SaaS and the good old days of on-premise software

John Dvorak has a point. It's not one that the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) providers want buyers to think much about, but it's a valid point.

Responding to the downtime (19 hours) of the Windows Genuine Advantage servers, John writes:

All this proves is that these Web-based applications cannot be trusted.

Is he wrong?

Think about this. In a SaaS world, even more than in the traditional proprietary world, you are 100% helpless if something goes wrong. Not only do you not have the code (as you would if you had a on-premise desktop/server software), but you also don't have the IT staff to be able to go in to troubleshoot. You're completely reliant on the vendor.

I like the focus on service in SaaS. I like it quite a bit, in fact. And I generally think that SaaS vendors spend a lot of time and money in ensuring that they can maintain uptime.

But some things are completely outside of their control (a broadband link to your building goes down, etc.). Which makes John's later comments so appropriate:

To analyze the illogic of certain trends, I like to employ a trick I call the "reverse timeline." I ask myself, "What happens if the timeline goes the other way?" In this instance, you'd start with server-based online applications, and then suddenly a new technology--the desktop computer with a quad-core processor and huge hard drive--appears. Now, you do not need to do all your computing online. The timeline is reversed.

You can image the advertising push. "Now control your own data!" "Faster processing power now." "Cheaper!" "Everything at your fingertips." "No need to worry about network outages." "Faster, cheaper, more reliable." On and on. I can almost hear the marketing types brag about how much better "shrink wrap" software is than the flaky online apps. The best line for the emergence of the desktop computer in a reverse timeline would be "It's about time!"

Sadly, he may not be far off. That's why I think enterprises are best off owning their own data/content through open standards, and owning their own software through open source. Perhaps there's a good way to mingle open source with SaaS. Let's call it "Open SaaS." But until someone delivers on Open SaaS, any investment in SaaS should be done with a fair amount of prudence.

[royrusso]

Ridiculous

Dvorak sounds like a Luddite - "I don't understand these new-fangled light-bulb thingies. One power outage, and I'm in the dark! Bring back the candle!"

If we want to criticize SaaS, let it be for reasons of security and IP. Sound reasoning, not Luddite FUD.

I'll mention that LoopFuse customers choosing an on-premise installation are mostly concerned with not having their marketing and sales figures floating about in the ether. Now *that* is a valid reason for not selecting the SaaS solution.

[seanupton]

Hybrid model

Surely, someone will find a way to capitalize on a hybrid SaaS and open-source business model, where the customer's hedge on service quality deficiency and online-provider death is the ability to run the software themselves without restriction. Keeps the vendors honest and pressured to keep innovating in both technology and customer service. This may even be as true for consumer applications as it is for business apps, as I've commented on this matter elsewhere: http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/18/its-your-stuff-maybe-not/#comment-151242

[russ danner]

I agree - this is FUD

I think Roy is right on the money here. This is FUD. Risk can be managed. We have redundancy for a reason and SaaS can get economies of scale that allow them to mitigate levels of risk that most independent data centers could never afford.

From the technology perspective, we may not yet have robust enough systems. As the network grows and grids form, I see this as less and less an issue. Computing on the network is already here and it?s only going to become more and more of a reality. It is the issues that Roy has pointed out and current data center investments keeping the independents online.

There are still real reasons to hold on to your data center but I think they are waning. Soon it will be time for the "early majority" to burn the boats and move out on to the network/grid.

[russ danner]

Complete FUD

I think Roy is right on the money here. This is FUD. Risk can be managed. We have redundancy for a reason and SaaS can get economies of scale that allow them to mitigate levels of risk that independent data centers could never afford.

From the technology perspective, we may not yet have robust enough systems. As the network grows and grids form, I see this as less and less an issue. Computing on the network is already here and it?s only going to become more and more of a reality. It is the issues that Roy has pointed out and current data center investments keeping the independents online.

There are still valid reasons to hold on to your data center but I think they are waning. Soon it will be time for the ?early majority? to burn the boats and move out on to the network/grid.

[Matt Asay]

Russ, "comment early and often" doesn't apply here

You can only post your comments once. No fair stacking the deck. :-)

[russ danner]

Stacking the deck

I posted it twice for redundancy.... in case this service fails :)

Sorry about that -- thought the submit flaked.

[christopher cabrera]

Reverse Timeline?Faster Processing Power?Cheaper?

Who are you kidding? he is missing the point of SaaS. Companies don't want to own a ton of expensive hardware. They don't want IT to manage these systems and they really don't like being orphaned on an old version because it is too expense to upgrade to the latest version. A customer of a multi-tenant SaaS company can leverage an entire grid of copmputing horse power - -how in the world would it be "cheaper" and "faster" in this "reverse timeline" trick? The fact is that there is a greater chance of downtime or an outage in most internal data centers than there is in a telco grade SAS70 certified facility (not to mention the security benefits)used by world class SaaS providers. Save the reverse timeline trick to go back and get the Lotto numbers...now that would be impressive!