Slashdot Mirror
8 Myths of Software-as-a-Service
abb_road writes "BusinessWeek looks at the current state of software-as-a-service, arguing that the model is well established and is distinct from failed ASP/Hosting models of the dot-com era. Far from a passing fad, the model is starting to see large-scale adoption, and traditional vendors are having trouble revamping their applications and financials to get in on the action. From the article, 'As SaaS gains mainstream acceptance, it is becoming an important disruptive force in the software industry. And as long as the quality and reliability of SaaS solutions continues to improve, the appeal of SaaS isn't going to go away.'"
they have had disservices for a long time... just look at windows. it's a huge disservice.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
To condense the article down: SaaS is a fancy term for outsourced business operations. The only difference is that companies provide communications about these services through... (wait for it)
...
(wait for it)
(keep waiting)
the INTERNET!
Are you impressed yet? It's very Web 2.0, I'm sure. Some of them might even use AJAX and Social Networking and Portal Technology and Peer to Peer Business to Customer relationships and
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You mean if quality and reliability continue to improve that you appeal will continue to grow???
Why didn't someone let me in on this secret a long time ago!
YouStockIt - Education through Unorthodox Methods
Most all software EULAs say, "No Warranty" in terms of being good, doing what it says, or whatever. That is not a service, that is software, "Use at your own risk".
Service includes maintenance releases, updates, support, installation help, onsite repairs, telephone support, etc.
If I don't pay for software, odds are I can still use the software, but my service is going to be minimal at best. If I don't pay for service, it would take a real philanthropist to provide service to me.
"Software as a service" is almost as old as the public internet. Many banks, hospitals and government institutions have been running remotely hosted mainframe apps for over 2 decades ... it's quite proven successful business model.
"We have not changed our strategy. We have this mixed environment and run a hybrid model. We do it for good reason. Our customers want flexibility, so, over time, they can make the decision to source us in, or upscale the functionality and integrate us into the back end.
You can do this on-demand for certain areas and certain functions, but not for everything. Everybody starts with salesforce automation because it makes sense since it's not very structured. It's simple and more office-like. But the more you come from this type (of system) to the core of CRM (customer relationship management), the more difficult it will become to do it on-demand. People don't want to share the data with others."
If you look at the fact that no code is ever flawless, and always has bugs, so there's always patches and upgrades. Most people in the regular software industry are passing off intermediate versions of flawed software as a product, and then giving the service away for free. This is just the opposite of that model and it makes more sense. Continuing to support, and making bug fixes to past versions of software is part of the service, clients have a real voice in the future of the software package by communicating what their future needs are. As they pay per period versus per version, software development companies don't have to guess anymore what their clients want to get them to "buy the new version" instead, the clients can have a real voice in what features are important to them in the future, without the need for pushing stuff off to a higher version versus an incremental update. It's a better model because instead of selling "why you have to ditch this old one and buy this new one" you are instead saying, "we have an established relationship in the past, and if you enjoy this, we can continue." Resulting in less useless bells and whistles in new versions, and more of the actual needed functionality. Instead of inventing things you dream they will want, you take care of their changing needs instead. That's why I think it's a winning model (if companies followed it correctly).
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/entad/art icle.php/3598831
Which seems to imply at least some backlash and return to 'on premise' models of software.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
This message brought to you by Salesforce.com This article reads like a press release from Salesforce.com, the biggest player in the "software as a service" marketspace. I tried Salesforce when I started my VoIP business; if they're the market leader, this industry is too immature to be taken seriously.
First off, it isn't cheap--Salesforce.com is $65 per month, per seat and it has to be paid 3 months in advance. This makes it quite a bit more expensive for small businesses than say Goldmine or ACT. Secondly, the reliability was horrible. CRM is the lifeblood of any organization. *Any* downtime results in all of your customer facing people (sales team, customer support staff, billing, etc) basically sitting around on their hands. Sales leads were lost and customers were pissed off. The worst part about it is that we couldn't do anything about it. I couldn't reboot a server, rebuild table indexes, sacrifice an intern... nothing. I wasn't told what the problem was when the system came back up, nor was I even notified *when* they came back online. And I wasn't given an apology or a service credit.
After several very public blackeyes Salesforce finally released a systems status page. In a pure act of corporate hubris they named it http://trust.salesforce.com/. You know know something's deeply wrong when a simple status screen is given that hard of a PR spin. Sorry, but they already blew my trust. I don't care what BusinessWeek says, I wholeheartly recommend that an organization keep their key systems in-house!
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
...is apparently now writing for Business Week.
Absolute Michigan
This is crap. It's not even well-written crap, which makes it pure bullshit. There's more nonsense "terminology" in this article than I've seen in a long time. The belief that the "legacy applications" are the reason that the dot-com boom failed is unjustified. Business don't fail because of software, good, bad, or indifferent. And they're sure as hell not going to succeed because of it, either. From the article, "Now Oracle, Microsoft (MSFT), and SAP (SAP) must respond to the SaaS movement while trying to avoid cannibalizing their existing software business in the process." This is a bald-faced attempt at spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Microsoft produces the operating system that most home/business clients use, and Oracle produces one of the most common commercial databases, both of which are staple products, and are required for this "software-as-a-service" to function. They won't be "cannibalizing their existing software business[es]" any time soon. So, I feel it is necessary to add another "myth" to this page: Myth #9: This article is a reliable source of information
If SaaS isn't a cry for open and free standards, I don't know what is....
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
Software as a service is great if you have some way to export your data. My company has (not my choice) bought into an online ERP system which looks good from afar, but is apparently far from good.
Now that all our data is in the system and we are running our operations off of their system we are pretty much screwed...they can jump the price at any point and we just have to pay it. The sales people lie (no surprises there) about having ways to export your data, but there aren't any really there.
Just be sure before you jump into something like this that you have a way to get your data back AND get it in writing that said tools will always remain and be current.
(and, yes, since we bought into their system they have moved to only allowing Internet Explorer....D'oh!)
The problem with SaaS is that a network is required. Yes, the world is ever becoming more networked, but many places and their respective software do not have reliable networking; thus, traditional applications will always remain.
>>the appeal of SaaS isn't going to go away.'"
Who is this moron talking about?
The only people this "appeals to" are companies like Microsoft because they see $$$ even at the cost of usability. The average user doesn't want it in the slightest.
I din't want to have:
a) my files on someone else's server
b) be on the internet
c) pay charges
every time I just want to use a word processor.
In a pure act of corporate hubris they named it http://trust.salesforce.com/. You know know something's deeply wrong when a simple status screen is given that hard of a PR spin.
:-P
The Trust was taken over by the Goa'uld. How did you expect them act? I mean, duh.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Are there any software products from major software vendors who boast EULAS which don't effectively state AYBABTU?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
What happens to your data when your service provider goes bankrupt?
Maybe salesforce.com and their ilk have fine escrow agreements in effect but the article was incomplete for not mentioning how the problem gets handled.
It being tax time in the US, I've had experience with an online-tax-prep service. I've also dealt with some online business-scheduling software (Fusionary IMS, similar to Basecamp). Being on Slashdot, I've taken a look at some of the Online Word Processors from a few days ago, as well. My prediction: things like online tax-prep, relationship management, or project management will prosper, while things like the online "Office App Replacements" will continue to endlessly struggle for relevance.
The office-app replacements are the proverbial "cure for which there is no disease". There is little reason that a composition program needs the network to function better, and certainly not enough reason to justify the hurdles involved in presenting these programs online. For something like tax-prep, it makes perfect sense to offer a "use" payment plan. The software is, by its nature, only ever used once a year, and the functionality needed (basic fill-in) is no real stretch for the Web. Something like customer-management is a task that is there to benefit the outside world, so having it tied into the network is an obvious choice. Something like internal project-management software depends more upon internal communication, but with the widespread connectedness of the Web, it makes sense to use the already-existing network to present the function, and get the peripheral benefit of being to check in on the road.
That said, the article read like a press release.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Ah, the dreaded "software issue" problem. Maybe they should contact AOL; it might be related to their recent software glitch incident.
SaaS isn't just software that phones home, it still lives at home (down in the basement).
Somehow I think not. Unless you can outsource EVERYTHING to a common vendor, integrating the various "service providers" is a formidable task.
Once upon a time we bought an ERP system. We had the choice of buying our own server hardware and hosting it ourselves, OR we could choose the "service on demand" option. The "on-demand" option was pitched by a fanatic salesman who sent these nifty glossy brochures (via FedEx overnight/signature required, no less). Lots of cost justification charts to explain the ROI that you get by going this route; more than enough to fool the average golfer.
But in our case, it turns out that any year in which we did not fully replace the hardware, we would be better off self-hosted. And even if we upgraded everything every year, it was a break even deal for us. So every year, I get a another set of glossy brochures as the fanatic salesman tries to pitch (unsuccessfully) to the CFO and CEO. There must surely be some cost efficiency in combining a bunch of customers onto a huge box, but none of it would be coming back to us in the form of savings.
Of course we could have gone with lower-cost outsourcers, who would cheerfully save us some money and give us the exact same ERP software (with company "X" hosting the product instead of the ERP vendor). But I have to question the technical expertise of the low-cost competitors. The lower the price, the more questionable the whole proposition becomes.
The way you save money is to find an outsourcer who runs a tight ship and accepts thin margins. But how tight and how thin? In the nightmare scenario, the outsourcer goes bankrupt, access is cut off, and our confidential data ends up for sale on E-bay. What exactly is the contingency plan for that?
Software as a service takes the importance of the software release schedule out of generating revenue. Cyclical release schedules are hard on both developers and management.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
I guess my first issue with it would be my access to the data. For instance, if I use a CRM that's in-house, I can get to the data, be it in Oracle, MySQL, SQL Server, etc. I can setup mail merge documents with it, decide to ditch it for a competitors version, import it somewhere else, whatever. When the data is off-site I don't have those options.
Take Netvibes for example. I have my favorites stored there, which is great because I can access them from anywhere. However, when their site is down (and it has been time and time again), I don't have access to them. No problem I thought, I'll just export them. Exporting is mentioned in their Wiki. Unfortunately, the devs never caught wind of that requirement! If these were local, I'd have more types of access to them than simply via a webpage.
The location and security of my data are the top issues with using internet services as opposed to client-side applications.
While there are benefits, there are drawbacks too, and some of them are dealbreakers for me.
My Tech Posts on Twitter
Back to SaaS, though...We're in the process of implementing some new SaaS at my current company. Having done some work on it, I'm not impressed. It's clunky, slow, and difficult to navigate. It has nowhere near the performance of the current local app we use...and that's with only a handful of users on the server for testing. I don't even want to think about what it's going to be like after rollout to the rest of the company.
The other facet of SaaS is going to be companies trying to get this out to consumers. I don't see it replacing hard-copy software sales just yet. (...For which I am thankful - I'd rather have something physical for my purchase, or at least a download or something I can put on physical media. How do we know how long the service will keep going? With hard-copy at least you can reinstall and use the last good version.) First, performance and features will have to exceed current desktop software in order to convince people to give up their local versions and move to a web-based solution. Some applications will be better at this than others - it's going to take a lot of convincing to get people onto the web-based word processors, I think, while something communicative like XBox Live seems to be a natural fit. Second, we need more broadband penetration. This goes hand-in-hand with performance. People need to be able to get to their application 24/7, and that means web access everywhere, for everyone with a PC/laptop. We're not even close to that.
Having recently switched from a JDE Edwards CRM system to SFDC I would have to leap to the defense of salesforce. While there have been a few outages the reliability and performance of their system is much better than JDE ever provided. Not to mention the more logial interface etc etc.
Fixer of things broken by people who really ought to know better
They tried to contact AOL. The message bounced back and was rejected.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
It makes sense for a lot of software applications to move online. For instance, I filed my taxes online using TurboTax.com today. The application was easy to use and worked just fine in Firefox. It makes sense to the companies behind these applications because instead of having to deploy multiple versions for every possible obsolete platform (from Win98 to Mac OS 9) that customers may have, they can deploy to specific browser configurations. Plus, as another poster mentioned, bug fixes are built in.
In 10 years' time, I doubt we'll use CDs or DVDs for much. I don't have a CD drive on my current laptop and I have only missed it once since my initial install -- and that was to install an older version of Quickbooks (newer versions are available for download instead of on a CD.) CD-ROM only drives are quickly becoming as obsolete as floppy drives as we move to the Internet for software, music, and movie distribution. As online storage and backup services take over, the idea of backing up to a CD-RW or DVD-RW will also become obsolete. We'll be able to "jack in" anywhere, from any PC/Mac/Internet cafe terminal, authenticate ourselves, and have instant access to all of our data. TurboTax, SalesForce.com and other services like it are just the beginning.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
My company uses Netsuite as its accounting application. It is a web-based accounting and salesforce automatication suite that does many things well. There are some things that it does not do well, but can be worked around.
Companies like Netsuite and Salesforce may tout 99.99% uptime, but we have often run into scenarios where the service was running too slow to be unusable. Unfortunately, strictly speaking, the system was not experiencing "downtime", thus allowing the vendor to maintain their statistic, even though for us the system was as good as down.
The "lower cost of ownership" claims may not pan out over the long term. The article talks about SaaS being metered by usage levels. Netsuite charges by the named user, and I believe Salesforce still does, as well. The pricing model is similar to "normal" softawre. The TCO measurement depends largely on the size of an organziation, i.e. do they already have the pieces to implment a full-fledged CRM/SFA, (enterprise database, email and storage servers)? If you have these things in place and are used to supporting them, a traditional CRM or accounting package may cost less than an SaaS.
Other metrics that are missing are customer support response time. The unfortunate part of SaaS is that if the system goes down, everybody will call at once, and when you need the vendor the most they will be the most inaccessible. In general, though, I would love to see metrics of quality of customer support not only for SaaS but for regular vendors as well. When you deal with an SaaS, you typically don't have a VAR helping you out, it's you and the vendor directly. If their call center is understaffed or undertrained, it's painful
The article, itself, reads like a press-release and is horribly vague, especially when mentioned the "new 'Live' version of [Microsoft's] Office suite" - which does not implement Word or Excel, and treats on-demand updating of anti-viral software as SaaS. It isn't.
What we've found as a past user of Salesforce.com and current user of Netsuite is that you really need to do the upfront due-dillegence to make sure that these SaaS systems conform to your business model. Netsuite, especially, is awkward to deal with if your company provides services as opposed to sells widgets. Get a strong consultant on the front-end to make sure the product is a fit for your organization, and be prepared to do significant customization. Also, be careful to get specifics on how much it costs to import and export data to other systems. In Netsuite, for example, you have to have certain versions of their system to import/export XML records of your data (their webservice based pricing is, at the moment, still free depending on how much data you move through it). Make sure you have access to your data.
I skimmed through the article, found two "myths" with the future tense modality ("will") in the titles and dropped the article as a piece of idiotic journalism.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
That is the worst feeling, when your Service Provider is down and everyone is looking at you for solutions and you have to just sit there and wait when you want to be doing something to fix the problem.
And, of course, you still have to pay for that downtime.
The article declares that ASP is totally different from SaaS and then completely fails to justify this statement.
Why can't they just say "it's the same thing, but the business climate is more ready for it now?"
+++ATH0
timesharing
At IBM we called this (with much skepticism) "Maintaining an on *grunt* going *grunt* customer *grunt* relationship".
Being able to charge a subscription fee for your software and continue to get paid, rather than have to make money by continuing to get unit sales, is the holy grail of any software company.
Microsoft tried to force all their customers to this model without a heck of a lot of success. In my opinion, it's not because they couldn't have had this model, it's just that they tried too late - and found out that once something is "good enough", people simply don't spend the money to "upgrade" to something that's the software equivalent of road bed materials: an OS exists only to permit people to run applications, and once they run, you're done buying OS's.
Frankly, I think the best thing that has happened to Microsoft upgrade sales in a couple of years has been that iTunes doesn't run on Windows 98.
-- Terry
...is Amazon's excellent S3 storage service. We're using it for the indi downloads and it works great - they handle the big files while our Rails site serves up the site itself. Also, it's easy to automate since they've got a nice Ruby API. Good times.
The Army reading list
For example a few small banks might all use the same service centre and the proved software, but just load their own data. The user model would be load disk for Bank A, run software till done; load disk for Bank B, run software till done;...
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Dear mods: Please learn to recognize the difference between someone posting inflamatory comments solely for the purpose of causing trouble, and someone posting a generally negative but both correct and topical comment.
Although JustNiz may have grossly oversimplified the concept of SaaS, the idea still applies. Why would anyone pay over and over and over just to leave their data at the mercy of a third party?
If Blizzard goes under, your WoW character ceases to exist, tough cookies but no real loss. If Oracle Online (or whatever they decide to call their SaaS rebranding) goes under, what sane CIO/CTO wants to tell his boss "Well, our entire CRM database, including all open orders and customer billing information, will cease to exist at the end of the month, and we have no way to export it, nor any way to use it standalone even if we could. Oh, and BTW, I've decided to spend more time with my family"?
Hah. When salesforce is down I reload the following pages repeatedly: http://trust.salesforce.com/, http://slashdot.org/, http://www.fark.com/, etc... Its fun to watch them keep tacking time on to their estimates as they completely fail to fix whatever it is that is preventing me from getting anything done. Of course, salesforce is fine right now, and I am still failing to get anything done... but at least it is my own fault this time.
SaaS brings up a whole lot of serious questions.
First: information security. The customer has a whole new group of people, the SaaS organization, with actual or potential access to the customer's data. How is the customer to evaluate the real security of the SaaS organization? What about the link between the customer and the SaaS facilities?
Second, as the SaaS organization possesses the customer data, who is the actual owner of said data?
Third, can the SaaS withhold the customer data in the case of a disagreement? How quick is a resolution to any disagreement? Can the customer get a satisfactory dispute resolution? What stops the SaaS provider from sitting on a customer's data until the customer buckles?
Fourth, should the SaaS provider have a problem, can the customer data be seized and/or sold as an asset?
Fifth, should there be mis-behavior on the part of an employee of the SaaS provider, can the customer data be seized (intentionally or incidentally on a server)? What happens if an SaaS employee sells customer data?
Sixth, who owns any copyright/patent/trademark. Can the SaaS patent customer data or develop patents from customer data?
These seem to be rather daunting problems. Specifying answers in contracts is good, but resolving problems through contracts are slow and expensive. The customer is in a particularly vulnerable position, while the SaaS provider is in the catbird seat.
"It's a trick. Get an axe." - Ash Housewares, Army of Darkness
It's called a Contract.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
We are probably going to switch away from Salesforce to an open-source package. Why?
1) The open-source tool is cheaper. MUCH cheaper, as in $0.00 vs around $12,000 per year.
2) The open-source tool is not as good as Salesforce, but it does everything we need.
3) The open-source tool runs on our internal network, so it's faster and more reliable than Salesforce.
4) Although Salesforce has a pretty decent API for developing custom apps, nothing beats having the source.
5) Our data is OUR DATA, and we don't want lock-in.
The good thing about Software As Service, is that instead of spend a few million dollars and a year figuring out some very expensive proprietary system is not going to work for you, you spend a few million dollars and six months finding out the software isn't going to work for you because systems architecture and setup are out of the picture (there is still upfront work involved of course in training and customizing, if the vendor allows that...).
:-)
Thus the true innovation is that Software as Service allows you to holve wasted time on failed software rollout, and since time is money it literally pays for itself!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Do they? One thing not mentioned in either TFA or your post is what does a customer do if the service is no longer meeting their needs? This industry has historically been about vendor tie-in. And about companies constantly ignoring what their customers want; and telling the customer what they will get once they are locked in.
The obvious example for slashdot is Microsoft; but I can think of so many others that it seems like it's the closed-source rule in this business.
It strikes me that once you've bought in to one propriatary service, it then becomes EXTREMELY expensive to switch to a competitors service. And that assumes that it's even possible at all.
So, my question to you is how easy do you think it is to switch services? I honestly don't know, as SaaS isn't my thing.
If it is indeed expensive or impossible to switch, then this strikes me as a field which is ripe for open standards. That is, empowering the customer with choices, rather than reducing that power by vendor tie-in.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
It's been tried and failed though. Unix AIX, Tru64, IRIX, and even Solaris( a few years back) were not sold as a package but as a service. You got a piece of hardware and software upgrades and maintence for a subscription price.
And every single one of those models are being replaced by the current model of selling services and giving out software(aka linux,freebsd's,Solaris, etc)
Selling or leasing software will fail for every large business will then be 100% depenadant upon some other company to let them keep working. MSFT(IBM, Solaris were this way as well) could hold your business hostage forcing you to buy upgrades just to get your data so you can move off their software.
That's why the real leaders of the industry are selling services and giving you the software.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The problem with SaaS is that you are using virtually proprietary software. In a 3-Tier architecture you have the Data layer, Logic layer, and Presentation layer. You can access the Data Layer by numerous methods, ie. multiple applications can interface the data layer. With SaaS (from what I've seen) it is difficult or impossible to access the data layer.
I believe what's needed, and may even be a good idea for a start-up, is DaaS or Data as a Service. Your data is securely (I hope) stored and backed up through a DaaS provider. Available to you and your SaaS provider 24/7.
Feel free to email me with ideas...
World of Warcraft!
You pay for the months your using it... Not using for a period of time, no pay. The best example there is...
> If I don't pay for service, it would take a real philanthropist to provide service to me.
:-)
The first time I read this I had to do a doubletake because my brain parsed it as being the same root word as philanderer. What a difference, eh?
are we overlooking the main point?
:-s)
Lets say my company requires a customer relationship managememtn software. Among my options would be to buy a pre-deveoped, customizable software SoftwareA for whatever amount of money.
Now the problem is I'll have to set it up, set the whole damn environment up. Servers, backups, networks, databases, user accounts, etc etc. Now i miht be able to get the guys who sell me this to set it up initially at probably a huge amount of money. Then ill have to get them to train my IT guys, who'll probably need documentation and baic training programmes, and some kind of structure ot account for employee rolloffs and new recruits etc etc..So thats a huge IT maintenance budget, with a whole lot of maintenance and training overhead.
So instead the guys who make SoftwareA says, you pay us rent, we have this SaaS version of SoftwareA. You and your team can access everything using browser over the internet. We take care of installation 9its htis side, you wont even know it) and support. Here's our site, here are your login IDs, Here's our support number. Usr access policy sould be through a easy to use GUI, or in complicated cases through a authenticated request from authorised users to support. We have guys who's expert at htis sotware and were here 24/7 coz we have lots of customer who need the same thing. Our overhead is shared, and we have a lot of advatage in terms of training and maintenance.
All you need is a reliable net connection. besides your travelling employees could access it anywhere.
Ofcourse net connection gone = boom. and its a big risk for critical software. But reliabilty of the net is increasing and this will be critical, reliabilty of the SaaS companies would hopefully improve. if you can have redundancy (dialup to their data center? local backup systems would prboably defeat the purpose
looks like it could work, esp in SMEs...
That's right. We're here for funny posts.
Developers: We can use your help.
The $65/month you mentioned is one of the biggest problems with ASP, SaaS, or whatever they want to call it this year. Most of these services charge based on number of users, and all of the ones I've had discussions with scale linearly, in other words, no discount for reaching certain user levels. That might work for 25 or 50 users, but when you have 5,000 or 10,000, suddenly the cost of a few servers and some support people seems pretty reasonable.
I think your last point is a fairly important one. There are all of these "services" springing up, but there's a little demon waiting at the end of the tunnel, should one decide to look for an alternative. That is, how do you get your data from one service provider over to another one? Granted, the same thing might apply to software, but when you figure in this cost, SaaS doesn't appear to be as good as people might be let to believe.
You're running that open source software on your own servers with 0.00$ per year? Your sys admins must be really cheap... Otherwise your list is pretty convincing.
The oldest such applications I've had to deal with are time logging application. My employers have had to charge by the hour for my time with the clients. So they always have some sort of web based time logging application. Usually there is also a way to enter expenses and such for reimbursement.
... how hard is it to write a web site to enter hours and tasks.
Every one of these application that I have had to deal with has been very difficult to use. My theory is that they sell the application to one of the bosses based on the way the reports look. They make the user interface for the reports work well. That helps two people per company and saves their time. The people who enter time get the short end of the stick and 200 people waste their time and energy trying to enter hours.
I mean
The first one I had to use only worked right if you used the "right" screen resolution. You were supposed to change your screen resolution to run their application. And, if you didn't, the windows would be too small. They wouldn't scroll. They wouldn't resize. And you couldn't see the OK button at the bottom.
Another one, two years later, would lose everything you entered if you tried to print it at the wrong time.
The one I am using now (in 2006 after 5 years of these sinister felons) makes you go through 5 screen clicks to add more than 40 hours. If you go in to enter your hours after 6 pm on Friday it will default to next week. The first time I didn't know it and entered and submitted all my hours on the wrong week.
I think the it shows the real problem with the business model. There is no incentive to improve the time usage for the people that do the work. The word comes down from on high because the sales doesn't have to convince more than a few people that use the application. This makes the choice of such software a burden on the company's bottom line because, by choosing it, they waste their employee's time.
time is money
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day
Teach him how to fish; he'll eat forever
Sell him fishing-as-a-service, and pretty much his entire physiological development is subject to the vagaries of *your busines model, because he wanted to concentrate on his core competencies
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
It's the same deal, isn't it? And it has the same inherent problem: you don't get what you pay for. Fees charged by outsourced development and management companies cover an operating cost and a juicy profit, yet the client has no control over those costs and reaps no benefit from that profit. Don't talk to me about economy of scale -- the VARs and the SaaSers are as inefficient and problem-prone as any other IT enterprises. It's a crazy idea that goes against a basic free-market sensibility. VARs and SaaSers take advantage of a business' reluctance to manage in-house IT and charge exorbitant fees, knowing that it's more acceptable for the client to allow this arterial bleeding than it would be to switch VARs. It's an inherently parasitic and dishonest business model.
His last name wasn't "housewares". he worked in housewares.
Badass Resumes
Anyone studied Marketing? Anything that is growing at about 80% a year is not mature.
Myth #2: SaaS is just another version of the failed application service provider, or ASP, and hosting models of the past, and will suffer the same fate as its predecessors. Times have changed. Today's economic and competitive pressures make nearly any form of outsourcing fair game.
So is "Keeping up the Jones's" the only new reason? But the fundamental reasons not to use it are still the same?
Myth #3: SaaS only relieves companies of the up-front costs of traditional software licenses. SaaS not only alleviates the costs of traditional perpetual licensing fees but also eliminates the need for additional IT infrastructure investments to support new applications.
Instead of "traditional perpetual licensing fees", you now pay WoW-subscription fees (i.e. more)? Oh, and "the need for additional IT infrastructure investments"? You will have to buy need machines to support the latest version of software (or pay more to have an older version supported)
Myth #4: SaaS is only for small- and midsize businesses and will not be accepted by large-scale organizations. Today, Salesforce.com counts a growing number of Global 2000[...]
"large-scale organizations" will tolerate them, as they can get a huge discount for it. Not meaning that they use it though, but these companies usually have more PHBs.
Myth #5: SaaS only applies to applications such as customer relationship management and salesforce automation. For example, [some large companies] rely on SaaS talent management solution. [...]
Read: Everything except CRM and SA will not be any mature, meaning you paying lots of cash for nothing... Why do you think large companies want to be guinea pigs?
Myth #6: SaaS will only have a minor impact on the software industry and will fade over time. A third of the respondents to [some inferior company's] recent survey said they are already using SaaS, and another third said they are planning to adopt SaaS in 2006. Other research firms have generated even higher ratios.
The same can be said about any other hyped and failed products.
Myth #7: It will be easy for the established software vendors to offer SaaS and dominate this market.
Sorry, there are no anti-proof of this one in the article... Besides, they can used their existing experience in ASP to do it.
Myth #8: SaaS is only for corporate users. [Anything] can be considered forms of SaaS.
Perhaps SaaS is not only for corporate users, but you will have to pay as much.
The bottom line is, do you want to be a guinea pig?
-- T (posted as AC because he's too lazy to make an account)
Most users simply want to be able to just use the system. Most of them don't want to mess with the settings, run hotfixes, install patches, install new software. They just want to sit down and have it work. So long as your network connection is reliable, web-based apps provide that much easier than installed apps. Yes, I realize there's a potential problem right there. For most people, though, that's not a problem, especially if they're working in an enterprise environment.
... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
"I don't care what BusinessWeek says, I wholeheartly recommend that an organization keep their key systems in-house!"
I have heard of similar experiences with salesforce, however, while your experience with salesforce is undeniable, software as a service does have its perks.
For instance, the company I work for sells both its software and offers a hosted solution. This hosted solution runs over a citrix metaframe setup and works really well. In essence our customers get very similar functionality to what the installed customers get, yet no IT overhead including servers, IT staff, M$ server licenses, etc...we cover everything in our own fees. Is it worth it for a very large customer to do it this way? Depends, is it worth it for a small to medium sized company to use this server...very much so. SaaS doesn't HAVE to be strictly browser based, nor does a browser based solution invalidate the software that was designed around using a browser. While salesforce might have given you some bad experiences, sometimes it is just not practical or economically feasible for a small to medium sized company to utilize enterprise grade applications because of the enterprise costs and overhead. This is were SaaS comes in and really helps out this market. I think SaaS has implications further than just the small to medium sized biz market, but I will leave that arguement for another day.
ah yes, my favorite, too: fellatio.
He means SugarCRM. It's an OSS Salesforce-a-like.
We deployed it at 3.5.1 (about six months ago) and it has improved significantly since then. Overall I guess it's OK but still has a way to go, particularly on the documentation front. Reliability has been good in a kinda "we haven't lost any data" fashion. Performance is shoddy, but we're running it on a fairly slow box. Quicker than Salesforce though. The source is a bit scary and while there is a SOAP API the documentation (again) is shite.
BTW, you can export from Salesforce in any one of a dozen ways so I wouldn't get tense about that.
Sugar themselves are a bit weird. It took a while to be able to buy support queries ($95 a pop or $295 for five, IIRC), the organisation being set up a bit *too* focussed on upselling to Sugar pro or whatever it's called. They seem to be an organisation that learns, however, and hopefully people like me ringing up and trying to give them money for support queries will change their tune fairly quickly.
With any luck it turns into a big OSS success story.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
This is an add from somebody pushing some new Ajax Shop. Probably that company salesforce.com that's mentioned 3x a sentence.
Wether SaaS or not, soon it will make no difference. People will be able to choose between having their OSS solution of choice set up on their own hardware in their own shop or an OSS solution set up on the servers of their favourite IT service company.
Preping customer hardware with software or running it for them on your own servers is not that much of a difference anyway. Not nowadays it is.
SaaS will, if anything, blur the line between OSS and closed source - because people (customers and vendors) won't care anymore. And that will push OSS rather than closed source.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
SaaS is just another term for computer timesharing, and we decided that THAT was a bad idea even before the appearance of the personal computer and local area network. PCs and LANs just drove another deserving nail in the coffin of timesharing.
Of course, every decade or so, a new crop of computer newbies think they've discovered the greatest thing since time-sliced bread. Then they haul out some "old wine" like computer timesharing or RISC processor chips and think they are being innovative. Ya just gotta love them!
If I had mod points, you'd get modded up.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Maybe that'll help push people to consider Macs. Apple has been pushing out major new versions of Mac OS every year for the past 5, each time with significant new features that people use every day, dramatic speed improvements (on the same hardware), or both.
... not much new, and Jane Mac User is paying every year but getting great new features and performance, maybe he'll take notice. (That's assuming Jane upgrades Mac OS every year. Most Mac people I know don't buy *every* upgrade -- just the ones they need: maybe every other one.)
I don't see Apple even considering a "subscription" model. Since the dot-bomb started, they've always said "we'll innovate our way out of this" -- and overall, they have. When you can make good reasons for people to *want* to upgrade, you don't need to come up with clever new ways to get people to pay.
When John PC User notices that he's paying every year for
It probably isn't enough to pull most people over, but it's one more thing that could be nicer than in the PC world. These little nice things add up, after a while.
Surely you jest. A contract means nothing to a bankrupt company.
Very few tech companies die gracefully. The smaller they are, the worse it is. Some of my friends lost their jobs when they showed up for work only to discover the company was toast. The customers and employees were both screwed, with no recourse for anyone.
In a typical meltdown scenario, the hardware is hauled way by employees who are trying to collect their last paycheck. The other possibility is that management grabs the stuff first. Either way, you won't be seeing your data again. The disks and backup tapes end up on E-bay. Maybe they are erased, maybe not.
In the wonderful world of bankruptcy, secured creditors have priority. Next are the unsecured creditors (including employees). Contractual obligations to customers? Lotsa luck.
What would happen to this software model if things like this end up costing you money court time.
Wow, where do you get "Contracts" from. Where I live (Earth) you get a "contract" (no caps, what a shame) which isn't worth the paper it is written on once a bankruptcy judge steps in.
I sure hope by "Contract" you meant "emergency data processing center with all applications and data in a runable state within the day". Otherwise, you're fired.
Sig under construction since 1998.
SaaS is indeed just the latest buzzword term for outsourcing but that doesn't take away from the trend that started way back when payroll people were laid off for ADP and Paychex services. The Mailroom people were let go for Fax machines and the personal assistant was let go an a 386 put in his/her place. This trend has been happening for a long time and internal IT teams have their head in the sand if they think their part of the business is immune from it. At the end of the day either you are making the money or counting the money - everything else is a "middle man" and can be outsourced.
No, it doesn't cost $0.00 to admin SugarCRM. However, the incremental amount
of system administration required once it's set up is very small. I'd say that SugarCRM is going to cost us (a small company of 10 people) under $4,000 to set up, and probably under $1,000 per year to run. All of the costs are sysadmin time.
hmmm as a contractor to an ASP solution it's news to me that we are no longer an ASP and now a SaaS !!! I think the Salesforce themselves would be surprised to hear they are no longer an ASP. My understanding was always SaaS was a particular applet or subset instruction (such as hosted exchange rate calculator - or similar minor calculation) and that an ASP was a total solution such as salesforce.com BTW check out www.TractionPlatform.com it's a multi channel digital marketing platform enable the sending and receiving of digital messages and campaigns such as email, sms, web votes/surveys, ivr/dtmf, xml etc etc. Cheers, Dean
I agree on the fact that this article is full of buzz and sums up to "ASP is ripe for adoption". This guy has no clue about what he is talking about. I am not an employee of salesforce.com but I work for a company that is currently deploying it for a large base. We have started this project 8 months ago and there only was one outage of 1 hour during that period of time. So I don't know what is with all this outage stuff people are talking about (we constantly monitor the website). I have done software engineering prior to this project and each model (ASP vs. develop vs. traditional client/server software) has its own advantages. But with my experience with salesforce.com, I think the ASP model is sound and allows a company to: 1- deploy for any number of people in no time : no waiting time for seeing version 1.0 or for deploying the software on n machines. 2- Deploy at no cost: you only need a browser. 3- have regular updates (short release cycles) : salesforce has a new release every 6 months (vs. usually at least every year for traditional software) 4- be part of the development cycle : companies have a feature request process in which their requests are integrated in the devlopments. They influence the direction the application takes. The downside to this is maybe company A with 10 users will have less influence than company B with 1000 users. One last point is the way you can develop parts of the application: everything is done visually, i.e. if you want to create a new field you just drag and drop it on the page layout and everything gets automatically created (updates everything from the page to the database). This takes a few minutes vs. half a day when I used to be a developer... I wished some IDEs were so easy to use.
It's called a Contract.
Is that the sort of contract that specifies penalties for doing bad things with your data (against a bankrupt company) or the sort you take out to make sure the ebay seller doesn't get to enjoy any of his filthy lucre?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
When necessary through a purposely set up proxy.
Whatever it takes.
When they can't/ won't guarantee everlasting and exclusive access to YOUR data it shoud, has, to be 'No Deal'.
And IP law is your friend too.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."