Comments on: SaaS – Future or Buzz? http://leapcomp.com/2010/05/saas-%e2%80%93-future-or-buzz.html Mon, 21 May 2012 17:50:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Stephanie Castro http://leapcomp.com/2010/05/saas-%e2%80%93-future-or-buzz.html#comment-53825 Stephanie Castro Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:21:10 +0000 http://leapcomp.com/?p=1196#comment-53825 Great article Julien. I think Mr. Cabrera's points are good ones, although he is (understandably) biased towards Saas. On his first point, "It is in the client’s interest for the vendor – their technology partner – to be around long term" I agree. However, I don't see how a solution being provided as Saas vs on-prem has any bearing on the stability of the vendor. If it's referring to financial stability, on-premise vendors typically provide software plus services, giving them stable recurring revenue just like a Saas vendor. And, any vendor worth their salt is reinvesting a significant portion of revenues back into R&D which will pass along value to clients. Also, while the costs of supporting and upgrading an on-premise solution may be significant, typically a client can count on less expenditure from an on-premise solution than a Saas solution in the long run. Those monthly fees add up over time. I think that a truly forward-thinking vendor would do well to provide flexibility at this time, rather than pushing just one deployment method over another. Some industries, especially those that are highly regulated such as insurance, are sometimes concerned (whether with good cause or not) over the security of their data when using a Saas solution, and favor the control that on-premise software provides. Saas may be the future, but it's still important to address our customers' present concerns. Offering both Saas and on-prem gives the customer the freedom to weigh the pros and cons of both options and make a decision for themselves. Great article Julien. I think Mr. Cabrera’s points are good ones, although he is (understandably) biased towards Saas. On his first point, “It is in the client’s interest for the vendor – their technology partner – to be around long term” I agree. However, I don’t see how a solution being provided as Saas vs on-prem has any bearing on the stability of the vendor. If it’s referring to financial stability, on-premise vendors typically provide software plus services, giving them stable recurring revenue just like a Saas vendor. And, any vendor worth their salt is reinvesting a significant portion of revenues back into R&D which will pass along value to clients. Also, while the costs of supporting and upgrading an on-premise solution may be significant, typically a client can count on less expenditure from an on-premise solution than a Saas solution in the long run. Those monthly fees add up over time. I think that a truly forward-thinking vendor would do well to provide flexibility at this time, rather than pushing just one deployment method over another. Some industries, especially those that are highly regulated such as insurance, are sometimes concerned (whether with good cause or not) over the security of their data when using a Saas solution, and favor the control that on-premise software provides. Saas may be the future, but it’s still important to address our customers’ present concerns. Offering both Saas and on-prem gives the customer the freedom to weigh the pros and cons of both options and make a decision for themselves.

]]> By: Christopher Doran http://leapcomp.com/2010/05/saas-%e2%80%93-future-or-buzz.html#comment-40885 Christopher Doran Wed, 19 May 2010 19:35:57 +0000 http://leapcomp.com/?p=1196#comment-40885 Chris' points are very good, but I disagree with #4, or perhaps I don't understand it. How does the number of customers using a piece of on-premise software affect its ability to scale? Or, is Chris referring to the vendor's ability to scale? If the former, I think it's a non sequitur. If the latter, companies like Microsoft, Apple, SAP, Oracle, Novell, MySQL (before it was purchased by Sun, and then by Oracle), Electronic Arts, Adobe, etc. all seem to have done very well even though they support millions of customers. (Admittedly, some do it better than others.). Just my 2 cents, of course. Chris’ points are very good, but I disagree with #4, or perhaps I don’t understand it. How does the number of customers using a piece of on-premise software affect its ability to scale? Or, is Chris referring to the vendor’s ability to scale? If the former, I think it’s a non sequitur. If the latter, companies like Microsoft, Apple, SAP, Oracle, Novell, MySQL (before it was purchased by Sun, and then by Oracle), Electronic Arts, Adobe, etc. all seem to have done very well even though they support millions of customers. (Admittedly, some do it better than others.).

Just my 2 cents, of course.

]]>