Will Oracle Buy Net Applications???

There is a rumour that Mark Hurd is coordinating a buyout of Net Applications.

I have no insider knowledge of this but TheRegister is seldom wrong… What would be the consequences? For GNU/Linux, I can imagine that Oracle, a distributor of GNU/Linux, might make sure Net Applications publishes the straight goods on market share for GNU/Linux. Instead of spreading the nonsense that other OS is on 90% of PCs we might be told the truth, that it is closer to 86% and declining rapidly. We might also get reality for share of MacOS.

I have no love for Oracle and its penchant to take over the world but the enemy of my enemy may be my part-time friend. In fact, they could be my full-time friend if they would let OpenOffice.org, MySQL and Java be Free, really FREE.

I know Oracle has other uses for Net Applications but I would not mind sitting around the fire if Net Applications is separated from their buddy, M$. We have seen several times where Net Applicaitons massages its data to make GNU/Linux look stagnant even while share of GNU/Linux surges.

Got the name of the company wrong… NetAPP <> Network Applications.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Will Oracle Buy Net Applications???

  1. Indeed they are not the same company:

    see NetApp

    see Network Applications

    With the current level of litigation over just about everything, I assumed they must be the same. I am not alone in that.
    “One barrier to increasing awareness is that people call us so many different things: Network Appliance, NetApp, NetApps, Network Applications, Network Associates. What’s worse, our own material said both NetApp and Network Appliance.”

    Thanks for the correction.

  2. deepblue says:

    The article published on the Register is suggesting that Oracle is going to buy a storage vendor called NetApp (used to be called Network Appliances), not Net Applications. Check your facts before posting

  3. bob wrote:“The thing with NetApps is that their methodology for gathering their statistical data is sound, reputable and quite accurate.”

    Nope. Unless they list their randomly selected target sites, they are not representative of the universe. The sites they record pay for the privilege. That’s a very small and select minority. Probably most are business sites dealing with businesses. Then since businesses lean towards M$, there is a serious bias. They were ignoring most of the world. Now they overcount it. Why do they keep shifting their manner of counting? It seems to me that they are trying to keep M$ at 90%.

    Oracle would not be selling OpneOffice.org for $9000 / 100 if they did not have customers.

  4. bob says:

    Desktop usage share is irrelevant to Oracle, it’s not their market. Placing Linux at < 1% or 2% doesn't affect their market.

    Also, do be aware that Oracle's primary reason for Oracle Unbreakable Linux is, as Larry has never shied away from mentioning, to bleed Red Hat dry by undercutting them on both support and what is essentially their own product.

    Even on a low-end single socket system, OUL will cost half what RHEL will. On a 4socket system, RHEL will cost 8x OUL. on something like an Itanium SuperDome, RHEL will cost 512x more.

    Oracle will either let OOo die or stagnate, it doesn't fit with their business plan or product line.

    MySQL doesn't fit with their business plan either, even if its to use it to secure customers they won't otherwise get anyway, but at least prevent IBM, Cybase or Microsoft from getting them – But they have Oracle Express for that. It makes no sense for them to build enterprise features into it, and it makes no business sense to free it. This too will either stagnate, or be closed off, since they own the copyrights.

    As for Java, it's too important to set Free. The entire non-Microsoft enterprise world is built on J2EE. There are too many huge business opportunities to pass up on.

    They now control the reference implementation and the entire J2EE stack, that's a lot of leverage.

    The thing with NetApps is that their methodology for gathering their statistical data is sound, reputable and quite accurate. Linux USAGE is growing, but so is the consumer computing market at large, so Linux's share remains stagnant. The Mac OS numbers on NetApps used to be higher, until they changed their methodology (which was previously US-centric, which gave OSX a much higher apparent share than it really had). 5-6% looks about right for Apple. Like Oracle is in the enterprise market, Apple is the low-volume/high margins player in the consumer market.

    The numbers aren't really skewed if you consider that the overwhelming share of new PCs, netbooks and notebooks ship with Windows.

    Linux's numbers also suffer if you take in mind that Android (being a fork, after all) is counted as separate from Linux.

    It's hard to accuse NetApps of being in bed with Microsoft on the count of showing Windows as the undisputed king of the desktop, that's the reality. They have shown Windows' share to have dropped slightly but steadily over the past two years. You'd think they'd fluff up the numbers for Bing and Explorer as well, but they don't.

    Also, consider that your figure of 86% compared to NetApps 89% is within the margin for statistical error, also according to Wiki the median is 87.36%, which also happens to be close enough to the median between your figure and that of NetApps, and the differentiation is small enough to be within the margin for error.

    The trouble is that again, NetApp’s “nonesense” is based on a fair, reputable methodology, compared to your figure which is just a case of going with the lowest figure you could find, and worse, the squabbling is over a difference within the margin of error!

Leave a Reply