Thread regarding SAP layoffs

This is a hit piece that was created by a biased SAP resource who can't handle accurate information provided by Brightwork Research and Analysis. I work for a law firm, and we find it extremely difficult to find anything by promotional information on SAP. We know the information provided by SAP consulting firms is completely unreliable. According to Brightwork, SAP has paid off or has IT media in their pocket. Also, what evidence is there that Brightwork is anything but what they say they are, which is independent. And the fact they are independent is the real problem here. This is not a rhetorical question. I would like an answer to this.

Also is seems like this company already knows plenty about SAP. Why would they need to phish information from sharing articles on social media? How does that improve competitive intelligence? This claim is nonsensical. Every time I look up a topic on SAP it seems that this company has an article on the topic. It seems like the author of this hit piece and other SAP resources don't want any independent research or any independent information whatsoever available on the Internet.

I would like to hear what part of what this company publishes is incorrect, rather than read what appear to be ludicrous claims from someone who appears afraid to present anything supporting these claims.

I got this Layoff link from Brightwork. It was sent to a bunch of Salesforce people on LinkedIn with the title "Look at How SAP Resources Attempt to Smear Independent Research Entities."

I just searched for Brightwork Research & Analysis and competitive intelligence, and the only link I can find is this one. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/why-competitive-intelligence-is-a-bad-market-to-sell-research/, which explains why competitive intelligence is such a bad market to sell into. Is there another company that can be named that openly critiques what is stated by enemies as their business model? Because that seems strange!!!

Brightwork Research & Analysis does not even appear to market any competitive intelligence on their website. I can see the text about it in a comment, but I can't find anything currently on the website. So seems like a "mountain out of a molehill." I also notice how the SAP commenters can't seem to address anything that they publish that is wrong. That is a bad look. It looks like SAP peeps are a afraid of a debate. As for financial bias -- you have got to be kidding me. SAP owns the big consulting companies who pitch SAP no matter how bad a fit and they never ever talk about their financial bias. But it seems like SAP people are fine with this conflict of interest as long as they collect the do re mi. So it is hard to take SAP people seriously as SAP and their consulting firms never ever disclose what amounts to billions of dollars a year in financial bias. I would say to SAP people on this Layoff article, "buy a mirror." Everyone who competes against the SAP ecosystem knows how it works. By the way, Brightwork has written unflattering things about us as well -- so don't call me a "fanboy." I don't want my prospects reading that stuff either (the SAP stuff is ok, but I would prefer they don't read the Salesforce stuff), but you don't see Salesforce trying to throw fake cr-p against them as SAP peeps do here. How about Consumer Reports -- they have a financial bias because they sell subscriptions. Sounds like financial biase to me! SAP peeps appear to be saying that no one has a right to publish anything about SAP unless it favors SAP. One of the comments says something about targeting non-SAP fanboys in customers for being fired. Didn't he say customers aren't allowed to read Brightwork??? That dude has serious control issues.

Oh, I can also tell you that SAP's CRM offering has been a total failure. We get CRM deals quickly, and we like to come in after an SAP CRM failure -- because the customer is ready to buy after dealing with that mess of acquisitions that is that BS solution. And Brightwork was all over the SAP CRM product ab-----n a long time ago. SAP has been so ineffective competing against us that they have had to threaten customers who buy from us.

I say "smear" because the complainants and financially biased SAP resources on this blog (who, by the way, are not identifying the percentage of income they receive from SAP endeavors but are pretending to be objective. From now on, can all SAP resources please list the percentage of your income from SAP? We don't want to have people calling out Brightwork for a tiny percentage of its revenue coming from competitive intelligence. Simultaneously, corrupt SAP resources receive 100% of their income from SAP and then pretend to both a) not be financially biased and b) lying or hiding their financial bias by not making the declaration. So let us do that from here on out. List your percentage of income from SAP.

So all of the research on the Brightwork website is supposed by actual evidence. The website has 2000 articles, and they are more detailed and more educated by first–hand experience than any work from any IT analyst. And again, not paid for with SAP $$$ that the corrupt SAP resources on this thread so vigorously defend.

Many of the claims made on this thread have been disproven by evidence provided in articles that either SAP resources are too lazy to read or are incapable of reading. Notice that no person on this website has yet to even address the many articles at Brightwork or attempt to debate the specifics. Even the beginning statement on this thread does not question any of the article's claims but instead smears the article as bad.

That is why I use the term smear. It is to critique without evidence. As I said, corrupt SAP resources have a problem with the one research firm that is not on SAP's payroll. Now lets play a game –– you mention the analyst and IT media entity, and I will tell you if they are on SAP's payroll. I will be able to most likely provide articles that analyze that entities coverage of SAP and explain why it is paid for material. The logic will be clear and followable, but you must be able to read the material. If you say you don't like the article I am going to ask you questions about the material to see if you actually read it.

I reread the comment on this being an anonymous threat and thought it was sort of funny. The point of this threat, in the beginning, was to smear Brightwork using not only the false claim of competitive intelligence being some type of major driver of Brightwork's business model, all while ignoring or justifying massive financial biases in the SAP commenters and SAP partners and bought off IT media, but also making other false claims around Brightwork only being focused on SAP, which has been disproven by the links I have provided (if you read them, remember, if you don't want to read, or can't handle the information or want to pretend it does not exist). But now a comment appears that this thread can't be trusted. Well, if a comment that exposes the reality of SAP can't be trusted, aren't the rigged financially biased SAP comments also not trustworthy? I developed this article for Oracle resources, but it applies to SAP as well. It is an education on hypocrisy. http://www.brightworkresearch.com/teaching-oracle-about-hypocrisy-on-lock-in/ Isn't life easier when you are on an SAP project, and no one debates you or questions any of your claims? Yes, much easier. You can lie to the account, function as a parrot and Deloitte and Infosys and the SAP website will say it's all true! This thread is a triggering activity for SAP resources who don't do very well outside of the safe confines of the self-reinforcing SAP ecosystem.

BTW, this thread is going to start getting more comments. I have been sharing it with vendors as an example of a bunch of unethical and inept SAP resources who are unable to marshal logic or facts, who oppose freedom of speech and created a thread to smear a entity not on SAP's payroll. I forward the thread and then lampoon it. So some of these people may comment. Remember, this thread was your dream not mine.

"Smear Brightwork" – wow that is rich.

It looks like the Brightwork "coaching service" didn't work out as planned. No wonder.

Yes, and anyone can make the false claims against Brightwork that were made here. And SAP resources can downvote comments even when they are true, just because they work against their financial bias.

Have you noticed that the arguments from the SAP side have dissipated and none of the financially biased SAP mob has bothered to react to any of the evidence I provided? It seems like SAP resources are only good at making claims, not backing them up -- just like when SAP salespeople talk to customers. No one has yet addressed Brightwork's stellar accuracy, which I have placed here as measured over a 10 year period. http://www.brightworkresearch.com/study-accuracy-sap/ Let's do that. Let's start talking about SAP's accuracy. I am ready.

The whole point of this post was to smear Brightwork and me with false claims. I am sorry it's not working out for you as much as you would have liked.

Man anyone can write on here and say they are a customer, partner, employee blah blah. If you believe stuff on an anonymous layoff board too much then shame on you.

I made the comment about only reading SAP-approved material, and so I am going to defend what I said. SAP has approved sources, and SAP customers are not supposed to read anyone but those. As for the person who said they are not aware of the approved list – man it is right on the SAP website and we get links from SAP marketing, so get with it and educate yourself.

As a salesperson that works for an SAP partner, let me explain how easy it is to marginalize and discredit anyone who brings non-SAP compliant information to executives:

1. I point out that it is not approved by SAP, so I am not going to bother responding.
2. In meetings with the executives, I will point out that you are a troublemaker.
3. All of the SAP salespeople, SAP partner salespeople, and SAP consulting firms talk on projects. (you think we don't?)

That means that not only will I identify you as a troublemaker, but SAP and the consulting partner (if there is one other than my firm) will do the same. That is three sources pointing the finger at you behind closed doors.

My recommendation is don't be st—d. Look out for your career. True of false can be debated until the cows come home. But I am talking about your career. Your job is to use the software the company has decided to buy, not be a nattering nabob of negativity about it. Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on SAP over its life. How easy do you think it is to justify getting rid of you and hiring someone who is a team player? Right. There is an old saying.....do not get in between a salesperson and his quota. This just basic math and I should not have to spell this out.

I have read through all of the comments here. I don't think I found a single word from an SAP customer. These are all industry people debating each other. So I will do this.

I work for an SAP customer and have been with my employer for 11 years. I was part of the business team that went through an SAP implementation and rely on SAP systems. I can say that we have been dissatisfied with what we got from both SAP and our implementation company all through the implementation but especially after we went live. Secondly, many if not most of the things we were told turned out not to be true, and my company spent a lot of money on SAP. For example, we spend far more time performing functions now with SAP than we did with our old systems. Most of the people in the business that I know do not think that replacing our previous systems with SAP has been an upgrade, and the system still does not do what our previous system did. The consensus among the business is that we would have been far better off never having moved to SAP and just keeping our previous systems. It seems like our leaders were tricked by SAP and the consulting firm. SAP has caused a great schism between the business and IT in my company. It has put us at each other's throats, with IT being all in favor of SAP and the business users being against it. However, all SAP seems to want to do is sell us more SAP software rather than addressing our concerns. Also, the support from SAP is terrible. They barely want to do anything, but they are very good at charging us for nearly useless support. SAP does not care what they did to us or how unhappy the business is. For a long time, internally, we kept telling each other that no one seemed to be willing to tell the truth about SAP. Then a coworker forwarded my team a link to several Brightwork articles. They were eye-opening. Every one of the articles I read was exactly what we encountered and contradicted what we were told by both SAP and our consulting company. We showed these articles to IT, and they could not have cared less. We had already made the investment we were told.

We thought IT knew what they were doing with SAP, but they repeated all of the mistakes explained in the Brightwork articles. Understand, we wasted many millions by following bad advice from SAP, and the consulting company SAP recommended we use. But IT won't admit this.

I can see multiple times in his comments where Mr. Snapp asked for people from SAP to explain where Brightwork was wrong. But I don't see any responses that address this. Am I supposed to believe that after we were sold a bunch of stuff that did not work from SAP, there is a problem because Brightwork sells information to other software vendors? Is that why my team should not be reading Brightwork's stuff? And what is this about them not be being "approved by SAP" that some earlier commenter said. Do I have to have all information I read about SAP approved by SAP? Excuse me, do I live in the old Soviet Union???? The ba–s of the person making that statement who appears to work for SAP is really mind-boggling to me. And I had to share that internally. Everyone I shared it with started laughing or shaking their head. Also, is this true that every single company that writes about SAP is either paid by SAP or has a financial relationship to SAP as Mr. Snapp says? If so, that does not seem like a good system, and it would explain a lot. So is that really the argument that the real problem is Brightwork selling advice? How is this different than any other company selling advice? I don't understand the argument. Or is this just a fake argument? How come to these other sources than – that all of the commenters here promote do not match our experiences with SAP? If your argument is we should only accept information from "friendly" sources, I suggest you come up with a better one. Because that sounds like SAP and followers want all information about SAP manipulated by SAP.

In response to @bxfsm+YCI56td, it seems it is very difficult for him to spell my name correctly. That must be some immature attempt to throw subtle disrespect in my direction. This is immature and typical of the sophistication level I have seen from the SAP-aligned and financially biased critics.

So let us evaluate the claims made by this commenter.

The first claim is that Brightwork only focuses on the negatives of major vendors. First, does bxfsm+YCI56td know if that is true? It is not true. And it is easy to disprove. See the following examples.

This article praises AWS and Google cloud containers
http://www.brightworkresearch.com/aws-and-google-cloud-versus-sap-cloud-and-oracle-cloud-containers/

This article praises AWS on the ability to leverage multiple databases.
http://www.brightworkresearch.com/aws-and-google-cloud-versus-sap-cloud-and-oracle-cloud-containers/

This article comments on AWS and GCP for bringing pricing elasticity.
http://www.brightworkresearch.com/aws-and-google-cloud-versus-sap-cloud-and-oracle-cloud-containers/

This article rates the vendor ERP Next for accuracy in the information it provides.
http://www.brightworkresearch.com/aws-and-google-cloud-versus-sap-cloud-and-oracle-cloud-containers/
(is that ok if I praise a non-mega-vendor?)

Now before I get accused of being "in the tank!" and "lacking any objectivity!" on AWS and GCP, here is an article that points out the problematic monopolistic implications of the hyperscale providers.
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/what-to-do-about-the-extreme-monopoly-implications-of-hyperscale-public-cloud-providers/

This article rates FinancialForce as one of the most innovative vendors.
http://www.brightworkresearch.com/aws-and-google-cloud-versus-sap-cloud-and-oracle-cloud-containers/

I could fill up multiple entries with links where I have written positive things about vendors. Now, the question is why I do not write good things about SAP/Oracle/Microsoft/IBM/Salesforce, etc.. Well, none of these vendors offer a good value, and they follow a strategy of lock-in. This makes these companies dangerous to buy from. They treat the initial purchase as just a way to stuff the account with produces of decreasing quality. I am also opposed to using any of the major consulting companies with whom these vendors are aligned. Why? They are extraordinarily expensive and not very good at what they say they do. Here is Wipro being sued by National Grid on an SAP implementation. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-national-grids-sap-implementation-damaged-a-company/

At one point, National Grid was spending $30 M per month to recover an upgrade SAP. How is it even possible to spend that much money on an SAP upgrade?

I can replace any of these vendors with a better product at a far lower cost. I have all the math that supports this. In addition to private company waste, the mega-vendors are constantly ripping off governments worldwide, increasing the collective tax burden – which I am sure no one at SAP or SAP aligned critic cares about. But, as per SAP-aligned critics, I am not allowed to have this research conclusion. I am required by law to write nice things about these vendors. These poor companies only have every consulting company pushing them and virtually no one critiquing them. But I MUST stop providing information if it is not positive.

This is yet another failed claim on the part of the SAP-aligned critics. bxfsm+YCI56td made a claim without doing any research, and yet another claim is proven false. And there will be no apology because the SAP-aligned critics on this thread only know how to make baseless claims.

Furthermore, this again shows the lack of understanding of the SAP-aligned critics regarding what qualifies as research. There is no requirement that research leads to positive or negative conclusions, only that it is accurate. One can be accused of selection bias in terms of what one covers, but if that is an issue, why do none of the SAP-aligned critics ever point to overly positively selective material that ASUG or Forrester put out or by the IT media major vendors pay off? The reason is simple, SAP aligned critics only care if the information published on SAP is negative. However, any entity can publish false information on SAP, as long as that information is positive until the end of time, and SAP resources will be thrilled. I never observed a single SAP resource complain about John Appleby's reporting on HANA, yet look at his accuracy. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-appleby-papers-a-study-into-john-applebys-accuracy-on-hana/ But it is ok because it is promotional. Did John Appleby ever cover any negative aspects of HANA or SAP? Of course not. Did any SAP-aligned resources ever criticize Appleby for this? Again, of course not. Appleby not only had a financial conflict as his company implemented HANA – did any SAP resources have a problem with this financial conflict? Again – of course not. I never heard of a single critic of Appleby (other than Brightwork) even though nearly everything he published on HANA was false.

Overall, because the mega-vendors distribute large sums of money to IT analysts, IT media and they have the backing of multi-billion dollar per year consulting firms. SAP alone has over 13,000 partnerships. SAP is the absolute champion at controlling and manipulating the media. Far better than Oracle or Microsoft, as I cover in this article. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/sap-corporate-media-model/ And the compliance of the major IT consulting firms have to be added to this, and it explains why the quality of information that gets to SAP customers and prospects is abysmal.

This means that what would have to be more than 99% of the information published about these vendors is positive. However, this is not enough for SAP aligned critics of Brightwork. SAP must obtain 100% positive coverage and complete censorship of any negative information. And they will bring false claims against any entity that does not bend the knee to SAP and get on their payroll.

Here is the gift of feedback for Mr. Sapp, since he seems to be either intentionally or unintentionally obtuse on this. Enterprise software always has the good, the bad and the ugly for every top vendor in the market due to its challenging nature. First, Mr. Sapp chooses to focus only on the ugly for Oracle and SAP while willfully ignoring the good. Intelligent decision makers easily know this is not the full story. He then also ignores the bad and ugly of other top vendors. Intelligent decision makers then know they are not seeing the full landscape. Perhaps Mr. Sapp would have more respect and business if he covered good, bad, and ugly for all top vendors but to this point he has chosen his niche, and a polarized view perhaps based on some unknown axe to grind, and the attitude unfortunately flavors all his articles.

Statements such as:
"And not many SAP customers reach out as they prefer to be lied to by SAP sales and Deloitte than verify any claims."

This is the typical kind of faulty, sweeping conclusion drawn by Mr. Sapp that sums up his POV. Perhaps customers don't "reach out" because they are generally happy despite any challenges SAP may have, or issues the customer has encountered. Or customers simply don't find Mr. Sapp's material objectively useful. Then Mr. Sapp seems to complain that he is a victim.

There you go. You're welcome.

I had to comment on a previous comment that I read.

This comment stated that the links I am providing don't prove anything. Well, they don't if you don't read them. I am already typing quite a bit. I need to be able to point out evidence. However, if you don't read them, you won't know if what I am saying is supported. You are supposed to read the article and then comment on the content. Remember evidence can be provided in text in a variety of forms. Not all evidence can be provided in a small comment box. As with the S/4HANA implementation study link I included, some of the articles have an embedded database you can review. However, if you don't want to invest the effort, then it's not necessary for you to participate in the conversation.

I also have a question for the SAP-aligned critics. I have said many times that Brightwork does not have a good business model. Vendors that compete with SAP don't spend much on competitive intelligence. And not many SAP customers reach out as they prefer to be lied to by SAP sales and Deloitte than verify any claims. And as Brightwork does not take money from vendors, there is no vendor funding for content creation.

However, that can change. Brightwork could simply become friendly with vendors and restate what Oracle and SAP or Microsoft say. In this way, Brightwork would function as a traditional analyst. My income would go way up, but Brightwork would no longer be doing any research – however, all of the information published would be pro that vendor. That is something the SAP-aligned critics should understand – this business model that Brightwork follows is the lowest financially compensating model of all those available. It costs me to follow this approach. And if you will notice – no other entity follows it. Yes, there is a reason for that.

So the question is if Brightwork only published material approved by vendors, so imagine articles that promote SAP. If that change were to happen, and Brightwork becomes much more lucrative – is that a desirable outcome? That is – if all of the material at Brightwork were not research-based and were pro SAP, would there be any criticism from SAP-aligned resources?

I wanted to add to my previous comment because there are a few things I left out.

The SAP-aligned critics' comments indicate that not a single SAP-aligned commenter on this thread has displayed an understanding of research rules, nor do they appear to have any background in research. Because of this, they are making numerous false claims about research. Research rules are not defined by people who have never worked in research, don't know anything about research, and have a financial bias against independent research. Most SAP resources work in consulting or sales, or development and have never participated in research of any kind. The Dunning Kruger Effect is when you know so little about a topic that you overestimate your knowledge level. DKE is rampant in these SAP-aligned comments. So let us go over a few things.

If you tried to publish a paper that rated vendors, where each vendor was paying you, and where you did not disclose what you were paid, that paper would be refused by a research journal. This is precisely what Gartner does. You can see this in the article. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/gartner-makes-money/

If you don't know this, then you aren't qualified to be offering commentary on research. SAP resources, like most vendors, have no other standard for research than whether it helps them make SAP license sales or bill hours. I am highly familiar with all of the research rules, and I am not familiar with a rule that a research entity can't sell advice or research. This is entirely made up and made up by people who have a financial bias (only one person on this thread has admitted to) and who want Brightwork silenced. I had an SAP salesperson who said that while he was "helping people" by selling them SAP, it was wrong for Brightwork to offer services because Brightwork was "over-focusing on SAP" (he was unaware of all the over coverage at Brightwork) and that the world "was a corrupt place." That criticism makes no sense. Whenever an SAP-aligned critic makes a statement on this thread, they display another area that they don't understand and are too lazy to look up that requires me to explain how research works.

As a second example, Hasso Plattner told people he had a Ph.D. For years I thought he was a PhD. However, Hasso does not have a Ph.D., and he has two honorary PhDs. One because he started up an institute at the University of Potsdam in Germany. It should go without saying you should be stating you have a Ph.D. or affixing Dr. to your name if you have an honorary Ph.D. Oprah has four honorary PhDs. Should he also be called Oprah Ph.D.? I covered this in this article. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/does-saps-hasso-plattner-have-a-phd/

And naturally, some SAP resources pushed back on this article. They said it was ok to do this. Again fake research and fake PhDs are ok if SAP or an SAP-friendly source does it. SAP resources told me that the real issue was not that Hasso had faked his Ph.D. but that I pointed it out. And that this was incredibly rude. They told me it was arrogant to call out Hasso because he is very wealthy and has been very successful. I have noticed that even outside of SAP, people often find it offensive if you critique someone if they have a billion dollars.

For years SAP had been marketing Hasso Plattner this way. I have extensively analyzed Hasso Plattner's writing, and he does not have an academic mind. I read the report of many academics and research databases, and Hasso's writing and speaking always struck me as odd. He is more salesperson than anything. Surprise surprise, he is not academic – he is a salesman. This is why Hasso came up with a ridiculous design for HANA and why both he and Hasso faked his innovation with HANA, as I cover in this article. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/hasso-plattner-students-invent-hana/ Hasso hid an earlier database acquisition and made it appear that he had created something new. After running into problems, he handed the entire project over to Vishal Sikka to manage, who was as unqualified to develop a new database as Hasso.

What Brightwork published that no one else did was that HANA was reverse-engineered from other databases. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/sap-simply-reinvent-wheel-hana/ While Brightwork was deep into analyzing the real story with HANA, every IT analyst and SAP aligned IT consulting firm was busy parroting anything that SAP and Hasso said for $$$.
I finally created an article to record who had been right and wrong on HANA. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/who-was-right-and-who-was-wrong-on-hana/. Here is SAP shill John Appleby being beaten to a pulp by Chris Eaton of IBM for false claims on HANA vs. DB2. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/john-appleby-beaten-by-chris-eaton-in-debate-and-required-saving-by-hasso-plattner/ (To be clear, I am a large critic of IBM and would never endorse IBM). However, what Chris Eaton is saying is correct. I believe Appleby put out a lifeline to Hasso Plattner – who showed up on the thread and wrote as a bunch of barely intelligible double talk. (don't take my word for it, read Hasso's quotes in the article).

And after all of this, what happened? SAP was sued by Teradata for.....wait for it...both stealing Teradata's IP and using anti-competitive tactics against SAP. SAP's motion to dismiss was a festival of lies. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-true-is-saps-motion-to-dismiss-teradatas-complaint/ No doubt all of the SAP-aligned critics on this thread will say that Teradata must be mistaken. However, the Teradata complaint is exceptionally well laid out and sourced, and explained.

And what predicted a lawsuit of this type? Work only published at Brightwork that called out SAP's reverse engineering of other databases and the renaming of items to fake claims of innovation. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/accurate-saps-arguments-code-pushdown-cdss/

Again, there are specific rules to research and rules to say putting credentials after your name. SAP and Gartner, and Forrester ignore all of these rules. Gartner has a position called the "ombudsman," which is designed to confuse people into accepting their lack of disclosure, which I cover here. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/best-understand-gartners-ombudsman/ Gartner takes people with no research background and gives them titles like Distriguished Vice President Analyst. Ph.D. Wall Street salespeople do this same trick. Do we see a pattern here with inflated titles and certifications, and who tends to do it?

Now let us talk about a quote from someone who reached out to me just today.

"Your article on their sales practices back in 2018 was spot on with what I am experiencing with them now. I am new to Qualtrics and purchased a license last December, just as they had a big push to close deals going into their latest IPO. I was sold a license with missing technology features needed for my application. Since then, they have bounced me around to new account executives who, again, are trying to sell me upgrades before the 1st quarter-end. Their account execs seem untrained on the product, very pushy, and have little time to really understand what I am trying to do. I am now trying to find someone within Qualtrics who is more of a customer advocate who can share the situation's facts. It borders on "shady" ... I feel like they are trying to sell me top coat rust protection for my car. Any suggestions? Thanks"

Notice that first of all, no IT media entities or IT analysts would publish this quote. Secondly, look at what this SAP customer said. They said they were cheated and misled on their Qualtrics license, and they need help. They said that what was written at Brightwork was an EXACT reflection of what SAP did to him. If this person hires Brightwork to defend against SAP, is that also a type of financial bias? Because this is essentially the same type of work as competitive intelligence (by the way, I checked the invoicing system, and we have not sold competitive intelligence work since 2019. Not that we wouldn't, but it is just a minimal driver of revenue). Is the SAP definition of financial bias anyone who argues against claims made by SAP? And that financial bias is ok – if that entity supports claims by SAP? I hate to be the one to break it to the SAP-aligned critics, but that is not the working definition of financial bias. This is much like #MeToo, but only if the offender is of the opposing political party.

So SAP resources opposed Brightwork publishing factually correct information that gives away SAP's secrets, and that might lead to companies reach out to Brightwork to protect them against SAP. Given how terrible the research is at Brightwork, according to SAP-aligned critics, It is very curious so many people reach out and tell me that an article they read at Brightwork is precisely what they experienced.

Doesn't sound like a faux claim at all pointing out Brightwork's business model and how it introduces various forms of bias. Attacking other analysts doesn't make it better either.

"Brightwork SAP and Oracle Competitive Intelligence Page

How This Material Fits With Internal Competitive Intelligence

This material will likely dovetail with any competitive intelligence that your firm produces as the type of coverage we produce is normally quite different than that produced from internal
competitive intelligence. For example, we track the implementation history of S/4HANA. And we get into the underpinnings of technology arguments — this is not something normally done by
competitive intelligence departments.

How the Articles Fit With Sales Pursuits
These articles can be integrated into a competitive sales approach and often call into question arguments made by SAP or Oracle to accounts. The information is far higher accuracy than anything provided by SAP or Oracle sales reps. Many questions that arise on pursuits against SAP and Oracle are answered in the articles in this index."

Finally, an SAP-aligned critic brings up an actual topic rather than just throwing mud and making up a bogus claim around competitive intelligence.

If SAP and Oracle had growing and effective cloud businesses, I would state that they do. However, they don't. Both have very lagging cloud businesses. And they are indeed rigged. See this article. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-brightwork-sap-cloud-hec-research-based-assessment/

It shows how SAP coerces companies into using their cloud, which is not even cloud. It is hosting and not multitenant. The HEC is not, in most cases, even provided by SAP. An SAP consulting partner gives it. But the client does not know this. SAP removes the discount from the entire BOM if you don't use their cloud. SAP then reports this as a voluntary purchase when it is a coerced purchase. See this article on how both SAP and Oracle coerced companies into the cloud. http://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-sap-and-oracle-coerce-customers-into-the-cloud/ I warned several clients about this, and they completely ignored my analysis. A lot of CIOs are inept and cannot perform or read analysis.

So yes, much of SAP and Oracle's cloud revenues are not real. Secondly, why do SAP and Oracle hide their revenues along with support? The answer is that their cloud revenue is low. SAP has made a large number of cloud acquisitions, and that pumps up their cloud numbers.

I don't care if SAP or Oracle do well or don't do well in the cloud. I only report what I see.

Your statement about S/4HANA is also not true. SAP has had atrocious uptake of S/4HANA. You can see this study on the uptake of S/4HANA. Most of the case studies by SAP of S/4HANA are not accurate reflections of what is occurring on projects. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/estimate-of-s-4hana-implementations/

What you said about the major SIs is also not accurate. The big SIs don't equally sell all vendors. They have their primary practices built around SAP and Oracle – and they are, as their partnership agreements, required to function as parrots for each vendor. http://www.brightworkresearch.com/best-understand-pitfalls-vendor-partnerships-sap/

What you are doing is hand-waving away severe conflicts of interest and a high degree of dishonesty on the part of these companies. Why? Because it suits your personal financial incentives. And you are making up a faux conflict with competitive intelligence because you are looking for a way of critiquing Brightwork, as it stays away from these conflicts. This shows that you are not serious about corruption and that you will allow corruption as long as you benefit from that corruption.

I keep bringing up Brightwor's accuracy versus SAP and Deloitte and Gartner. And I can't fail to notice that no SAP-aligned critic seems to want to address this. Why is that? What is the accuracy of Brightwork and SAP's accuracy not of interest? I think I have an idea why this is the case. Remember, if Brightwork is right on nearly everything it has ever published on SAP, then it can't be a bias.

Secondly, Gartner and Forrester do not provide a balanced story, as you claimed in your comment. Here is Forrester putting out false information on S/4HANA. http://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-to-understand-forresters-s-4hana-tco-study/

This study was a complete joke and rigged by Forrester in return for money. Here is SAP getting HANA completely wrong. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/gartner-got-hana-wrong/

Brightworks' coverage of SAP and Oracle is nearly always negative. However, the reason is that these are the least honest vendors that Brightwork tracks. Remember, SAP's claims are otherwordly. Hasso Plattner said that SAP had the best CRM system in the world. Steve Lucas said that HANA makes workers between 10 and 10,000 times more productive. http://www.brightworkresearch.com/accurate-sap-hana-enabling-people-work-10-10000-times-faster/

When your executives and marketing and sales are constantly lying, your company will score low inaccuracy unless the entity rating you is on your payroll – as Gartner, Forrester, and IDC all are. Why do you think that only the analysts paid off by SAP are on SAP's approved analyst list? Josh Greenbaum will say anything that SAP tells him to say? They work his mouth like a puppet.

You say that the only bias is not financial bias. However, while that is true, the most serious bias is financial bias. Once an entity can be shown to be on a vendor's payroll, I can trace their conclusions. Why do you think that Gartner hides that they are paid by vendors to get into the Magic Quadrant? Why are Forrester's paid for faux studies so terrible? Do you think SAP would keep paying them if they did not do exactly what they are told? I don't have any bias against SAP. Most of the money I have made in my career is because of SAP. If anything, I should have a positive or pro-SAP bias. But I don't, because I have been close enough to know the reality of SAP projects and I don't want to lie to others about SAP for money.

It is hard to reply to the last part of your comment where you claim I am a narcissist. So that would make me more narcissistic than SAP and Oracle's to executives then? Am I more narcissistic than Bill McDermott or Vishal Sikkha? That is quite a claim. I may have various flaws and things you don't like. However, what you don't like is that I contradict SAP, while no one else does, and my accuracy on SAP and Oracle is exceptionally high. That is why this whole hit piece on this site and the whole faux competitive intelligence claim was created in the first place. But I would not worry so much. Again, most CIOs are inept and most don't even have time to read and they are easily mind controlled by SAP and Oracle sales. The articles at Brightwork are having probably close to no effect on SAP's sales. Even when I provide all the evidence, CIOs normally care more about their careers than what is good for their companies.

It must burn Shaun Sapp that SAP and Oracle have growing cloud businesses in S/4 and cloud ERP, and, wait for it - yes, both have happy customers. But, no, they must have tricked all those customers into buying, we must believe. Maybe other top analysts that Shaun bashes about getting paid by vendors have a financial interest in their business model, but at least they point out relative strengths and weaknesses and cover all the vendors in the market. Big SI's have a financial interest, but, wait for it - they sell all the top vendors and usually realize where systems are a better fit for customers. But no, Shaun Sapp has the worst kind of bias. Financial bias isn't the half of it, even though it looks like he tried to dodge the competitive intelligence angle when called on the carpet and did major backpedaling. It's his selection / agenda bias by only writing negative articles on SAP and Oracle. Shaun must have no clue what that is, but it's obvious some past hatred for SAP in particular clouds any chance for objectivity. His flavor of bias is paltering - careful wordsmithing and cherry-picking of occasional truths to drive a very deceptive narrative. It's a favorite among narcissists, which Shaun certainly is not because he is of course better than all the top analysts who just tell lies, right? But let Shaun be Shaun, he will just continue to dig himself a deeper hole.

Not aware of a so-called approved analyst list I mean prospects can look at any analyst they want but rants from the guy at Brightworks aren't going to change anything.

I found this link. Customers barely care about competitive intelligence. If you bring this idea up, the prospect will find this article (it was the first thing that came up when I typed Brightwork and CI https://www.brightworkresearch.com/why-competitive-intelligence-is-a-bad-market-to-sell-research/). What is being said here is not believable. but don't worry, there is an easy solution, and its low in calories burned. I already have a strategy for dealing with Brightwork. I am 6 years in SAP sales + 3.5 years with an SAP CP. Sooooooo I know a bit about it. I ran to a prospect who brought me a Brightwork article. Some BS about the SAP cloud value. bla bla bla. They did not like this. They did not like that. I could not get through it. It was way way too long and way way boring. Bottom line, I needed to sell SAP cloud on a 6YR term. First I told the account that Brightwork is not on the approved analyst list. BOOM, that was it. Two I told them if no cloud, then their discount was gone – so don't even try it. When they heard that, the prospect never brought it up again! Just do that – and they aren't. There is an approved analyst list that SAP has relationships with. Those are the only places prospects are really allowed to get their info. Don't get your whites in a twist over this tiny company, and just use the same thing I did. If a prospect even brings them up. It works!

Competitive intelligence services do not constitute a financial bias. How would it? SAP is paying Gartner, Forrester, and IDC to create fake studies for them and pay off media sources. However, none of these companies disclose these payments. Why would competitive intelligence business interfere with objectivity? The only thing that other competing vendors care about is the knowledge level of SAP, which Brightwork has. What is an unbiased source on SAP that vendors could access? Gartner? – who takes many millions from SAP? Forrester, that is also paid by SAP? IDC? - same story. Deloitte that has a billion-dollar business based upon SAP? Name the entity that is less financially biased than Brightwork. I am very curious to hear who this is because there aren't accurate sources on SAP. SAP pays off every entity you can name.

If Brightwork has a bias, why is Brightwork the most accurate source on SAP? See th following. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/study-accuracy-sap/ This study shows that Brightwork is far more accurate than SAP in predicting the future of SAP. Is HANA 100,000x faster than other databases? No. Who punctured this myth proposed by SAP? Brightwork did. Was Leonardo a success? Who predicted it would not be. We did. And years before it happened. Who broke the story on HANA? Brightwork did. No one else caught how massively SAP was lying on this topic. See this hilarious interview with Vishal Sikka. Nothing that Vishal Sikka said would happen did happen. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/accurate-vishal-sikka-future-hana/

How about SAP's involvement in the Eskom corruption in South Africa. Brightwork covered that story here. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-deloitte-mckinsey-the-guptas-and-sap-ripped-off-eskom/ Is that story financially biased? Did that story help Brightwork sell competitive intelligence services? If so, how so?

How much money was Vishal Sikka making at the time of the previous video? How much do the top executives as SAP make to lie repeatedly? But the concern is Brightwork has a financial bias because we advise other vendors on the reality of SAP? We also advise SAP clients on the reality of SAP. Is that a financial bias as well? Why? Are we allowed to sell any services or make any income of any kind? Because SAP clients are attracted to accurate information on SAP, and then hire us to tell them the truth they will never hear from Accenture, Deloitte, Wipro? That does not make any sense. Brightwork destroys Accenture, Deloitte, or Wipro inaccuracy. Going to any of those companies is the same as going to SAP. They mindlessly repeat whatever SAP says. Do I need to include the links? Brightwork has several hundred articles skewering these firms for what they say about SAP. Most of the time, these companies will score a 1 or 2 inaccuracy. None of these companies care what is true. Remember the id–tic Run Simple campaign? Every one of these firms back this idiocy. Where is Run Simple now?

These financial bias claims are based upon competitive intelligence work, where vendors feel like there is nowhere else to turn for accurate information on SAP, which is a joke. And they are claims made by people making money from SAP who have a 100% financial bias. If you draw income from SAP as your career, you are in no position to point fingers at an independent research entity.

Here are the types of sources that SAP resources like—people like John Appleby. However, look at John Appleby's accuracy. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-appleby-papers-a-study-into-john-applebys-accuracy-on-hana/

It is horrible. And he is not a researcher and was trying to sell SAP. The vast majority of people or companies that provide SAP information are only trying to sell SAP software or services. However, SAP resources will praise John Appleby because it PROMOTES SAP. Therefore, he can be wrong about everything, and he will enjoy the full support of the SAP community.

As I said. Produce the evidence of the entity that has higher accuracy on SAP than BR&A has. I can't wait for people on this thread to try to pivot out of this challenge. Because I am aware of all of the sources and I already know the answer.

The critics on this thread are making claims they cannot back up. Read the links. That is called backing up a claim. It would be refreshing for a single critic on this thread to be able to support a claim. I see unsubstantiated projections by people with very restricting thinking ability and with 100% financial bias. Yes, this might as well be commenters directly from SAP's sales department.

Brightwork should have been more transparent about their providing competitive intelligence informational services against SAP, including providing these customers coaching against SAP and even tips on sharing Brightwork articles in this regard to share with prospective customers to appear as an unbiased source. To say other analyst houses are "financially biased" is quite hypocritical given this arrangement. While Brightwork may not "only exist to slam SAP" it certainly generates business from it while masquerading as being "independent". So, any damage to Brightwork's reputation from this activity is Brightwork's own doing!!

Some of the claims made in this thread are intended to keep companies from reading Brightwork's research. These people are likely associated with SAP and want Brightwork discredited before people read it and come to their determination. None of the people commenting can seem to find anything specific that they can say is untrue. These financially biased SAP resources, which support false claims made by SAP and wish for all information about SAP to come from SAP approved sources, such as SAP, SAP's enormous consulting ecosystem, and media and analysts that take money from SAP. These are "legitimate" sources on SAP as they call to come to the "correct" compliant conclusion.

Secondly, many of the claims made about Brightwork are demonstrably false. First, Brightwork did not just predict Leonardo's fall when no analyst firm did, but Brightwork has the highest accuracy on SAP over a ten year period of making predictions. How can that be verified? Well, it's on the Brightwork website. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/study-accuracy-sap/ Brightwork is far more accurate than SAP. Yes, that is a big deal – unless that is, accuracy does not matter to you. If anyone can find a list of SAP or Gartner's accuracy that can match this history of accuracy, feel free to post it.

Thirdly, as for the claim that Brightwork only exists to slam SAP. This link shows Brightwork's reviews and TCO calculations of 53 different applications from many other vendors. https://www.brightworkresearch.com/all-enterprise-software-tco-calculators/

This is easy to find. Did the commenters check anything before making this claim – or did they claim without any research of any kind? There are the articles and analysis. Now that these links disprove their assertions – will they apologize? No. There are here to lash out, not to evaluate evidence.

These two links disprove several of the claims made by SAP-aligned individuals on this thread who are striking out because they can't tolerate any criticism of SAP. And they have zero concern for what is true. They will also support anything SAP says – as long as they can bill hours or sell SAP software to do so.

Why is Gartner considered reputable? SAP pays Gartner many tens of millions per year, and Gartner hides this fact. Gartner hides what all vendors pay them. Is that reputable? Gartner not only has a "good relationship with SAP," they repeat what SAP says and are controlled by Gartner. Gartner completely bombed in their coverage fo HANA and served as a copy machine for SPA. Or as you would call it, Gartner had a "good relationship" SAP. Gartner pushes companies into very weak SAP solutions because they are paid by SAP. Same with Oracle, Microsoft, etc.. Again, how is that reputable?

You seem to be saying that a corrupt company like Gartner is reputable, but a company that takes no money from vendors is disreputable. You can't take the time to investigate how Gartner works, so you lazyily conclude they must be reputable. It might be educational for you to admit you don't know very much at all about the topic or how Gartner works. Gartner is large and widely used. but there is no reason to conclude that they are reputable. Gartner follows no research rules and does not follow disclosure rules.

Your comment on not having a debate on Brightwork on this website also does not make any sense. People refer to articles to support what they think or what they want to propose. When Brightwork provides accurate information on SAP, it is important that SAP resources be able to claim that Brightwork is not valid because they only care about making money personally and don't want anyone to read what is on Brightwork. They want customers to continue to get fleeced by SAP and SAP consulting partners. So naturally, this debate is going to happen. And the article on Brightwork specifically deals WITH the layoff.

Brightworks simply provides an opinion, actually an unsubstantiated opinion with zero references to back up their claims. "We will cover this in an upcoming article" or "In our book we speak to xyz". That's not research. It's opinion with an emotional overlay. This guy is a total hack. One comment says he predicted the failure of Leonardo. So what? When you predict every product is a failure, you are bound to be right at least once. Don't waste your time on their unintelligible mumbo jumbo.

Brightwork does not sell information from message boards on SAP and Oracle. How would that even work? The information on the public message board is available for anyone to see. You seem to have a poor understanding of what type of information is sellable.

Brightwork is a real research group. There is no need to use quotation marks. The fact that Brightwork contradicts your employer does not make the information, not research. The reason that SAP resources undermine SAP's research is that it fact checks SAP. In contrast, virtually every other entity that covers SAP is paid by SAP (ComputerWorld, IDG, Gartner, Forrester, etc..) Please try to deny that every source on SAP except Brightwork is paid by SAP. Do undisclosed payment to entities that publish on SAP meet your definition of "research." Do you find it curious that the one entity that publishes on SAP that you have a problem with is the one that takes no money from SAP? Is that a good design you think...where everyone is on SAP's payroll – and then multi-billion dollar consulting companies also repeat anything that SAP says? I bet you think the coverage that SAP gets from ComputerWeekly or TechTarget is just dandy don't you? You should, SAP paid for it.

Even if Brightwork's main business was selling much competitive intelligence business, which it isn't, that does not constitute financial bias. Financial bias is publishing information while being paid to do so (check the entities already mentioned.) See the bias regarding a directly paid article from SAP here http://example.com/2BlUrUK.

Brightwork, in fact, has historically very little involvement with vendors and recently introduced a policy of having no relationship whatsoever with vendors. http://example.com/2RgaFHr

The competitive intelligence business of Brightwork was always very small and will probably be non-existent in the future, but not because there is any conflict. In our experience vendors lack the understanding even to take advantage of competitive intelligence, and it is overall just a bad business.

That is also not true that people are making a business out of competitive intelligence. You can't name a single company that has a business around competitive intelligence for vendors. Most vendors rely on their own internal competitive intelligence groups.

Given the enormous lies told by SAP, the underhanded nature of the SAP and SAP partnership and the lies told by SAP consulting companies to their clients, the idea that a firm providing competitive intelligence is unethical is as ridiculous as it gets. Secondly, the articles are not attacks. They are fact checking. However, fact-checking tends to trigger SAP resources because so many SAP resources live in a self-reinforcing bubble that they are uncomfortable with being challenged. SAP resources have on several occasions, tried to warn others from reading the articles as we cover in the article http://example.com/2VctRtQ. The reason is simple, SAP resources do not want the articles read. All truth is found at sap.com. "The bestest and most accurate website ever."

Secondly, naturally, as an SAP employee, you will find Brightwork's coverage of SAP problematic. It makes your job more difficult. However, as a person with a 100% financial bias in favor of SAP, you are in a bad position to accuse others of having a financial bias. Brightwork wrote an article that covers the problem of financial bias hypocrisy. http://example.com/2s7PChUc You work for a company that makes $24 billion per year selling an enormous amount of poorly functioning software. And you don't care because its how you make your money.

Brightwork takes no money from any vendor, and the competitive intelligence business, which is not a conflict as is it only performing analysis of vendors, is so tiny Brightwork does not even bother marketing it anymore.

You have made a number of incorrect claims. And your main objective is to smear Brightwork Research & Analysis so that no one reads the material because you don't want to address the conclusions brought up in BR&A articles.

This is humorous. Seems this post hit a bright works nerve. Where there is smoke.... And I wholeheartedly agree, Bright-works only mission is to slam SAP it seems with no understanding of the technology. It is biased and does not give a fair reflection of the true state of the technology.

To get to the point, I am an ex-SAP employee, who got layed off, and all I can say the partner landscape is booming, there are plenty of projects out there that will be happy to use ex SAP guys. I got a good payout and had zero gap in employment.

All big companies retrench at some point, there will always be casualties. I did not take it personally, you have to roll with the punches, adapt and survive. You do your best until the powers that be decide you are no longer needed.

So it's okay for you to create a post criticizing Brightwork but when Brightwork posts a response, you still criticize them for posting!

Do you even see how narrow-minded you are?

No wonder Brightwork keeps mopping the floor with SAP.

So we got Workday being Workday and a shout from Brightworks...all makes more sense. Happy Easter!

The comment about selling comments about SAP or Oracle to other vendors is not true. The only competitive research that Brightwork Research & Analysis has ever done is comparison services. If a vendor wants to know how S/4HANA for instance compares to their ERP system we can tell them. We tell other vendors what parts of SAP or Oracle's products work and which don't, their maturity level, etc.. We provide this same information to buyers.

Its very difficult to see how this is a conflict of interest. Naturally, SAP or Oracle would like people to think this, because we are one of the only entities that publish on these firms that is also not financially connected to these firms. SAP pays off most of the IT media entities and IT analysts and does not disclose this information and the commenter thinks that the corruption lays with Brightwork Research & Analysis? I see.

We know SAP and Oracle and we know how they market. Are we not allowed to sell our domain expertise and research to competing vendors? What rule of research is that breaking exactly?

In fact, the entire business model explained regarding fishing information is completely unknown to us, and we question whether the commenter has any idea how one could make money from this. Is the idea that we would be able to sell comments to competing vendors? How would we do that? It sounds like a completely infeasible business model. When vendors buy off a media outlet or research entity, they make a direct payment to the entity, and that entity publishes something flattering about them. See the Forrester article on HANA' fake TCO as an example. http://example.com/2FW3Ree

The real problem is that SAP does not have very many good answers for our research. We routinely beat SAP resources in debates in LinkedIn and people are beginning to realize that SAP distributes large amount of false information, as we covered in our accuracy study of SAP. http://example.com/2CJtEpi

Since they can't debate the facts, they simply come up with any zany idea to discredit the source. Other things SAP resources have tried is that we are too small. So this is just the latest one added to the list. Is it not a bit curious that the one research entity not on SAP's payroll is the one entity that SAP calls out as unacceptable?

Guys this is a layoffs site. Why are you posting about Brightwork here? What does Brightwork have to do with SAP layoffs? If you work for SAP and have a problem with Brightwork, go post on their website or something. Why come here to talk about them????

I don’t know why there are suddenly so many trolls to the sap lay-off site here too. I am inclined to think it’s SAP hiring people to dilute the real content and discussion points. Or people who just have too much time, and don’t even give others space to air their views.

I think you made the point completely...Workday is trolling on this SAP layoff board. Thank you!

I'm a SAP employee and Brightworks guys are my heros for telling the truth! High respect!

Are you accusing Brightwork of selling competitive intelligence or producing biased content?

They can't do both because companies that pay for competitive intelligence ask to see sources.

Maybe they are biased? Unlike SAP people who are objective?

Everyone is biased. The difference is that some are much better than others.

Why don't you put them in their place? Post a counter-argument to show them wrong and shut them up. It's easy. Go to their website or LinkedIn posts and start showing your competence. If they are wrong, prove them wrong instead of hiding and crying in the shadows here.

But since you're b--ching about them here, we both know you can't confront them. So shut up.

So these guys just make up stuff and get paid for it by the likes of Workday?

Workday is doing really well.

Growing 50% YoY and replacing SAP at Walmart, BP, and Sanofi.

Maybe SAP should hire them instead of crying over lost customers.

Pathetic.

Are you suggesting that Workday is beating SAP because of Brightwork?

I am ex-SAP and now I work for Workday. Never heard of this Brightwork.

Who needs them when we can visit the layoff and glassdoor to read what employees have to say.

Stop blaming others for your incompetence and lack of experience.

We are taking away the biggest SAP customers everyday because all the experienced SAP people left and work for other companies like Workday and Salesforce. Even the head of SAP cloud left for Google. The ones left graduated from college 4 years ago and can't hold a conversation with a CxO in their mid 50's. SAP is brain-drained. Period.

Sounds like a Brightwork ad. Anyone can pretend to be whoever they want and post whatever garbage they want anonymously on here. Linking to one-sided research doesn't raise credibility. With that said I think there can be some good HR info and discussion on here and obviously anonymity is important.

Why would Workday pay for Internet comments? You think Workday folks can't read?

If you mean Brightwork provides "analysis", then that's different than "collecting information".

Yes, they provide great industry analysis but not only on SAP and Oracle as you falsely claimed.

Here's their vendor comparison between SAP, AWS, and IBM as an example:

https://www.brightworkresearch.com/ahmedazmi/2019/01/03/our-iot-platform-review-of-sap-ibm-and-aws/

Some of their research is completely original. Here's an example of their "analysis" of the SAP and Oracle latest layoffs compared. They provide information in there that I couldn't find anywhere else including this site!

https://www.brightworkresearch.com/ahmedazmi/2019/03/31/what-is-different-about-the-q1-2019-sap-and-oracle-layoffs/

By the way, these guys actually predicted SAP Leonardo's failure back in 2017. SAP is now quietly replacing Leonardo and selling Azure IoT to SAP customers instead.

Here's the Microsoft announcement:

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/mwc-2019-azure-iot-customers-partners-accelerate-innovation-from-cloud-to-edge/

and here's a summary from Microsoft's site:

"The SAP Leonardo IoT will leverage Azure IoT services, including Azure IoT Hub and Azure IoT Edge, to provide access to market leading secure connectivity, powerful Device Management functionality and a global scale data ingestion engine."

My company builds mobile IoT apps for appliance manufacturers so I know this is true.

Brightwork covers almost every vendor in the software industry. Look at their vendor ratings page for yourself:

https://www.brightworkresearch.com/softwaredecisions/honest-vendor-ratings/

My advice, let SAP competitive intelligence department know about Brightwork. I am sure they can handle a small research company that's collecting then selling internet comments :)

There are good and there are bad posts here. I think I am perfectly capable of weeding out junk and fake narrative.

As a sum, this site with all biased stuff still beats, quality wise, my facebook feed which is continuously clogged with junk, self promo, promo and other distractions.

More lay-off is coming, you will find how your perspective changes.

To begin with, Brightworks is not the point of reference here. Reputable research houses are like Gartner, and those in the know, will know Gartner has a good vendor-customer relationship with SAP. This is a lay-off website. We are just interested to hear what other employees talk about instead of veering off this false sign post of a discussion around Brickworks. I am beginning to think SAP paid people to post unrelated matters in this blog.