A little more nuance: it&#x27;s not only that Oracle is bad, but that Sun was good.<p>Oracle&#x27;s business model is about extracting value; whereas Sun was about building platforms (which they did several times). Oracle has a history of squeezing open projects and alienating developers. You&#x27;re right, they&#x27;ve taken care not to completely chew up the tremendous business value of Java, only test-nibbling at the edges: projects like Hudson (now Jenkins), changes to JCP, cutting evangelists.<p>Many key people left Sun before or soon after the acquisition. Oracle is a different place to work, being sales-focused. It&#x27;s not entirely due to Oracle though; the game had changed and Sun was no longer leading.<p>It&#x27;s not specific changes to java, but changes to the philosophy of the java custodian. These determine its future.<p>BTW: I can&#x27;t speak for the other upvoters, but I think Google was clearly in the wrong. They knew it, Sun knew it - but let them get away with it because a new platform was good for java (NB cf. Sun litigated MS for fragmenting java).  In contrast, Oracle is suing Google for revenue, not for any platform.<p>So... although Google is the bad guy, it illustrates the different philosophies of Sun vs
Oracle.<p>In this sense the old java - its philosophy and its future - &quot;doesn&#x27;t exist anymore&quot;. :(