Three months after Oracle announced its new Standard Edition 2 (SE2) product, and seven months before it's rolled out as an automatic update for SE and SE 1, a veteran systems company has claimed Ellison's move could be catastrophic for independent software vendors (ISV).
SE2 is Oracle's attempt to increase revenue from its customers who have increasingly had access to ever-more cores in their socket servers. The licence for SE2 will restrict the number of threads to 16, regardless of the number of cores customers have running.
More ReadingMicrosoft: Yes, we are going to kill off Enterprise AgreementsOracle drops 248 – count 'em – 248 patches, to fix ... somethingWanted: 1,400 sales jockeys to flog Oracle CloudAmazon, Azure and Google in race to the bottom ... of cloud storage pricingOracle promises 'next-gen' Texas cloud campus
In the product briefing for SE2 the company claimed that the "bulk of SE and SE1 customers are utilising eight threads at most today, so the issues around threading caps are perhaps less critical than it seems [sic]."
Veteran systems company TmaxSoft, which was founded in 1997, claimed this is totally incorrect however, as in an update due in August 2016 Oracle will automatically replace SE and SE1, the two currently installed equivalents.
TmaxSoft warned that: "SE1 users will reportedly be expected to pay nearly three times the current cost-per-socket for Oracle usage. In addition, the only alternative to SE2 on Oracle’s services is the company’s Enterprise Edition software, again a more costly product."
“This move from Oracle, about which ISVs were not consulted on the transition, could be catastrophic for customers’ competitive ability. In some markets, ISV competitors can run on ‘free’ databases that provide them with additional sales margin," said Carl Davies, the UK MD for TmaxSoft.
Davies added: "While Oracle users may previously have been able to trade on the credibility of being built on top of the market-leading database software, justifying the extra costs of SE2 will be far from simple. In some instances, ISVs will have only one choice, namely swallow the cost and reduce their margins. This could at best threaten their position in the market, or at worst condemn their entire existence."
The Register spoke to Sanjeev Sinotra, ISV/Channel Sales Manager at TmaxSoft who had worked for Oracle for more than three years.
Sinotra admitted he took his hat off to Oracle: "It's very good business from its point of view. It's noticed the increases in server capabilities and so it has made a move to rectify that, almost to take it back to where it was a few years ago. On the flipside, if the customers are unhappy with it then there's always the cloud option."
Martin Thompson, Campaign for Clear Licensing, concurred to The Register, stating: "This is standard belligerent Oracle practice. Why on earth do people put up with it? There are compelling commercial and open source alternatives which ISVs should explore, if only to address this behaviour by hitting Oracle in the wallet."
Oracle declined to respond to these allegations. ®