[kstrauser]

That’s makes sense in its way, if they’re convinced and absolutely certain that’s the future. By analogy, I bet there were some carriage manufacturers who bet the farm on internal combustion engines when horse drawn carriages were still popular. It would seem insane at the time for them to give up their reliable business for something risky and unknown. However, in retrospect it would seem like bad business to throw resources after dead-end product lines, even if they’re valuable, because each dollar not advancing their automobile R&D was a dollar wasted on legacy stuff.

I’m not saying AI is the next internal combustion engine. If Oracle is certain it is, though, then that sounds like a more rational move.

[toast0]

> However, in retrospect it would seem like bad business to throw resources after dead-end product lines, even if they’re valuable, because each dollar not advancing their automobile R&D was a dollar wasted on legacy stuff.

If each dollar you throw at dead-end product lines returns $1.20, that gives you more to spend on R&D for the new hotness. Shutting down the old business doesn't maximize spending on new R&D.

Now it's different when there's a conflict over resources. . However, in retrospect it would seem like bad business to throw resources after dead-end product lines, even if they’re valuable, because each dollar not advancing their automobile R&D was a dollar wasted on legacy stuff. If we need kstrauser to keep the old business running and we also need kstrauser to have effective R&D for the new business, hard choices are ahead. For carriage makers, manufacturing facilities would be the big resource issue; maybe you need to stop production of carriages to start working on horseless carriages because they're built in the same facility and can't share and a second location would be too costly.

I don't think the facility argument applies to Oracle. And probably not the key person argument either; line of business apps and AI are pretty different and I wouldn't expect a top person in one to be a top person in the other (although they might be).

[kstrauser]

That's a valid point, and to be clear, I'm not claiming Oracle's making a wise choice. Among other business risks with the plan is that customers who've been burned by Oracle abandoning the specific product line they needed might not be quick to start using Oracle for all their AI stuff. Like I don't think anyone likes using Oracle's products, and if you're starting your company's AI plan from scratch, that might be an excellent time to consider not-Oracle as your provider/partner/contractor/whatever.

However, if your dead-end investment has a 20% ROR, and you think your AI investment will have a 1000% ROR, you'd kinda be foolish not to throw every possible resource at the new venture. I'd bet that a lot of the people maintaining Product A could be switched to the AI project. It's going to need lots of people supporting the networking, CRUD APIs for various things, sales, tech support, legal, etc. The product itself will be different, but much of the underlying support might look the same between the two. Why "waste" someone maintaining Product A's CI/CD pipeline when they could be helping the AI project move faster?

And again, I'm not arguing that they're right. It's more that if they're completely convinced that this is the future of their company, then that could be a rational, defensible decision. There's a lot of "ifs" in all this, to be sure. And in any case, don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison.