Summary of Key Points
The deepening collaboration between SAP and Palantir exemplifies the "complementary cooperation" model within the American enterprise software ecosystem—each company maintains its core competencies (SAP’s ERP data and Palantir’s analytics capabilities)—and they share data using "zero-copy" technology to create greater value for their customers. In contrast, China’s software industry suffers from a closed ecosystem, leading to poor user experiences and difficulties in implementing AI-powered intelligent assistants (Agents). The reason behind this is not the small scale of the companies but rather the limited market size; openness does not generate a profitable business model. To bridge this gap, the market must first be expanded, turning openness from a moral imperative into a profitable endeavor.
I. Cooperation Among American Software Giants: Not About Competing for Territory, but About Growing the Market Together
What makes the collaboration between SAP and Palantir so impressive? It’s not about their advanced technology, but rather their mutual willingness to share. SAP’s core product is the ERP system, which manages all critical business data such as procurement, sales, and finance; Palantir specializes in data analysis, providing insights for decision-making. However, to turn these insights into actionable actions (e.g., adjusting inventory or placing orders), SAP’s systems are essential. Their collaboration relies on "zero-copy access"—Palantir can use SAP’s data directly for analysis without copying it, and then send the results back to SAP for execution. This approach is both secure (data remains confidential) and efficient (no need for repeated data transfers). More importantly, this complementary yet non-competitive model has become a trend in the U.S., as seen with partnerships between Salesforce and Snowflake, or Workday, which allow their intelligent assistants to utilize data from other systems without duplication. The essence is that customers require the best software in various fields, and the giants combine their strengths to serve them collectively, rather than competing for market share.
II. The Challenges of a Closed Chinese Software Ecosystem: Users Suffer, AI Agents Struggle
The closed nature of China’s software ecosystem is not an abstract issue; it hinders users daily. For example, using two SaaS solutions (one for course management and one for membership control), users must manually grant permissions on both platforms after purchasing a subscription. As the number of users increases, updates can easily be missed, resulting in paid users being unable to access courses. Users simply think, “I’ve paid for this; why is it so troublesome?” This problem will only worsen with the advent of AI Agents, which require access to both private enterprise data and system functionality (e.g., automating order placement or permission adjustments). If software systems do not communicate with each other, Agents can only provide suggestions; actual execution still requires manual intervention across multiple systems.
III. Why Chinese Companies Are Reluctant to Open Up? Not Due to Limited Vision, but Because the Market Is Too Small
Many claim that Chinese companies are closed and short-sighted, but in reality, they are afraid to open up. Opening up means allowing customers to combine their products with others. If openness does not lead to new customers or revenue, why would companies welcome potential competitors closer to their customer base? American companies can afford to be open because their markets are large—SAP generates annual revenues of 300 billion yuan, while China’s Yonyou only earns 9.2 billion yuan in 2025 (a difference of over 30 times). In the U.S., a small but niche SaaS company can still be profitable; however, in China, a single product may not generate sufficient revenue, and due to low customer willingness to pay, companies must expand their product lines and lock customers within closed systems. The market is simply too limited, forcing them to compete for a smaller share.
IV. The Way Forward: Expanding the Market to Make Openness Profitable
To address the issue of a closed ecosystem, we cannot just advocate for openness; it must be profitable. American companies benefit from openness by gaining access to new customers and markets through collaborations (e.g., SAP and Palantir). When openness creates a mutually beneficial cycle where both parties benefit, it becomes a business opportunity rather than a sacrifice. For Chinese software companies to break this cycle, they need to expand their market presence: by entering new product areas or targeting overseas markets. Only when the market grows can companies focus on their core competencies without trying to do everything themselves. Once the division of labor is well-established, openness will transition from a moral requirement to a strategic choice. A larger market will also create more opportunities for all participants.
Conclusion: The Gap in the AI Era May Be Greater Than We Imagine
Beyond technical differences in modeling, the gap between Chinese and American software ecosystems will be exacerbated in the era of AI Agents. American software is evolving into foundational tools that can be integrated with AI, while Chinese software remains mired in internal conflicts over data interfaces. If the issue of a closed ecosystem is not addressed, Chinese companies may fall far behind in the efficiency of using AI Agents. To close this gap, we must first expand the market; once the market grows, companies will naturally have more room to innovate and collaborate.
---
Please note that this translation aims to maintain the original structure and tone of the Chinese analysis while adapting the language to fit the target audience and financial journalism context.