"Overall, the purpose of using numbers rather than simply generic technology categories is because Sage has multiple products in the financial space, and those solutions are targeted at different customer segments," Frahmann wrote. "Sage needs to acknowledge that and help potential customers understand that. Numbers are a way to do that." There in one area in which I definitely agree with Blythe and that's in the way numbers suggest the products are related. Sage has already said it would use Sage 50, a product name from England, for Peachtree. How does it help the customer to have the same name on two different products? It's already a problem that Sage 500 is not related to Sage 90 and 200 and reseller practice is to refer to the names as MAS 90/200 and 500, or some other way to illustrate the product architectures aren't related. While he gave no specifics, Frahmann also noted  that "Numbers will be used in a way that is totally aligned with how Sage has consistently positioned its product portfolio to analysts, press, partners, and customers these past few years."  So does X3 become something like Sage 1000 since it's a higher-end program? I assume corporate has thought of these things.

Related articles

• Sage bids for MYOB. An Uber Alliance in the Making? (diversity.net.nz)