> but given that the Java downloads are free, any payment deal with ask.com represents an infinite increase in profitability.
That would make sense if Oracle was a company whose only business were providing Java downloads. However I heard they also have some other source of income, and I suspect compared to those whatever ask.com is paying is rather minuscule.
> However I heard they also have some other source of income, and I suspect compared to those whatever ask.com is paying is rather minuscule.
A modern corporation consists of individual departments, each of which must strive to justify its existence as though it were a separate entity. No rational corporate manager is willing to say, "We don't have to turn a profit -- we're an insignificant, small part of a hugely profitable corporation."
The fact that the second claim is true cannot be used to justify the first claim.
There are units that aren't meant to turn an immediate profit - such as R&D labs. And Oracle people very well know that, as any competent corporate manager does. So yes, a rational corporate manager is very well willing to say "we don't have to turn a profit because we're part of the whole corporation and can contribute in other ways than selling our reputation for a handful of ad dollars".
And even for turning a profit, there are better ways than forcing crapware down users' throats. After all, they have enough sense not to put porn banners (which probably would pay handsomely) on their download pages - why wouldn't they not have enough sense to not stuff their product with unrelated crapware that nobody wants?
That would make sense if Oracle was a company whose only business were providing Java downloads. However I heard they also have some other source of income, and I suspect compared to those whatever ask.com is paying is rather minuscule.