My guesses:
1. It's boring.
2. Those are marketing-driven products and Google is engineering-driven.
3. ???
This is laughable to anyone who has ever worked on development of an ERP product.
Here's a thought experiment. Let's take one part - one part only - of the whole ERP / enterprise software spectrum.
Let's pick HR for an example.
Now let's pick one part - only one part - of the whole HR product spectrum.
Let's pick recruitment. How about of Google did what you say, but just in this tiny space? How much overkill would that be?
It turns out, Google did launch a product in this space. It was called Google Hire.
By your measure, Google should have smashed the life out of this little part of the bigger enterprise software space.
Instead, they shut down within 2 years in a burst of failure.
There's a tradeoff with building software internally and I agree is almost always isn't worth it. But the advantage is that the software has only 1 customer: yourself. That allows a level of product market fit that just isn't achievable with off the shelf software.
Type 2 companies admit that everything they do is wrong and they are willing to change all of their processes and procedures to match those of the ERP system.
Everyone else is deluded into thinking they can modify the ERP to adapt to their business. 10 months into the development cycle, team members realize that the firm requirement that A customer has One customer number is incorrect, and it happens to be a major customer, and there is not a workaround. Sales insists that it is a one to one relationship most of the time and refuses to believe this a big deal. Accounts Receivable thinks they could develop a manual workaround. Modification proceed until the money runs out, and the consultant move on to the next victim. 10 years later the new CEO want to embark on a modernization project for internal backend systems and the cycle repeats.
All I see is one day Google pushing for people to use Google hire and the next day shutting it down.
Personally I think this was fascinating. We got a glimpse at how Google decides to create products and later kill them. In this case - executive pet project that died with the executives departure.
Excuse me if I'm a bit harsh over that.
I was going to write a very similar sentence in another reply.
This is just a case of people not having the slightest clue of what's involved with large enterprise financials. Google has never developed any system that even resembles that.
You're making three assumptions:
1) Google could build a vastly superior replacement to Oracle's and SAP's products.
2) Google could do it in a year.
3) Google is the only company on Earth that is able to do that.
I don't see a reason to assume any of these three points.
4. Oracle and SAP have actual customer support that people will want to call when the product crashes. Google will cancel your account for spamming them.
5. Oracle and SAP have sales engineering teams that spend as long as you have budget for to implement the solution.
Yea... it would be nice to have a not Oracle and not SAP product... but Google wouldn't be my first, second, or third choice for a company to buy it from.
And why not? Because if they spend the time elsewhere they'll make more money. Opportunity cost