Appirio

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Part II - Beware the Wolf in Blue Clothing

Narinder Singh

Labels: CloudComputing, IBM, Lotus Notes, SAP

Monday, June 29, 2009

Structure 09: Cloud Computing is Changing the World, But My Old Products Will Still Work

Balakrishna Narasimhan

Last week, I attended GigaOM's Structure09 conference, which was an interesting and well-run conference. It was fun to see industry thought-leaders like Werner Vogels, Marc Benioff, Chuck Hollis, James Urquhart and many others. For me, the conference confirmed many of the things we've written about recently:

1) Broad acceptance that enterprises are interested
There's absolutely no question that cloud computing has moved into the mainstream of enterprise technology. Everyone from Microsoft to Accenture to HP to IBM to SAP admitted as much. With the worsening economic conditions and the maturation of cloud computing services, enterprises are actively investigating cloud computing. The main differences of opinion between the legacy vendors and companies like Salesforce and Amazon lie in how quickly and broadly companies will adopt cloud computing.

2) Big vendors still at conceptual level, and trying to constrain the cloud
Large vendors like HP, IBM, SAP and Microsoft are still grappling with cloud computing at a conceptual level. It's clear that they recognize the importance of the profound shift that's happening in the industry but are not sure what to do about it.

Russ Daniels, HP's CTO of Cloud Services, talked about cloud computing as the brain that sits above the nervous system of the internet, and HP's vision of "everything-as-a-service". While interesting conceptually, there was little beyond abstract concepts in Russ' talk. If you were listening closely, there were also hints of how HP wants to preserve the status quo. While saying that the cloud was transformational, Russ made a point of saying that the cloud is best for solving new problems rather than for business automation, which current systems and processes do very well. I agree that the cloud can help solve new problems or enable new processes but it's also very disruptive to the status quo. Current approaches to business automation are expensive, brittle and leave CIOs managing the entire stack. Cloud platforms and applications change this completely and enable nimbler, faster processes.

Microsoft's Yousef Khalidi admitted that every enterprise he's talked to recently wants to move to the cloud but are held back by concerns about trust, performance and availability. He went on to say that enterprises have a variety of workloads, many of which will stay on-premise for a long time. It's hard to disagree with that premise but the question is whether Microsoft is really going to accelerate the movement of the majority of workloads to the cloud, given what that would mean to their revenues and profits.

SAP's Vishal Sikka continued along the themes he used in a recent CIO.com interview. He acknowledged the importance of cloud computing, but at the same time said that it's best suited to "simple transactions" and edge process within enterprises. Japan's largest employer would beg to differ with Vishal.

IBM's Willy Chiu talked about how IBM is approaching cloud computing from the ground up. They're partnering with universities to improve education on the topic and creating global innovation centers to explore use cases. I was impressed by the comprehensiveness and ambition of the approach. However, I was disappointed by the conclusion - companies can adopt cloud computing by purchasing a "Cloudburst" appliance, then having IBM build them a private cloud, and eventually by moving to IBM's public cloud. This sounds an awful lot like a "cloudwashing" of IBM's current offerings.

3) Too much discussion of clouds at the infrastructure rather than platform layers
The entire cloud conversation at Structure was very focused on infrastructure. As Daryl Plummer of Gartner has noted, Cloud computing is not about infrastructure. It's about a new delivery and consumption model for IT services that are elastic, metered and abstract away the SW stack. The conference was mostly focused on the lowest layer of the stack and didn't really talk about how the cloud enables transformation at the business process level. Greg Papadopoulos of Sun was one of the few people to talk about this, although he didn't dwell on it.

The thing that excites us most about cloud computing is its ability to help companies achieve the impossible. A great example of this is Starbucks' Pledge5 campaign. 21 days before the inauguration, Starbucks decided that they wanted to launch a national campaign (online, in stores and on Facebook) to drive community service across the nation. They needed to build a massively scalable infrastructure and application to do this. Before the cloud, this would've been hard to pull off even in time for the next inauguration. With Salesforce's Force.com platform, we were able to quickly build an application that performed flawlessly in supporting over 1M transactions across 10,000 store locations and millions of Facebook and Twitter fans.

The danger with just talking about infrastructure is that we miss the broader opportunity to engage the business and turn this into a conversation about achieving business outcomes faster and cheaper, rather than conversations about bits and bytes, which causes every business owner's eyes to glaze over. The cloud enables IT to change the conversation and it was unfortunate that this was rarely mentioned during the day.

4) Little mention of customers until Marc Benioff
The highlight of the day was Om Malik's interview with Marc Benioff. Marc brought not only brought his trademark humor to the event but brought a much-needed pragmatism and focus on what really matters. Customers. Marc was literally the first person all day to mention customers. He gave the room, which was largely composed of vendor marketing types, the best advice that we'll get - "Customers have been sold to by vendors for 30 years and they're tired of it. Customers want to talk to other customers and learn from them." Great advice and something we should take to heart.

In fact, we're turning that idea into action in the coming weeks when we'll start a new series of posts with our customers. If you're interested in being featured, leave us a comment below.

5) A few fun highlights of the day
Marc on Larry Ellison
Larry said something really zen on the earnings call - without on-demand, there's no on-premise and without on-premise, there's no on-demand.

Marc on Microsoft
I hear Microsoft is coming out with an Azune cloud.

and finally, Om's fly threads

Labels: IBM, Private Clouds, salesforce.com, SAP

Monday, December 22, 2008

2009 Predictions: Azure Disappoints

#2 in our series of 2009 predictions

2008 Recap

We’re not sure exactly what there is to recap about Microsoft Azure in 2008, other than the launch event, which certainly generated a lot of buzz. 

A closer look by many  generated more skepticism. Phil Wainewright said it best: “Whereas real cloud vendors release working services in beta on the same day they announce them, Microsoft simply announces what it’s going to do a year or two off in the future….  Ray Ozzie confessed that ‘the maturity of the things that we’ve got on them as this point in time is limited. It will be a different story a year from now. But I wouldn’t want to hold it for another year. So, we’re getting in the game.’” 

2009 Prediction

So we’re keeping our expectations in check for Azure in 2009.  CNET doesn’t expect web-based Office on Azure until 2010. There are only a handful of applications (nearly all Microsoft built) being demonstrated on Azure….the next generation of Live Meeting is supposedly up next. 

Why the slow pace? Part of the explanation is certainly the scope and ambition of the Microsoft vision.  Microsoft has a history of being late to markets that it eventually dominates, and we certainly don’t want to under-estimate the power of the resources Microsoft has at its disposal. Ray Ozzie is a visionary, and he’s charted out an ambitious course that will take decades to fully realize.   

But we think there’s more to it than that.  The last 2 years have shown us how challenging it is to play in both the cloud and client-based worlds.  We’re written about the challenges SAP has faced building new business models without disrupting their core business. Microsoft will face the same challenges.  This tension between wanting to play in the cloud without damaging its cash cows is the reason that it has taken Microsoft so long to even start talking about Azure.

Given this conflict, we don’t expect much from Azure in 2009.  Microsoft will use it as a platform for some of its own services, but will face huge go-to-market conflict in rolling these out to customers.  Microsoft’s developer community will face the same conflicts, and will be unsure how to focus their
investments.  The hundreds of companies that make their living hosting Microsoft Exchange servers have the most to lose—Exchange and Sharepoint are likely to be the first applications ported to Azure (exhibit A of the types of conflict Microsoft will encounter as they roll out Azure).

What it means for customers

The big news for customers out of Microsoft Azure is validation of the cloud computing model.  The entire IT industry is FINALLY unanimous in acknowledging that the future of enterprise computing lies in the cloud.  Microsoft, IBM, SAP, Oracle—all have now told their customers that they need to be thinking about cloud computing. 

So the real question for the enterprise is how to get started. That’s a question that we at Appirio love to help customers answer.  Unfortunately, the answer is probably NOT with Microsoft Azure.

What do you think?

Which of our predictions do you agree or disagree with? Please let us know by voting in our poll or commenting below.  And follow a rich dialog on these predictions hosted by Clint Boulton at eWeek.

Labels: 2009-Predictions, business by design, Microsoft Azure, Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft Sharepoint, PaaS, remove, SAP

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Good News for Cloud Computing: Nicholas Carr is getting boring

Ryan Nichols

We’ve always been a big fan of Nicholas Carr’s presentation on the Big Switch … he's delivered it at several Salesforce "Tour De Force" events earlier this year, and gave it tonight before a panel in Palo Alto on whether Cloud Computing is “Ready for the Enterprise.”

There’s a lot that we love in Carr’s pitch:

• We love the stats: In the average IT organization, 80% of server capacity is wasted, 65% of storage capacity is wasted, and 70% of IT labor cost is spent on upkeep of legacy applications. Clearly a ripe opportunity to capture the benefits of centralized cloud computing.
• We love the imagery: the image of a huge water wheel, created as a source of major competitive advantage for a steel company, abandoned to rot in the woods just 2 decades later. His message that on-premise servers are on that same path is right-on.
• We love the scope of his talk, with the emphasis on the broader economic implications of cloud computing. Carr points out that what’s most interesting is not the new infrastructure itself, but what gets built on top. The electricity industry itself quickly became a utility… but the market for electric-powered appliances became highly innovative for decades. As a company that builds on the cloud, we love that message.

We were expecting some fireworks in last night's talk: It was sponsored by the German American Business Association, and was hosted by SAP… not exactly the epicenter of cloud computing. And one of the panelists was Steve Lucas, the former head of On-Demand BI at SAP, who recently left to lead the Force.com business at Salesforce.com. Carr himself is a controversial figure, having gone from the IT industry’s biggest foe for suggesting that “IT Doesn’t Matter” to IT’s biggest friend by backing “The Big Switch” to cloud computing.

But there was remarkably little disagreement among the panel, composed of speakers
from SAP, Salesforce, VMWare, and T-Systems: Salesforce, of course, has built its business around the trends that Carr is talking about. VMWare loves the role that virtualization plays in enabling cloud computing providers. T-Systems positioned itself as an enabler of cloud-based applications. Even SAP acknowledged that “we believe that there will be certain edge processes that will be enabled by the cloud,” which is a bold step forward coming from SAP.

Lucas emphasized that Salesforce has a simple subscription model that is going to get more appealing to companies in a recession. When the economy is bad, the last thing a company wants to do is write a big, difficult-to-justify license check. He quoted the CIO of a financial services firm he met with in New York in the midst of last week's financial crisis-- “We’re looking at Salesforce because we need to better leverage our IT investment. We have 88,000 servers in our organization, and want to reduce that number.”

Labels: Cloud Computing, Force.com, Nicholas Carr, on-demand, SaaS, SAP

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Sequoia Capital Meeting: Our take on the economy and on-demand adoption

Chris Barbin

Labels: CloudComputing, investors, Microsoft Exchange, SaaS, SAP, Sequoia-Capital, Software as a Service, VC

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Cloud Computing: Hummer or Prius?

Ryan Nichols

Last week we noticed a similarity in news headlines from two very different industries - automobiles and software.

In the auto industry, U.S. gas prices remain near all-time highs, and car buyers are nervous about economic conditions. The result is a dramatic shift among buyers to emerging technologies. The market for large SUVs is hurting, while the market for smaller, lighter cars and especially electric hybrids is booming. Domestic automakers are scrambling to retool their existing SUV factories to smaller vehicles, and Toyota is poised to overtake GM as the leading global car maker.

In the technology industry, we face a similar situation. CIOs are certainly nervous about economic times. And the costs of operating traditional, on-premise enterprise software is rising. Buyers are reeling from the recent Oracle and SAP price increases (does this move remind anyone else of OPEC?).

So why is Goldman Sachs telling us that CIOs plan almost no investment in cloud computing in 2009? Isn’t this the equivalent of reacting to a gas price increase by postponing your purchase of a Prius, and driving your Hummer for awhile longer?

Goldman based its findings on a set of survey results which the blogosphere has dissected over the past few days. The common theme is that CIOs don’t get it. Billy Marshall of rPath argues on Sandhill.com that CIOs are often the last to know about investments in new technologies. James Staten at Forrester has a similar take, saying CIOs aren’t the target for cloud computing anyway. Todd Ogasawara at O'Reilly claims CIOs simply don’t understand the value proposition of cloud computing.

While the shortsightedness of some CIOs is a contributing factor, we think that the thought leaders in cloud computing shoulder some of the blame. We all get so excited about the potential of cloud computing that it sometimes sounds futuristic, as if it were like some spaceship that will provide commuter service to the moon, instead of like a reliable Prius, perfect for your daily commute. The name “cloud computing” itself, with its fanciful tones, contributes to this "unreal" perception.

The reality is simple. "Cloud computing" is just a big name for business solutions and IT services that are delivered over the Internet, providing more flexibility and scalability at a dramatically lower cost. This is a proven technology with a clear ROI, especially when deployed with a pragmatic eye towards business impact. In the last 15 years consumer technologies have experienced unparalleled advancements all at a diminishing costs. In the same period, enterprise software (e.g. SAP, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft) have failed to deliver innovation and relied on their own lack of flexibility - i.e. high switching costs - to actually increase the cost for ever diminishing returns.

Appirio's customers include CIOs who understand that uncertain economic conditions, and on-premise software price increases, make 2009 a year to increase investment in cloud computing. We hope and predict that many more will follow suit.

Labels: BusinessModels, CloudComputing, oracle, SAP, Software, Software as a Service

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Microsoft to Partners: We Still Don't Get SaaS

Chris Barbin

The on-premise titans trying to transition to on-demand face considerable challenges, well-documented in this blog and elsewhere. One of the most significant mistakes companies make trying to transition is pursuing a "hybrid" strategy. We've watched SAP and Oracle stumble into all sorts of problems trying to seek the middle ground, and now it seems Microsoft wants to join the party. Recently we were invited to listen to Microsoft's new CRM pitch , designed to recruit existing Salesforce.com partners. The pitch centers on a benign-sounding notion, the "power of choice" (see screenshot at left). Microsoft's lack of a choice (on-premise vs. SaaS) is the core issue. Choice when used in the context of technology architecture typically points to a vendor with a conflicted or transitional strategy. They're not quite ready to make the full commitment, so they spread their attention, development, marketing, and operations resources across fundamentally different paradigms.

What is deemed a choice actually represents a company trying to provide two conflicted models. Would you expect the company who sold you a backyard well to be able to offer a water utility? Would you expect the company who sold you a diesel generator to be able to offer you the benefits of a utility company? Nick Carr did a good job exploding the general myth of "choice" as an alternative to "progress" in The Big Switch, where he extends the electricity analogy to the current age of IT technologies.

We recently blogged, and were quoted in eWeek, saying that companies like Microsoft build "physically and emotionally closed solutions." This makes them unable to meet the challenges of tomorrow's enterprises.

A sign of this and that a company doesn't get SaaS is when it positions on-demand as a transition path to on-premise. This usually means:

1. They are trying to not completely freak out their sales and management teams with the notion that their SaaS offering will cannibalize their traditional software.
2. Their SaaS feature set is way behind their current on-premise product.
3. They don't want a customer to think they made the wrong choice in selecting their on-premise product last year.
4. They still don't get what SaaS means for their products, sales, operations and culture.

Microsoft was so brazen as to promote a financial incentive for partners who help customers move from on-demand to on-premise. Microsoft evidently considers this customer ripoff to be an "Opportunity for Success" for its partners (see second screenshot).

Again, the analogy to other utilities is useful: if a company tried to sell you the benefits of their electric or water grid as a "transition" to a bigger and better backyard well and generator, you'd have reason to question their commitment and ability to deliver the promised utility.

What could be more illustrative of this than Microsoft's attempts to put thin web front ends on on-premise solutions? Look at the screenshot below. This solution is really nothing more than diesel generator hooked up to a electric grid and pretending to be a utility (although this solution is apparently good enough for some other companies 'committed' to on-demand). At best this type of solutions is a stop gap measure; more likely, it demonstrates a lack of understanding for what is required to deliver SaaS to tomorrow's enterprise.

Labels: Google Apps, Microsoft Exchange, on-demand, oracle, SaaS, SAP

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Who is “fit” to provide enterprise apps?

Narinder Singh

The SaaS blogosphere has been abuzz these last couple of days discussing Sergey Solyanik’s assessment that Google’s culture is “not fit” for enterprise apps. We’ll say up front that Appirio runs our internal communication and collaboration using Google Apps, and have helped customers big and small do the same. We have been highly impressed with the quality, reliability, and rate of innovation in these tools, admire and respect the culture that created them, and have no hesitation calling them “enterprise ready.”

But we think that with all this talk about Google’s corporate culture, people are missing the real point—the culture of today’s traditional on-premise technology vendors is no longer “enterprise ready.”

Let me explain-- we believe that there is a cultural mismatch between the needs of today’s businesses and the cultures of traditional on-premise technology providers:

Today’s business needs agility, the culture of enterprise technology is anything but. As the global pace of change accelerates, business leaders need their IT staff and SI/ISV partners to be saying a lot more “yes” and a lot less “no.” It is no longer acceptable for an IT partner to make vague promises about a release 3 years out. When a CIO asked Hasso Plattner at the Churchill Club’s SaaS debate when he should move to SAP’s SaaS solutions, he was told to check back in “5 years, at least.” Is that what it means to have an “enterprise ready” culture?

Today’s business needs openness, the culture of enterprise technology is anything but. Traditional enterprise vendors have in their very DNA the idea that openness is dangerous to their business models. Businesses in all industries have accepted the notion of core vs. context—you focus on what you are good at and rely on seamless connections with a network of partners to provide the rest of your solution. Ironically, traditional enterprise software is one of the last industries to embrace this change. One of Hasso Plattner’s key lessons from SAP’s ill-fated experiment with SaaS is that “what is inside the system has to have a coverage level which is close to 100 percent,” he says. Openness will be there in name only—the intention is that everything you need is inside the system. Such a system has never existed, and never will. Is this what it means to have an “enterprise ready” culture?

So what does it mean to have an “enterprise-ready” culture? Of course, every traditional enterprise vendor wants to be agile and open, and many have made admirable strides in that direction, including SAP through its Developer Community and eSOA initiatives. And there is much more required to deliver enterprise solutions than agility and openness. There are the table stakes of reliability, security, and having a solution that meets a real business need. But today’s business requires IT partners with a culture that can do both-- be deeply rooted in agility and openness while delivering reliability, security, and business value. We think that Google and salesforce.com, the leaders in on-demand, have achieved this goal: Salesforce offers both trust.salesforce.com AND ideas.salesforce.com. Google offers highly innovative applications that scale like no traditional enterprise application will ever be able to.

But whether or not you agree with us that Google’s corporate culture is “enterprise ready," the real point is that its traditional on-premise competitors are most certainly not.

Labels: BusinessModels, Google, salesforce, SAP, Software, Software as a Service

Friday, May 02, 2008

Business by Delay - On-premise and on-demand are like oil and water for SAP

Narinder Singh

This week's announcement that SAP has delayed the rollout of its hosted midmarket “Business ByDesign” offering, and reduced expectations for the product, shed further light on the difficulties that on-premise software companies will have in delivering software as a service.

It's not that SAP leadership doesn’t “get” the opportunity, or isn’t “smart” enough to capture it. I spent three years in the Office of the CEO and know better. But it takes more than smarts to overcome fundamental conflicts between the traditional enterprise software business model and the on-demand business model. Many lessons only come with experience in the market, and SAP's approach to try to build it all at once (as explained by SAP founder Hasso Plattner in his debate with Marc Benioff) is completely off the mark.

For example:

• SAP locked 1,000 German engineers in an offsite location for five years to develop Business ByDesign. This follows the traditional model for building complex enterprise software. Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), on the other hand, allows, and flourishes with, continual refinement based on customer usage. This affects every aspect of the development lifecycle.
• SAP built a system that was service oriented by design, but service delivery was an afterthought. SAP has never been in the service delivery business - this is an entirely new core competency, which happens to be at the core of how Salesforce and Google create value.
• To avoid cannibalization of its core products, SAP has tightly restricted the target market for ByDesign to a narrow set of geographies and industries. Successful SaaS solutions, on the other hand, are adopted by the marketplace in a bottom-up fashion and spread virally, leading to surprising adoption patterns that result in new opportunities, such as Salesforce being used for Service and Support.

This week's announcement is bad news for SAP—they’ve spent the last 2 years validating the potential of the SaaS market and now have to admit that it is far more difficult that then they anticipated to capture this opportunity.

Maybe SAP should take Benioff up on the challenge that he issued to Hasso at the Churchill Club, and build their next business application on Salesforce.com's Force.com platform. After all, SAP’s core expertise is business processes, not in the technology or infrastructure required to deliver software as a service.

Labels: business by design, on-demand, SaaS, SAP

Monday, March 03, 2008

Insights and Observations from the Pacific Crest On-Demand Conference

Narinder Singh

Last Thursday we had the pleasure of participating in the 3rd Annual Pacific Crest On-Demand Conference, the kickoff to Pacific Crest's Emerging Technology Summit. Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff invited us on stage during his keynote to illustrate how partners can harness the power of the Force.com platform, Visualforce and the AppExchange.

The participating companies covered the spectrum from large on-premise software companies such as EMC and SAP, who were describing their expansion into the newest "hot" market, to companies such as NetSuite, Salesforce.com and SuccessFactors that have built their business from the ground up with Software as a Service.

Interestingly, a number of companies there are in the process of trying to radically shift their business model from on-premise to on-demand, and they talked about the challenges. Most of these companies were small and nimble, which enabled them to make the transition cold-turkey. All were very clear that it wasn't an easy switch to make.

Can Companies Have Their SaaS Cake and Eat It Too?

Can companies successfully split their focus between traditional software and on-demand services?

This is a question we've been raising, skeptically, for quite some time in our blog. Our original Services 2.0 position paper in April 2007 described how the disruptive effects of SaaS will impact the economic models of on-premise software vendors. After a year of additional information and insight, it's even more apparent that treating SaaS as just another channel or product feature is a recipe for failure.

Spending a day with companies that have, or are attempting to make the switch from on-premise to SaaS reinforced the major challenges. IDeaS CEO Ed Booth gave a great presentation highlighting the challenges and upside of moving to an on-demand model. Concur Technologies has often been referenced as the best example of a company that successfully made the transition. Some issues raised by them and others included:

• One-time revenue hit: How do you manage through the decline in revenue growth when you move from an up-front license model to a monthly subscription model? With Wall Street and shareholders as panicky as they are today, this is a very difficult proposition for large public companies. Upfront licensing, even with longer term contracts, can drop by as much as 75%. As the Patricia Seybold Group has noted, As a company moves from perpetual licensing - where customers pay a relatively large, one-time licensing fee - to SaaS - where customers pay a relatively small, monthly license fee - financial performance slips in the short-term."

• Internal channel conflict: How do you manage the channel conflict that happens with your own partners, and even your own sales force, when offering both traditional license and on-demand software? Companies like EMC, with established business units focused on driving demand for SaaS or cloud computing, will have a serious challenge with this. The most reliable solution is to completely separate the businesses - which eliminates any synergy of having both models in the same company.
  
• Shifting to a "month by month" culture: How do you change the way you sell to and support customers when you have to earn their business every month instead instead of every few years when the next big version comes along? This is a huge cultural change for sales and support teams to make. SaaS companies require the culture of the web - where sites like eBay, Amazon, Google and others constantly monitor, serve and improve their customer's experience.
  
• Speeding up R&D: How do you adapt your product development processes to deliver an on-demand service? Successful on-demand vendors get the benefit of releasing new features quarterly, not every two or three years. When features are released, they are expected to work with other systems indefinitely. Salesforce.com still supports each of its 12 versions of its API. How many on-premise vendors can claim anything even close?
  

EMC, SAP, Microsoft and Oracle make it clear to customers and stockholders that their foray into SaaS or cloud computing is not a departure from their software strategies, but an expansion of it. They say things like "SaaS is just another delivery model," or "we're giving customers a choice." Yet they keep increasing the on-premise maintenance fees. SAP just increased its maintenance rate from 17% to 22% per year - an increase of 30%! This leads to one of two possible conclusions:

1. The cost of supporting a growing legacy of capabilities keeps increasing, which eliminates the benefits of on-premise scale. Compare this to any internet company, where increased scale lowers cost and results in expanded services for customers.
2. They are taking advantage of customers' inability to easily switch off of their on-premise software.

Traditional software companies - especially large ones - will certainly have to straddle the fence for a while. Yet the doubletalk and denial will not help in the transition. First, they must acknowledge the need to make a transition. Second, in many cases, dramatic actions, like separating SaaS products into completely independent business units or taking companies private to allow for transition, will be needed to make the change. It's likely that legacy companies will not switch until customers stop tolerating increasing TCO and diminishing innovation from their on-premise systems.

Labels: AppExchange, Concur Technologies, EMC, Force.com, IDeaS, on-demand, Pacific Crest, SaaS, salesforce.com, SAP, software-as-a-service