Every respectable ERP provides ways to export/access the data in a way that covers all national/international requirements for audits and reporting. This is not SAP-specific.

I didn't say that there are no other factors (like for example that CTO won't be fired when SAP/Oracle implementation fails, but will be 100% fired when ERP_X implementation fails)

I only pointed out that the statistics in parent post can be skewed due to the sample of top 500 corporations which can implement SAP for reasons different to running the business.

I would be interested to know if they are actually using SAP. These companies are so much better at software development and they are swimming in so much money that they could even implement something by themselves.

Why would they? It's none of their core business and SAP already has everything covered. Think of all the legal/financial stuff. The UI is not that important in that field, your domain expert in that area knows how to navigate stuff.

Event Microsoft does it (https://www.erpsoftwareblog.com/2012/11/why-does-microsoft-h...), despite the fact that they have their own ERP product (Dynamics).

I won't wave that question off completely.

It wasn't Amazon's core competency to offer IaaS/PaaS, before they did. GCP and AWS are closely playing in SAP's enterprise customer base. There is huge addressable market there. They've innovated better than SAP in technology space, on parts other than business software.

If they can succeed developing their own ERP, better than SAP, they could even redeploy the development teams from being cost center to profit center.

If I am SAP, I see them as strategic long term risk.

Established ERP systems take so long to configure that sometimes, it makes more sense to write your own in-house. Tesla did just that. And in only 4 months.

> These companies are so much better at software development

That's like saying "why doesn't Tiger Woods win Wimbledon? He's so much better at sport than anyone else". There are lots of different types of software development, and lots of different types of software engineers. Corporate IT projects don't succeed or fail on algorithmics - it's a completely different job, where 90% of the difficulty is managing people and politics

Google, Apple, and Microsoft do, Amazon does not, based on some moderate Googling for job postings, staff on LinkedIn, and conference attendees.

That's impressive. Of course Apple distributes hardware, so it makes the most sense to me. Microsoft, I suppose, had to distribute Windows boxes at some point, so it makes some sense to me. But I definitely wonder at which point Google started seeing a need for SAP. As soon as they started selling gadgets? Before then, to generally manage finances?

Finance, HR, Office Equipment, Travel Expenses etc...