RE: oracle EE pricing

From: Goulet, Richard <>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:51:35 -0500
Message-ID: <>

Well, the "cash cow" sooner or later becomes the commodity market where the price is controlled by the consumer. Had that happen to my old company. While power modules where premium items we could charge what we wanted, but then the market got saturated with suppliers and it became a commodity. Prices crashed. I keep hoping to see it here as well.  

Dick Goulet
Senior Oracle DBA/NA Team Lead
PAREXEL International  

From: Thomas Roach [] Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 9:42 AM
To: Goulet, Richard
Subject: Re: oracle EE pricing

I've seen several projects where the IT team/proj manager/IT manager wanted to go with Oracle for new projects but the finance team shot the deal down because of the price difference between say Oracle and SQL Server or DB2, now that SQL Server and DB2 have added many of the features that used to make Oracle standout. There are still many things Oracle does really really well, but when finance gets involved, they make it really hard to justify, so you get "You can buy SQL or DB2 or you delay the project" and some managers are just not willing to do that.  

Where I am at now, they have us looking at Postgres because as they look to quadruple in size in the next 2 years, the Oracle costs will kill them, but our sales rep says there is nothing he can do to help us bring the cost down. I love PostrGres but it doesn't exactly match their RAC systems, and it's not instrumented the way Oracle is, plus the patching/support. Oracle knows they have ya and are probably willing to lose a few customers to gain the extra revenue from the rest.  

I do have one big complaint, that Oracle wants to charge for Diag and Tuning packs to look at AWR data, but all the options. Also, you buy EE, but then you need to pay extra for RAC, Partitioning, Active Data Guard, Advanced Security Option, Advanced Compression, Real Application Testing etc... not to mention all the Grid Control packs. I wish Enterprise Edition included all these things, but realize it is a way to maximize revenue. It's almost as bad as Microsoft is with licensing Windows (how many different versions of Windows do they have?)... seems like both companies want to milk the cash cow.

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Goulet, Richard
<> wrote:

               Many years ago I interviewed with a major financial. They

        operated in a similar way, though not exactly identical. In their minds

        a computer was obsolete after 5 years, whether a desktop, laptop, or

        server. They also believed in never opening their machines after

        purchase, so all computers came porked, max memory, cpu's, fiber cards,

        etc..... Disk systems were the same, buy EMC and fill it as we'll use

        it sooner or later. They followed the same idea with Oracle. If the

        machine was going to be a database server, buy a license for it, with

        all options and then just leave it. No patches or support after the

        first year. When the server came to the end of it's life they replaced

        it along with the Oracle license if still needed. They claimed it was

        cheaper in the long run, but I wonder. I'm no financial wizard, by any

        stretch of the imagination, so it doesn't make sense to me.         

               What I don't understand, soapbox please, is why Oracle places

        the cost of it's software as high as it does, after all it's software,

        not platinum. There is no limit to the number of copies that you can

        sell and at it's current price there is sufficient sticker shock that

        sometimes the nod goes else where. I know that a project I'm involved

        with is reconsidering their DB choice just because Oracle is so darn

        expensive. The PM wanted EE with a 2 node Rac and Active Data Guard.

        Will probably end up as SE, no RAC and a basic DR setup (recovery from

        tape). The other side of this is that I've friends who have lost their

	jobs, not because they were downsized, but replaced with DB2 or
	Sql*Server DBA's and that just on the impression that those
would be
	cheaper.  That is down right depressing.  OK, we can put the
	away now.
	Dick Goulet
	Senior Oracle DBA/NA Team Lead
	PAREXEL International

	-----Original Message-----
	[] On Behalf Of William
	Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 10:20 AM
	Subject: RE: oracle EE pricing
	I have clients who have operated for years without a support
	(and without patching).  But I would not voluntarily choose this
	I am curious, would this still be acceptable to Oracle?  I have
	assumed that you are only allowed to play with it, for testing
	learning. The moment you attach a business around it, you have
to part
	with money, even if you do not need patching and support.
	Please do not infer that I am putting you in a tight corner. I
	thought twice before sending this, but concluded you would be
okay since
	you are the one who brought it up in the first place.
	-----Original Message-----


	rg>] On Behalf Of Veres Lajos
	Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 5:41 AM
	Subject: oracle EE pricing
	I dont understand something about pricing.
	This page says:         

O:RP,3:P3_LPI,P3_PROD_HIER_ID:4509382199341805719938,4509958287721805720 0>


	Perpetual license/cpu: 47,500$, plus yearly support: 10,450$
	1 year license/cpu: 9,500$
	It looks like to me it is cheaper to re-buy a yearly license in
	year, than the yearly support cost of a perpetual license. (And
there is
	lot more difference in the first year...)
	I guess I am missing something, but I cant find it.
	Can you enlighten me?
	Thanks in advance.
	Veres Lajos<>
	+36 20 438 5909
	-- Mark Brinsmead
	 Senior DBA,
	 The Pythian Group

Thomas Roach

Received on Mon Jan 18 2010 - 08:51:35 CST

Original text of this message