Am I the only one that thinks these industry conferences are a complete waste of time and money? They seem like more of a boring vacation than an actual opportunity for education and networking.
I've been to a number of Sybase conferences, which where really beneficial. The difference to Oracle is that they actually discourage marketing fluff (there's a business track where it's allowed, but for the technical tracks it's definitely not welcome).
I received some great trainings there, not covered by the standard curiculum. For example Replication Server internals and - trouble shooting.
I have once attended an Oracle World and that was a total waste of time, save for the presentation of an indipendent Oracle consultant.
I can't speak for other vendors and imagine that the quality of such conferences differ a lot.
Oh, and the keynote is actually always a waste of time.
Stuff like WWDC seem pretty useful given the labs and actual engineers from Apple. The technical lectures are pretty helpful and worth watching again on iTunes.
Lately it seems so. I don't go to a lot of these, so my sample error may be high; it seems that most of the speakers at these shows are there primarily to promote their company/product, or their new book. In other words, they are marketing events, and yet attendees are paying for admittance.
I could never grasp the logic of paying employees to watch a couple days of informercials?
It's like when company B names an employee E of company A a "most valuable professional". If employee E is "most valuable" to B, there is something very wrong with whatever E does in A.
In practice, company A and company B are not in direct competition, at least not in the position Employee E is in: one of them consumes the technologies developed by the other.
The underlying currency in this love triangle is not the employee himself, but KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge of a certain technology. Company A makes technology which it sells for $. Company B uses that technology to develop products and services to sell for $. Employee E learns to apply the technology and hires his time and expertise for $.
Since both A and B make money from the technology, it's in their best interest to make sure the workforce is well qualified, so who better to certify and bestow titles of MVP at E than A?
Not really. After being exposed to days of propaganda, those employees may recommend products based on what no longer can be described as their best judgment.
Unless A is a reseller of B, I see no circumstance where E being MVP of B is not an explicit conflict of interest. More likely, A uses products from B and E's judgment, being an MVP of B, will tend towards B's products even if company C's products are a better fit. Sending E to B-sponsored events further distorts E's judgment.
I see your point, but keep in mind that it's the B-type companies that go out of their way recruiting "MVP" type labor because they have already invested heavily in the technology, and/or because they believe it will give them a competitive edge. By the time the MVP is hired the company has already sold into the technology; his employment does not jeopardize anything, and there is no conflict of interest. If anything, his title and role merely reinforce their chosen technical ideology.
It's the higher ranking officials and the C-suite that wine and dine with the vendor that you should worry about. Not the two-cent knowledge worker with the glorified MCSE certification.
> It's the higher ranking officials and the C-suite that wine and dine with the vendor that you should worry about.
About a year ago, a company I know of, but ought to remain nameless, outed a CTO who did too much wining and dining (and traveling) with one hardware vendor. It was a violation of the very strict code of conduct every employee has to sign when hired.
Their current CTO is a tech guy no vendor will be able to bullshit into a bad idea.
AAPL Apple Inc. 251.57B
MSFT Microsoft Corporation 218.24B
IBM Intl. Business Machine... 164.21B
GOOG Google Inc. 156.21B
ORCL Oracle Corporation 138.24B <----
HPQ Hewlett-Packard Company 88.76B
SAP SAP AG (ADR) 57.22B
DELL Dell Inc. 24.21B
CA CA, Inc. 10.55B
NOVL Novell, Inc. 2.15B
PRGS Progress Software Corp. 1.25B
The point I'm making is that Oracle probably measures the quality of its keynote in terms of profit, not in terms of how enjoyable or ethical it was. In these terms, perhaps the keynote was in fact good. An interesting thought experiment, no?
Of course, it's hard to measure whether this sales-pitching, partner-insulting keynote will result in greater profits, until those profits appear (and even then, hard to judge its causative role - if any.) I certainly don't approve or agree with it - I'm just saying that that is a fruitful (in a scientific sense) way to think about it. Whether it was enjoyable and/or ethical for a particular person is also important, but it's unlikely to aid understanding or prediction of Oracle, and very unlikely to make any difference.
We can however look at how Oracle has behaved in the past, and how that worked out for them. I've observed them be quite unkind and changeable, though pragmatic in providing working products etc - and to be profitable.
I think we had different interpretations on who was wasting time and money on conferences like this.
It seems I interpreted as the attendants were wasting time and money. It seems you interpreted as Oracle wasting time and money. I agree with you that, for Oracle, this is a good form of promotion.
I wasn't thinking of anyone wasting time and money, but I see now that attendants might feel that (though these things are often more about networking.) Yes, it's (probably) good promotion for Oracle.
I'm thinking also that Oracle feels it is in a very powerful and dominant position, owning a whole stack, and they're letting everyone know it. It's not all bad though - like Apple and console makers, they can then integrate the stack to make a better whole product (and charge more for that greater value.) They can also charge more through lock-in, but doing that alone is a terrible long-term strategy, because it gives oxygen to new entrants.
Like "paranoia" Intel and "crown-stealing" Microsoft, I think Oracle well-understands that they won't keep their success automatically
I see what you mean now; you can see it as a point of view change (or as a value-system change.)
I feel I've been a bit callously analytical, like the "Life goes on, folks" post near the end of A Fire Upon the Deep, but I'm not happy about how Oracle is acting, or what it may do next. Like the Blight, it is very powerful.
I would call Gates a borderline sociopath. You really should watch his deposition tapes, where he shamelessly says he has no recollection of e-mails he sent.
Larry may or may not be one, but saying Gates is "the sane one" is a symptom of wrong Kool-Aid intoxication.
I think the last MS kool-aid I bought was the copy of DOS 5.0, and back then I didn't know better.
I'm a bit suspicious about the "CEO == sociopath" meme. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, and never attribute to insanity what can be explained by malice. Lying to cover yourself certainly doesn't come close to my definition of insanity…
My point is just that at least Gates seems to have made an exit, and came out somewhat well-adjusted. Maybe the billionaires form of survivor's guilt or seeking repentance comes into play, too.
Ellison is from the same tribe (and time) of monopolist software companies, and doesn't seem to be able to let go. And if I remember correctly, he's older than Gates, too.
> never attribute to insanity what can be explained by malice.
That's the point. Sociopaths are not insane: they are evil. They are smart and know what they are doing and what the consequences will be. They just don't care as long as they can get away with it and will do whatever it takes to get away with it. In their minds, they have a right to do it.
I am not sure about Ellison. He comes through as slightly more balanced than Gates=. But only slightly.
> where he shamelessly says he has no recollection of e-mails he sent
Did anyone bought that declaration?
You can't say somebody is a "borderline sociopath" unless you have some other proof than lying in deposition tapes.
Remember Clinton? ... "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies".
> You can't say somebody is a "borderline sociopath"
Gates is manipulative, disregards rules, is ready to lie under oath to further his interests as long as he thinks he can get away with it and shows no sign of remorse. I cannot diagnose him (for I am an engineer) but I am entitled my own suspicions.
My bet is the only reason he is not a serial killer is because Microsoft has been more fun.
> Gates is manipulative, disregards rules, is ready to lie under oath to further his interests as long as he thinks he can get away with it and shows no sign of remorse...
What you call "bullshit rules" most people call "antitrust law". These specific laws are there to prevent customers from being harmed by companies that detain excessive power in the market. The fact they didn't work and failed to protect the competitive market that existed before Microsoft's monopoly abuse thus harming the consumers they were intended to protect is a bit frustrating, but I wouldn't call them "bullshit rules".
And yes. When "bullshit rules" become law, they have to be followed.
I'm going to guess you've never had to give a deposition. You know those articles that keep getting posted here about how you shouldn't ever say anything to a police officer? It's kind of like that.
Being surrounded by yes-men for too long is a professional hazard CEOs must deal with. It's clear both Larry (and to Mark) haven't been exposed to the word "no" for a very long time.
