8X8, Inc.
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

8x8, Inc. (8x8 or the Company) is a provider of cloud-based, enterprise-class software solutions that transform the way businesses communicate and collaborate globally. The Company's integrated, "pure-cloud" offering combines global voice, contact center software, conferencing, messaging and video with integrated workflows and big data analytics on a single platform to enable increased team productivity, better customer engagement and real-time insights into business performance.

The Company's fiscal year ends on March 31 of each calendar year. Each reference to a fiscal year in these notes to the consolidated financial statements refers to the fiscal year ended March 31 of the calendar year indicated (for example, fiscal 2017 refers to the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017).

The accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited and have been prepared on substantially the same basis as our annual consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016. In the opinion of the Company's management, these interim condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for a fair statement of our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the condensed consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

The March 31, 2016 year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data in this document were derived from audited consolidated financial statements and does not include all of the disclosures required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company's audited consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 and notes thereto included in the Company's fiscal 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods included in these condensed consolidated financial statements are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for any future period or the entire fiscal year.

Certain amounts previously reported within the Company's consolidated balance sheets and statements of cash flows have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. The reclassification had no impact on the Company's previously reported net loss, cash flows, or basic or diluted net loss per share amounts.

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of 8x8 and its subsidiaries. All material intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

The significant accounting policies used in preparation of these condensed consolidated financial statements are disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on May 31, 2016, and there have been no changes to the Company's significant accounting policies during the nine months ended December 31, 2016, except as described in the "Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements" section below.

6

RECENTLY ADOPTED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In April 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2015-5, "Intangibles-Goodwill and Other-Internal-Use Software (Subtopic 350-40): Customer's Accounting for Fees Paid in a Cloud Computing Arrangement." This update provides guidance in evaluating whether a cloud computing arrangement includes a software license. If a cloud computing arrangement includes a software license, then the software license element of the arrangement should be accounted for as an acquisition of a software license. If a cloud computing arrangement does not include a software license, the customer should account for the arrangement as a service contract. The guidance does not change generally accepted accounting principles for a customer's accounting for service contracts. This update is effective for annual periods, including interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015. Therefore, the Company has prospectively adopted this new standard on April 1, 2016. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17, Income Taxes - Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (Topic 740). This ASU requires all deferred tax liabilities and assets to be presented in the balance sheet as noncurrent. As permitted, the Company early adopted this standard prospectively during the quarter ended June 30, 2016. The adoption of this standard resulted in reclassifying current deferred income tax assets to noncurrent deferred income tax assets and current deferred income tax liabilities to noncurrent deferred income tax liabilities. No prior periods were retrospectively adjusted.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, along with amendments issued in 2015 and 2016, which requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. The ASU will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective. The new standard will become effective for the Company on April 1, 2018. The standard permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. The Company has not yet selected a transition method. The Company is currently assessing the impact of this pronouncement and its amendments to its consolidated financial statements.

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements: Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40), this ASU provides guidance regarding management's responsibility in evaluating whether there is substantial doubt about a company's ability to continue as a going concern. Certain disclosures will be required if conditions give rise to substantial doubt about an entity's ability to continue as a going concern. The amendment is effective for the annual period ending after December 15, 2016, and for annual periods and interim periods thereafter. The Company will apply the requirements of ASU 2014-15 during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, which provides guidance for measurement and recognition of expected credit losses for financial assets held based on historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. The amendment is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020. Early adoption is permitted for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018. The Company is currently assessing the impact of this pronouncement to its consolidated financial statements.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments, which provides guidance on how certain cash receipts and cash payments are to be presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. This amendment is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently assessing the impact of this pronouncement to its Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

In October 2016, the FASB has issued ASU No. 2016-16, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory, which provides guidance on how an entity should recognize the income tax consequences of an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory when the transfer occurs. This amendment is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently assessing the impact of this pronouncement to its consolidated financial statements.

7

In November 2016, the FASB has issued ASU No. 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230), which provides guidance on how restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents should be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. This amendment is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently assessing the impact of this pronouncement to its Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

In January 2017, the FASB has issued ASU No. 2017-01, Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business, which clarifies the definition of a business with the objective of adding guidance to assist entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses. This amendment is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently assessing the impact of this pronouncement to its consolidated financial statements.

In January 2017, the FASB has issued ASU No. 2017-04, Intangibles and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment, which eliminates the requirement to calculate the implied fair value of goodwill but rather require an entity to record an impairment charge based on the excess of a reporting unit's carrying value over its fair value. This amendment is effective for annual or interim goodwill impairment tests in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently assessing the impact of this pronouncement to its consolidated financial statements.

Cash, cash equivalents, and available-for-sale investments, and contingent consideration were (in thousands):

8

Contractual maturities of investments as of December 31, 2016, are set forth below (in thousands):

The Company's contingent consideration liability and escrow liability, included in other accrued liabilities and noncurrent liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets, was associated with the Quality Software Corporation (QSC) acquisition made in the first quarter of fiscal 2016. Amounts held in escrow were measured at fair value using present value computations. The contingent consideration was measured at fair value using a probability weighted average of the potential payment outcomes that would occur should certain contract milestones be reached. There is no market data available to use in valuing the contingent consideration; therefore, the Company developed its own assumptions related to the achievement of the milestones to evaluate the fair value of the liability. As such, the contingent consideration is classified within Level 3 as described below.

9

The items are classified as Level 3 within the valuation hierarchy, consisting of contingent consideration and escrow liability related to the QSC acquisition, were valued based on an estimate of the probability of success of the milestones being achieved and present value computations, respectively. The table below presents a roll-forward of the contingent consideration and escrow liability valued using a Level 3 input (in thousands):

The carrying value of intangible assets consisted of the following (in thousands):

At December 31, 2016, annual amortization of intangible assets, based upon our existing intangible assets and current useful lives, is estimated to be the following (in thousands):

10

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

During the three months ended December 31, 2016, the Company decided to discontinue a certain customer segment of its United Kingdom based platform-as-a-service (DXI PaaS) that was acquired in fiscal 2016 as part of the DXI acquisition. The Company evaluated long-lived assets related to the DXI reporting unit including the technology, customer relationships, and trade name intangible assets for impairment. The Company determined it was appropriate to record an impairment charge equal to the remaining value of the impaired DXI PaaS customer relationship intangible in the third fiscal quarter. The impairment recorded during the fiscal year was immaterial to the consolidated statements of operations. Revenues and net income (loss) from DXI PaaS were not material for all periods presented.

During the three months ended December 31, 2015, the Company decided to end-of-life its hosted virtual desktop service (Zerigo). The Company evaluated long-lived assets related to Zerigo including the technology, customer relationships, and trade name intangible assets for impairment. The Company determined it was appropriate to record an impairment charge equal to the remaining value of the impaired long-lived assets in the third fiscal quarter. The impairment recorded during the fiscal year was $0.6 million, of which $0.4 million and $0.2 million was recorded in cost of service and sales and marketing, respectively, in the consolidated statements of operations. Revenues and net income (loss) from Zerigo were not material for all periods presented.

The following table provides a summary of the changes in the carrying amounts of goodwill by reporting segment (in thousands):

In the first nine months of fiscal 2017 and 2016, the Company expensed all research and development costs in accordance with ASC 985-20, Costs of Software to be Sold, Leased or Marketed (ASC 985-20).

The Company accounts for computer software developed or obtained for internal use in accordance with ASC 350-40, Internal Use Software (ASC 350-40). Capitalized costs are classified as either long-term assets or property and equipment on the consolidated balance sheets.

In the first nine months of fiscal 2017, the Company capitalized $3.9 million as other long-term assets. In the first nine months of fiscal 2016, the Company capitalized $1.1 million as other long-term assets. At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2016, total completed capitalized software development cost included in other long-term assets was approximately $1.7 million. At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2016, accumulated amortization cost related to completed capitalized software in other long term assets was approximately $0.4 million and $0, respectively.

In the first nine months of fiscal 2017, the Company capitalized $0.7 million as property and equipment. In the first nine months of fiscal 2016, the Company capitalized $0.2 million as property and equipment. At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2016, total completed capitalized software cost included in property and equipment was approximately $2.5 million and $1.2 million, respectively. At December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2016, accumulated amortization cost related to completed capitalized software in property and equipment was approximately $0.6 million and $0.2 million, respectively.

11

6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company leases its headquarters facility in San Jose, California under an operating lease agreement that expires in October 2019. The lease is an industrial net lease with monthly base rent of $130,821 for the first 15 months with a 3% increase each year thereafter, and requires us to pay property taxes, utilities and normal maintenance costs. The Company also leases facilities for office space under non-cancelable operating leases for its various domestic and international locations.

The Company has entered into a series of noncancelable capital lease agreements for office equipment bearing interest at various rates. Assets under capital lease at December 31, 2016 totaled $2.3 million with accumulated amortization of $0.8 million.

Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, the Company may agree to indemnify other parties, including customers, lessors and parties to other transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters such as breaches of representations or covenants or intellectual property infringement or other claims made by third parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers and directors.

It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of the Company's exposure under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements have not had a material impact on the Company's operating results, financial position or cash flows. Under some of these agreements, however, the Company's potential indemnification liability might not have a contractual limit.

The Company accrues for the estimated costs that may be incurred under its product warranties upon revenue recognition. Changes in the Company's product warranty liability, which is included in cost of product revenues in the consolidated statements of operations, were as follows (in thousands):

In the third quarter of 2010, the Company amended its contract with one of its third party customer support vendors containing a minimum monthly commitment of approximately $0.4 million effective April 1, 2010. The agreement requires a 150-day notice to terminate. At December 31, 2016, the total remaining obligation upon a termination of the contract was $2.2 million.

12

Minimum Third Party Network Service Provider Commitments

The Company has entered into contracts with multiple vendors for third party network service which expire on various dates in fiscal 2017 through 2020. At December 31, 2016, future minimum annual payments under these third party network service contracts were as follows (in thousands):

The Company, from time to time, is involved in various legal claims or litigation, including patent infringement claims that can arise in the normal course of the Company's operations. Pending or future litigation could be costly, could cause the diversion of management's attention and could upon resolution, have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

On February 22, 2011, the Company was named a defendant in Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. (BCT) v. 8x8, Inc. et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the Delaware Court), along with 20 other defendants.  Collectively this patent litigation is referred to as In re Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. (MDL No.: 2344).  In August 2011, the suit was dismissed without prejudice but then refiled in the Delaware Court against the Company. On November 28, 2012, the USPTO initiated and has since maintained a Reexamination Proceeding in which the claims of a patent (asserted against the Company) were rejected as being invalid based on four separate grounds.  In response to the USPTO invalidity rejections, the Company filed an informational pleading (on July 10, 2013) to join a motion to stay the proceeding in the Delaware Court, which this motion was granted on July 17, 2013. On May 5, 2015 and presumably in light of the Reexamination Proceeding, the Court administratively closed this case with leave to reopen if needed. The Reexamination Proceeding was appealed to the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTO Board of Appeals"), which affirmed the rejection of all claims in a Decision (December 29, 2015), which is now on appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  The matter is briefed and oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is scheduled for March 13, 2017.

On November 14, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Serenitiva LLC v. 8x8, Inc. filed in U.S. District Court for the E.D. of Texas (Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-1290). Plaintiff Serenitiva LLC is suing the Company based on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,865,268 by alleged Company activities in connection with the Company's Virtual Contact Center Agent Console (alleged as providing interactive, real-time call tracking and resolution management over a communications network). Plaintiff Serenitiva LLC also sued nine other defendants regarding the same patent asserted in the complaint filed against the Company. The Company is currently assessing factual and legal defenses to these claims and expect to present a vigorous defense. The Company has not answered the complaint yet and 8x8 cannot estimate potential liability in this case at this early stage of the litigation. Plaintiff Serenitiva and three of these other defendants have already settled/resolved their respective suits.

On December 2, 2016, the Company was named as a defendant in Paluxy Messaging LLC v. 8x8, Inc. filed in U.S. District Court for the E.D. of Texas, Tyler Division (Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-1346). Plaintiff Paluxy Messaging LLC is suing the Company based on alleged infringement U.S. Patent No. 8,411,829 by alleged activities in connection with the Company's use of a voicemail system (alleged in the complaint as providing a system for managing messages). Plaintiff Paluxy Messaging LLC also sued seven other defendants regarding the same patent asserted in the complaint filed against the Company. The Company is currently assessing factual and legal defenses to these claims and expect to present a vigorous defense. The Company has not answered the complaint yet and the Company cannot estimate potential liability in this case at this early stage of the litigation. Plaintiff Paluxy Messaging and three of these other defendants have already settled/resolved their respective suits.

On April 16, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Slocumb Law Firm v. 8x8, Inc. The Slocumb Law Firm has alleged that it purchased certain business services from the Company that did not perform as advertised or expected, and has asserted causes of actions for fraud, breach of contract, violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act and negligence. On May 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, seeking an order compelling the Slocumb Law Firm to arbitrate its claims against the Company in Santa Clara County, California pursuant to a clause mandating arbitration of disputes set forth in the terms and conditions to which Slocumb Law Firm agreed in connection with its purchase of business services from the Company. No briefing schedule or hearing date for the motion has been set as of this time. Discovery has not yet commenced in the case. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the Slocumb Law Firm's claims.

13

State and Municipal Taxes

From time to time, the Company has received inquiries from a number of state and municipal taxing agencies with respect to the remittance of sales, use, telecommunications, excise, and income taxes. Several jurisdictions currently are conducting tax audits of the Company's records. The Company collects or has accrued for taxes that it believes are required to be remitted. The amounts that have been remitted have historically been within the accruals established by the Company. The Company adjusts its accrual when facts relating to specific exposures warrant such adjustment.

During the period ended December 31, 2016, the City of San Francisco levied an assessment for utility taxes against the Company. The Company plans to vigorously appeal the assessment. Based on historical experience of the Company, management has determined the probable loss relating to this exposure to be approximately $0.4 million, which was recorded in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2016. Although the outcome cannot be predicted, the estimated reasonable additional loss is between $0 to $0.6 million.

The following table summarizes stock-based compensation expense (in thousands):

Stock Option activity under all the Company's stock option plans for the nine months ended December 31, 2016, is summarized as follows:

14

Stock Purchase Right activity for the nine months ended December 31, 2016 is summarized as follows:

Restricted Stock Unit activity for the nine months ended December 31, 2016 is summarized as follows:

The following table summarizes stock options outstanding and exercisable at December 31, 2016:

As of December 31, 2016, there was $49.7 million of unamortized stock-based compensation expense related to unvested stock options and awards which is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.12 years.

Unamortized stock-based compensation expense related to shares issued as part of a prior year acquisition was approximately $1.5 million, which will be recognized over a weighted average period of 2.42 years.

15

Assumptions Used to Calculate Stock-Based Compensation Expense

The fair value of each of the Company's option grants has been estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes pricing model with the following assumptions:

The estimated fair value of options granted under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan was estimated at the date of grant using Black-Scholes pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions:

As of December 31, 2016, there were approximately $0.2 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to employee stock purchases. This cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 0.2 years.

During the nine months ended December 31, 2016, the Company issued restricted performance stock units (PSUs) to a group of executives with vesting that is contingent on both market performance and continued service. These PSUs vest (1) 50% on September 22, 2018 and (2) 50% on September 27, 2019, in each case subject to the performance of the Company's common stock relative to the Russell 2000 Index (the benchmark) during the period from grant date through such vesting date. A 2x multiplier will be applied to the total shareholder returns (TSR) for each 1% of positive or negative relative TSR, and the number of shares earned will increase or decrease by 2% of the target numbers. In the event 8x8's common stock performance is below negative 30%, relative to the benchmark, no shares will be issued. These PSU grants are included in the restricted stock unit activity disclosure for the nine months ended December 31, 2016.

To value these market-based restricted performance stock units under the Equity Compensation Plans, the Company used a Monte Carlo simulation model on the date of grant. Fair value determined using the Monte Carlo simulation model varies based on the assumptions used for the expected stock price volatility, the correlation coefficient between the Company and the NASDAQ Composite Index, risk free interest rates, and future dividend payments.

16

Stock Repurchases

In February 2015, the Company's board of directors authorized the Company to purchase up to $20.0 million of its common stock from time to time until February 29, 2016 (the "2015 Repurchase Plan"). In October 2015, the Company's board of directors authorized the Company to purchase an additional $15.0 million of its common stock from time to time until October 20, 2016. There were no stock repurchases during the nine months ended December 31, 2016. The plan expired in October 2016 with an unused authorized repurchase amount of $15.0 million.

For the three months ended December 31, 2016, the Company recorded a benefit from income taxes of $30,000, which was primarily attributable to loss from operations. For the three months ended December 31, 2015, the Company recorded a provision for income taxes of $0.6 million, which was primarily attributable to loss from operations.

The Company estimated the annual effective rate at the end of each quarterly period, and recorded the tax effect of certain discrete items, which are unusual or occur infrequently, in the interim period in which they occur, including changes in judgment about deferred tax valuation allowances. The determination of the effective tax rate reflects tax expense and benefit generated in certain domestic and foreign jurisdictions. However, jurisdictions with a year-to-date loss where no tax benefit can be recognized are excluded from the annual effective tax rate.

At March 31, 2016, the Company had a liability for unrecognized tax benefits of $2.9 million, all of which, if recognized, would decrease the company's effective tax rate. The Company does not believe that there has been any significant change in the unrecognized tax benefits for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2016, and does not expect the remaining unrecognized tax benefit to change materially in the next 12 months. To the extent that the remaining unrecognized tax benefits are ultimately recognized, they will have an impact on the effective tax rate in future periods.

The Company is subject to taxation in the U.S., California and various other states and foreign jurisdictions in which it has or had a subsidiary or branch operations or it is collecting sales tax. All tax returns from fiscal 2013 to fiscal 2016 may be subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service, California and various other states. Net operating losses and tax credits carried forward to March 31, 2016 may still be subject to adjustment by the taxing authorities until the period is closed to examination. As of January 30, 2017, there were no active federal or state income tax audits. Returns filed in foreign jurisdictions may be subject to examination for the fiscal years 2011 to 2016.

17

9. NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

The following is a reconciliation of the weighted average number of common shares outstanding used in calculating basic and diluted net loss per share (in thousands, except share and per share data):