Oracle whistleblower suit raises questions over cloud accounting (opens in new tab)

Do you mean JRockit Mission Control? ;) a product Oracle bought, not developed...

The problem here isn't asserting that businesses and corporations exist to make money.

It's asserting that they only exist to make money. Or that that is in any way natural.

For a company to focus entirely on making money when they don't have enough money to operate is, let's say, understandable. But since companies are run by humans, and humans are quite adept at balancing different goals at the same time, it's not at all beyond reason to expect a company that is making money hand over fist to also focus on more than just that. It's not at all bad to judge them if they choose not to do that, nor to consider them worse than other companies that both make money hand over fist and choose to focus on more than just making more money.

It is in no way inconsistent to work at a for-profit company and complain that another company only exists to make money. Even if you are the chief executive of a for-profit company that both makes money and has additional goals beyond that, you aren't being inconsistent. But if you aren't the chief executive? If you are an employee whose day-to-day job actually isn't directly to make money, even if it is, somewhere above you, being guided by that goal? That doesn't even come close to inconsistent, IMO.

Most businesses are making money. That's not the same as being all about making money. Confusing the two is a really good way to discount the companies who manage perfectly well to make money without losing their souls to that goal[1].

[1] - I'm not really saying Oracle is one of these companies; I've never worked for them or interacted with them (though I've heard plenty of tales). I'm taking issue with the broader statement, because I think it's a fundamentally problematic lens to view the world through.

Actually, companies exist to allow investors to put money up to finance a certain venture without liability for the actions of the employees and representatives of the company. So if you, for example, decided to invest in a company but do no work for that company, and then the company's employees use your money to buy a boat and attack other boats and steal their cargo and sell it for a profit then you could sell your shares in the company for a huge profit or get paid dividends once the company sells the pirated goods. And you couldnt be sued for their actions. Historically, corporations were invented specifically for businessmen to be able to invest in state-sanctioned piracy in the middle of the second millenium in Europe. Today, their purpose is pretty much the same, except instead of robbing sea-faring merchants, they're robbing their customers. In any case, making money is a side-effect of corporations. They could be losing money but growing tremendously and if they continue to attract investors then they are still technically a successful company.

Companies are not only about making money. They are also about being good citizens in the markets and environments they are involved in. They have duties and resposibilities to customers, workers, shareholders, competitors, suppliers, regulatory authorities, the community and the environment - amongst others.

To me, Oracle discounts and in some cases shows disdain for, being a good corporate citizen.

I dislike Oracle because their products (at least the ones I've used) are horrible to use, and insanely expensive.

Edit: I'm talking about the Oracle database products, not Java, the stuff they acquired with Sun, etc.

Seriously? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google....

Shall I go on?

I would wager in some way it is more honest to state you are doing professional business and here for the money, than creating mottos about disruption and doing good (or not doing evil) etc.

The surprising part is when customers of BigCo could be borderline labeled as fans - for me, at least.

Oracle may be "evil" in many people's eyes but at the end of the day they just want to sell some products and services. Same with Microsoft, same with Apple. Compare and contrast that with Google and Facebook who make their money off your private data.

You have a good point. It's a spectrum. There are software companies that thrive by using different models. Some are based on open source, some are based on closed source and some even mix the two. Some other companies as listed elsewhere are ad-companies and give away software to bolster their eco-systems.

I'm seeing, in the field, Oracle reps offering bundles of Oracle software licenses + cloud for less than Oracle software license on it's own. Is that something that could be tricky to account for properly?

As I understands it, some companies may also recognize the contract signing as the revenue and capitalize $13,000 for the year the contract was signed ($1000 setup and $1200 subscription pr year * 10 years).

If the customers cancel the contract they may then book the lost revenue as a loss, so an annual statement with high losses may be an indicator that they booked revenue before the revenue was truly secured.

Good points. The new IFRS 15 tries to deal with those issues, and defines principles of performance obligations, un-bundling etc., which should be helpful in this case.

I'm sure the Big 4s have issued Q&As and position papers to their audit clients already on the adoption of IFRS 15, but this is going to be a nightmare to implement...

From what's listed in the news story, we don't know that, but the point of the article is not to single out Oracle, but to realize that financial accounting for cloud software products is a grey area that affects many firms -- including those that sell it, and even the buyers, and having clearer standards will benefit everyone.