Sage 100

WHUT????????? Dying to know what's behind this.

Same.

So this note came from Sage?  Isn't Century CC solution a PITA to remove?  No mention of Repay?  Are they on or off?

Same.

So this note came from Sage?  Isn't Century CC solution a PITA to remove?  No mention of Repay?  Are they on or off?

Same.

So this note came from Sage?  Isn't Century CC solution a PITA to remove?  No mention of Repay?  Are they on or off?

Same.

So this note came from Sage?  Isn't Century CC solution a PITA to remove?  No mention of Repay?  Are they on or off?

Same.

Anybody remember when protection rackets were considered criminal??

So this note came from Sage?  Isn't Century CC solution a PITA to remove?  No mention of Repay?  Are they on or off?

Same.

Anybody remember when protection rackets were considered criminal??

So this note came from Sage?  Isn't Century CC solution a PITA to remove?  No mention of Repay?  Are they on or off?

I don't understand the impact of this to the customer and when it happens?  The notice says to avoid any disruptions... what does this mean?  Does it mean they wont support but it will still work ? Or it wont work with sage 100 at some point in the future?

I have a client in the process of switching from Repay to Century so it sounds like I should advise them to put the brakes on this move.

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

I wonder if this is why V-Technologies / Starship is no longer a Sage endorsed solution. 

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

V-Technologies has been gone for a long time-nothing to do with this latest issue.
Remember that V-Technologies/Starship was an endorsed solution ( or whatever Sage called it back then).

Essentially that meant you could order Starship from Sage.

I don't know the financial arrangement, but there was some fee split for every order that V-Technologies ( and any endorsed solution ) had to give Sage.
Rather than paying per transaction, the endorsed solutions were paying per sale and perhaps per annual renewal ( I don't know the exact arrangements).

Fast forward to 2023, and suddenly, the landscape has changed. Some integrations cost nothing, and it's all about the per-transaction fee.

I think this is Sage recognizing this and trying to change the way they charge for certain partnerships.

I wonder if this is why V-Technologies / Starship is no longer a Sage endorsed solution. 

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

@Wayne Schulz StarShip changed from an end of day file transfer to a real-time web service architechture beginning with, I ebelieve, version 2018.  Many users didn't immediately adopt it.  So, for 4 or so years StarShip has been exchanging data with Sage 100 and also with address versification, carrier contract pricing, and other web services.  My thought was that maybe the "breakup" with Sage was due to new web service / API technology.  Is it possible that Sage requested a piece of each transaction?

V-Technologies has been gone for a long time-nothing to do with this latest issue.
Remember that V-Technologies/Starship was an endorsed solution ( or whatever Sage called it back then).

Essentially that meant you could order Starship from Sage.

I don't know the financial arrangement, but there was some fee split for every order that V-Technologies ( and any endorsed solution ) had to give Sage.
Rather than paying per transaction, the endorsed solutions were paying per sale and perhaps per annual renewal ( I don't know the exact arrangements).

Fast forward to 2023, and suddenly, the landscape has changed. Some integrations cost nothing, and it's all about the per-transaction fee.

I think this is Sage recognizing this and trying to change the way they charge for certain partnerships.

I wonder if this is why V-Technologies / Starship is no longer a Sage endorsed solution. 

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

I don't think so. I think V-Tech and Sage have been broken up for more than that period of time.
I think V-Tech uses both programming and BOI for their interface and I think they've bee moving to BOI as their preferred interface option.

@Wayne Schulz StarShip changed from an end of day file transfer to a real-time web service architechture beginning with, I ebelieve, version 2018.  Many users didn't immediately adopt it.  So, for 4 or so years StarShip has been exchanging data with Sage 100 and also with address versification, carrier contract pricing, and other web services.  My thought was that maybe the "breakup" with Sage was due to new web service / API technology.  Is it possible that Sage requested a piece of each transaction?

V-Technologies has been gone for a long time-nothing to do with this latest issue.
Remember that V-Technologies/Starship was an endorsed solution ( or whatever Sage called it back then).

Essentially that meant you could order Starship from Sage.

I don't know the financial arrangement, but there was some fee split for every order that V-Technologies ( and any endorsed solution ) had to give Sage.
Rather than paying per transaction, the endorsed solutions were paying per sale and perhaps per annual renewal ( I don't know the exact arrangements).

Fast forward to 2023, and suddenly, the landscape has changed. Some integrations cost nothing, and it's all about the per-transaction fee.

I think this is Sage recognizing this and trying to change the way they charge for certain partnerships.

I wonder if this is why V-Technologies / Starship is no longer a Sage endorsed solution. 

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

I understand that most, if not all, of this is under NDA. So that's likely why it hasn't been more than hallway chatter.

Intacct has an API that is far easier to measure usage of and bill for.

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 01:28
From: Jerry Norman
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

------------------------------
Jerry Norman
Smartbridge Partners
(512) 653-7498


Original Message:
Sent: 04-10-2023 14:47
From: Anne Sawyer
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

------------------------------
Anne Sawyer
Executive Director
90 Minds, Inc. 1

My understanding of this situation is as follows:

1. Sage notified payment processors last summer/fall that Sage required payment per transaction for the processors to integrate with Sage products.
2. The assumption is that processors are accessing Sage products that are on Sage's cloud network.
3. This makes sense for Sage Intacct but makes almost no sense for Sage 100.
4. Intentional or not, it seems as if the people at Sage pushing this initiative do not understand that Sage 100 can be hosted by customers on-premises (or maybe they do).
5. Sage 100 hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud gives Sage the necessary data to demand payment for using Sage's API (whatever they want to call it).  Sage PEP might also provide Sage with the same information.  I can only guess that Sage will continue to add data usage programs to collect information from Sage 100 going forward (perhaps when it phones home to check registration on the entitlement server it will pass other information to Sage)?
6. Sage attempted to strong arm the payment processors to play their game - pay or you lose access to Sage 100.
7. Fortis complied.  Century did not.  Not sure what REPAY ended up doing, but last I heard they would not comply.

Again, this is not official information.  It is what I gathered through various sources.  This thread should be restricted to 90 Minds Consultant members, and it should remain confidential within the group until Sage explains their actions.

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 08:50
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I understand that most, if not all, of this is under NDA. So that's likely why it hasn't been more than hallway chatter.

Intacct has an API that is far easier to measure usage of and bill for.

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 01:28
From: Jerry Norman
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

------------------------------
Jerry Norman
Smartbridge Partners
(512) 653-7498


Original Message:
Sent: 04-10-2023 14:47
From: Anne Sawyer
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

------------------------------
Anne Sawyer
Executive Director
90 Minds, Inc. 1

I thought this was related to the marketplace. As long as they are still a developer, they can maintain and create integrations to whatever product as long as they do not do anything against the developer partner agreement. I do not think they lost their developer license.

If Sage starts to charge developer a fee for transactions out of Sage 100, it isn't going to go well. While that can make sense for hosted installation that have bandwidth or an API access fee associated with it, it doesn't make sense for on Premise or Self hosted. Not only will it be a nightmare to manage (think Avalara and questions about billing) but I would expect development for enhancements connecting to other resources would decrease. Some developers may leave, new developers may not be attracted to become new ISVs, End users will not understand why enhancements cost go up and enhancements that had a flat rate now changes based on use.

Having it limited to those on the Marketplace makes sense if they purchased it on the marketplace. Then this notice should have said that they are no longer on the marketplace and there are other options that are on it that can be picked. But they didn't say that. Instead, they used a scare tactic to end users to try and make them change. 

My understanding of this situation is as follows:

1. Sage notified payment processors last summer/fall that Sage required payment per transaction for the processors to integrate with Sage products.
2. The assumption is that processors are accessing Sage products that are on Sage's cloud network.
3. This makes sense for Sage Intacct but makes almost no sense for Sage 100.
4. Intentional or not, it seems as if the people at Sage pushing this initiative do not understand that Sage 100 can be hosted by customers on-premises (or maybe they do).
5. Sage 100 hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud gives Sage the necessary data to demand payment for using Sage's API (whatever they want to call it).  Sage PEP might also provide Sage with the same information.  I can only guess that Sage will continue to add data usage programs to collect information from Sage 100 going forward (perhaps when it phones home to check registration on the entitlement server it will pass other information to Sage)?
6. Sage attempted to strong arm the payment processors to play their game - pay or you lose access to Sage 100.
7. Fortis complied.  Century did not.  Not sure what REPAY ended up doing, but last I heard they would not comply.

Again, this is not official information.  It is what I gathered through various sources.  This thread should be restricted to 90 Minds Consultant members, and it should remain confidential within the group until Sage explains their actions.

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 08:50
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I understand that most, if not all, of this is under NDA. So that's likely why it hasn't been more than hallway chatter.

Intacct has an API that is far easier to measure usage of and bill for.

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 01:28
From: Jerry Norman
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

------------------------------
Jerry Norman
Smartbridge Partners
(512) 653-7498


Original Message:
Sent: 04-10-2023 14:47
From: Anne Sawyer
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

------------------------------
Anne Sawyer
Executive Director
90 Minds, Inc. 1

My understanding of this situation is as follows:

1. Sage notified payment processors last summer/fall that Sage required payment per transaction for the processors to integrate with Sage products.
2. The assumption is that processors are accessing Sage products that are on Sage's cloud network.
3. This makes sense for Sage Intacct but makes almost no sense for Sage 100.
4. Intentional or not, it seems as if the people at Sage pushing this initiative do not understand that Sage 100 can be hosted by customers on-premises (or maybe they do).
5. Sage 100 hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud gives Sage the necessary data to demand payment for using Sage's API (whatever they want to call it).  Sage PEP might also provide Sage with the same information.  I can only guess that Sage will continue to add data usage programs to collect information from Sage 100 going forward (perhaps when it phones home to check registration on the entitlement server it will pass other information to Sage)?
6. Sage attempted to strong arm the payment processors to play their game - pay or you lose access to Sage 100.
7. Fortis complied.  Century did not.  Not sure what REPAY ended up doing, but last I heard they would not comply.

Again, this is not official information.  It is what I gathered through various sources.  This thread should be restricted to 90 Minds Consultant members, and it should remain confidential within the group until Sage explains their actions.

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 08:50
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I understand that most, if not all, of this is under NDA. So that's likely why it hasn't been more than hallway chatter.

Intacct has an API that is far easier to measure usage of and bill for.

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 01:28
From: Jerry Norman
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

------------------------------
Jerry Norman
Smartbridge Partners
(512) 653-7498

My understanding of this situation is as follows:

1. Sage notified payment processors last summer/fall that Sage required payment per transaction for the processors to integrate with Sage products.
2. The assumption is that processors are accessing Sage products that are on Sage's cloud network.
3. This makes sense for Sage Intacct but makes almost no sense for Sage 100.
4. Intentional or not, it seems as if the people at Sage pushing this initiative do not understand that Sage 100 can be hosted by customers on-premises (or maybe they do).
5. Sage 100 hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud gives Sage the necessary data to demand payment for using Sage's API (whatever they want to call it).  Sage PEP might also provide Sage with the same information.  I can only guess that Sage will continue to add data usage programs to collect information from Sage 100 going forward (perhaps when it phones home to check registration on the entitlement server it will pass other information to Sage)?
6. Sage attempted to strong arm the payment processors to play their game - pay or you lose access to Sage 100.
7. Fortis complied.  Century did not.  Not sure what REPAY ended up doing, but last I heard they would not comply.

Again, this is not official information.  It is what I gathered through various sources.  This thread should be restricted to 90 Minds Consultant members, and it should remain confidential within the group until Sage explains their actions.

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 08:50
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I understand that most, if not all, of this is under NDA. So that's likely why it hasn't been more than hallway chatter.

Intacct has an API that is far easier to measure usage of and bill for.

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 01:28
From: Jerry Norman
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Fortis told me at MOTM about this new fee Sage is forcing the ISVs to eat/pass on. I was told it applies to MORE than just the CC vendors. My understanding is that it also applies to ISVs using Sage APIs, not just those endorsed. I haven't verified any of that last one with anyone else. 

------------------------------
Jerry Norman
Smartbridge Partners
(512) 653-7498


Original Message:
Sent: 04-10-2023 14:47
From: Anne Sawyer
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Thanks for this update and the responses.  It helps to get various messaging.  Let me see what I can find out on my end.  

------------------------------
Anne Sawyer
Executive Director
90 Minds, Inc. 1

IMO, that wording is risking a defamation lawsuit.

Just wrong.  Marketing based unjustified scare tactics.

IMO, that wording is risking a defamation lawsuit.

Just wrong.  Marketing based unjustified scare tactics.

IMO, that wording is risking a defamation lawsuit.

How do we know what may occur?
The original email doesn't specify what partnership was terminated. If it was a developer partnership, it could be challenging for eBiz to continue writing (or upgrading) code to be installed in Sage 100.

Or am I missing something?

Just wrong.  Marketing based unjustified scare tactics.

IMO, that wording is risking a defamation lawsuit.

How do we know what may occur?
The original email doesn't specify what partnership was terminated. If it was a developer partnership, it could be challenging for eBiz to continue writing (or upgrading) code to be installed in Sage 100.

Or am I missing something?

Just wrong.  Marketing based unjustified scare tactics.

IMO, that wording is risking a defamation lawsuit.

Ooooh!  that did not take long.  

------------------------------
Madeline Stefanou
RKL eSolutions, LLC
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 16:00
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT

Email from Century late yesterday:

Our EBizCharge solution for Sage 100 is best in class and has operated without any agreement with Sage since 2013/2014.

We are reaching out to you regarding a recent email and/or article(s) that you may have viewed stating that Sage is "ending our relationship with Century Business Solutions/EBizCharge."

The fact is that Sage ended its relationship with Century Business Solutions for Sage 100 during the period of 2013-2014. It sent a notice of termination on March 20, 2013 for its Sage Development Partner Program and refused to reconsider despite EBizCharge's request that it do so in 2014. Contrary to what you may have heard, Sage did not recently terminate any agreement for Sage 100 (although it sent a termination letter purporting to do so) because there hasn't been any agreement with Sage for Sage 100 since 2013/2014.

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

We carefully considered the fact that this pricing structure, if agreed to, would require us to pass most of these costs through to our merchants. EBizCharge fundamentally disagrees with this type of indirect increase and decided to reject Sage's demand.

We continue to advocate for our customers and partners best interests. Merchants can continue using our payment integration to Sage 100 without interruption, just as our merchants have done since our relationship with Sage for Sage 100 ended in 2013/2014. We will be happy to speak further about this situation with you at your convenience.

EBizCharge integrates with dozens of popular ERP platforms and is the trusted platform used by many Sage 100 users today.

Thank you again for your continued trust in EBizCharge. We value your business and look forward to continuing our partnership for many years to come. 

The information and any attachments in this email message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify EBizCharge (Century Business Solutions) immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer.

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 16:11
From: Madeline Stefanou
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Ooooh!  that did not take long.  

------------------------------
Madeline Stefanou
RKL eSolutions, LLC


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 16:00
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT

There is some information missing from the above email from Century.  How does a Sage 100 developer with no active Sage Development Partner Agreement since 2014 have access to the Sage 100 SDK when it requires a new activation.pvx every year?  Perhaps I'm not understanding something.  Any other developers on here have any insight?

Email from Century late yesterday:

Our EBizCharge solution for Sage 100 is best in class and has operated without any agreement with Sage since 2013/2014.

We are reaching out to you regarding a recent email and/or article(s) that you may have viewed stating that Sage is "ending our relationship with Century Business Solutions/EBizCharge."

The fact is that Sage ended its relationship with Century Business Solutions for Sage 100 during the period of 2013-2014. It sent a notice of termination on March 20, 2013 for its Sage Development Partner Program and refused to reconsider despite EBizCharge's request that it do so in 2014. Contrary to what you may have heard, Sage did not recently terminate any agreement for Sage 100 (although it sent a termination letter purporting to do so) because there hasn't been any agreement with Sage for Sage 100 since 2013/2014.

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

We carefully considered the fact that this pricing structure, if agreed to, would require us to pass most of these costs through to our merchants. EBizCharge fundamentally disagrees with this type of indirect increase and decided to reject Sage's demand.

We continue to advocate for our customers and partners best interests. Merchants can continue using our payment integration to Sage 100 without interruption, just as our merchants have done since our relationship with Sage for Sage 100 ended in 2013/2014. We will be happy to speak further about this situation with you at your convenience.

EBizCharge integrates with dozens of popular ERP platforms and is the trusted platform used by many Sage 100 users today.

Thank you again for your continued trust in EBizCharge. We value your business and look forward to continuing our partnership for many years to come. 

The information and any attachments in this email message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify EBizCharge (Century Business Solutions) immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer.

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 16:11
From: Madeline Stefanou
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Ooooh!  that did not take long.  

------------------------------
Madeline Stefanou
RKL eSolutions, LLC


Original Message:
Sent: 04-11-2023 16:00
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT

Here is the paragraph that gets me.  Shows how greedy Sage is.  Shameful

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

------------------------------
Carmen Cruz
Sage Consultant
CompuData
------------------------------

I can see where Sage is coming from (I think).

I am purely guessing about what MIGHT be going on.

Sage sees third-party integrations into Sage 100, where the integration facilitates a per-transaction type fee.

This is something relatively new and, in my view, similar to how Apple requires almost all in-app purchases to run through Apple, for which Apple takes a healthy commission/fee.

Some of these integrations - such as Avalara and Beanworks - took the "Endorsed Solutions" route. As Endorsed Solutions, Sage did receive a "piece of the pie."

Others - until recently, all payment processors - either developed their integration or used a subcontractor to create an integration. Aside from any developer fee, Sage's piece of this pie was zero.

As things progress, we continue to see:

- Credit card processors offer payment integration and have recently introduced AP and AR integrations. Most of these integrations are collecting some per transaction fee.
- From the publisher (Sage) side of the fence, they might see themselves building and maintaining Sage 100; third parties move in for little more than an annual developer fee and charge recurring transaction fees. And I presume many of these fees are material amounts.
- Sage might see charging per transaction as a more equitable fee than raising the developer license to the various companies based on the volume of transactions their enhancements process (which Sage likely has no easy way to monitor in Sage 100)

For example,

Maybe Sage goes to the Payment Processor and says - we are redoing the developer agreement and developers who create enhancements which charge transaction fees directly or indirectly.

You can either:
a. Pay x% of those transactions
b. Or, your developer fee is now $ xxx,xxxx per year based on your declared transaction volume, which we review semi-annually (not a practical approach for developers who may be subcontracted to create enhancements)



Is this a significant change in how these fees have been assessed in the past? Yes

Is Sage due some money for these integrations? Debatable, but in my opinion, if there's a transaction fee, my answer is yes. You already have seen it with Avalara and AP Automation, who I think could have likely "gone it alone."

The Payment Processors can collect this fee solely because of their ability to integrate into an existing software program.
FULL STOP
No Sage 100 = No ability to make ANY money

That being said, there are probably many ways that Payment Processors might work around this - such as using BOI (if possible) or doing a clunky export/import instead of an enhancement.

Ultimately I bet most hold their noses and pay, and in turn, they pass the fee to the customer.

And here we stand as consultants facilitating these transactions (attending demos, assisting with installation, and being the unpaid complaint desk)  for a relatively minor (and shrinking annually) sum ( This is the real issue ).

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2023 13:49
From: Carmen Cruz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Here is the paragraph that gets me.  Shows how greedy Sage is.  Shameful

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

------------------------------
Carmen Cruz
Sage Consultant
CompuData

@Wayne Schulz I completely agree with you that this is exactly what Sage is thinking.  And, for Sage Intacct, where Sage is hosting the solution and has the responsibility for the performance of environment, this makes perfect sense.  You want to transact with our environment, you pay X.

Sage 100 is different.  Sage is being paid a license fee (subscription, perpetual license, maintenance fee, etc.) for the use of its product, and it is up to the customer to host it somewhere.  Again, if it is hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud, then maybe this applies.  However, Sage is being paid extra for the SPC.

So, I see this as purely an extortion attempt regardless of how Sage wants to spin it.  Not only that, Sage now appears to be spreading lies publicly and using scare tactics to harm Century Business Systems.  I'm no lawyer, but this looks bad.

What's next?  Vehicle manufacturers demand gas stations pay them a percentage of the amount of fuel I put into my vehicle every time I fill up the tank?  I know they are already starting to monetize features like heated seats through subscriptions which I think is ludicrous.

But, guess what?  Very few people care what I think.  Such is life.  To your point, we get to decide with how we deal with these changes.  Good luck to all of us!

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-13-2023 09:13
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I can see where Sage is coming from (I think).

I am purely guessing about what MIGHT be going on.

Sage sees third-party integrations into Sage 100, where the integration facilitates a per-transaction type fee.

This is something relatively new and, in my view, similar to how Apple requires almost all in-app purchases to run through Apple, for which Apple takes a healthy commission/fee.

Some of these integrations - such as Avalara and Beanworks - took the "Endorsed Solutions" route. As Endorsed Solutions, Sage did receive a "piece of the pie."

Others - until recently, all payment processors - either developed their integration or used a subcontractor to create an integration. Aside from any developer fee, Sage's piece of this pie was zero.

As things progress, we continue to see:

- Credit card processors offer payment integration and have recently introduced AP and AR integrations. Most of these integrations are collecting some per transaction fee.
- From the publisher (Sage) side of the fence, they might see themselves building and maintaining Sage 100; third parties move in for little more than an annual developer fee and charge recurring transaction fees. And I presume many of these fees are material amounts.
- Sage might see charging per transaction as a more equitable fee than raising the developer license to the various companies based on the volume of transactions their enhancements process (which Sage likely has no easy way to monitor in Sage 100)

For example,

Maybe Sage goes to the Payment Processor and says - we are redoing the developer agreement and developers who create enhancements which charge transaction fees directly or indirectly.

You can either:
a. Pay x% of those transactions
b. Or, your developer fee is now $ xxx,xxxx per year based on your declared transaction volume, which we review semi-annually (not a practical approach for developers who may be subcontracted to create enhancements)



Is this a significant change in how these fees have been assessed in the past? Yes

Is Sage due some money for these integrations? Debatable, but in my opinion, if there's a transaction fee, my answer is yes. You already have seen it with Avalara and AP Automation, who I think could have likely "gone it alone."

The Payment Processors can collect this fee solely because of their ability to integrate into an existing software program.
FULL STOP
No Sage 100 = No ability to make ANY money

That being said, there are probably many ways that Payment Processors might work around this - such as using BOI (if possible) or doing a clunky export/import instead of an enhancement.

Ultimately I bet most hold their noses and pay, and in turn, they pass the fee to the customer.

And here we stand as consultants facilitating these transactions (attending demos, assisting with installation, and being the unpaid complaint desk)  for a relatively minor (and shrinking annually) sum ( This is the real issue ).

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2023 13:49
From: Carmen Cruz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Here is the paragraph that gets me.  Shows how greedy Sage is.  Shameful

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

------------------------------
Carmen Cruz
Sage Consultant
CompuData

I agree, Brian. I hope Sage NA debated this issue for Sage 100 a lot. IMO, it's more than just, "Everybody is doing it, so we should, too." Sage 100 has a unique role in the marketplace and it Sage's 5-10 yr strategy.

Like Sage's decision about Sage 100's future, this one is likely done, and we can do is work with it - we won't change Sage's mind.

At the end of the day, we serve our customers with a responsibility to help them get the most out of their Sage-related investment (AKA "costs"). Creating a Bitch Bunch does nobody any good and ultimately results in the customer leaving Sage 100 and us sooner than otherwise.

Each connected enhancement has 2 sides to the offering:
  - one is the value proposition to a customer as to why bother paying for the enhancement the pain of changing to incorporate in the business processes, and
  - the other is the financial incentive to the vendor to offer it.

If the cost of the enhancement is not attractive the benefits, the customer won't do it. No harm, no foul.

If you haven't noticed, nearly all of the connected enhancement vendors make their money in financial markets: AP Automation, payment (cc/ACH) services, AR Automation, etc. They are ALL after the cash flowing through their systems, taking a piece and maximizing the financial float. It's just the way it is, because without this "back end," the vendor won't make enough $$ to justify the operation.

Like it or not, we need to school ourselves on the meaning of these changes (now and future ones), be able to explain them in useful ways to customers, and also offer alternative actions they can consider to deal with them.

Also remember, that for nearly all Sage 100 customers, the current cost of running their Sage 100 system is less than any alternative.

@Wayne Schulz I completely agree with you that this is exactly what Sage is thinking.  And, for Sage Intacct, where Sage is hosting the solution and has the responsibility for the performance of environment, this makes perfect sense.  You want to transact with our environment, you pay X.

Sage 100 is different.  Sage is being paid a license fee (subscription, perpetual license, maintenance fee, etc.) for the use of its product, and it is up to the customer to host it somewhere.  Again, if it is hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud, then maybe this applies.  However, Sage is being paid extra for the SPC.

So, I see this as purely an extortion attempt regardless of how Sage wants to spin it.  Not only that, Sage now appears to be spreading lies publicly and using scare tactics to harm Century Business Systems.  I'm no lawyer, but this looks bad.

What's next?  Vehicle manufacturers demand gas stations pay them a percentage of the amount of fuel I put into my vehicle every time I fill up the tank?  I know they are already starting to monetize features like heated seats through subscriptions which I think is ludicrous.

But, guess what?  Very few people care what I think.  Such is life.  To your point, we get to decide with how we deal with these changes.  Good luck to all of us!

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)


Original Message:
Sent: 04-13-2023 09:13
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I can see where Sage is coming from (I think).

I am purely guessing about what MIGHT be going on.

Sage sees third-party integrations into Sage 100, where the integration facilitates a per-transaction type fee.

This is something relatively new and, in my view, similar to how Apple requires almost all in-app purchases to run through Apple, for which Apple takes a healthy commission/fee.

Some of these integrations - such as Avalara and Beanworks - took the "Endorsed Solutions" route. As Endorsed Solutions, Sage did receive a "piece of the pie."

Others - until recently, all payment processors - either developed their integration or used a subcontractor to create an integration. Aside from any developer fee, Sage's piece of this pie was zero.

As things progress, we continue to see:

- Credit card processors offer payment integration and have recently introduced AP and AR integrations. Most of these integrations are collecting some per transaction fee.
- From the publisher (Sage) side of the fence, they might see themselves building and maintaining Sage 100; third parties move in for little more than an annual developer fee and charge recurring transaction fees. And I presume many of these fees are material amounts.
- Sage might see charging per transaction as a more equitable fee than raising the developer license to the various companies based on the volume of transactions their enhancements process (which Sage likely has no easy way to monitor in Sage 100)

For example,

Maybe Sage goes to the Payment Processor and says - we are redoing the developer agreement and developers who create enhancements which charge transaction fees directly or indirectly.

You can either:
a. Pay x% of those transactions
b. Or, your developer fee is now $ xxx,xxxx per year based on your declared transaction volume, which we review semi-annually (not a practical approach for developers who may be subcontracted to create enhancements)



Is this a significant change in how these fees have been assessed in the past? Yes

Is Sage due some money for these integrations? Debatable, but in my opinion, if there's a transaction fee, my answer is yes. You already have seen it with Avalara and AP Automation, who I think could have likely "gone it alone."

The Payment Processors can collect this fee solely because of their ability to integrate into an existing software program.
FULL STOP
No Sage 100 = No ability to make ANY money

That being said, there are probably many ways that Payment Processors might work around this - such as using BOI (if possible) or doing a clunky export/import instead of an enhancement.

Ultimately I bet most hold their noses and pay, and in turn, they pass the fee to the customer.

And here we stand as consultants facilitating these transactions (attending demos, assisting with installation, and being the unpaid complaint desk)  for a relatively minor (and shrinking annually) sum ( This is the real issue ).

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2023 13:49
From: Carmen Cruz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Here is the paragraph that gets me.  Shows how greedy Sage is.  Shameful

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

------------------------------
Carmen Cruz
Sage Consultant
CompuData

@Jerry Norman "we won't change Sage's mind" and "Creating a Bitch Bunch does nobody any good" - TRUTH!

One of the bigger problems for the channel now is the conflicting messages from Sage and Century.  What do we do with this information?  As channel partners we have a duty to Sage that we don't have to third-party vendors.  It puts us in a really awkward position.  It seems to me that Sage partners must take Sage at its word and push Sage 100 users to Fortis or Paya.

Thoughts???

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 04-13-2023 10:08
From: Jerry Norman
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I agree, Brian. I hope Sage NA debated this issue for Sage 100 a lot. IMO, it's more than just, "Everybody is doing it, so we should, too." Sage 100 has a unique role in the marketplace and it Sage's 5-10 yr strategy.

Like Sage's decision about Sage 100's future, this one is likely done, and we can do is work with it - we won't change Sage's mind.

At the end of the day, we serve our customers with a responsibility to help them get the most out of their Sage-related investment (AKA "costs"). Creating a Bitch Bunch does nobody any good and ultimately results in the customer leaving Sage 100 and us sooner than otherwise.

Each connected enhancement has 2 sides to the offering:
  - one is the value proposition to a customer as to why bother paying for the enhancement the pain of changing to incorporate in the business processes, and
  - the other is the financial incentive to the vendor to offer it.

If the cost of the enhancement is not attractive the benefits, the customer won't do it. No harm, no foul.

If you haven't noticed, nearly all of the connected enhancement vendors make their money in financial markets: AP Automation, payment (cc/ACH) services, AR Automation, etc. They are ALL after the cash flowing through their systems, taking a piece and maximizing the financial float. It's just the way it is, because without this "back end," the vendor won't make enough $$ to justify the operation.

Like it or not, we need to school ourselves on the meaning of these changes (now and future ones), be able to explain them in useful ways to customers, and also offer alternative actions they can consider to deal with them.

Also remember, that for nearly all Sage 100 customers, the current cost of running their Sage 100 system is less than any alternative.

------------------------------
Jerry Norman
Smartbridge Partners
(512) 653-7498


Original Message:
Sent: 04-13-2023 09:34
From: Brian Kelly
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

@Wayne Schulz I completely agree with you that this is exactly what Sage is thinking.  And, for Sage Intacct, where Sage is hosting the solution and has the responsibility for the performance of environment, this makes perfect sense.  You want to transact with our environment, you pay X.

Sage 100 is different.  Sage is being paid a license fee (subscription, perpetual license, maintenance fee, etc.) for the use of its product, and it is up to the customer to host it somewhere.  Again, if it is hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud, then maybe this applies.  However, Sage is being paid extra for the SPC.

So, I see this as purely an extortion attempt regardless of how Sage wants to spin it.  Not only that, Sage now appears to be spreading lies publicly and using scare tactics to harm Century Business Systems.  I'm no lawyer, but this looks bad.

What's next?  Vehicle manufacturers demand gas stations pay them a percentage of the amount of fuel I put into my vehicle every time I fill up the tank?  I know they are already starting to monetize features like heated seats through subscriptions which I think is ludicrous.

But, guess what?  Very few people care what I think.  Such is life.  To your point, we get to decide with how we deal with these changes.  Good luck to all of us!

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)


Original Message:
Sent: 04-13-2023 09:13
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I can see where Sage is coming from (I think).

I am purely guessing about what MIGHT be going on.

Sage sees third-party integrations into Sage 100, where the integration facilitates a per-transaction type fee.

This is something relatively new and, in my view, similar to how Apple requires almost all in-app purchases to run through Apple, for which Apple takes a healthy commission/fee.

Some of these integrations - such as Avalara and Beanworks - took the "Endorsed Solutions" route. As Endorsed Solutions, Sage did receive a "piece of the pie."

Others - until recently, all payment processors - either developed their integration or used a subcontractor to create an integration. Aside from any developer fee, Sage's piece of this pie was zero.

As things progress, we continue to see:

- Credit card processors offer payment integration and have recently introduced AP and AR integrations. Most of these integrations are collecting some per transaction fee.
- From the publisher (Sage) side of the fence, they might see themselves building and maintaining Sage 100; third parties move in for little more than an annual developer fee and charge recurring transaction fees. And I presume many of these fees are material amounts.
- Sage might see charging per transaction as a more equitable fee than raising the developer license to the various companies based on the volume of transactions their enhancements process (which Sage likely has no easy way to monitor in Sage 100)

For example,

Maybe Sage goes to the Payment Processor and says - we are redoing the developer agreement and developers who create enhancements which charge transaction fees directly or indirectly.

You can either:
a. Pay x% of those transactions
b. Or, your developer fee is now $ xxx,xxxx per year based on your declared transaction volume, which we review semi-annually (not a practical approach for developers who may be subcontracted to create enhancements)



Is this a significant change in how these fees have been assessed in the past? Yes

Is Sage due some money for these integrations? Debatable, but in my opinion, if there's a transaction fee, my answer is yes. You already have seen it with Avalara and AP Automation, who I think could have likely "gone it alone."

The Payment Processors can collect this fee solely because of their ability to integrate into an existing software program.
FULL STOP
No Sage 100 = No ability to make ANY money

That being said, there are probably many ways that Payment Processors might work around this - such as using BOI (if possible) or doing a clunky export/import instead of an enhancement.

Ultimately I bet most hold their noses and pay, and in turn, they pass the fee to the customer.

And here we stand as consultants facilitating these transactions (attending demos, assisting with installation, and being the unpaid complaint desk)  for a relatively minor (and shrinking annually) sum ( This is the real issue ).

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2023 13:49
From: Carmen Cruz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Here is the paragraph that gets me.  Shows how greedy Sage is.  Shameful

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

------------------------------
Carmen Cruz
Sage Consultant
CompuData

@Jerry Norman "we won't change Sage's mind" and "Creating a Bitch Bunch does nobody any good" - TRUTH!

One of the bigger problems for the channel now is the conflicting messages from Sage and Century.  What do we do with this information?  As channel partners we have a duty to Sage that we don't have to third-party vendors.  It puts us in a really awkward position.  It seems to me that Sage partners must take Sage at its word and push Sage 100 users to Fortis or Paya.

Thoughts???

I agree, Brian. I hope Sage NA debated this issue for Sage 100 a lot. IMO, it's more than just, "Everybody is doing it, so we should, too." Sage 100 has a unique role in the marketplace and it Sage's 5-10 yr strategy.

Like Sage's decision about Sage 100's future, this one is likely done, and we can do is work with it - we won't change Sage's mind.

At the end of the day, we serve our customers with a responsibility to help them get the most out of their Sage-related investment (AKA "costs"). Creating a Bitch Bunch does nobody any good and ultimately results in the customer leaving Sage 100 and us sooner than otherwise.

Each connected enhancement has 2 sides to the offering:
  - one is the value proposition to a customer as to why bother paying for the enhancement the pain of changing to incorporate in the business processes, and
  - the other is the financial incentive to the vendor to offer it.

If the cost of the enhancement is not attractive the benefits, the customer won't do it. No harm, no foul.

If you haven't noticed, nearly all of the connected enhancement vendors make their money in financial markets: AP Automation, payment (cc/ACH) services, AR Automation, etc. They are ALL after the cash flowing through their systems, taking a piece and maximizing the financial float. It's just the way it is, because without this "back end," the vendor won't make enough $$ to justify the operation.

Like it or not, we need to school ourselves on the meaning of these changes (now and future ones), be able to explain them in useful ways to customers, and also offer alternative actions they can consider to deal with them.

Also remember, that for nearly all Sage 100 customers, the current cost of running their Sage 100 system is less than any alternative.

@Wayne Schulz I completely agree with you that this is exactly what Sage is thinking.  And, for Sage Intacct, where Sage is hosting the solution and has the responsibility for the performance of environment, this makes perfect sense.  You want to transact with our environment, you pay X.

Sage 100 is different.  Sage is being paid a license fee (subscription, perpetual license, maintenance fee, etc.) for the use of its product, and it is up to the customer to host it somewhere.  Again, if it is hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud, then maybe this applies.  However, Sage is being paid extra for the SPC.

So, I see this as purely an extortion attempt regardless of how Sage wants to spin it.  Not only that, Sage now appears to be spreading lies publicly and using scare tactics to harm Century Business Systems.  I'm no lawyer, but this looks bad.

What's next?  Vehicle manufacturers demand gas stations pay them a percentage of the amount of fuel I put into my vehicle every time I fill up the tank?  I know they are already starting to monetize features like heated seats through subscriptions which I think is ludicrous.

But, guess what?  Very few people care what I think.  Such is life.  To your point, we get to decide with how we deal with these changes.  Good luck to all of us!

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)


Original Message:
Sent: 04-13-2023 09:13
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I can see where Sage is coming from (I think).

I am purely guessing about what MIGHT be going on.

Sage sees third-party integrations into Sage 100, where the integration facilitates a per-transaction type fee.

This is something relatively new and, in my view, similar to how Apple requires almost all in-app purchases to run through Apple, for which Apple takes a healthy commission/fee.

Some of these integrations - such as Avalara and Beanworks - took the "Endorsed Solutions" route. As Endorsed Solutions, Sage did receive a "piece of the pie."

Others - until recently, all payment processors - either developed their integration or used a subcontractor to create an integration. Aside from any developer fee, Sage's piece of this pie was zero.

As things progress, we continue to see:

- Credit card processors offer payment integration and have recently introduced AP and AR integrations. Most of these integrations are collecting some per transaction fee.
- From the publisher (Sage) side of the fence, they might see themselves building and maintaining Sage 100; third parties move in for little more than an annual developer fee and charge recurring transaction fees. And I presume many of these fees are material amounts.
- Sage might see charging per transaction as a more equitable fee than raising the developer license to the various companies based on the volume of transactions their enhancements process (which Sage likely has no easy way to monitor in Sage 100)

For example,

Maybe Sage goes to the Payment Processor and says - we are redoing the developer agreement and developers who create enhancements which charge transaction fees directly or indirectly.

You can either:
a. Pay x% of those transactions
b. Or, your developer fee is now $ xxx,xxxx per year based on your declared transaction volume, which we review semi-annually (not a practical approach for developers who may be subcontracted to create enhancements)



Is this a significant change in how these fees have been assessed in the past? Yes

Is Sage due some money for these integrations? Debatable, but in my opinion, if there's a transaction fee, my answer is yes. You already have seen it with Avalara and AP Automation, who I think could have likely "gone it alone."

The Payment Processors can collect this fee solely because of their ability to integrate into an existing software program.
FULL STOP
No Sage 100 = No ability to make ANY money

That being said, there are probably many ways that Payment Processors might work around this - such as using BOI (if possible) or doing a clunky export/import instead of an enhancement.

Ultimately I bet most hold their noses and pay, and in turn, they pass the fee to the customer.

And here we stand as consultants facilitating these transactions (attending demos, assisting with installation, and being the unpaid complaint desk)  for a relatively minor (and shrinking annually) sum ( This is the real issue ).

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2023 13:49
From: Carmen Cruz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Here is the paragraph that gets me.  Shows how greedy Sage is.  Shameful

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

------------------------------
Carmen Cruz
Sage Consultant
CompuData

I agree with most everything except the allegiance to Sage.  My first and foremost priority is to my customer and creating lifetime portfolio value.  Pick the best solution.  For me it means sorting out the reality before making any decisions.

@Jerry Norman "we won't change Sage's mind" and "Creating a Bitch Bunch does nobody any good" - TRUTH!

One of the bigger problems for the channel now is the conflicting messages from Sage and Century.  What do we do with this information?  As channel partners we have a duty to Sage that we don't have to third-party vendors.  It puts us in a really awkward position.  It seems to me that Sage partners must take Sage at its word and push Sage 100 users to Fortis or Paya.

Thoughts???

I agree, Brian. I hope Sage NA debated this issue for Sage 100 a lot. IMO, it's more than just, "Everybody is doing it, so we should, too." Sage 100 has a unique role in the marketplace and it Sage's 5-10 yr strategy.

Like Sage's decision about Sage 100's future, this one is likely done, and we can do is work with it - we won't change Sage's mind.

At the end of the day, we serve our customers with a responsibility to help them get the most out of their Sage-related investment (AKA "costs"). Creating a Bitch Bunch does nobody any good and ultimately results in the customer leaving Sage 100 and us sooner than otherwise.

Each connected enhancement has 2 sides to the offering:
  - one is the value proposition to a customer as to why bother paying for the enhancement the pain of changing to incorporate in the business processes, and
  - the other is the financial incentive to the vendor to offer it.

If the cost of the enhancement is not attractive the benefits, the customer won't do it. No harm, no foul.

If you haven't noticed, nearly all of the connected enhancement vendors make their money in financial markets: AP Automation, payment (cc/ACH) services, AR Automation, etc. They are ALL after the cash flowing through their systems, taking a piece and maximizing the financial float. It's just the way it is, because without this "back end," the vendor won't make enough $$ to justify the operation.

Like it or not, we need to school ourselves on the meaning of these changes (now and future ones), be able to explain them in useful ways to customers, and also offer alternative actions they can consider to deal with them.

Also remember, that for nearly all Sage 100 customers, the current cost of running their Sage 100 system is less than any alternative.

@Wayne Schulz I completely agree with you that this is exactly what Sage is thinking.  And, for Sage Intacct, where Sage is hosting the solution and has the responsibility for the performance of environment, this makes perfect sense.  You want to transact with our environment, you pay X.

Sage 100 is different.  Sage is being paid a license fee (subscription, perpetual license, maintenance fee, etc.) for the use of its product, and it is up to the customer to host it somewhere.  Again, if it is hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud, then maybe this applies.  However, Sage is being paid extra for the SPC.

So, I see this as purely an extortion attempt regardless of how Sage wants to spin it.  Not only that, Sage now appears to be spreading lies publicly and using scare tactics to harm Century Business Systems.  I'm no lawyer, but this looks bad.

What's next?  Vehicle manufacturers demand gas stations pay them a percentage of the amount of fuel I put into my vehicle every time I fill up the tank?  I know they are already starting to monetize features like heated seats through subscriptions which I think is ludicrous.

But, guess what?  Very few people care what I think.  Such is life.  To your point, we get to decide with how we deal with these changes.  Good luck to all of us!

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)


Original Message:
Sent: 04-13-2023 09:13
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I can see where Sage is coming from (I think).

I am purely guessing about what MIGHT be going on.

Sage sees third-party integrations into Sage 100, where the integration facilitates a per-transaction type fee.

This is something relatively new and, in my view, similar to how Apple requires almost all in-app purchases to run through Apple, for which Apple takes a healthy commission/fee.

Some of these integrations - such as Avalara and Beanworks - took the "Endorsed Solutions" route. As Endorsed Solutions, Sage did receive a "piece of the pie."

Others - until recently, all payment processors - either developed their integration or used a subcontractor to create an integration. Aside from any developer fee, Sage's piece of this pie was zero.

As things progress, we continue to see:

- Credit card processors offer payment integration and have recently introduced AP and AR integrations. Most of these integrations are collecting some per transaction fee.
- From the publisher (Sage) side of the fence, they might see themselves building and maintaining Sage 100; third parties move in for little more than an annual developer fee and charge recurring transaction fees. And I presume many of these fees are material amounts.
- Sage might see charging per transaction as a more equitable fee than raising the developer license to the various companies based on the volume of transactions their enhancements process (which Sage likely has no easy way to monitor in Sage 100)

For example,

Maybe Sage goes to the Payment Processor and says - we are redoing the developer agreement and developers who create enhancements which charge transaction fees directly or indirectly.

You can either:
a. Pay x% of those transactions
b. Or, your developer fee is now $ xxx,xxxx per year based on your declared transaction volume, which we review semi-annually (not a practical approach for developers who may be subcontracted to create enhancements)



Is this a significant change in how these fees have been assessed in the past? Yes

Is Sage due some money for these integrations? Debatable, but in my opinion, if there's a transaction fee, my answer is yes. You already have seen it with Avalara and AP Automation, who I think could have likely "gone it alone."

The Payment Processors can collect this fee solely because of their ability to integrate into an existing software program.
FULL STOP
No Sage 100 = No ability to make ANY money

That being said, there are probably many ways that Payment Processors might work around this - such as using BOI (if possible) or doing a clunky export/import instead of an enhancement.

Ultimately I bet most hold their noses and pay, and in turn, they pass the fee to the customer.

And here we stand as consultants facilitating these transactions (attending demos, assisting with installation, and being the unpaid complaint desk)  for a relatively minor (and shrinking annually) sum ( This is the real issue ).

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2023 13:49
From: Carmen Cruz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Here is the paragraph that gets me.  Shows how greedy Sage is.  Shameful

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

------------------------------
Carmen Cruz
Sage Consultant
CompuData

First, Sage should bow to MDs who have kept this product alive.  If not for 3rd party solutions, Sage 100 could not compete in the marketplace nor retain existing customers.  Second, why only merchant processors?  Endorsed and non-endorsed solutions drive transactions, and their software generates maintenance and support fees.  Does Sage take some of that off he top?
MD license fees in conjunction with Endorsed Solution margin should suffice.  Charge a fee for inclusion in a Marketplace - fine.
Sage has no risk nor makes any investment in these solutions, yet enjoys their benefits.  Skimming is a poor method of nurturing the development community.

I agree with most everything except the allegiance to Sage.  My first and foremost priority is to my customer and creating lifetime portfolio value.  Pick the best solution.  For me it means sorting out the reality before making any decisions.

@Jerry Norman "we won't change Sage's mind" and "Creating a Bitch Bunch does nobody any good" - TRUTH!

One of the bigger problems for the channel now is the conflicting messages from Sage and Century.  What do we do with this information?  As channel partners we have a duty to Sage that we don't have to third-party vendors.  It puts us in a really awkward position.  It seems to me that Sage partners must take Sage at its word and push Sage 100 users to Fortis or Paya.

Thoughts???

I agree, Brian. I hope Sage NA debated this issue for Sage 100 a lot. IMO, it's more than just, "Everybody is doing it, so we should, too." Sage 100 has a unique role in the marketplace and it Sage's 5-10 yr strategy.

Like Sage's decision about Sage 100's future, this one is likely done, and we can do is work with it - we won't change Sage's mind.

At the end of the day, we serve our customers with a responsibility to help them get the most out of their Sage-related investment (AKA "costs"). Creating a Bitch Bunch does nobody any good and ultimately results in the customer leaving Sage 100 and us sooner than otherwise.

Each connected enhancement has 2 sides to the offering:
  - one is the value proposition to a customer as to why bother paying for the enhancement the pain of changing to incorporate in the business processes, and
  - the other is the financial incentive to the vendor to offer it.

If the cost of the enhancement is not attractive the benefits, the customer won't do it. No harm, no foul.

If you haven't noticed, nearly all of the connected enhancement vendors make their money in financial markets: AP Automation, payment (cc/ACH) services, AR Automation, etc. They are ALL after the cash flowing through their systems, taking a piece and maximizing the financial float. It's just the way it is, because without this "back end," the vendor won't make enough $$ to justify the operation.

Like it or not, we need to school ourselves on the meaning of these changes (now and future ones), be able to explain them in useful ways to customers, and also offer alternative actions they can consider to deal with them.

Also remember, that for nearly all Sage 100 customers, the current cost of running their Sage 100 system is less than any alternative.

@Wayne Schulz I completely agree with you that this is exactly what Sage is thinking.  And, for Sage Intacct, where Sage is hosting the solution and has the responsibility for the performance of environment, this makes perfect sense.  You want to transact with our environment, you pay X.

Sage 100 is different.  Sage is being paid a license fee (subscription, perpetual license, maintenance fee, etc.) for the use of its product, and it is up to the customer to host it somewhere.  Again, if it is hosted in the Sage Partner Cloud, then maybe this applies.  However, Sage is being paid extra for the SPC.

So, I see this as purely an extortion attempt regardless of how Sage wants to spin it.  Not only that, Sage now appears to be spreading lies publicly and using scare tactics to harm Century Business Systems.  I'm no lawyer, but this looks bad.

What's next?  Vehicle manufacturers demand gas stations pay them a percentage of the amount of fuel I put into my vehicle every time I fill up the tank?  I know they are already starting to monetize features like heated seats through subscriptions which I think is ludicrous.

But, guess what?  Very few people care what I think.  Such is life.  To your point, we get to decide with how we deal with these changes.  Good luck to all of us!

------------------------------
Brian Kelly
Accounting Systems, Inc. (ASI)


Original Message:
Sent: 04-13-2023 09:13
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

I can see where Sage is coming from (I think).

I am purely guessing about what MIGHT be going on.

Sage sees third-party integrations into Sage 100, where the integration facilitates a per-transaction type fee.

This is something relatively new and, in my view, similar to how Apple requires almost all in-app purchases to run through Apple, for which Apple takes a healthy commission/fee.

Some of these integrations - such as Avalara and Beanworks - took the "Endorsed Solutions" route. As Endorsed Solutions, Sage did receive a "piece of the pie."

Others - until recently, all payment processors - either developed their integration or used a subcontractor to create an integration. Aside from any developer fee, Sage's piece of this pie was zero.

As things progress, we continue to see:

- Credit card processors offer payment integration and have recently introduced AP and AR integrations. Most of these integrations are collecting some per transaction fee.
- From the publisher (Sage) side of the fence, they might see themselves building and maintaining Sage 100; third parties move in for little more than an annual developer fee and charge recurring transaction fees. And I presume many of these fees are material amounts.
- Sage might see charging per transaction as a more equitable fee than raising the developer license to the various companies based on the volume of transactions their enhancements process (which Sage likely has no easy way to monitor in Sage 100)

For example,

Maybe Sage goes to the Payment Processor and says - we are redoing the developer agreement and developers who create enhancements which charge transaction fees directly or indirectly.

You can either:
a. Pay x% of those transactions
b. Or, your developer fee is now $ xxx,xxxx per year based on your declared transaction volume, which we review semi-annually (not a practical approach for developers who may be subcontracted to create enhancements)



Is this a significant change in how these fees have been assessed in the past? Yes

Is Sage due some money for these integrations? Debatable, but in my opinion, if there's a transaction fee, my answer is yes. You already have seen it with Avalara and AP Automation, who I think could have likely "gone it alone."

The Payment Processors can collect this fee solely because of their ability to integrate into an existing software program.
FULL STOP
No Sage 100 = No ability to make ANY money

That being said, there are probably many ways that Payment Processors might work around this - such as using BOI (if possible) or doing a clunky export/import instead of an enhancement.

Ultimately I bet most hold their noses and pay, and in turn, they pass the fee to the customer.

And here we stand as consultants facilitating these transactions (attending demos, assisting with installation, and being the unpaid complaint desk)  for a relatively minor (and shrinking annually) sum ( This is the real issue ).

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 04-12-2023 13:49
From: Carmen Cruz
Subject: EBizCharge Partnership with Sage has ended

Here is the paragraph that gets me.  Shows how greedy Sage is.  Shameful

In late 2022 and early 2023, Sage was attempting to enter into a new agreement with EBizCharge for Sage 100. EBizCharge declined this offer because instead of offering an annual license fee model, Sage was demanding a model tied to each merchant's payment processing volume. This is not a pricing structure EBizCharge could agree to because it would require a substantial increase in charges to our merchants which is not something we are comfortable participating in and is not the way we do business.

------------------------------
Carmen Cruz
Sage Consultant
CompuData