A recent survey of 398 enterprises by Redress Compliance reveals an unprecedented backlash against Oracle’s Java licensing practices.
An overwhelming 75% of respondents reported being directly contacted by Oracle about Java licensing compliance in the last 24 months.
Even more striking, nearly all these organizations plan to remove Oracle Java from their environments. The survey highlights widespread audits, cost-cutting strategies, and a mass migration to non-Oracle alternatives, underscoring a growing rift between Oracle and its enterprise customers.
Oracle’s Java Licensing Push Hits the Majority of Enterprises
Oracle appears to be aggressively enforcing its Java licensing. In the past two years, Oracle has approached three out of four surveyed enterprises about Java licensing, indicating that Oracle’s sales and audit teams are in full swing.
Many of these contacts amount to compliance checks or warnings, creating anxiety in IT departments. Notably, 28% of companies have undergone a “soft audit” – an informal review of Java usage initiated by Oracle – and 15% have faced a formal audit of their Java licensing.
Nearly half the surveyed companies endured some form of audit pressure regarding Java. This level of scrutiny is exceptionally high and shows how much Oracle has ramped up oversight after its recent licensing changes.
To put it plainly, Oracle is casting a wide net. Companies that once considered Java a minor line item are now finding Oracle knocking on the door (sometimes with audit teams in tow).
Such pervasive contact is unprecedented for Java, a technology that was free for decades before Oracle’s rule changes. The result is a climate of fear and frustration among CIOs and procurement heads, which is the audience that must now deal with unplanned compliance exercises and potential bills.
Java Licensing Pressure – Survey Highlights (last 24 months):
- Contacted by Oracle about Java licensing: 75% of enterprises
- Experienced a “soft audit” (informal review): 28%
- Underwent a formal Oracle audit (Java licensing): 15%
Oracle’s timing is no accident. Industry analysts note that after Oracle switched Java to an employee-based subscription model in 2023, costs for some customers skyrocketed 2x–5x under the new terms.
Oracle’s response has been to deploy dedicated Java sales teams worldwide, scouring for potential non-compliance.
Many companies in the survey reported that Oracle’s outreach felt like a pre-audit probe – an attempt to sniff out unlicensed Java installations and pressure customers into buying subscriptions before an official audit hits. It’s a classic Oracle move, and it has put enterprises squarely on the defensive.
Nearly All Enterprises Plan to Drop Oracle Java
With these pressures, enterprises respond in one way Oracle probably didn’t expect: mass exit. Astonishingly, 390 out of 398 companies surveyed plan to remove Oracle’s Java from their IT landscape.
In other words, 99.8% of Oracle’s enterprise Java customers (in this sample) have had enough. This near-unanimous flight from Oracle Java is virtually unheard of for a technology platform of this scale.
Why such an exodus? The survey data – and candid feedback from respondents – point to cost and compliance fatigue. Oracle’s new Java licensing model (charging per total number of employees rather than per Java user) can become an exorbitant liability.
For example, a company with 40,000 employees would face an estimated $2.5 million per year in Java bills under Oracle’s pricing. Many CIOs see that as an outrageous tax on using Java, a language with free alternatives. When Oracle asked for this kind of money, it crossed a line for customers. Nearly everyone is now charting a path away from Oracle’s Java to avoid the hefty fees and the constant audit threat.
How are they planning to exit? The vast majority intend to migrate to open-source or third-party Java platforms. One survey participant (out of the 398) already has a formal OpenJDK migration strategy, and two others have adopted Azul’s Java platform as a supported alternative.
These numbers might seem small, but they highlight that specific alternatives are on the table. Most of the remaining companies are likely evaluating similar options (e.g., Amazon Corretto, IBM Semeru, Red Hat OpenJDK, etc.) or simply uninstalling Oracle Java wherever possible. The overarching goal is clear: stop paying Oracle for Java.
Whether through OpenJDK (the free, open-source implementation of Java SE) or vendors like Azul that provide Java builds with support, enterprises are voting with their feet. Oracle’s Java SE subscriptions have become the last resort rather than the default choice.
The unanimity of this decision is the real story. It’s extremely rare to see 99% + of enterprises agree on anything, let alone drop a vendor’s product. This is a loud message to Oracle: the new licensing scheme and compliance tactics have alienated your entire customer base.
Enterprises are concluding that it’s easier to leave than to live under Oracle’s Java regime. In effect, Oracle has driven its customers into the arms of alternatives – a dynamic that should alarm anyone still considering sticking with Oracle Java.
Oracle Footprint Shrinking Across the Board
The survey didn’t just focus on Java; it also examined how enterprises generally handle Oracle software. Again, the signs for Oracle are not good. A full 90% of organizations reported not growing their overall Oracle footprint.
Half of the companies (50%) are actively decreasing their use of Oracle software in one way or another. This includes removing optional Oracle Database features, replacing Oracle’s Business Intelligence tools with other solutions, and minimizing reliance on Oracle products.
The data suggests that Oracle’s high licensing and support costs and hardball tactics have put the vendor on the defensive even outside of Java. Many enterprises have hit “peak Oracle” – they’re using what they have but not buying more.
When 9 out of 10 companies refuse to expand usage, Oracle’s upsell opportunities are drying up. And the fact that 1 in 2 companies is cutting back shows a proactive strategy to reduce Oracle dependency.
For example, an organization might stop using Oracle Database add-on options (like partitioning or security packs) to save on license fees, or migrate an analytics workload from Oracle BI to a lower-cost analytics platform. Such moves cut Oracle out of more and more IT spend.
This broad retrenchment is a stark indicator of Oracle’s standing with customers. Rather than being seen as a long-term partner for innovation, Oracle is increasingly viewed as a legacy cost to be managed or pruned.
CIOs and procurement leaders are deliberately limiting Oracle’s role in future projects. In practical terms, many say, “We’ll maintain what we must keep on Oracle for now, but we will not build new systems on Oracle if we can help it.” The Java controversy is likely accelerating this sentiment, spilling over into databases, middleware, and applications.
Oracle Software Usage Trends (Survey Results):
- Not expanding Oracle usage: 90% of organizations
- Actively decreasing Oracle usage: 50% (commonly targeting expensive DB options, BI tools, etc.)
These numbers are a wake-up call for Oracle, known for its expansive product suite. They signal that loyalty is eroding. Customers are tired of the “deal and license” dance – where every new feature or usage requires another contract or another audit exception.
Instead, companies are simplifying and standardizing on fewer Oracle products to minimize exposure. The fewer Oracles in the stack, the less chance of an unexpected license compliance nightmare.
Cost Reduction Over New Investment: Oracle Customers’ Top Strategy
When asked about their primary strategy regarding Oracle software, enterprises overwhelmingly answered cost reduction. Fully 80% of surveyed organizations said that reducing Oracle support costs is their number-one priority in their Oracle strategy.
Only a small minority (20%) indicated they are doing nothing specific about Oracle (neither cutting costs nor changing usage significantly).
In other words, four out of five companies are in active cost-cutting mode with Oracle, while one in five is in a holding pattern.
The focus on cutting support costs is telling. Oracle’s annual support fees (typically ~22% of the license price, paid yearly) are famously high and increase over time. Many customers feel locked into paying steep maintenance fees for software they acquired years ago, even if they get little incremental value.
The survey reflects a growing rebellion against this status quo. Common cost-reduction tactics include negotiating down annual support renewals, dropping support on non-critical systems, or even migrating some Oracle systems to third-party support providers.
Some companies might also optimize their licenses (for example, consolidating databases to reduce the number of licenses under support). The ultimate goal is to pay Oracle less money year over year.
That 20% doing nothing might simply be those who haven’t gotten around to an Oracle strategy yet or feel stuck due to contractual obligations. However, standing still is risky.
If Oracle’s prices increase or an audit hits, those without a plan could face budget shocks. It’s worth noting that zero respondents in the survey said their strategy was to invest more in Oracle or expand Oracle usage – a stark contrast to how enterprises might view other tech giants. Oracle is not seen as a growth partner but rather as a cost center to be controlled.
Primary Oracle Strategy Among Enterprises:
- Reduce Oracle support costs: 80% (e.g., renegotiate contracts, trim maintenance, consider third-party support)
- No active strategy (status quo): 20%
The message to Oracle is that customers are overwhelmingly in belt-tightening mode. They are not looking to spend more; they want to spend less (or nothing at all, if possible). Oracle’s revenue engine, which relies on selling more licenses and renewing support at high rates, is directly threatened by this customer mindset.
For CIOs, this strategy is about escaping the trap of ever-increasing Oracle bills. It aligns with the earlier point that many are dropping Oracle Java (to avoid new subscriptions) and cutting back in other areas. Oracle’s aggressive moves have united its customers around a single playbook: save money by escaping Oracle’s grasp.
Top Challenges: Java Compliance, Oracle Audits, and Tough Negotiations
Alongside strategy, the Redress Compliance survey asked enterprises about their biggest challenges with Oracle as a vendor.
The responses paint a picture of frustration in three key areas:
- Java licensing compliance – Cited by 80% of organizations as a major challenge.
- Oracle software compliance (general) – Cited by 40% of organizations.
- Vendor negotiations with Oracle – Cited by 20% of organizations.
Unsurprisingly, Java compliance tops the list of headaches. Since Oracle changed its Java licensing terms, compliance has become a minefield. Companies are struggling to understand which installations require a paid license, how to count users (or employees) properly, and how to avoid inadvertently violating terms (for instance, by downloading a Java patch that isn’t free).
An overwhelming 80% of enterprises are worried about Java compliance, making it the dominant pain point. This aligns with the earlier finding that Oracle has been contacting and auditing many firms about Java – the challenge is real and widespread.
IT asset managers and procurement teams now have to track Java usage with a level of scrutiny previously reserved for databases or ERP licenses.
The fact that 40% cite broader Oracle software compliance as a challenge shows that license complexity isn’t limited to Java. Oracle’s licensing rules for databases, middleware, and applications are notoriously intricate – from processor core factors, to virtualization restrictions, to named user minimums.
Many enterprises fear accidentally being out of compliance somewhere in their Oracle portfolio. This worry is justified: Oracle’s License Management Services (LMS) teams routinely find issues in audits that lead to hefty penalties unless resolved by purchasing more licenses. So, nearly half of the companies say the compliance maze is a big problem.
Lastly, 20%—one in five—specifically call out negotiating with Oracle as a challenge. Oracle is known for tough negotiation tactics. They often leverage a possible compliance issue or the threat of ending support, which can corner customers during contract discussions. Negotiation difficulty can also refer to how hard it is to get a fair deal or discount from Oracle’s sales teams.
Some respondents likely feel that even when they try to reduce costs or discuss contracts, Oracle doesn’t easily budge, making every negotiation an uphill battle.
While only 20% flagged this as the top challenge, it overlaps with the others: negotiation becomes especially hard if you’re in a weak compliance position or if Oracle knows you have few alternatives.
Key Challenges with Oracle:
- Staying compliant with Oracle Java licensing (Java SE) – 80%
- Staying compliant with Oracle software in general – 40%
- Difficult negotiations with Oracle – 20%
All these challenges underscore a common theme: dealing with Oracle often feels like navigating a high-pressure sales and compliance gauntlet. Instead of collaboration, customers feel they must be on guard.
Procurement teams must double-check every clause, IT must constantly monitor usage, and legal teams are often involved in routine license true-ups. The Java saga has simply made these issues front-page news within organizations.
A CIO or licensing manager reading these results would rightly conclude that Oracle relationships come with significant management overhead and risk. This recognition drives many to push for alternatives, simplification, and firmer stances in dealing with Oracle.
Cloud Strategy: Cautious Adoption, Little Love for Oracle’s Cloud
The survey also shed light on where companies run their Oracle workloads, particularly regarding cloud adoption. The results show a split approach, with many enterprises still keeping Oracle systems on-premises or on non-Oracle clouds, and relatively few fully embracing Oracle’s cloud services:
- No use of public cloud for Oracle workloads: 40% of companies
- Using AWS or Azure for some Oracle workloads: 40% of companies
- Using Oracle Cloud (OCI or Cloud@Customer): 20% of companies
A significant 40% of enterprises have not moved Oracle workloads to the public cloud. This suggests that many Oracle customers remain on traditional infrastructure (likely on-premises data centers or private clouds) for their Oracle databases and applications.
Possible reasons could be data residency concerns, performance, or simply an unwillingness to change what’s working. However, it may also reflect a distrust or lack of interest in cloud options for Oracle software, given Oracle’s unique licensing constraints in cloud environments.
Another 40% have chosen to run Oracle systems on third-party public clouds like Amazon Web Services or Microsoft Azure. These companies are essentially saying: if we go to the cloud with Oracle tech, we prefer a neutral cloud platform over Oracle’s.
Many organizations use AWS/Azure for a general cloud-first strategy, bringing Oracle workloads there for consistency or leveraging cloud flexibility.
It’s worth noting, though, that running Oracle on non-Oracle clouds can incur license penalties. For example, Oracle’s licensing policy counts cores differently on AWS/Azure (typically requiring more licenses per core) compared to Oracle’s cloud.
Even so, as many companies are using AWS/Azure as they are avoiding the cloud altogether, enterprises are finding ways to make it work on third-party clouds, likely negotiating contracts or accepting the cost, or using Oracle’s authorized cloud usage policies.
Only 20% of respondents use Oracle’s Cloud (OCI) in some form (this includes Oracle’s public OCI and Cloud@Customer, Oracle’s on-premises cloud appliance).
That’s just one in five. Oracle has heavily marketed its cloud offerings and often pitches them as a way to run Oracle workloads with better pricing (Oracle tends to give more favorable licensing terms if you use OCI).
Yet, uptake is limited. The low OCI adoption could be due to concerns about vendor lock-in, OCI’s relative maturity and features compared to AWS/Azure, or simply strained relationships – many customers don’t want to deepen ties with Oracle, given everything discussed above.
Some might also have evaluated OCI and found it didn’t meet requirements or cost expectations (despite Oracle’s incentives). In any case, Oracle is not winning the cloud mindshare among this enterprise group, except for a minority who have gone that route.
These cloud strategy numbers reinforce the broader narrative: customers are cautious about giving Oracle more control. Even when modernizing infrastructure, most either keep Oracle in-house or move it to a non-Oracle cloud, rather than entrusting Oracle with their cloud hosting.
CIOs often mention avoiding “putting all eggs in one basket,” especially if that basket is seen as high-cost or high-risk. Relying on Oracle’s cloud could feel like doubling down on the dependency many are trying to escape.
Thus, the preference for AWS/Azure (or staying on-prem) is likely driven by a desire for more control, better pricing leverage, and avoiding an even tighter Oracle lock-in.
Commentary from Fredrik Filipsson, Co-Founder of Redress Compliance
Oracle may have hoped its new Java licensing policy would make customers use more Oracle Java, but these survey results tell a different story. As someone who has advised enterprises on Oracle compliance for years, I find the data striking and validating. Frankly, Oracle is overplaying its hand, and the customers know it.
75% of our surveyed clients have had Oracle breathing down their necks about Java in the last two years. That’s not normal vendor behavior – that’s an onslaught. When three-quarters of enterprises get a tap on the shoulder (or a knock on the door) from Oracle asking about licenses, it creates a climate of dread. Oracle’s approach seems to be “blanket the customer base and find revenue wherever you can.” It might yield short-term sales, but it’s burning goodwill.
The proof? 390 out of 398 organizations plan to walk away from Oracle Java. Read that again: all but one. That is a damning indictment of Oracle’s strategy. You’d be hard pressed to get 99% of enterprises to agree on lunch, let alone agree to dump a major software platform en masse. Oracle effectively told its customers, “Pay us huge fees for Java or else,” and nearly every one looked at alternatives and said, “No thanks, we’re out.” It’s as close to a full-scale revolt as I’ve seen in enterprise IT. Oracle’s Java licensing move is driving its customers to rebel.
In our work at Redress, we’ve always advocated for customers’ rights and strategic leverage. These numbers validate why that’s necessary.
Oracle’s auditing tactics and heavy-handed sales pitches are pushing customers to the brink. An 80% Java compliance headache rate among respondents is jaw-dropping – practically everyone struggles to decipher Oracle’s rules or fears they’re out of compliance.
Oracle has managed to turn Java, once a developer-friendly ubiquitous tool, into a compliance landmine. And not just Java – 40% are worried about compliance across Oracle’s portfolio. Oracle’s licensing complexity has become an epic headache, and customers see it as Oracle’s doing.
The broader Oracle relationship is clearly in trouble. 90% of companies are not growing their Oracle usage, and half are actively cutting back. That tells me Oracle has lost the trust of its install base. Instead of seeing Oracle as a partner for innovation, customers view Oracle as a cost to minimize. No wonder 80% are focusing on cutting support costs – they’re tired of the expensive maintenance bills for minimal benefit. Oracle’s famous “license and support” model is collapsing. Customers are saying enough is enough.
Let’s talk about those doing nothing (the 20% without an active strategy). I’d wager many of them simply don’t know where to start, or they’re hoping the storm will pass. However, hope is not Oracle’s strategy. If you sit idle, you’re a duck for the next audit or price hike. Given Oracle’s track record, the 20% will shrink fast as more organizations get hit with Java bills or audit findings—they’ll be forced to act.
From my perspective, Oracle’s aggressive licensing and audit approach is short-sighted. Yes, it might squeeze some extra revenue this quarter or this year, but at what cost? They are choking their golden goose. Enterprise customers are some of Oracle’s biggest assets – they generate steady revenue and often invest in multiple Oracle products.
But now, with the Java fiasco, Oracle has signaled that it’s willing to gouge those customers for a legacy product. That’s sending a chill across the entire customer base. The survey shows people aren’t just upset about Java; they’re re-evaluating everything from Oracle. When a vendor makes you feel cornered, the instinct is to escape.
And escape they will. We’re seeing a surge in clients executing strategic Oracle exits—not only for Java but also for databases, middleware, and even Oracle Cloud contracts. Oracle can blame nobody but itself for this trend. By creating a hostile environment (surprise costs, constant audits, difficult negotiations), they put a giant “exit” sign above their product portfolio. Enterprises are taking back control by shifting to open-source alternatives, migrating to friendlier vendors, or simply using Oracle less.
In blunt terms, Oracle’s tactics are backfiring. They thought they could force the market to pay more for Java; instead, they’ve pushed almost the entire market to find ways to pay Oracle nothing for Java.
They assumed clients would expand Oracle usage over time; instead, most are freezing or shrinking it. It’s a cautionary tale for any vendor: if you treat customers like a cash machine and bully them, don’t be surprised when they pull the plug and walk away.
The numbers don’t lie – Oracle has a serious customer relations problem. From where I stand, Oracle needs to course-correct fast (perhaps by revisiting its Java licensing terms or toning down the audit frenzy), or it will see an exodus in Java and other business lines too.
Customers have more choices than ever, realizing they don’t have to put up with Oracle’s behavior. As an advocate for these enterprises, I think this is a good development: it levels the playing field. But it’s undoubtedly a headache for Oracle’s executives watching their once-captive audience finally rebel.
Recommendations for CIOs and Procurement Leaders
In light of these findings, CIOs and procurement professionals should take concrete steps to protect their organizations and seize the moment to improve their IT licensing position.
Here are several practical recommendations based on real-world experiences and the survey insights:
- Audit-Proof Your Java Environment: Immediately inventory all Java installations in your organization. Identify where Oracle’s Java is in use (especially older versions or Java 11/17 that may require subscriptions). Determine which installations can be uninstalled or replaced with open-source Java (OpenJDK) to eliminate unnecessary Oracle license exposure. Proactively cleaning up Oracle Java now will pay off by removing audit targets.
- Migrate to Java Alternatives Sooner Rather Than Later: If you have Oracle Java deployed, transition to alternative JDKs. There are plenty of capable options, whether it’s OpenJDK, Amazon Corretto, Azul Zulu, Microsoft Build of OpenJDK, or Red Hat’s Java. The survey shows virtually everyone is doing this – don’t be the last one holding an Oracle Java subscription. Plan the migration, test your applications on the new JDK, and execute it systematically. The sooner Oracle Java is out, the sooner you free yourself from that compliance risk and ongoing cost.
- Strengthen Your Negotiating Position: When dealing with Oracle sales, create leverage before negotiating. Do your homework: know exactly what you have, what you need, and where you can walk away. One expert noted that Oracle is most willing to deal when you can credibly say you don’t need their product. That means having a viable alternative or contingency. For example, if Oracle is pushing a Java subscription, get a plan to use OpenJDK, then use that plan as leverage in discussions. If negotiating a database contract renewal, have migration plans (to AWS Aurora, PostgreSQL, etc.) on the table. When Oracle sees you have options, you change the power dynamic.
- Be Wary of Oracle’s “Friendly” Outreach: If Oracle contacts you out of the blue about a “Java license review” or offers a free consultation, treat it with healthy skepticism. Often, these are fishing expeditions for compliance issues. Engage on your own terms. Some licensing advisors even suggest not returning Oracle’s unsolicited calls if you’re unprepared. You are not obligated to immediately respond to a non-audit inquiry. If an Oracle rep pressures you in a meeting, involve your internal compliance team or external experts first. Control the timing and scope of any discussions. Never volunteer data without understanding the implications.
- Educate and Align Your Stakeholders: Ensure your executive team and relevant department heads understand what’s at stake with Oracle. Share the survey’s key points: e.g., “499 out of 500 companies are removing Oracle Java – maybe we should too.” When leadership grasps that industry peers are pushing back, you’ll get more support for bold actions like cutting products or fighting audit findings. Set a tone of caution: everyone should know that an Oracle salesperson call or audit letter is something to handle carefully, not an everyday vendor chat.
- Review Your Oracle Contracts Thoroughly: Dig into the specifics of your contracts with Oracle. Check for any Java usage, cloud deployment, or renewal rights clauses. Some companies discovered they had older Java rights bundled in other contracts – you need to know if you have any of those exceptions. Also, scrutinize cloud-related terms: Oracle has different rules if you run their software on AWS/Azure versus Oracle’s cloud. Ensure you’re not unknowingly breaking those rules. If you plan to shift workloads, consider negotiating contract amendments before you do, so you don’t fall foul of compliance. Always get any Oracle promises in writing; verbal assurances mean nothing if an auditor shows up later.
- Don’t Count on Oracle’s Leniency: Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. Oracle’s approach lately has been rigid – expect them to enforce rules strictly. That means you should self-audit regularly. Use license management tools or scripts to track Oracle software usage (especially for Java, use of any Oracle-supplied JDK binary, etc.). If you find potential issues, address them proactively (either remove the software or purchase the proper licensing if necessary) before Oracle finds them. It’s far cheaper and easier to fix a compliance gap quietly than during an official audit.
- Leverage Timing and External Help: Oracle’s fiscal year end (typically May 31) is often a period of intense audit activity and sales pressure (as our survey and industry experts confirm). Remember that timing is part of Oracle’s strategy if you receive an audit notice or a steep renewal quote. Don’t be rushed by quarter-end or year-end ultimatums. Take the time to get expert advice – engage a licensing consulting firm (yes, like Redress Compliance or others) or legal counsel experienced in Oracle contracts. They can provide insight into what is negotiable and how to mitigate audit findings. Many companies have saved millions by challenging Oracle’s assertions with the help of seasoned negotiators rather than just accepting the first assessment.
- Consider Cloud Options Carefully: If you are contemplating moving Oracle workloads to the cloud, weigh the pros and cons of Oracle Cloud vs. third-party clouds. Oracle will pitch that their OCI platform offers better license terms for Oracle products (which is true in some cases). However, moving to OCI could increase your dependency on Oracle and reduce future flexibility. On the other hand, moving Oracle workloads to AWS/Azure can simplify your overall cloud strategy but might incur license penalties or require architecture changes to stay compliant. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer here; just make sure you fully cost out and understand the licensing impact of whichever cloud path you choose. And remember, 40% of companies in our survey aren’t using public cloud for Oracle at all – staying on-prem may even be the right call for now if it avoids a licensing quagmire.
In summary, be proactive and stay in control. Oracle’s tactics rely on catching customers off guard or being complacent. Taking the steps above can significantly reduce your Oracle-related risks and costs.
The broader industry is moving toward less Oracle dependence – use that momentum to your advantage.
Push back on unfair terms, explore alternatives, and ensure any spending on Oracle delivers real value to your organization. For all its influence, Oracle does not hold all the cards; with preparation and resolve, CIOs and procurement leaders can ensure they’re not backed into a corner by vendor pressure. The best way to win the game is not to play by Oracle’s rules – and as our survey shows, that’s exactly what hundreds of enterprises are doing right now.
