- ComputerWeekly reported on Leonardo uptake.
- We review the accuracy of ComputerWeekly’s coverage.
In this article, we will perform an analysis of a ComputerWeekly article on the UK/IR User Group Conference.
Report on Leonardo Uptake
“On the opening day of the SAP UK and Ireland user group conference in Birmingham, a survey revealed that only 2% of the supplier’s customers intend to use its much-trumpeted Leonardo artificial intelligence (AI) initiative, and 43% were unaware of its existence.”
Well, as covered in this article, Why SAP’s Leonardo seems so Fake.
SAP has very little to offer in the IoT space. And furthermore, SAP’s proposal to route IoT means that customers should probably not follow SAP’s direction on IoT as SAP intends to route IoT data illogically through their ERP system in order to create a false association.
Is SAP Updating Indirect Access Policy?
“And almost 50% were also unaware of SAP’s attempts to update its indirect licensing policy in line with how enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are accessed now, as against in the 1980s.”
The version that SAP is enforcing against its customer’s something that we have called Type 2 indirect access — and it is an invalid claim. To understand Type 2 indirect access see the article Type 1 Versus Type 2 Indirect Access.
It is also in violation of the Tying Agreement clause of US anti-trust law which you can read in the extensive article How SAP’s Indirect Access Violates the Tying Agreement of and US Anti Trust Law.
Therefore, there is no reason for SAP to “update” its indirect access policy. All they need to do is stop enforcing illegal licensing against their customers. Secondly, every time SAP “updates” its indirect access licensing, SAP tightens the noose further. But CW does not bother analyzing what the previous history of indirect access updates have been.
As can be observed, by reporting on indirect access this way, simply repeating that SAP plans to “modernize” its indirect access licensing, implies that SAP’s indirect access is a valid concept.
SAP’s Empathy or Faux Empathy?
“Cooper said SAP salespeople need to heed the words of empathy that have been coming from their CEO, Bill McDermott, expressed at this year’s and last year’s Sapphire customer conferences in Florida. “A lot of members are concerned about being back-charged,” he said.”
Does Bill McDermott really have empathy?
That is Doubtful.
SAP has savaged many customers using indirect access to extract money from them. So far Brightwork has not found any other vendor that applies indirect access the way that SAP does. What would be not even empathetic but simply reasonable would be to stop bringing invalid indirect access claims against customers. But as is usual Bill McDermott is deceptive in his statements. We often call Bill McDermott the happy face (Hasso’s term for him when he was selected as co-CEO) that hides SAP’s iron fist.
Once again, ComputerWeekly covers this story with the analytical capacity of someone writing a story at a high school paper. CW challenges nothing that SAP says, even though much of it is ripe for being challenged.
Back Maintenance Versus Back License Costs
“The problem for most organizations is they have no idea whether they are correctly or incorrectly licensed,” said Cooper then. “Despite SAP’s assurances that it won’t ask for back maintenance payments from organizations that are under-licensed, members have understandably been reluctant to speak with their account managers.”
We have addressed this sleight of hand previously. SAP wants customers to contact them so that SAP can have a low effort way to coerce the purchase of unwanted software from them. SAP only states back maintenance payments won’t be charged — it says nothing about back license charges — which of course it will charge customers.
SAP Pledges (Once Again) to Be Transparent
“Speaking during the same opening session, Hala Zeine, chief business development officer at SAP, said predictability, transparency, and consistency are the principles governing SAP’s efforts to update licensing. She said the “order to cash”, “procure to pay” and “static read access” scenarios that all make the shift to a business outcome metric will cover 80% of indirect access. And that the company is working on the other 20% of use cases with the user groups to further modernize the licensing for [what users call] indirect access.”
We suggest being very careful listening to anything Hala Zeine says. We have caught here repeatedly lying in her public statements. And once again, SAP’s Type 2 indirect access claims do not have any validity.
CW continues to speak about something which is merely a way for SAP to rip off their customers in a novel way as if it is something legitimate.
SAP Places Customers First? (While Ripping Them Off with Faux Indirect Access)
“Mike Slater, managing director, SAP UK and Ireland said in the same session: “We genuinely do hear you – we constantly talk about customer first at SAP.””
If that is true, why does SAP bring Type 2 indirect access claims against customers?
If this is true why does SAP allow such low quality consulting companies to extract so much money from customers with so little to show for it?
SAP is about SAP and is has shown repeatedly that it is one of the most extractive companies in enterprise software. Any comment about SAP related to being fair or putting customers first should be met with bellowing laughter. You would have to have no experience in the area to believe it.
“Slater announced some new efforts by the supplier to make itself more customer-focused in his territory. These include a new “customer success team” that is tasked with taking a long-term, non-transactional approach – a “blue ocean strategy”.”
What an idiotic statement. And once again, CW is there to act as SAP’s repeating mechanism.
Media entities like ComputerWeekly are complicit in reinforcing SAP’s false redefining of indirect access by missing the distinctions in topics they are writing about. Covering a topic is not simply collecting a series of quotes and putting them into an article.
ComputerWeekly is owned by TechTarget. ComputerWeekly is not an honest media outlet. ComputerWeekly creates content to capture information that is then passed to TechTarget’s marketing automation system. For this reason, ComputerWeekly would not have any interest in what is true.
This is covered in the following article How ComputerWeekly is a Front for Marketing Automation.
Financial Bias Disclosure
Neither this article nor any other article on the Brightwork website is paid for by a software vendor, including Oracle, SAP or their competitors. As part of our commitment to publishing independent, unbiased research; no paid media placements, commissions or incentives of any nature are allowed.
Search Our Other SAP Content
Enterprise Software Risk Book
Rethinking Enterprise Software Risk: Controlling the Main Risk Factors on IT Projects
Better Managing Software Risk
The software implementation is risky business and success is not a certainty. But you can reduce risk with the strategies in this book. Undertaking software selection and implementation without approximating the project’s risk is a poor way to make decisions about either projects or software. But that’s the way many companies do business, even though 50 percent of IT implementations are deemed failures.
Finding What Works and What Doesn’t
In this book, you will review the strategies commonly used by most companies for mitigating software project risk–and learn why these plans don’t work–and then acquire practical and realistic strategies that will help you to maximize success on your software implementation.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Enterprise Software Risk Management
Chapter 3: The Basics of Enterprise Software Risk Management
Chapter 4: Understanding the Enterprise Software Market
Chapter 5: Software Sell-ability versus Implementability
Chapter 6: Selecting the Right IT Consultant
Chapter 7: How to Use the Reports of Analysts Like Gartner
Chapter 8: How to Interpret Vendor-Provided Information to Reduce Project Risk
Chapter 9: Evaluating Implementation Preparedness
Chapter 10: Using TCO for Decision Making
Chapter 11: The Software Decisions’ Risk Component Model