Re: WHAT! 100% price increase for per user!

You are corrrect, you are grandfathered into 9i if you already have a license and support agreement in place.

My problem is selling my Oracle based application to new clients and justifiying the Oracle platform. Ours is a client server application that the named user model works well for. We may have 50 users who use the applcation all day long. The new pricing maybe cheaper for a web based app but it kills us. Oracle changed their pricing on Jan 1, 2000 to match MS SQL Server, which was a God sent to us. They went from $300/concurrent user to $160/named user. For us, the switch to named user was no problem. We no longer had to justify a higher database cost for Oracle. Now we are right back where we started. I realise that Oracle is taking the "We cant please everyone" stance on this. But they have to face the fact that in some markets, they will no longer be price competitive with Microsoft.

vafanassiev_at_aapt.com.au (Vsevolod Afanassiev) wrote in message news:<4f7d504c.0106192036.23c4c09f_at_posting.google.com>...
> 1. My Oracle salesrep informed me that UPGRADES to 9i are free...
> 2. I'm wondering what all this fuss is about - it the total
> cost of a project the Oracle license cost is typically just a few percent...
>
> "Van Messner" <vmessner_at_bestweb.net> wrote in message news:<yuQX6.1116$Tt6.438500_at_monger.newsread.com>...
> > For larger customers and those who have many people hitting the database
> > over the web, the price went down. Last year Oracle's market share went up
> > but Microsoft's and DB2's went up more. Price is starting to have an effect
> > in the marketplace.
> >
> >
> > "Owen Ap'Owen" <nospam_at_thank.you> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.159972095e4f974b98968c_at_news.pacbell.net...
> > > Not just Microsoft's continued success but also IBM's.
> > >
> > > I gave up on Oracle a few months ago but got excited when I read about
> > > the new pricing structure. That's to say I was excited until I saw the
> > > details.
> > >
> > > We run one single-processor DB server. About 100 users connect once a
> > > day to print reports or check numbers. About 25 automated workstations
> > > connect to feed in spurts of data every few minutes. I doubt if we ever
> > > have more than 10 concurrent users.
> > >
> > > Under Oracle's incredible pricing scheme I can buy a one-processor
> > > license for $12,000 or I can buy 100 named user licenses for $30,000.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately for Oracle I can buy concurrent user licenses from IBM or
> > > Microsoft for a total cost that is one fifth that of an Oracle solution.
> > >
> > > I don't see how Oracle is going to keep from bleeding away potential
> > > customers over the long run. Their pricing is stratospheric compared to
> > > their competition.
> > >
> > > In article <bafba412.0106191018.1f8d745a_at_posting.google.com>,
> > > stevens_at_coloradocustomware.com says...
> > >
> > > > I have gone to task with many a IT director about Oracle being too
> > > > expesive, now I have some crow to eat! Is Larry Elison just tring to
> > > > insure Microsft's continued success, or am I missing something here?
> > >
> > >
Received on Wed Jun 20 2001 - 09:43:45 CDT