The actions of Oracle's product strategy group seem to dispute the statement that all of the requirements have been defined. As recently as this past week, members of Oracle's Product Strategy team have been continuing to contact user groups to gauge their opinion on the necessity of various features that may or may not be included in Fusion applications.
Oracle has stated previously that it will be relying on its Customer Advisory Boards (CABs) to help shape the direction of Fusion applications. However, many of these groups haven't even met once in the past year. For example, neither the Order Management or Advanced Pricing CAB have yet had a meeting to discuss Fusion. Does this mean that these groups will not be able to have any input into the direction of the Fusion applications, or does it mean the the requirmements are still being defined?
Most importantly, what about database portability? One of the most burning questions amongst JD Edwards and PeopleSoft customers is whether or not Oracle will support Microsoft SQL Server and/or IBM DB2. The consensus opinion amongst Oracle employees is that Larry Elison will be making this decision himself. As of yet, it seems that no decision has been made. I don't believe that Elison has made any public statements on this topic since OpenWorld in September when the said that he felt that the choice would come done to "database portabilty and a little more performance or database portability and a little more security." There is a huge difference in developing applications and middleware that will run on multiple databases vs. those that only need to run on a single database.
Halfway there? I'm not convinced.
Links on this topic:
Mixed Reaction to Oracle Fusion from J.D. Edwards Users
Oracle Claims It's Halfway to Producing Fusion Apps
Analysts Doubt Oracle's Fusion Message