Oracle Cited for Ads Comparing SPARC T5, IBM Power Systems

 
 
By Jeffrey Burt  |  Posted 2013-08-05 Email Print this article Print
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

An advertising oversight group is reporting Oracle’s advertising campaign comparing its new server with IBM systems to the FTC.

Oracle has been keeping its focus on IBM since buying Sun Microsystems and its SPARC hardware business in 2010.

Over the past three years, when Oracle has rolled out its engineered systems, such as its Exadata database machine that optimizes the hardware with Oracle's database software, officials have used IBM as the foil, usually detailing significant performance gains over Big Blue.

Some of those comparisons have gotten the giant enterprise software maker into trouble with the National Advertising Division (NAD)—an oversight body for the advertising agency—which three times in 2012 investigated Oracle for what the group has said were "overbroad and unsupported" comparisons between one Oracle product and an IBM offering.

In those instances, IBM complained and in July 2012, Oracle agreed to yank ads for Exadata that claimed the database system was 20 times faster than IBM's Power systems. Earlier that year, NAD—a unit of the Better Business Bureau—found a similar problem with Oracle's claim that its SPARC Supercluster T4-4 hardware ran Java and Oracle twice as fast as IBM's fastest computer.

Now the NAD is back with a complaint over new Oracle advertising that the group is forwarding to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

According to an Aug. 1 statement from NAD officials, Oracle has not made a "good faith effort to comply with the recommendations of previous NAD decisions," as evidence by recent ads for the company's new SPARC T5 systems. In those ads, Oracle officials say that the SPARC T5 offers 2.6 times the performance of a system powered by a Power7 chip and running AIX, IBM's Unix operating system.

In a statement, NAD officials note that the ad was too narrow—comparing one particular SPARC T5 configuration to another particular system configuration powered by the Power7+ chips and running AIX—to support the claim, and that the "advertising in question features the same stark, overbroad IBM-versus-Oracle comparison that NAD recommended against in the three previous cases."

IBM initiated the complaint with NAD, and a spokesman has told reporters that the company is pleased that NAD is forwarding it to the FTC. In a release to journalists, an Oracle spokesperson is quoted as saying the company disagrees with the decision.

 "The ad provides a clear and objective comparison between an IBM Power7+ AIX system and an Oracle SPARC T5 system using industry-standard benchmark results that legitimately show 2.6x better performance by the Oracle system. NAD has failed to take into account the sophistication of the ad's target audience, namely businesses that purchase enterprise hardware systems," the spokesperson said.

When Oracle executives unveiled the SPARC T5 and M5 chips and servers in March, they said the products surpassed IBM's offerings in such areas as performance and energy efficiency. CEO Larry Ellison said the eight-socket T5-8 was the fastest single system in the world and offered price-performance advantages of 2.5 to 12 times over comparable IBM Power systems.

"When Oracle bought Sun, a lot of people said, 'Gee, the SPARC [processor] was a laggard. It will never catch up,'" Ellison said in a press conference at the time. "We did catch up, and we passed [competitors]."

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

8 Comments for "Oracle Cited for Ads Comparing SPARC T5, IBM Power Systems"

  • Phil August 06, 2013 1:30 am

    If anyone here had a clue, you'd realize that it's not Oracle that’s at fault, but IBM who has become desperate and has forced the NAD with its lawyers to do anything possible to remove these damaging (to IBM) Ads. For years, IBM has been getting away with price gauging its customers since it didn't really have any competition till now. After 3 years of Oracle investing in SPARC R&D, has finally caught up and surpassed IBM's Power by a significant margin in both performance and the ultimate metric price/performance. Theres nothing wrong with making a legitimate comparison in performance between two systems (even the SPEC.org committee that oversees the SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark hasn’t attacked Oracle for misuse). Oracle clearly states the benchmark performance of these two systems that are publicly available here http://www.spec.org/jEnterprise2010/results/jEnterprise2010.html. Oracle has even disclosed all the details here on its own site: https://blogs.oracle.com/BestPerf/entry/20130326_sparc_t5_8_specjenterprise2010 and based on public pricing and the bill of materials available on the benchmark site, you can easily see for yourselves the comparison. So for any smart people out there, look at the details and question whose at fault here. Oracle for publishing FACTs, or IBM for trying to hide the FACTs? Has anyone looked at IBM's last 5 quarters of Power Systems revenue? Double-digit declines every quarter! Why? Because customers are starting to discover the price gauging and so IBM has to to significant discounting to win deals. You can only survive for so long with negative margins.

  • Phil August 06, 2013 1:29 am

    If anyone here had a clue, you'd realize that it's not Oracle that’s at fault, but IBM who has become desperate and has forced the NAD with its lawyers to do anything possible to remove these damaging (to IBM) Ads. For years, IBM has been getting away with price gauging its customers since it didn't really have any competition till now. After 3 years of Oracle investing in SPARC R&D, has finally caught up and surpassed IBM's Power by a significant margin in both performance and the ultimate metric price/performance. Theres nothing wrong with making a legitimate comparison in performance between two systems (even the SPEC.org committee that oversees the SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark hasn’t attacked Oracle for misuse). Oracle clearly states the benchmark performance of these two systems that are publicly available here http://www.spec.org/jEnterprise2010/results/jEnterprise2010.html. Oracle has even disclosed all the details here on its own site: https://blogs.oracle.com/BestPerf/entry/20130326_sparc_t5_8_specjenterprise2010 and based on public pricing and the bill of materials available on the benchmark site, you can easily see for yourselves the comparison. So for any smart people out there, look at the details and question whose at fault here. Oracle for publishing FACTs, or IBM for trying to hide the FACTs? Has anyone looked at IBM's last 5 quarters of Power Systems revenue? Double-digit declines every quarter! Why? Because customers are starting to discover the price gauging and so IBM has to to significant discounting to win deals. You can only survive for so long with negative margins.

  • Phil August 06, 2013 1:29 am

    If anyone here had a clue, you'd realize that it's not Oracle that’s at fault, but IBM who has become desperate and has forced the NAD with its lawyers to do anything possible to remove these damaging (to IBM) Ads. For years, IBM has been getting away with price gauging its customers since it didn't really have any competition till now. After 3 years of Oracle investing in SPARC R&D, has finally caught up and surpassed IBM's Power by a significant margin in both performance and the ultimate metric price/performance. Theres nothing wrong with making a legitimate comparison in performance between two systems (even the SPEC.org committee that oversees the SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark hasn’t attacked Oracle for misuse). Oracle clearly states the benchmark performance of these two systems that are publicly available here http://www.spec.org/jEnterprise2010/results/jEnterprise2010.html. Oracle has even disclosed all the details here on its own site: https://blogs.oracle.com/BestPerf/entry/20130326_sparc_t5_8_specjenterprise2010 and based on public pricing and the bill of materials available on the benchmark site, you can easily see for yourselves the comparison. So for any smart people out there, look at the details and question whose at fault here. Oracle for publishing FACTs, or IBM for trying to hide the FACTs? Has anyone looked at IBM's last 5 quarters of Power Systems revenue? Double-digit declines every quarter! Why? Because customers are starting to discover the price gauging and so IBM has to to significant discounting to win deals. You can only survive for so long with negative margins.

  • Phil August 06, 2013 1:28 am

    If anyone here had a clue, you'd realize that it's not Oracle that’s at fault, but IBM who has become desperate and has forced the NAD with its lawyers to do anything possible to remove these damaging (to IBM) Ads. For years, IBM has been getting away with price gauging its customers since it didn't really have any competition till now. After 3 years of Oracle investing in SPARC R&D, has finally caught up and surpassed IBM's Power by a significant margin in both performance and the ultimate metric price/performance. Theres nothing wrong with making a legitimate comparison in performance between two systems (even the SPEC.org committee that oversees the SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark hasn’t attacked Oracle for misuse). Oracle clearly states the benchmark performance of these two systems that are publicly available here http://www.spec.org/jEnterprise2010/results/jEnterprise2010.html. Oracle has even disclosed all the details here on its own site: https://blogs.oracle.com/BestPerf/entry/20130326_sparc_t5_8_specjenterprise2010 and based on public pricing and the bill of materials available on the benchmark site, you can easily see for yourselves the comparison. So for any smart people out there, look at the details and question whose at fault here. Oracle for publishing FACTs, or IBM for trying to hide the FACTs? Has anyone looked at IBM's last 5 quarters of Power Systems revenue? Double-digit declines every quarter! Why? Because customers are starting to discover the price gauging and so IBM has to to significant discounting to win deals. You can only survive for so long with negative margins.

  • Phil August 06, 2013 1:28 am

    If anyone here had a clue, you'd realize that it's not Oracle that’s at fault, but IBM who has become desperate and has forced the NAD with its lawyers to do anything possible to remove these damaging (to IBM) Ads. For years, IBM has been getting away with price gauging its customers since it didn't really have any competition till now. After 3 years of Oracle investing in SPARC R&D, has finally caught up and surpassed IBM's Power by a significant margin in both performance and the ultimate metric price/performance. Theres nothing wrong with making a legitimate comparison in performance between two systems (even the SPEC.org committee that oversees the SPECjEnterprise2010 benchmark hasn’t attacked Oracle for misuse). Oracle clearly states the benchmark performance of these two systems that are publicly available here http://www.spec.org/jEnterprise2010/results/jEnterprise2010.html. Oracle has even disclosed all the details here on its own site: https://blogs.oracle.com/BestPerf/entry/20130326_sparc_t5_8_specjenterprise2010 and based on public pricing and the bill of materials available on the benchmark site, you can easily see for yourselves the comparison. So for any smart people out there, look at the details and question whose at fault here. Oracle for publishing FACTs, or IBM for trying to hide the FACTs? Has anyone looked at IBM's last 5 quarters of Power Systems revenue? Double-digit declines every quarter! Why? Because customers are starting to discover the price gauging and so IBM has to to significant discounting to win deals. You can only survive for so long with negative margins.

    • Phornthep August 07, 2013 5:47 am

      Before making any judgement, we should read NAD Press Release at: http://www.asrcreviews.org/2013/08/nad-refers-advertising-by-oracle-to-ftc-after-company-repeatedly-fails-to-comply-with-nad-recommendations-2/ NAD’s decision notes that given “Oracle’s repeated failure to make a good faith effort to bring its advertising into compliance with the guidance of both NAD and NARB, NAD referred this matter to the appropriate governmental agency for possible law enforcement action.”

    • Phornthep August 07, 2013 5:47 am

      Before making any judgement, we should read NAD Press Release at: http://www.asrcreviews.org/2013/08/nad-refers-advertising-by-oracle-to-ftc-after-company-repeatedly-fails-to-comply-with-nad-recommendations-2/ NAD’s decision notes that given “Oracle’s repeated failure to make a good faith effort to bring its advertising into compliance with the guidance of both NAD and NARB, NAD referred this matter to the appropriate governmental agency for possible law enforcement action.”

    • Phornthep August 07, 2013 5:47 am

      Before making any judgement, we should read NAD Press Release at: http://www.asrcreviews.org/2013/08/nad-refers-advertising-by-oracle-to-ftc-after-company-repeatedly-fails-to-comply-with-nad-recommendations-2/ NAD’s decision notes that given “Oracle’s repeated failure to make a good faith effort to bring its advertising into compliance with the guidance of both NAD and NARB, NAD referred this matter to the appropriate governmental agency for possible law enforcement action.”

Leave a Comment

 
Manage your Newsletters: Login   Register My Newsletters























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rocket Fuel