« Myth Busting Software Rules... | Main | Where's Judge Wapner when we need him?: Oracle sues SAP »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thomas Otter

Normally I find Oracle's numbers opaque. Thanks for the clarity. It was a good Quarter for them, Larry quotes not withstanding.

Jason C

One thing to consider on the organic growth front is whether Safra's two statements regarding growth excluding acquisitions are independant or additive.

Here's what I mean. If the statements are additive, it means that excluding several small acquisitions growth for the quarter was 44% on $389 million. And if you further exclude Siebel's contributions from last year* and this year, organic growth for the quarter was 32%. This would mean Siebel contributed about $62 million in the quarter and that business is a shell of its former self.

Alternatively, if the two statements are independent it means excluding several small acquisitions = 44% growth, OR excluding just Siebel (from last year* and this year) = 32% growth. It's an important distinction, because in this case in means that Siebel contributed about $95 million in license revenue, and organic growth was around 18% - still respectable, but not leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

* You may recall Oracle did share last year that Siebel contributed $21 million in license revenue for the quarter.

The comments to this entry are closed.