Your observation about the acquisition making sense for both sides rings true. Several years ago Oracle might have wasted the opportunity to leverage the acquired technology by replacing it with its own product. But Oracle no longer lives by the “not invented here” syndrome and will cannibalize their own products when appropriate. It is a win/win because Oracle obtains a better technology and Sunopsis get outs from under the “who are you” constraint imposed by many IT purchasing agents today.

Although Oracle PR says that the products are complementary, your description about them being similar in architecture, .i.e. no database independent transformation engine, is really how they compliment each other. From a functionality perspective, they are not complementary but competitive. It is likely that either Sunopsis will supersede OWB Oracle Warehouse Builder) or the “combined” products will primarily be based on Sunopsis. With either scenario, Oracle should be able to guide their existing customers smoothly along the migration path towards a converged product.

OWB has made great strides as evidenced by its latest release but it seemed to be handcuffed by being an Oracle product. Based on my own experience from many years ago when I was in the software engineering group within Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) – and feedback I have had with IBM and HP software engineering architects – it is easy for “niche” products within a larger organization to have to conform to the dominant product(s) rather than breakout on their own. My guess is Oracle saw the opportunity in data integration as too important to be constrained by it database. Sunopsis brings the heterogeneous dimension of data integration to IT customers, whether existing Oracle customers or not, that many of them need.

Rick Sherman

Ps: I enjoy your blog

Your observation about the acquisition making sense for both sides rings true. Several years ago Oracle might have wasted the opportunity to leverage the acquired technology by replacing it with its own product. But Oracle no longer lives by the “not invented here” syndrome and will cannibalize their own products when appropriate. It is a win/win because Oracle obtains a better technology and Sunopsis get outs from under the “who are you” constraint imposed by many IT purchasing agents today.

Although Oracle PR says that the products are complementary, your description about them being similar in architecture, .i.e. no database independent transformation engine, is really how they compliment each other. From a functionality perspective, they are not complementary but competitive. It is likely that either Sunopsis will supersede OWB Oracle Warehouse Builder) or the “combined” products will primarily be based on Sunopsis. With either scenario, Oracle should be able to guide their existing customers smoothly along the migration path towards a converged product.

OWB has made great strides as evidenced by its latest release but it seemed to be handcuffed by being an Oracle product. Based on my own experience from many years ago when I was in the software engineering group within Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) – and feedback I have had with IBM and HP software engineering architects – it is easy for “niche” products within a larger organization to have to conform to the dominant product(s) rather than breakout on their own. My guess is Oracle saw the opportunity in data integration as too important to be constrained by it database. Sunopsis brings the heterogeneous dimension of data integration to IT customers, whether existing Oracle customers or not, that many of them need.

Rick Sherman

Ps: I enjoy your blog