The SAP RISE framing is brillant. I've watched enterprises struggle with exactly that firewall vs zero trust decision you outlined, and most still default to Option A because it's familiar. The comparison to Office 365 migrations makes sense, but I think this might be even more disruptive since SAP is so deeply woven into operations. When you mentioned that healthcare customer saving on all those North-South and East-West firewalls, that's real infrastructure CapEx they're avoiding. Do you think Palo Alto's real risk here is the installed base or the renewal cycle?
SAP RISE is indeed more structurally disruptive than O365 because it moves the operational core, not just collaboration tools. Palo Alto's risk is both: the installed base erodes as SAP migrations reveal the old perimeter no longer exists architecturally, while the renewal cycle is where this hits first financially - CIOs face refresh decisions on firewalls for disappearing data centers and reallocate those dollars to Zero Trust access instead.
That healthcare customer avoiding North-South and East-West firewalls is hard CapEx avoidance, not just consolidation; it's revenue Palo Alto never sees and infrastructure that never gets purchased. Once customers choose Option B for SAP, they inevitably question the entire firewall stack, making this architectural shift far more dangerous to incumbents than any competitive feature gap.
The SAP RISE framing is brillant. I've watched enterprises struggle with exactly that firewall vs zero trust decision you outlined, and most still default to Option A because it's familiar. The comparison to Office 365 migrations makes sense, but I think this might be even more disruptive since SAP is so deeply woven into operations. When you mentioned that healthcare customer saving on all those North-South and East-West firewalls, that's real infrastructure CapEx they're avoiding. Do you think Palo Alto's real risk here is the installed base or the renewal cycle?
Great insight!
SAP RISE is indeed more structurally disruptive than O365 because it moves the operational core, not just collaboration tools. Palo Alto's risk is both: the installed base erodes as SAP migrations reveal the old perimeter no longer exists architecturally, while the renewal cycle is where this hits first financially - CIOs face refresh decisions on firewalls for disappearing data centers and reallocate those dollars to Zero Trust access instead.
That healthcare customer avoiding North-South and East-West firewalls is hard CapEx avoidance, not just consolidation; it's revenue Palo Alto never sees and infrastructure that never gets purchased. Once customers choose Option B for SAP, they inevitably question the entire firewall stack, making this architectural shift far more dangerous to incumbents than any competitive feature gap.