Skip to Content

There is a product “P” sold to SAP customers by “The P Company” and also (I think) sold to SAP customers by SAP itself as a “layered” product. 

And according to many functionals, “P” is best-in-show for products of its type.

This may well be the case, but here’s my “moral” or “ethical” problem with “The P Company”, and yes, unfortunately, with SAP itself in this particular instance.

At The P Company’s web-site, P is touted by The P Company as being certified by SAP as part of the NetWeaver suite because it uses the latest and greatest technology “T(P)” to interface with SAP.

But this simply isn’t true.

Any experienced SAP developer will only have to look at “P” for two seconds  before he or she realizes that “T(P)” is, in fact, relatively ANCIENT technology – predating even OO/ABAP itself by several years and PI/XI by even more years.

So, given the fact that functionals seem to think the world of “P”, I have no problem with “P” itself.

My problem is: i) with The P Company’s misrepresentation of P (at its website) as a product which takes advantage of the latest and greatest in SAP NetWeaver technology; and ii)  the fact that this misrepresentation doesn’t seen to bother SAP in the slightest.

To me, this kind of thing simply cheapens a great product (NetWeaver) and a great company (SAP).

To report this post you need to login first.

4 Comments

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

  1. Greg Chase
    Hi David, I can only say you are being nice by not mentioning company “P” using now older code or approach “Q” from SAP.

    Marketing blurbs do age, and its the duty of a company to keep their claims up to date with their product.  Using “latest” versions or approaches are a time-limited claim, as is saying you have the “leading” solution based on “best practices.”  These claims do matter.  Trust me I know this as we spend hours with SAP’s army of lawyers reviewing every claim we make on SAP.com.

    There are opportunities to provide such feedback in the community, or via the EcoHub feedback channels if comapny “P”s product is listed there.

    (0) 
    1. David Halitsky
      Hi Greg – thanks for taking the time to reply. 

      You wrote:

      “Marketing blurbs do age, and its the duty of a company to keep their claims up to date with their product”. 

      But isn’t it also the other way around:

      “Marketing blurbs do age, and its the duty of a company to keep their PRODUCT up to date with their CLAIMS”. 

      Best
      djh

      (0) 
  2. Greg Chase
    Hi David,
    I am working under the assumption that marketing claims cost less than product to develop.  However, marketing often speaks to vision – where a product is headed as it matures.  So, its more frequent that a product has yet to fully live up to its promise.  Its interesting that you observe that the product to which you refer has actually fallen away from its vision
    (0) 
    1. David Halitsky
      I hadn’t thought of it that way before, but you’re absolutely right – a true mesh between “vision” and “actuality” is actually a “singularity” toward which one can hopefully progress and, unfortunately, from which one can all too readily devolve.  TS Eliot had it right in “The Hollow Men” (which is actually about marketing, indirectly):

      Between the idea 
      And the reality 
      Between the motion 
      And the act  
      Falls the Shadow 

      Between the conception 
      And the creation 
      Between the emotion  
      And the response 
      Falls the Shadow 

      Between the desire 
      And the spasm 
      Between the potency 
      And the existence 

      Between the essence 
      And the descent 
      Falls the Shadow

      http://www.aduni.org/~heather/occs/honors/Poem.htm

      (0) 

Leave a Reply