> Very flattering, but I don't think so. Oracle is absolutely
> first rate at customer control. They also had a head start in
> the market - well Ingres may have been ahead of them, but Ingres
> picked QUEL rather than SQL. In the early eighties there was a
> rumor of a study done of learning QUEL and SQL - end-users
> favored QUEL slightly, but it could not be taught to programmers.
> Anyway, Oracle had much more aggressive marketing, did a better
> job of working with upper management, and used SQL as an effective
> weapon. The unique InterBase features were available only through
> GDML and Oracle convinced anyone we competed for that a non-SQL
> interface was the kiss of death.
>
> InterBase and Sybase started at within a month of each other.
> We turned down venture funding at the beginning because it
> scared us. They were braver (or more experienced, or maybe
> just lacked imagination) and got much more exposure.

I was still in school and doing army national service in the 80's, so I am
not talking from direct knowledge. However, back in 2003 I did a fair bit
of research into the history of the various database lines and companies.
My understanding of how it all happened aligns pretty much with what Ann
says above: Oracle was a very focussed and aggressive sales machine, and
Larry Ellison was the Formula One racer in the cockpit.

Note that there is a strong "survivor bias" in corporate history. We never
hear of companies that made similar choices but are not around any more.
Larry Ellison has at least twice "bet the company" on a particular
strategy; the bets worked and now he is a very rich man. They might have
failed and nobody would remember today who Oracle was -- just another
software graveyard corpse (Oracle almost went bankrupt in the early 90's
and nearly all Larry's money was in Oracle stock). For every success there
are 10 failure companies that used exactly the same strategy, but we only
remember the survivor.

If anything has held back Interbase and Firebird (other than a willingness
to drive without brakes), I would say that its culture continuously focuses
on "product" first and seeks customers next. The odds of commercial success
are far higher if that is reversed: first invest in customer relations and
then build the product they need. The big benefit of focusing on product
first is that it leads to, duh, a good product. Nothing wrong with that,
and as Ann/Jim are living proof: one can have a very comfortable life that
way too.

For the interested, here is some reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Story-Informix-Software-White/dp/0972182225
http://www.amazon.com/Softwar-Intimate-Portrait-Ellison-Oracle/dp/0743225058/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Just my 2c worth.

Paul