And even among commercial vendors (there is no auditing for open source), there is a large variance in audit likelihood per vendor, as well as the potential payouts.
7. Usability (i.e Loved/Hated Score)This score is taken from Stack OverFlow's "most loved and most hated" which is their poll of developers preferences with respect to databases. In the case of HANA, it is not rated by Stack OverFlow, because it is little used, so we inserted our own value based upon feedback from the field on HANA.
8. Functionality ScoreThis is what the database is capable of doing. This is not a scoring of how easy or difficult it is to bring up functionality within the database.
9. Managed Service / No DBA to Install, Patch or UpgradeIs the database offered as part of a managed service like that offered by AWS.
10. Autopartitioning / AutoscalesThe ability to automatically adjust to scale.
11. Pay Per Section / Per HourA function of the availability of the database on cloud service providers that off this capability.
12. Pay Per Storage Used / Not Per ProcessorThis is a function of how the database is priced. Oracle, for instance, is priced per processor.

View the Index

Back to see the index of all of the data warehouse rankings.

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 Database Content

References

All of the database rankings are co-authored by Ahmed Azmi.

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology

The Public Cloud Revolution

The Public Cloud Revolution: How Open Source is Displacing IT Mega Vendors

Interested in how to open source is powering public cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud and what this means for the different modalities of computer hardware (cloud, on-premises proprietary server, mainframe, and appliances?). This book covers many topics that are greatly underrepresented in the common IT media coverage of these topics.

The Brightwork Comparison and Scoring of Amazon Redshift

Executive Summary

  • This is our database rating for Amazon Redshift across the most important criteria for database usage.

The Rankings

Our rankings allow comparisons across the various databases. The scores in each category are from one to five, with the higher the value, the better that database is rated in that area.

The Scores Per Criteria

 

The Brightwork Database and Data Warehouse Scoring Criteria

CriteriaCriteria Definition
1. Database TypeDoes the database fall into the category of a relational, document, column, graph, etc..
2. Core MarketThis is where the database tends to be used with the highest frequency.
3. Memory Optimized or All In-MemoryDetermines whether the entire database is run as loaded into memory.
4. Price ScorePrices vary greatly for databases, a major reason being the comparison of open source and commercial databases.
5. Maintenance Overhead ScoreOne of the least discussed features of a relational database. Maintenance overhead is determined by factors ranging from the SQL used by the database, to the ease or difficulty of configuration to the documentation that supports the database.
6. Licensing / Audit Liability ScoreDatabases are often purchased without considering the long term licensing and audit liabilities. And even among commercial vendors (there is no auditing for open source), there is a large variance in audit likelihood per vendor, as well as the potential payouts.
7. Usability (i.e Loved/Hated Score)This score is taken from Stack OverFlow's "most loved and most hated" which is their poll of developers preferences with respect to databases. In the case of HANA, it is not rated by Stack OverFlow, because it is little used, so we inserted our own value based upon feedback from the field on HANA.
8. Functionality ScoreThis is what the database is capable of doing. This is not a scoring of how easy or difficult it is to bring up functionality within the database.
9. Managed Service / No DBA to Install, Patch or UpgradeIs the database offered as part of a managed service like that offered by AWS.
10. Autopartitioning / AutoscalesThe ability to automatically adjust to scale.
11. Pay Per Section / Per HourA function of the availability of the database on cloud service providers that off this capability.
12. Pay Per Storage Used / Not Per ProcessorThis is a function of how the database is priced. Oracle, for instance, is priced per processor.

View the Index

Back to see the index of all of the data warehouse rankings.

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 Database Content

References

All of the database rankings are co-authored by Ahmed Azmi.

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology

The Public Cloud Revolution

The Public Cloud Revolution: How Open Source is Displacing IT Mega Vendors

Interested in how to open source is powering public cloud providers like AWS and Google Cloud and what this means for the different modalities of computer hardware (cloud, on-premises proprietary server, mainframe, and appliances?). This book covers many topics that are greatly underrepresented in the common IT media coverage of these topics.