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:
- 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.
- Their SaaS feature set is way behind their current on-premise product.
- They don't want a customer to think they made the wrong choice in selecting their on-premise product last year.
- 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