petilon
7 hours ago
Oracle's credit rating has been downgraded to a notch above "junk" status [1].
That means they can't borrow cheaply anymore. The only way to raise cash now is to cut payroll, and that's what they are doing. And what are they doing with the cash? Buying Nvidia hardware to rent out to OpenAI [2].
All Oracle is doing is unpacking Nvidia servers and plugging them in. This is a commodity business, Oracle has no IP in this. To fund it they are making deep cuts to their software development business which does have proprietary IP.
That may have made sense when it was originally announced because AI hype was at its peak at the time. Indeed, Oracle's stock shot up when Stargate was announced, and Larry Ellison briefly became the world's richest person. However, since then the AI hype has evaporated, and hyperscalers are no longer being rewarded with a higher stock price. Oracle stock has dropped more than 50%, and companies NOT investing 100s of billions in AI hardware are now being rewarded, such as Apple.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/31/magazine/takeaways-larry-...
coldpie
7 hours ago
Oracle going out of business would at least be one thing to celebrate in 2026.
petilon
7 hours ago
Larry Ellison's son had to scale down his media and TV empire ambitions when Oracle stock crashed. That's one thing to celebrate, because we don't want CNN to be controlled by the Ellisons.
miohtama
6 hours ago
Larry is also the reason why all new Star Trek series have been cancelled:
https://www.cbr.com/paramount-dismantling-star-trek-9-year-s...
SOLAR_FIELDS
an hour ago
I do love how the software world has the caricature of a comic book villain in Larry Ellison
bigstrat2003
6 hours ago
Well, that's a blessing at least. It was painful watching the butchering of Star Trek over the last decade.
droptablemain
6 hours ago
I assumed the reason was Starfleet Academy was complete slop
tekla
5 hours ago
Oh thank god. It hurt my soul watching the horror that is the new ST. Starfleet Academy was almost unspeakably terrible
jlarocco
6 hours ago
Meh. The last Star Trek worth watching was TOS.
ihsw
5 hours ago
That's funny way of spelling DS9.
martin1975
6 hours ago
last time I found CNN appealing was in the early 90's...if that tells you anything about it.
soperj
6 hours ago
Bourdain worked for them after that
testdelacc1
6 hours ago
Maybe some in this thread won’t celebrate CNN staying out of the clutches of the Ellisons.
But think of it this way. If Ellison’s acquisition of Warner Bros falls through Ellison must pay Warner Bros a $7 Billion breakup fee. That’s on top of the $2.8 Billion they paid Netflix to abandon its pursuit of Warner Bros.
So Ellison would have wasted $9.8 Billion and years of his life for absolutely nothing. And I think we can all agree that the world would be better off.
FireBeyond
6 hours ago
And will be still worth a quarter trillion dollars.
Years of his life, perhaps, though a large part of that will be banks and lawyers, not him grinding it out.
He won't even notice the money being gone, not even close.
awakeasleep
5 hours ago
I’m worried your cynicism is overwhelming your capacity for rational thought.
Years of his life and 5-10% of his net worth. That’s the kind of thing people notice.
FireBeyond
4 hours ago
It's definitely not 10%, more like 3%. His net worth is currently listed as $248B. If he has to pay out the penalty on both acquisitions, his net worth will still be about $240B. There's nothing articulable about the difference in his life as a result.
I will give you the time though, or the motivations (however appalling they are) for his exertion of energy on these.
jgalt212
7 hours ago
That's true, but then again, CNN is a mere husk of its former self. Something needs to change, but maybe it's too late for profit-driven news media.
xp84
7 hours ago
It’s been more than a decade when CNN was a respected institution. I agree it’s too late for the news media in general. Their incentives are unfortunately all lined up just like social media: pure ragebait is the fully optimized product. The only thing changing from now on is fine tweaks to get it slightly more… ragey.
petilon
7 hours ago
Bloomberg and Economist seem to be doing OK, so it is possible.
xp84
4 hours ago
I'd roughly agree they are, but they have clearly positioned themselves in the opposite way as the mainstream media - the rest compete for ad-supported clicks and views; those two are fully paywalled and at a price that deliberately drives away anyone below say, the 90th percentile by income or wealth.
That resembles, to me, how newspapers used to be - except instead of a small fraction of people being willing to pay for quality news, roughly two thirds were (62 million subscribers out of 92 million American households in 1989 [1]). Like Bloomberg today, their incentives were to provide information for serious people and to cultivate a trustworthy reputation, rather than to enrage people into commenting and sharing articles.
The decline of newspapers is of course too much of a tangent, but I think it's interesting how the math kind of illustrates why most 'news' has to be trash now.
abeppu
7 hours ago
But isn't not-for-profit news media also struggling?
saturn8601
7 hours ago
From what I can see, online media has finally taken over. The horrendous coverage from the 2024 election may have finally been the last straw for many people.
People seem to be focusing more on individual reporters, subscribing directly to good journalists who have gone out on their own. We are also seeing a thing that pleases me ver much: Reporters focusing on the subjects they are experts in and not doing a jack of all trades master of none. Its made me accept that I wont get top tier news in every subject so I have to pick what really matters to me(Tech, Food, entertainment, geopolitics of specific regions of the world etc.).
On the low end though its more bleak. TikTok slop, Youtuber "commentators" etc.
dylan604
6 hours ago
> From what I can see, online media has finally taken over.
Makes me think of Neil Gaiman's American Gods
cbsmith
6 hours ago
I kind of like the whole Paramount acquisition as something that is just going to drag them down.
CPLX
6 hours ago
CNN is mostly a lost cause, though I do agree with your statement.
The real problem with that one, though, is it would utterly destroy the American movie industry, which is a crucial part of our economy and culture.
Terr_
6 hours ago
> it would utterly destroy the American movie industry
I don't understand, if Oracle etc. has financial problems, why would movie-making bits be destroyed as opposed to sold to new owners?
If the American movie industry got "destroyed", what would that look like, and how would it lead to long-term malaise? Offhand, I can't imagine the same kind of supply-chain/infrastructure rot-problem as, say, the "destruction" of the automotive industry.
CPLX
6 hours ago
It's the merger. That's the problem.
Consolidation into one company with a huge amount of market power ruins the market, destroys innovation, and destroys infrastructure and capacity within the vertical.
Terr_
5 hours ago
Oh, I see, I thought you were saying that Oracle's financial woes would have a ripple-effect that's negative for everyone else, as opposed to the mergers being a bad thing regardless of Oracle's financial situation.
Yeah, America is way overdue for some trust-busting.
dcrazy
6 hours ago
Because David Ellison’s explicit plan is to run Warner Bros. Discovery (owners of CNN) and Paramount (owners of CBS) as two divisions within Skydance Media. He committed to keeping a 20-odd film slate at WBD as part of antitrust negotiations with the U.S. and other countries. So he has to keep the studio running while figuring out how to pay off the investors with depreciating Oracle assets.
macintux
7 hours ago
Not for the employees, obvs. I'm not going to celebrate misery, especially if that misery makes an already-tough job market that much worse.
jollyllama
7 hours ago
If it happens in 2026, they will likely be bailed out.
cromka
7 hours ago
I hope whoever buys their parents, they relicense ZFS
ghaff
6 hours ago
I strongly suspect that broad enthusiasm for copy-on-write filesystems is largely past. Btrfs is out there and is the default for some Fedora editions. While I have no direct connections to that storage world any longer, I'm not convinced that relicensing ZFS would affect the landscape in a major way among the more significant distributions.
danudey
5 hours ago
As someone who's used btrfs and zfs, btrfs today is still a pale imitation of what zfs was at launch. btrfs feels like people wanted to make a filesystem which had all the 'pretty neat' features of ZFS but without the tightly coupled management and benefits of ZFS (like volume management + RAID + encryption + compression all being managed through one tool).
btrfs ended up being basically a consumer version of a few of ZFS's most visible features - transparent compression, subvolumes, and copy-on-write - which then farms out the other most useful features - RAID + volume management + encryption - to the existing tooling. Makes sense for a smaller-scale project, no shade, but it definitely misses the mark if you've spent time on ZFS systems taking advantage of what ZFS has to offer (like recursive snapshots or vdevs).
ghaff
5 hours ago
I don't know the whole history of btrfs (although its primary maintainer was I think at Oracle at one point) but ZFS was definitely built from a hierarchical storage enterprise mindset.
Given different historical circumstances, it could probably have picked up more traction. But not sure what would change today even with an Oracle licensing change.
scheme271
6 hours ago
It seems that btrfs is being phased out of fedora. It looks like Fedora will be moving to stratis storage over the next year or two. Btrfs is nice but it's raid5/6 support still seems shaky and there's odd corner cases that apply to all btrfs setups (getting stuck when free space is low is mostly resolved but can still occur).
ghaff
5 hours ago
I'm not super-plugged into Fedora these days. Red Hat has long been pretty comfortable with a more conventional file system (think it's still XFS out of SGI by default) plus volume management for RHEL. ZFS was a non-starter for licensing reasons and Oracle; btrfs just wasn't there. I suspect things could have played out differently had Oracle relicensed ZFS once upon a time but that ship has likely sailed in a variety of ways.
tharkun__
3 hours ago
XFS is a default filesystem in a production system? Really?
XFS was dead to me 20 years ago. The only time I ever actually verifiably lost data to a system crash was on XFS. I had actual zero length files with XFS after a crash. Lost actual data. But the file system was in totally happy consistent metadata state. Never ever would I ever consider that filesystem ever again.
The ominous "reisserfs" everyone complained about? Never lost a single byte of data to it even when I pulled the plug in the middle of a write operation to test it. No issues with ext4, no experience with btrfs.
fpoling
5 hours ago
Stratis does not support data integrity checksums. There is dm-integrity hack but it slows down the write speed by halve.
cromka
6 hours ago
Is it? I thought the contrary, the immutable distros are possible specifically because of them?.
Relicensing it would probably make it into kernel within months and I am absolutely sure adoption would happen quickly. Mind you, ZFS is more important to servers than desktop.
ghaff
5 hours ago
I expect that there is enough history around ZFS that getting it into the kernel would be a pretty big move.
wongarsu
6 hours ago
zfs is more mature and has a better feature set. It's also about the best file system for a NAS, since you can detect and repair single bad blocks if you run zfs's version of RAID5/6.
btrfs is lighter on memory use and a bit easier to administer (until it eats your data). But if zfs licensing becomes cleared up and it becomes a normal part of the linux kernel that would be a lot more attractive than btrfs to me
infamouscow
7 hours ago
If Sam and Dario manage to kill Oracle, this whole era of software will have been worth it.
jmspring
5 hours ago
Happen to agree. But to the comment above, yes, it's rack and stack but I suspect Oracle's legion of lawyers can put some sort of spin on this.
this_user
6 hours ago
They are still making billions from highly sticky enterprise customers, which is more than enough to survive. Otherwise, Microsoft would have gone out of business years ago.
kstrauser
5 hours ago
Sure, but then they're out of the "growth" stock category they so badly wanted to be in, with its higher valuation multipliers, then in the stodgy "keep the lights on" niche. If a company makes $10B this year, and you had a way of knowing it was going to make $10B every year from now on, there's not much incentive to invest in it.
Note that this doesn't make for a bad company! You can run a $0-profit company indefinitely and give employees nice jobs for providing nice services to your customers. There's nothing wrong with that. It's great! But you don't get the same multiples for that arrangment as you do for a company that's growing quickly. Lower multiples = stock drops = One Medium Wealthy Asshole Called Larry Ellison, and that's something I simply do not think he could tolerate.
petilon
6 hours ago
> They are still making billions from highly sticky enterprise customers
That's true. This lets Oracle coast for a while. But if they coast for too long SAP will overtake them.
SwellJoe
6 hours ago
Putting a big X on the Ellison photo in the rogue's gallery of tech elites will be satisfying. In an industry chock full of despicable men, Ellison is a real standout.
immibis2
6 hours ago
I wonder which shitty company will become the new Oracle. Oracle wasn't the first Oracle.
kstrauser
5 hours ago
Who was the first Oracle? Did IBM transition into it before Oracle did?
cyberax
5 hours ago
IBM has always been better than Oracle. It makes giant expensive software and hardware that require arcane knowledge to keep them running. But they also run reliably once you insert enough money.
Oracle's stuff JustDoesn'tWork(tm) once you move past its core database offering. And even that (see: RAC) is sometimes problematic.
wpm
5 hours ago
Broadcom would buy up all of Oracle's useful IP and patents and continue the grift.
stuaxo
6 hours ago
"Dear Santa..."
ags16
7 hours ago
They still maintain Java and Graal VM. That is more that the BS coming out of Misanthropic and ClosedAI.
Byvrsakjo10
5 hours ago
Why do we loathe Oracle again? And what do they do exactly for Larry Ellison share in the company to be worth 100bn?
coldpie
4 hours ago
> Why do we loathe Oracle again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_...
keeda
4 hours ago
> All Oracle is doing is unpacking Nvidia servers and plugging them in.
1. Any cloud business essentially is "unpacking servers and plugging them in." Yet the cloud business has been exploding quarter-over-quarter ever since AWS came online. To the tune of double-digit billions cash flow every quarter for each of the hyperscalers, even before the AI boom.
2. Nvidia servers are at the moment even less commodity than typical cloud servers and are currently THE hottest hardware resource in the world. Everyone is scrambling desperately to procure them, and the US and China are battling geopolitically over access to these things, and they are actively being smuggled to bypass these restrictions.
> However, since then the AI hype has evaporated, and hyperscalers are no longer being rewarded with a higher stock price.
This is a misreading of what has been happening with hyperscaler stock prices. They have consistently been punished despite record estimate-beating earnings pretty much every quarter for the past multiple quarters, precisely because they keep incinerating all that money and more on the same CapEx that Oracle is.
At this point it is pretty clear that the biggest moat in the whole AI boom is access to compute, for which the demand has just kept exploding. (See: Anthropic paying its competitors through its nose to keep Claude up.)
I've little love for Oracle, so I fear they will actually make out like bandits with these moves.
solidasparagus
4 hours ago
They can raise cash by selling off the stock they have spent a decade buying back.
pharos92
4 hours ago
I'm very hopeful to see Larry loose everything, and Oracle stripped for parts. Karma that is well overdue.
gruez
7 hours ago
>However, since then the AI hype has evaporated
What? Nvidia stock, for instance has been moving largely sideways for the past 4 months. Maybe it's not as jubilant as before, but it hasn't exactly "evaporated".
petilon
7 hours ago
That's relative to the hype we had before. Previously any involvement in AI was rewarded heavily, but now it is being punished. Wallstreet previously punished Apple for not enough AI now they are being rewarded for not throwing 100s of billions into AI hardware.
Analemma_
7 hours ago
I think the parent is overselling it when they say "AI hype has evaporated". Nvidia is still trading high because they're still selling shovels in the gold rush, and the frontier labs are still trading high as well. What is collapsing are the infra providers who are just selling commodities: even if the bubble doesn't crash they will get chewed up, because there is nothing preventing them from being forced to sell at COGS: they have no moat and eventually their margins will be driven to zero.
petilon
7 hours ago
NVDA P/E is 26. That's hardly overhyped. For comparison AAPL P/E is 38.
drTobiasFunke
6 hours ago
PE is forward looking. Apple has the business model where people will continue to buy their newer phones and devices and use their paid services at the same or higher prices for the foreseeable future.
Do you think GPUs will continue to be bought at the same rate as during the ai data center buildout gold rush era, at the same ultra high up prices?
petilon
6 hours ago
For CPUs, Moore's law lasted more than 50 years. We don't know how long it will last for GPUs. I think Nvidia will keep improving performance, lowering power consumption and reducing heat generation for many years to come.
devttyeu
6 hours ago
What else does Oracle have? Mostly just a bunch of IP that a sufficiently strong AI will be able to recreate for a fraction of each customers bill. Oracle is very aware.
Where is the value coming from when all knowledge work (and later manual work) is 10-100-10000x cheaper done by AIs? You probably don’t want to build models, too easy to move to another provider when one is better, open models eat your lunch etc. But there are still means of production to be owned but it’s just GPUs
rconti
6 hours ago
ORCL down more than 50% in the past 12mo.
Byvrsakjo10
5 hours ago
is it true that the companies investing 100s of billions into AI, have taken up a lot of debt in hope of AI making them trillions in revenue?
jgalt212
7 hours ago
> All Oracle is doing is unpacking Nvidia servers and plugging them in. This is a commodity business
But it's not if you can jump to the front of the GPU allocation line like Musk has done.