Do you expect the technologies from the two companies to be integrated so that you will sell fewer total products; or will you sell two separate product lines? They will integrate way better. Whether we have a single architecture or two or three, we will maintain the customers investment. The AS/400 customers have no interest, probably, in changing [enterprise architectures]. Likewise, PeopleSofts large enterprise customers do not necessarily re-implement PeopleSoft to get to a common architecture.We will maintain the investment customers have made in the AS/400 space. It is completely illogical to acquire a company of 6,500 customers and then require them to do something they dont want to do. [At the end of the technical due diligence done for this acquisition] each team said, "I cant wait to get my hands on the fill in the blank." One example is, J.D. Edwards has a method of making its product installable in a couple hours. We never quite figured that out. That is an important part of being successful in the midmarket. We are going to steal that up into the large enterprise. If you steal each others previously competitive advantages and propagate them across your product lines everyone is happier. How much of the technology can be transferred from one to the other without transforming the PeopleSoft architecture? Theres a lot less dead ends in architectures than people think. When we used the Vantive architecture blueprint we took it over to PeopleSoft in four months. Talented developers only need to see the idea. We still support Vantive customers on the architecture that they licensed the product. What we did was add to the available versions of Vantive the Internet architecture. What came out under the PeopleSoft architecture was a plus plus plus product and yet, no customers investment in Vantive was sacrificed. SAP is bringing out the NetWeaver integration stack to resolve some of their integration issues. Will you do the same type of thing? We have an Integration Broker today. You have to give PeopleSoft credit, we have pioneered all of the changes SAP has made in the last five years. That sounds bold or arrogant, but look back at it. PeopleSoft in 1999, after I joined the company, announced the pure Internet architecture. MySAP.com [then] comes out with a light client that still requires some code on the client, by the way. Then PeopleSoft comes out with embedded analytics, then a year later SAP comes out with Business On Board. Give SAP credit for seeing a good idea and coming out with their own version. But NetWeaver is essentially a way to make it easier for [SAP] customers to integrate different architectures of their own product. Thats what [PeopleSoft] Integration Broker was all about before. We were integrating J.D. Edwards and Oracle and SAP already with our Integration Broker framework and putting it all together in the [PeopleSoft] Portal. Will that get better? Ya, I would expect it to get a lot better for J.D. Edwards.
The ultimate confirmation that it is attractive to customers to be able to maintain their current environments is SAP. SAP has three architectures: R/2, R/3 and mySAP.com. None of those customers want to go to the other architecture.