
Oracle on why it thinks AWS winning the Pentagon's $10bn Jedi contract stinks - notlukesky
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/01/oracle_jedi_case_filing/
======
segphault
What's funny about this is that Oracle has a long and colorful history of
doing the exact same thing[1] that they are accusing AWS of doing in this
case. It feels like Oracle is just unhappy that they got outmaneuvered at a
game they practically invented.

[1]: [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-may-04-me-
oracl...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-may-04-me-
oracle4-story.html)

~~~
suyash
Wrong is a wrong.

~~~
akoncius
so when others do wrong it’s wronger :D

------
jsty
> Oracle's filing said that US "warfighters and taxpayers have a vested
> interest in obtaining the best services through lawful, competitive means...
> Instead, DoD (with AWS's help) has delivered a conflict-ridden mess in which
> hundreds of contractors expressed an interest in JEDI, over 60 responded to
> requests for information, yet only the two largest global cloud providers
> can clear the qualification gates."

Changing the thing being procured shines a light on just how bad this argument
is: "Over 60 potential manufacturers declared an interest in designing and
building the latest jet fighter, yet all but two were excluded by the
qualification gates of being able to provide a product capable of remaining
airborne. Hundreds of potential suppliers could provide the odd wing or
ejector seat, which put together stand a good chance of resembling a plane."

(Realisations that this is actually maddeningly close to how some jet fighters
are built are welcomed)

~~~
Liquix
Great metaphor. To play devil's advocate: if only one or two companies can
satisfactorily make cars, should other less capable/affluent manufactures
accept defeat and hand over the automobile market to them? Look for another
line of business to break into?

There's no question that Amazon and Google are the most capable (perhaps the
only viable) choices for a contract of this scope. But giving them 10 billion
dollars and relative corporate invinciblity (Amazon will not go under unless
the US government decides so/collapses) is just exacerbating the problem. A
government concerned with preserving the free market (and thus the
prosperity/happiness of their citizens) should be stimulating smaller
competitors, not funneling all available resources to a small handful of
megacorps they're in bed with.

~~~
solidasparagus
Google did not big on JEDI and it's questionable whether they would have been
able to compete with AWS and Azure if they had.

~~~
Liquix
Thanks for the correction, I don't know nearly enough about the situation.

------
valar_m
They wrote a 50 page filing, apparently, but the issue comes down to this: AWS
is an existential threat to Oracle as a going concern.

~~~
hyperpallium
Can you elaborate on how AWS is an "existential threat" to Oracle?

~~~
valar_m
They are direct competitors, as another replied said. Case in point: the
Pentagon contract in question.

Edit: To expand a bit further: [https://aws.amazon.com/getting-
started/projects/migrate-orac...](https://aws.amazon.com/getting-
started/projects/migrate-oracle-to-amazon-redshift/)

~~~
hyperpallium
Thanks! Oracle is an RDB and app provider, mostly web-based.

AWS is a cloud platform provider.

Unless one (or both?) have changed while I wasn't looking... but even then, is
the Cloud now so central to Oracle that its _existence_ depends on it?

EDIT thanks for the link. "Oracle data warehouse" isn't Oracle's central
business. Also, I'm not a fan of Oracle, but I doubt it's so easy to steal
their customers. Finally, how can the loss of one govt contract be so harmful?
Few of their customers, not even govt ones, are so security conscious... BTW I
realize you're just reporting their claim, not making it.

~~~
valar_m
I don't think the issue is how important the cloud is to Oracle. The threat to
Oracle is that AWS provides directly comparable database products (RDS,
Redshift, DynamoDB) that don't require the licensing fees and (sometimes)
hardware costs that come with Oracle products.

As an aside, I regret not disclosing earlier that I'm an engineer at Amazon. I
did not expect to participate in this discussion this much, and also, it just
didn't occur to me. My apologies.

~~~
hyperpallium
Thanks. Oracle already has competing cheaper/free RDBs - though not an
integrated suite. (I accept O's app businesses are secondary).

From your first link, compatibility is hard: _AWS SCT clearly marks any code
that it cannot convert so that you can manually convert it._

I would expect O to be upset that they don't even get a look in to an
incredibly lucrative contract, and argue it's bad for the govt's well-being to
exclude them. I can't see how or why they'd argue it threatens their
existence...

Oh, so you _are_ making the claim! Your comment makes a lot more sense now.

BTW congrats on winning the contract, that's amazing!

~~~
valar_m
I haven't made any claims about Oracle's claims in the filing. Perhaps they
are entirely valid. I don't disagree with anything you've said about the
details of the competing services. Perhaps you are entirely correct and Oracle
has a superior offering.

The thesis of my argument is that, in my opinion, Amazon represents a true
threat to Oracle, and that moves like this filing should be examined through
that lens.

For the record, my opinions are my own and I have no knowledge of this
situation or AWS decision making that is not public.

~~~
hyperpallium
Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

direct competitors != existential threat

But you're describing a "disruption": AWS's offering is comparable yet far
cheaper. Which sounds like an "existential threat".

Oracle should be immune to this disruption: the same people are doing the same
thing to the same data for the same purpose - so, the cloud is a "sustaining"
innovation in this context.

Plus, Oracle is a sales company, not an engineering company, and I don't think
AWS is oriented to compete that way.

You've softened your thesis to a "threat", and yes I agree of course it is.
And yes, their competitive situation will inform their actions.

But... $10 billion dollars is reason enough to file in itself, right? They
have huge departments devoted to just this kind of thing. And recall the fuss
they made vs Google over Java, for much less (though TBF, that had strategic
advantages for them).

I still don't see how this particular contract would have knock-on
consequences for Oracle, making it an existential threat. Maybe I'm missing
something.

~~~
valar_m
I have not softened my thesis. For the sake of brevity I assumed that just
saying threat was sufficient.

> Oracle should be immune to this disruption: the same people are doing the
> same thing to the same data for the same purpose - so, the cloud is a
> "sustaining" innovation in this context.

The idea that any company is immune to disruption seems obviously wrong to me.
But in this case, it seems very clear. You're correct that people use
databases the same way for the same purpose on cloud vs self host -- no one
disputes that. What the cloud dramatically alters, among many things, is pay-
what-you-use pricing and scalability. AWS database offerings render license
fees obsolete. How could that be anything less than an existential threat to a
company that is reliant on license fees?

~~~
hyperpallium
They're not immune from losing, but they are immune from the technical
definition of disruption (from _The Innovator 's Dilemma_, where "sustaining
innovation" also come from).

But you're right, pay-per-use is different from license fees (though they do
try to approximate volume), and scalability is also different.

Oracle have also been shifting to the cloud, so they are scalable. I'm
assuming they also modify their fee structure to make sense with SaaS, i.e.
charge-per-usage.

In the following, I'm arguing in good faith not just to score points or win
but seeking insight, and I hope you are too: I'm not sure if that transition
matters.

It might matter, if Oracle can't adjust to it: organisationally (internally),
can't sell in this new way (e.g. sales pitches and sales schedules must
change), etc. Whereas, for AWS, it's business as usual, their systems and
people all deal with it, have overcome the problems, and have been optimising
it, and continue to.

It is a big change, and it's not clear that Oracle will do it smoothly,
although they have made big changes before.

But here we return to disruptive innovation vs. sustaining innovation... does
this change in scalability and pricing structure make a difference to the
business relationship?

For example, if it became a smaller monthly fee rather than larger annual
contract, and a different person lower in the customer organization was in
charge of it, it could make a huge difference. Different contact, different
stakes, different metrics. OTOH, if the total is similar, they'd probably have
the same person handle it the same as before.

~~~
valar_m
I'll be honest, it seems disingenuous to argue that Oracle is immune to
disruption in a debate about whether Amazon poses an existential threat, and
then later reveal that you were using a specific, hidden meaning of the word
-- especially when the plain, obvious meaning is directly applicable to the
discussion. I will try to assume positive intent.

The last thing I'll say is a bit of advice: In future debates, it would be
useful to indicate at the beginning when you're using a specific, non-obvious
definition of a word, especially when the broadly accepted meaning is directly
consistent with the debate topic, and especially when the definition you are
using has little to do with the overall discussion. It will save time and will
help avoid misunderstandings that damage your credibility among your
counterparts in the discussion.

~~~
hyperpallium
Sorry, no ill intent, I thought the technical meaning was common knowlwdge on
HN, since the technical meaning is where the term originated. I was actually
afraid I was being condescending by referencing the source.

But I only introduced it in my 4th comment in the debate, and clarified it in
the next one, when I sensed there might be a misunderstanding. I didn't use it
at the "beginning" of the debate.

The definition is central to the debate. I see now it's hard for us to discuss
this, as disruptive vs. sustaining determines whether the incumbent (Oracle)
or entrant (AWS) wins. The debate turns on the distinction.

"Disruption" is just a theory, doesn't have a perfect track record, and I
sense you're not interested in it, but the original research on the hard disk
drive market was pretty influential, about how some dramatic tech changes in
e.g. the magnetic surface made no difference to who led the market
("sustaining"), while changes in form-factor (8", 5.25", 3.5" etc) "disrupted"
the market by changing who bought them and why... and also changed who led the
market. Wikipedia on "the innovator's dilemma" is a pretty good summary, IIRC.

It's a shame a misunderstanding has prevented you from participating in a
discussion. I thought we were reaching the crux of the issue... oh well. It
was interesting to me, at least.

------
snaky
> Oracle also accused Amazon of breaking the rules by hiring two senior DoD
> staff, Deap Ubhi and Anthony DeMartino, who were involved in the JEDI
> procurement process. Ubhi is described as "lead PM". A third name is
> redacted in the publicly released filing.

~~~
Jtsummers
More important is the next paragraph (apparent typo on the name left in):

> It is alleged that Amazon failed to notify the DoD that it was offering
> Udhi, the DoD's lead for the procurement project, a job. AWS has always
> denied any wrongdoing.

If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for
Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi and
Amazon.

~~~
consumer451
> If it can be shown that Ubhi influenced the decision before departing for
> Amazon, then there are some serious legal problems in store for both Ubhi
> and Amazon.

Honest questions coming out of legal ignorance: isn't this just normal m.o. in
the USA these days? Isn't that what "revolving door"[0] is all about? Is this
really a legal issue for the participants in this scheme at-large? If not,
what did the AWS hires do differently that was more egregious?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_\(politics\))

~~~
Jtsummers
> "Under current law, government officials who make contracting decisions must
> either wait a year before joining a military contractor or, if they want to
> switch immediately, must start in an affiliate or division unrelated to
> their government work. One big loophole is that these restrictions do not
> apply to many high-level policy makers..., who can join corporations or
> their boards without waiting."

From your link (didn't bother following it to its source, but it's a correct
summary). The President's Cabinet members can freely go back and forth between
industry and policymaking positions (well, up to confirmation after nomination
which will limit things). But a member of the military/civil service is
limited in how quickly they can go to a contractor and in what role they can
work.

------
pankajdoharey
In all fairness Oracle does have a superior cloud infrastructure, their cloud
control code and user application code does not run on the same physical
hardware.

------
fencepost
Can't they just say "multiple key decision makers have worked with Oracle
projects, Oracle sales and Oracle license audits in the past."?

