> Companies that have disdain for their own customers will be reviled in return. Such companies may be able to thrive in the short term, but they do not endure in the limit.
Oracle has endured nearly 50 years. Sun did not endure.
I don't want to live in a world where one of the most successful and widespread corporate strategies is also disturbingly un-humanistic, but we're never going to find a better way unless our mental models for how customer relationships map to business success actually align with reality.
No love for customers will compensate for a missing strategic moat. Sun placed its hopes on vertically integrated hardware + proprietary OS. Oracle bet on software, that once installed, had extremely high switching costs (similar to SAP). Strategy >> Love.
>> Certainly, these companies not endure as innovators: when coercion is your business model, innovation is not merely unnecessary but actively antithetical.
Oracle and VMware do seem like just rent seekers. I'm sure those rents do pay for plenty of nice things, but it's really hard for me to ever understand Oracle or VMware as an "innovator", beyond their initial innovations (their flagship DB, x86 virtualization).
> Oracle has endured nearly 50 years. Sun did not endure.
IMHO it's perfectly fine for companies to live well, and then be sold. AFAIAC persistence is only proof of persistence. Sun created plenty of wealth/millionaires too. And, by Bryan's lights, it did so mostly ethically. That's a good life.
I think that companies like Oracle and Broadcom begin to resemble specialized private equity firms: they acquire innovative companies that have scaled to a level that they're familiar with. The acquirer then enforces "business discipline" and unlocks efficiencies (mainly this means leveraging the acquirer's existing connections with their customer base to cross-sell licenses, raising prices to the highest possible level their customers can sustain, and laying off/transferring redundant positions or positions not directly tied to revenue generation). This lasts 3-10 years until the market develops a lower-cost enterprise-ready alternative that starts to erode the captive customer base, but in that time these companies have collected enough rents to acquire another set of smaller companies and repeat the process.
> I think that companies like Oracle, SAP, and Broadcom begin to resemble specialized private equity firms
This is an entirely fair/accurate. I suppose what I am getting at is that these are just 2 different business models, and, the world can sustain a multitude of business models. There need not be only one (har har).
It's also fair to believe there is a moral dimension to one's own model which doesn't extract maximum value from the customer. Because IMHO "let's kick them in the dicks again" isn't an especially likable model, even if it is successful, and it's fair to avoid doing business with such people.
Imagine trying to sell your partners on doing business with Broadcom. If your core principle is "Broadcom needs to be around in 10 years", maybe the persistence/"kick them in the dicks" model is appealing, but otherwise, its fair for their competitors/Oxide to point out how awful dealing with a corporate sociopath might be.
Yeah, I agree with all of that. Extractive behemoths like Oracle couldn't exist without innovators like Oxide (well, not exactly Oxide since I doubt they'd sell to an Oracle, but you know what I mean).
There are plenty of customers that jump into deals with e.g. Oracle for a variety of reasons, and it's definitely worthwhile to spread the news far and wide about how difficult it is to work with these companies, doubly so if you're ideologically and economically competing with them.
I guess my point is that it's worthwhile to spend time understanding why this business model works in spite of all the shittiness, since the "hoping their poor treatment of customers will blow back on them" approach hasn't worked yet. I'm also fixating on the bad here, because I look at "both kind and nasty business models can succeed" and reflexively respond with "but why do the nasty ones succeed?"
> I don’t think people want or need to be loved by their enterprise software.
I absolutely want a good partnership with the people who make my enterprise software. If I end up loving one of them, even better. However, paying Oracle, for example, and constantly fearing being sued sounds more like domestic violence, a bit like #WhyIStayed
I don't think they are looking to date eachother. I think rather what they mean is:
When 2 enterprises love eachother very much,they don't sue eachother, they don't lie and tell customers they are the only one having this problem and most importantly,they stay together in a partnership and maybe work together to improve the product.
Valuable advice I once received was: sales is about trust, and this kind of breaks that. I think that the sane customer would explore option to migrate their services to other things.
I admire Bryan and Oxide but outing your former coworker’s private conversation with you because they said something you didn’t like on email is, to use Bryan’s terminology, “gross.”
How many former Sun folks are in senior engineering management at Broadcom? Might as well have just posted the person’s name.
The name is beside the point -- and their character outs them anyway. To be clear, this was a conversation I didn't initiate (they came into my DMs, going off half-cocked about several technical aspects of Oxide that they did not understand), and they made no effort to hide their disposition. We probably disagree on this, but I don't believe that there's a basis for an assumption of privacy here (I'm not your priest, rabbi, lawyer, spouse, etc.) -- and anyone who knows me would know that I'm not the person to be confessing these kinds of sins to anyway.
I would be shocked if the number of former Sun people who then worked at VMware and now are in senior engineering management at Broadcom was as high as five.
Love you Bryan, but:
> Companies that have disdain for their own customers will be reviled in return. Such companies may be able to thrive in the short term, but they do not endure in the limit.
Oracle has endured nearly 50 years. Sun did not endure.
I don't want to live in a world where one of the most successful and widespread corporate strategies is also disturbingly un-humanistic, but we're never going to find a better way unless our mental models for how customer relationships map to business success actually align with reality.
No love for customers will compensate for a missing strategic moat. Sun placed its hopes on vertically integrated hardware + proprietary OS. Oracle bet on software, that once installed, had extremely high switching costs (similar to SAP). Strategy >> Love.
The next sentence is more defensible:
>> Certainly, these companies not endure as innovators: when coercion is your business model, innovation is not merely unnecessary but actively antithetical.
Oracle and VMware do seem like just rent seekers. I'm sure those rents do pay for plenty of nice things, but it's really hard for me to ever understand Oracle or VMware as an "innovator", beyond their initial innovations (their flagship DB, x86 virtualization).
> Oracle has endured nearly 50 years. Sun did not endure.
IMHO it's perfectly fine for companies to live well, and then be sold. AFAIAC persistence is only proof of persistence. Sun created plenty of wealth/millionaires too. And, by Bryan's lights, it did so mostly ethically. That's a good life.
I think that companies like Oracle and Broadcom begin to resemble specialized private equity firms: they acquire innovative companies that have scaled to a level that they're familiar with. The acquirer then enforces "business discipline" and unlocks efficiencies (mainly this means leveraging the acquirer's existing connections with their customer base to cross-sell licenses, raising prices to the highest possible level their customers can sustain, and laying off/transferring redundant positions or positions not directly tied to revenue generation). This lasts 3-10 years until the market develops a lower-cost enterprise-ready alternative that starts to erode the captive customer base, but in that time these companies have collected enough rents to acquire another set of smaller companies and repeat the process.
> I think that companies like Oracle, SAP, and Broadcom begin to resemble specialized private equity firms
This is an entirely fair/accurate. I suppose what I am getting at is that these are just 2 different business models, and, the world can sustain a multitude of business models. There need not be only one (har har).
It's also fair to believe there is a moral dimension to one's own model which doesn't extract maximum value from the customer. Because IMHO "let's kick them in the dicks again" isn't an especially likable model, even if it is successful, and it's fair to avoid doing business with such people.
Imagine trying to sell your partners on doing business with Broadcom. If your core principle is "Broadcom needs to be around in 10 years", maybe the persistence/"kick them in the dicks" model is appealing, but otherwise, its fair for their competitors/Oxide to point out how awful dealing with a corporate sociopath might be.
Yeah, I agree with all of that. Extractive behemoths like Oracle couldn't exist without innovators like Oxide (well, not exactly Oxide since I doubt they'd sell to an Oracle, but you know what I mean).
There are plenty of customers that jump into deals with e.g. Oracle for a variety of reasons, and it's definitely worthwhile to spread the news far and wide about how difficult it is to work with these companies, doubly so if you're ideologically and economically competing with them.
I guess my point is that it's worthwhile to spend time understanding why this business model works in spite of all the shittiness, since the "hoping their poor treatment of customers will blow back on them" approach hasn't worked yet. I'm also fixating on the bad here, because I look at "both kind and nasty business models can succeed" and reflexively respond with "but why do the nasty ones succeed?"
Odd framing for the opposite of “holding customers hostage” - I don’t think people want or need to be loved by their enterprise software.
> I don’t think people want or need to be loved by their enterprise software.
I absolutely want a good partnership with the people who make my enterprise software. If I end up loving one of them, even better. However, paying Oracle, for example, and constantly fearing being sued sounds more like domestic violence, a bit like #WhyIStayed
I don't think they are looking to date eachother. I think rather what they mean is:
When 2 enterprises love eachother very much,they don't sue eachother, they don't lie and tell customers they are the only one having this problem and most importantly,they stay together in a partnership and maybe work together to improve the product.
Valuable advice I once received was: sales is about trust, and this kind of breaks that. I think that the sane customer would explore option to migrate their services to other things.
I admire Bryan and Oxide but outing your former coworker’s private conversation with you because they said something you didn’t like on email is, to use Bryan’s terminology, “gross.”
How many former Sun folks are in senior engineering management at Broadcom? Might as well have just posted the person’s name.
The name is beside the point -- and their character outs them anyway. To be clear, this was a conversation I didn't initiate (they came into my DMs, going off half-cocked about several technical aspects of Oxide that they did not understand), and they made no effort to hide their disposition. We probably disagree on this, but I don't believe that there's a basis for an assumption of privacy here (I'm not your priest, rabbi, lawyer, spouse, etc.) -- and anyone who knows me would know that I'm not the person to be confessing these kinds of sins to anyway.
I dunno, a few hundred folks?
I would be shocked if the number of former Sun people who then worked at VMware and now are in senior engineering management at Broadcom was as high as five.
I like the sentiment, I really do, but enshittification is a civilization-wide problem. It’s not solved by asking corporations to be nicer.
Nice