Java Independence is now a board-level priority - Driving cost savings, cloud efficiency and strategic agility
Chances are every time you stream content, buy something online or check your bank balance, you're interacting with Java-based systems. Java powers mission-critical systems across industries. Netflix runs its entire streaming infrastructure on Java-based microservices, processing millions of concurrent viewers. Global payment networks validate credit card transactions in milliseconds across hundreds of countries using Java applications. While the Java community has expanded to over 10 million developers worldwide, enterprises face mounting cost pressures from multiple directions.
For the enterprises powering these essential services, 2025 represents a critical decision point: continue paying escalating costs for Oracle Java, potentially impacting profit margins or customer pricing as well as the potential for future price hikes, or seek alternatives. Java independence gives businesses control, choice, and confidence in how they build and run Java applications. Azul's recent 2025 State of Java Survey & Report reveals an enterprise Java ecosystem in transition, driven by mounting cost concerns, market preference for open-source solutions, and ongoing uncertainty around Oracle's licensing policies.
This watershed moment stems from Oracle's shift to employee-based pricing in January 2023, which fundamentally disrupted enterprise Java strategy. Oracle's licensing practices have significantly increased Java-related expenditures, with the company generating billions annually from Java licensing and support. This shift isn't just about cost savings, it's about mitigating risk and enhancing agility. Java independence has become a board-level priority in an era where digital transformation drives market leadership.
The oracle Java challenge
The new Oracle pricing model detaches Java costs from actual usage, creating an unsustainable scenario: a 10,000-employee company running a handful of Java applications pays the same as a similarly sized organisation running thousands of Java-based services. For global businesses, this represents both a financial challenge and a strategic imperative to maintain competitive advantage.
Our research reveals that two-thirds of organisations found Oracle's licensing model more expensive than alternatives, and an overwhelming majority reported successful migrations away from Oracle Java. With 25% of companies citing audit risk as a key migration driver, the urgency to transition has become a business priority rather than just an IT concern.
The OpenJDK success story
The success of OpenJDK adoption has shattered Oracle Java migration concerns. The data tells a compelling story: 84% of companies found the transition easier than expected or as planned, with three-quarters completing migrations within 12 months. This rapid timeline reflects both the maturity of available solutions and the robust support ecosystem around OpenJDK migrations.
OpenJDK distributions have emerged as preferred alternatives to Oracle Java. These enterprise-ready solutions match Oracle Java SE's core capabilities while offering enhanced support and performance options.
Successful migration hinges on three key components: Organisational momentum - Technical expertise, discovery & inventory tools and project planning assistance from a commercial OpenJDK provider can significantly help secure and maintain executive support, ultimately impacting a successful transition. Comprehensive Java mapping - Identifying all Java deployments across an organisation is essential. With 83% of organisations requiring commercially supported Java in production, this mapping phase is critical. Governance and compliance - Maintaining independence from Oracle Java licensing requires robust governance. Success means partnering with OpenJDK providers offering comprehensive protection, from IP safeguards to indemnification.
The immediate financial benefits are substantial — most organisations report a 50-70% reduction in Oracle Java-related costs. Perhaps even more compelling, additional value lies in regaining control over Java technology strategy.
Cloud cost optimisation
Organisations are grappling with rapidly escalating cloud infrastructure costs, as annual global cloud spending is nearing a trillion dollars and continues to grow at double-digit rates. Our research reveals that 71% of organisations overpay for cloud compute capacity, highlighting an opportunity to reduce costs while improving application performance.
Companies that select non-Oracle optimised Java platforms can save 20%+ on cloud computing costs. This is because high-performance Java runtimes deliver more stable Java applications and infrastructure while consuming fewer computing resources, creating compelling advantages beyond just licensing considerations.
Powering AI innovation with Java
Emerging technology demands amplify the need for change, particularly in AI and cloud computing. Half of the surveyed companies from our State of Java report already build AI functionality using Java — from financial institutions developing fraud detection systems to retailers leveraging machine learning for customer personalisation and inventory management.
As computational demands grow, organisations require Java platforms that can deliver both performance and efficiency. These advanced workloads highlight the need for solutions that provide more scalable and stable applications while consuming fewer computing resources, enabling AI initiatives to be deployed successfully without excessive infrastructure investments.
Oracle Java independence is not just a technical evolution — it's a strategic imperative that gives organisations the freedom to innovate, control costs, and build their technology future on their own terms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Network Waitaki gives $121,476 to 52 groups
Network Waitaki chief executive officer Dylan Andrews was on deck to present more than $120,000 in donations to community groups in the district at their annual sponsorship awards night on Monday. PHOTO: NIC DUFF Network Waitaki has dished out more than $120,000 to community groups in the district. The Oamaru-based lines company held its annual sponsorship awards night at the Oamaru Opera House on Monday, giving away a total of $121,476 to 52 groups. Network Waitaki chief executive Dylan Andrews said the selection process was as difficult as ever due to "so many worthy initiatives". "More often than not, our sponsorship grant is a significant contribution towards the cost to buy new equipment, help pay for a tournament or improve the wellbeing of people in the community. "Every bit helps make Waitaki a better place to live and play." In addition to the sponsorship awards, Network Waitaki is also a continued sponsor of the Otago Southland Rescue Helicopter and the new Network Waitaki Events Centre. Applications for Network Waitaki's Individual Sporting Programme are open until September 30 and can be made through its website. Individuals can apply for financial support for personal participation, either locally or at representative level, or for skills development in a chosen field such as music, arts or sport. — APL
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
Country Life: Dollars For Nature – Can Biodiversity Credits Fix NZ's Conservation Woes?
Country Life: What are biodiversity credits and how can they work for NZ?, for Country Life If mud and dead things aren't your thing but you still want trees planted, pests killed and wetlands to flourish, you could pay others to do the hard slog through biodiversity credits. Not to be confused with carbon credits, they are a way for private investors and corporations to pay others to save the skink or clean up sludgy streams and, in so doing, meet the expectations of a company's increasingly green customers. A biodiversity credit market is something the government has been perusing for a few years now, given limited public funds to pay for the huge costs involved in protecting and restoring nature. At Fieldays this month Associate Minister for the Environment Andrew Hoggard said farmers and other landowners were already doing their bit to protect biodiversity and wanted to do more. 'Supporting voluntary nature credits markets is a chance for the government to show them the carrot, not just the stick. 'We want to connect those caring for the land with investors who support conservation.' This week, Christchurch-based business consultancy Ekos launched its own biodiversity credit scheme, BioCredita, where investors can purchase bundles of credits to fund nature projects, including Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari, a fenced eco-sanctuary in Waikato. The project, covering 3363 hectares, costs $5000 daily to run and is hoping to fund operations through credits or units priced at $12 each, representing the cost of protecting one hundredth of a hectare. The first buyer, according to Ekos' chief executive Sean Weaver, is a window manufacturer 'who liked the idea of selling biodiversity-enriched windows'. 'They can't do much biodiversity conservation in the factory, but they can support a nearby project, which is what they've done,' Weaver told Country Life. Follow Country Life on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart or wherever you get your podcasts. The Ekos credits are measured, independently verified and registered, and the project monitored to ensure operators do what they say they're doing, Weaver said. 'We've built a standard called the Ecos SD standard, which defines all of the things you need to do in order to demonstrate the benefits that you're delivering. And then we've built a registry, a digital registry on blockchain technology, so that these units can be issued once they've been verified to the standard, and then they can be tracked and traced across.' Weaver stresses the credits, unlike carbon credits, are not for use to offset damage to the environment. The Maungatautari project is among several pilot projects which the government is hoping to learn from. Others include a Silver Fern Farms project and Te Toa Whenua Northland which is transitioning around 100 ha from exotic forestry to native trees and includes pest control on iwi-owned land. Foreign funding for local projects A voluntary biodiversity credit market is just another tool for companies, both here and overseas, which want to fund New Zealand's conservation efforts, according to Hayden Johnston, GM for the Natural Environment at the Ministry for the Environment. 'We know that in New Zealand, companies are spending in the millions of dollars each year to keep up with either their regulatory requirements or claims that they want to make about their brands. 'I think people see New Zealand as a … country that has high credibility in the international space, and I feel really confident that we could be creating some really high-end premium products or credits to be offered internationally. 'One of the key questions we've always had is, you know, who is going to buy these things, and what do they want to buy?' Ekos' Sean Weaver said his scheme ultimately wants to attract foreign revenue to New Zealand which is seen as a hotspot for biodiversity. 'Imagine going to Europe and lassooing, I don't know, 10,20,30,40 hundred million dollars worth of demand from big actors in those economies so that we can create a fire hose of money to point at New Zealand conservation interests. That's really the goal here.' Greenwashing, commodifying nature? But what about criticism the credits could be another vehicle for greenwashing – companies exaggerating or misleading consumers about their green credentials? The integrity of biodiversity schemes is key, given the world's chequered experience with carbon trading. Already critics are flagging concerns around the nascent biodiversity credit industry, not just greenwashing – but scaleability, distaste at the 'commodification' of nature and the risk of distracting governments from their funding obligations. Johnston said the government hopes to develop 'guardrails' by following the pilot projects' experience. 'Principles like transparency, so that the buyer knows exactly what they're buying; additionality, so that what they're buying is clearly an additional benefit from what would have happened otherwise; longevity, so that the action or the outcome will occur over a longish period of time.' A central registry for the credits is something they will be considering too, he said. Weaver describes credits as a variation on philanthropy. 'Are they commodifying nature? No, they're not. They're commodifying the human labour and technology cost to look after nature. So no nature is being traded in these credits.' It's not a goldrush Johnston said biodiversity credits could work well for farmers and landowners working collaboratively, say, in catchment groups, to fund things like fencing and pest control. 'One of the things I'm really keen we test is how you can do this in a way that is cost effective. 'We know that examples of projects that are using international verification, for example, can be quite costly, and we want to find ways to make this an available tool in New Zealand for New Zealand circumstances.' Weaver said the Ekos credits, which are tradeable, should not be seen as a goldrush, but essentially a form of sustainable financing. 'Everybody in the value chain, in our programme has to make a profit, but nobody is allowed to make a super profit, like an unjustifiable super profit. 'The main reason for that is that the end-user of biodiversity credits is buying a conservation outcome, and they want to be confident that they're funding the true cost of looking after the place, and not funding, you know, somebody's super profit that will help them just buy another yacht.' 'Projects still need to go out and hunt for buyers, and our system is a new net to go fishing for that money,' Weaver said. Learn more:
Scoop
21 hours ago
- Scoop
Country Life: Dollars For Nature - Can Biodiversity Credits Fix NZ's Conservation Woes?
If mud and dead things aren't your thing but you still want trees planted, pests killed and wetlands to flourish, you could pay others to do the hard slog through biodiversity credits. Not to be confused with carbon credits, they are a way for private investors and corporations to pay others to save the skink or clean up sludgy streams and, in so doing, meet the expectations of a company's increasingly green customers. A biodiversity credit market is something the government has been perusing for a few years now, given limited public funds to pay for the huge costs involved in protecting and restoring nature. At Fieldays this month Associate Minister for the Environment Andrew Hoggard said farmers and other landowners were already doing their bit to protect biodiversity and wanted to do more. "Supporting voluntary nature credits markets is a chance for the government to show them the carrot, not just the stick. "We want to connect those caring for the land with investors who support conservation." This week, Christchurch-based business consultancy Ekos launched its own biodiversity credit scheme, BioCredita, where investors can purchase bundles of credits to fund nature projects, including Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari, a fenced eco-sanctuary in Waikato. The project, covering 3363 hectares, costs $5000 daily to run and is hoping to fund operations through credits or units priced at $12 each, representing the cost of protecting one hundredth of a hectare. The first buyer, according to Ekos' chief executive Sean Weaver, is a window manufacturer "who liked the idea of selling biodiversity-enriched windows". "They can't do much biodiversity conservation in the factory, but they can support a nearby project, which is what they've done," Weaver told Country Life. Follow Country Life on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart or wherever you get your podcasts. The Ekos credits are measured, independently verified and registered, and the project monitored to ensure operators do what they say they're doing, Weaver said. "We've built a standard called the Ecos SD standard, which defines all of the things you need to do in order to demonstrate the benefits that you're delivering. And then we've built a registry, a digital registry on blockchain technology, so that these units can be issued once they've been verified to the standard, and then they can be tracked and traced across." Weaver stresses the credits, unlike carbon credits, are not for use to offset damage to the environment. The Maungatautari project is among several pilot projects which the government is hoping to learn from. Others include a Silver Fern Farms project and Te Toa Whenua Northland which is transitioning around 100 ha from exotic forestry to native trees and includes pest control on iwi-owned land. Foreign funding for local projects A voluntary biodiversity credit market is just another tool for companies, both here and overseas, which want to fund New Zealand's conservation efforts, according to Hayden Johnston, GM for the Natural Environment at the Ministry for the Environment. "We know that in New Zealand, companies are spending in the millions of dollars each year to keep up with either their regulatory requirements or claims that they want to make about their brands. "I think people see New Zealand as a ... country that has high credibility in the international space, and I feel really confident that we could be creating some really high-end premium products or credits to be offered internationally. "One of the key questions we've always had is, you know, who is going to buy these things, and what do they want to buy?" Ekos' Sean Weaver said his scheme ultimately wants to attract foreign revenue to New Zealand which is seen as a hotspot for biodiversity. "Imagine going to Europe and lassooing, I don't know, 10,20,30,40 hundred million dollars worth of demand from big actors in those economies so that we can create a fire hose of money to point at New Zealand conservation interests. That's really the goal here." Greenwashing, commodifying nature? But what about criticism the credits could be another vehicle for greenwashing - companies exaggerating or misleading consumers about their green credentials? The integrity of biodiversity schemes is key, given the world's chequered experience with carbon trading. Already critics are flagging concerns around the nascent biodiversity credit industry, not just greenwashing - but scaleability, distaste at the "commodification" of nature and the risk of distracting governments from their funding obligations. Johnston said the government hopes to develop "guardrails" by following the pilot projects' experience. "Principles like transparency, so that the buyer knows exactly what they're buying; additionality, so that what they're buying is clearly an additional benefit from what would have happened otherwise; longevity, so that the action or the outcome will occur over a longish period of time." A central registry for the credits is something they will be considering too, he said. Weaver describes credits as a variation on philanthropy. "Are they commodifying nature? No, they're not. They're commodifying the human labour and technology cost to look after nature. So no nature is being traded in these credits." It's not a goldrush Johnston said biodiversity credits could work well for farmers and landowners working collaboratively, say, in catchment groups, to fund things like fencing and pest control. "One of the things I'm really keen we test is how you can do this in a way that is cost effective. "We know that examples of projects that are using international verification, for example, can be quite costly, and we want to find ways to make this an available tool in New Zealand for New Zealand circumstances." Weaver said the Ekos credits, which are tradeable, should not be seen as a goldrush, but essentially a form of sustainable financing. "Everybody in the value chain, in our programme has to make a profit, but nobody is allowed to make a super profit, like an unjustifiable super profit. "The main reason for that is that the end-user of biodiversity credits is buying a conservation outcome, and they want to be confident that they're funding the true cost of looking after the place, and not funding, you know, somebody's super profit that will help them just buy another yacht." "Projects still need to go out and hunt for buyers, and our system is a new net to go fishing for that money," Weaver said. Learn more:
