On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:49:00 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 7/30/2015 9:48 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> If you'd asked me 10 years ago what I thought of SaaS, I'd have said
>> that I thought it was a scam.  Now that I've seen it up close in a
>> company that sells with that model, and have had the growth trajectory
>> explained by financial people who understand it *and* who understand
>> how to explain it, I see the benefits, both to the company and to the
>> customer and end user.
>>
>> A loyal customer for a software company isn't a customer who buys once
>> and never comes back - even if they never change products.  A loyal
>> customer is a customer who continues to fund further development so the
>> developers can continue to improve the product for the benefit of the
>> customer.
>>
>> Jim
>>
> However... With respect, I already pay like $30-40 a month for access to
> certain online games. To suggest that I have to pay for the OS they run
> on as well, and a similar amount.. 

Not all operating systems are free.  Someone has to develop them, and 
those developers need to eat.

But my comment was more about SaaS in general, not OSaaS.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 7/31/2015 4:03 PM, scott wrote:
>> I think that you are in a privileged position. You work in the
>> automotive industry and in R&D.
>
> You must have a good memory, because I quit that job over 3 years ago
> :-) This place makes industrial printing equipment.

My wife might not agree with you. :)
I think that you have mentioned the industry since you left.

> Still I think any
> bargain PC can handle remote desktop, the bottleneck seems to be the
> internet connection between my house network and my work network. Remote
> desktop works seamlessly within each network, but try to access one from
> the other and it is very awkward to use.
>

Probably just the crappy companies I've worked for.

>> The number of times I have forgotten what I was going to do by the time
>> the machine had drawn the screen are legend. Not all the time of course
>> but enough to raise raise your frustration levels to boiling point.
>
> Oh that happens regularly here too on other system, just not seen it on
> remote desktop across the same network. Try getting in to work and then
> waiting over 30 mins for your PC to boot. I just lock mine over night now.
>

Routine:
Arrive, switch on PC, take of jacket, go for coffee, log on, talk to 
early starters. Look to see if it is ready. :)

>> I wish I lived in your world. :)
>
> I'd find out a bit more about it first if I were you :-)

I know. The other man's grass is always stronger. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31/07/2015 09:56 AM, scott wrote:
>> I've read scuttlebutt about M$ moving Windows to a SaaS model, but I
>> fail to
>> understand how this could possibly work.
>
> Locally you'd have an OS that was stripped down to just run Remote
> Desktop (or equivalent) and interface with your hardware. When you
> logged on it would start a remote desktop session with an MS VM
> somewhere. *Assuming internet speeds were fast enough* you wouldn't
> notice the difference to running full windows locally.

The more I look at the IT world, the more cyclic it seems to be.

There was a time when you bought the biggest, most powerful mainframe 
that money could buy, and all the users sat at dumb terminals logged in 
to the giant monster in the middle.

And then everybody said "hey, putting a single desktop at each person's 
desk means you can more easily add and remove computer power depending 
on staffing levels, equip different people with different versions of 
software, etc."

And now everybody's like "hey, it's a pain to manage multiple individual 
desktops. Let's virtualise everything to get a bigger return on 
investment..."

And so the industry continues to alternate between centralised and 
decentralised. Because, frankly, each has different pros and cons; it's 
just that every decade or so people forget the pros of one and forget 
the cons of the other.

> The benefits are obvious (a machine that has all your files and looks
> the same no matter where you log on, an almost limitless supply of CPU
> power and RAM if you wanted to do CPU intenstive tasks, automatic
> backups for everyone, etc)

I think you mean "we can give you less and less CPU and RAM while still 
charging the same amount of money for it, so you will continually have 
to give us more money or suffer horrendously unusable system response".

And then of course, you have the problem that each morning, you log into 
your desktop, and there's a 50% probability that the software will have 
changed, and you can't prevent it changing. Already we see every time 
Facebook changes the colour of a button, somebody creates a page 
entitled "if one million users Like this page, Facebook will turn the 
button colour back to how it was before". [Erm, no they won't honey.] 
Imagine if every day, all your software could be deleted and replaced 
with something else that you didn't ask for or want.

To say nothing of the privacy and confidentiality issues of having 
Microsoft have access to every file you ever create. (I doubt too many 
corporate types would like having their propriety data on a hostile 3rd 
party server.)

> Their big problem will be the medium-large corporations that take
> months, if not years to test and roll out major software updates. There
> is no way they would accept the possibility of one day their entire
> company coming to a halt with millions of pounds lost due to an MS
> "update" that has broken something somewhere within their business. Also
> a lot of systems are not connected to the internet for various reasons,
> how would they work?

They also have a problem with SOHO setups where people wouldn't know 
what "computer security" is if it hit them in the face.

Why no, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?

Post a reply to this message

On 31/07/2015 05:48 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Recurring revenue helps you grow the business.
>
> Traditional perpetual license models mean that the customer buys the
> product once.  They may have to license it for a number of users or
> servers, but ultimately, the cost is pretty low over the lifetime of the
> product.
>
> That's good for the customer that doesn't want to continually upgrade.
>
> Most customers, though, want the latest and greatest features and
> functionality - and a subscription model (which is common with SaaS
> products), done properly, funds ongoing development.  Anyone who has
> worked retail knows that the cost of acquiring a new customer is pretty
> high; the cost of retaining a customer is relatively low, as long as you
> keep the customer happy.  The SaaS subscription model works off that
> fundamental idea in retail business.

Selling "support" also works. Provided you have the staff to actually 
deliver support.

Or just a licence to download any and all new versions that get put out 
in the next X months. Keep paying if you want new stuff.

Or paying to have a customised version of the product. (But that's sort 
of tantamount to saying "our product is so hard to set up, you need to 
pay us to do it for you". Not a great thing to say!)

Or hell, even paying for the development of specific features that you 
particularly need. The trouble with this one is that

* Usually there's only one or two specific features a given customer 
needs. Once those are done, no revenue stream.

* Usually how this *actually* plays out is the customer says "we won't 
buy it until it does X". And then you implement X. And then they still 
don't buy. (Why no, I'm not bitter. Why do you keep asking that?)

Certainly where I currently work, a lot of customers specifically *like* 
the fact that if they stop paying, the software doesn't self-destruct. 
Nobody is going to lose any data. You can carry on using the software 
forever; you just won't get any bugfixes or new features.

Then again, where I work, it takes most customers up to 3 years to get 
authorisation to buy a new mouse. So convincing people to buy at all is 
very hard.

(If the second-hand stuff I've heard is at all accurate, the people who 
will *use* the software utterly love it and really want to buy it - but 
the people who authorise the money won't let you buy anything without 
having it signed in the blood of a unicorn...)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:37:24 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 31/07/2015 09:56 AM, scott wrote:
>>> I've read scuttlebutt about M$ moving Windows to a SaaS model, but I
>>> fail to understand how this could possibly work.
>>
>> Locally you'd have an OS that was stripped down to just run Remote
>> Desktop (or equivalent) and interface with your hardware. When you
>> logged on it would start a remote desktop session with an MS VM
>> somewhere. *Assuming internet speeds were fast enough* you wouldn't
>> notice the difference to running full windows locally.
> 
> The more I look at the IT world, the more cyclic it seems to be.

Yep, I've observed this for over 30 years myself.

>> The benefits are obvious (a machine that has all your files and looks
>> the same no matter where you log on, an almost limitless supply of CPU
>> power and RAM if you wanted to do CPU intenstive tasks, automatic
>> backups for everyone, etc)
> 
> I think you mean "we can give you less and less CPU and RAM while still
> charging the same amount of money for it, so you will continually have
> to give us more money or suffer horrendously unusable system response".
> 
> And then of course, you have the problem that each morning, you log into
> your desktop, and there's a 50% probability that the software will have
> changed, and you can't prevent it changing. Already we see every time
> Facebook changes the colour of a button, somebody creates a page
> entitled "if one million users Like this page, Facebook will turn the
> button colour back to how it was before". [Erm, no they won't honey.]
> Imagine if every day, all your software could be deleted and replaced
> with something else that you didn't ask for or want.
> 
> To say nothing of the privacy and confidentiality issues of having
> Microsoft have access to every file you ever create. (I doubt too many
> corporate types would like having their propriety data on a hostile 3rd
> party server.)

Surprisingly, a lot of companies are moving to SaaS solutions for a lot 
of things.  I'm constantly amazed at the new customers my employer brings 
in to help secure their SaaS infrastructures using identity as the 
"border".

One of the larger challenges in modern IT is that the old paradigm of 
securing everything with a firewall is done.  The internal network isn't 
a trusted network these days, even if you use no SaaS solutions.  Look at 
Sony.  Look at Target.  Look at any major company that has been hacked in 
the past 5 years - all of them trusted their internal networks, and it 
cost them huge.

The "firewall" concept is flawed, and these days, proper security is 
identity-enabled and tied to devices and users rather than a network.

The other surprising thing is that as the "Internet of Things" takes off, 
these "things" are not being designed with security in mind - security is 
being bolted on after the fact.

>> Their big problem will be the medium-large corporations that take
>> months, if not years to test and roll out major software updates. There
>> is no way they would accept the possibility of one day their entire
>> company coming to a halt with millions of pounds lost due to an MS
>> "update" that has broken something somewhere within their business.
>> Also a lot of systems are not connected to the internet for various
>> reasons, how would they work?
> 
> They also have a problem with SOHO setups where people wouldn't know
> what "computer security" is if it hit them in the face.
> 
> Why no, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?

Actually, the IDaaS market in the SME space is going to be a very bloody 
battle between Microsoft and Google.  There's really no reason for anyone 
else to even play in that market.  Larger enterprises will tend to look 
elsewhere (though there are a number of > 10,000 user companies that use 
Google, apparently).

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 7/31/2015 7:37 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> And then of course, you have the problem that each morning, you log into
> your desktop, and there's a 50% probability that the software will have
> changed, and you can't prevent it changing.

And if you want to use something non standard. It is a PITA to get 
installed.
I used to use a small graphics tablet instead of a mouse. In the end I 
gave up using it because of the hassle getting the drivers installed.
And if you wanted to use the machine to run PovRay overnight or at 
lunchtime...

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7/31/2015 7:47 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> Selling "support" also works. Provided you have the staff to actually
> deliver support.
>

The sector I work in, often supply the software customisation of the 
s/ware at what they hope is break even prices. To get the support contract.

> Or just a licence to download any and all new versions that get put out
> in the next X months. Keep paying if you want new stuff.
>
> Or paying to have a customised version of the product. (But that's sort
> of tantamount to saying "our product is so hard to set up, you need to
> pay us to do it for you". Not a great thing to say!)
>

Shhh!

> Or hell, even paying for the development of specific features that you
> particularly need. The trouble with this one is that
>
> * Usually there's only one or two specific features a given customer
> needs. Once those are done, no revenue stream.

Not necessarily. SAP helped Shell configure their system for offshore 
logistics. Then sold the solution to other oil companies as an Industry 
Solution. They did the same with Rolls Royce Aero-systems and created an 
expensive IS-Aero module. Which they sell to aircraft companies. (That 
is the system that will be able to tell the investigators of the MH370 
crash. Which aeroplane the flaperon came from.)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7/31/2015 7:47 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
 >
 > Selling "support" also works. Provided you have the staff to actually
 > deliver support.
 >

The sector I work in, often supply the software customisation at what 
they hope is break even prices. To get the support contract.

 > Or just a licence to download any and all new versions that get put out
 > in the next X months. Keep paying if you want new stuff.
 >
 > Or paying to have a customised version of the product. (But that's sort
 > of tantamount to saying "our product is so hard to set up, you need to
 > pay us to do it for you". Not a great thing to say!)
 >

Shhh!

 > Or hell, even paying for the development of specific features that you
 > particularly need. The trouble with this one is that
 >
 > * Usually there's only one or two specific features a given customer
 > needs. Once those are done, no revenue stream.

Not necessarily. SAP helped Shell configure their system for offshore 
logistics. Then sold the solution to other oil companies as an Industry 
Solution. They did the same with Rolls Royce Aero-systems and created an 
expensive IS-Aero module. Which they sell to aircraft companies. (That 
is the system that will be able to tell the investigators of the MH370 
crash. Which aeroplane the flaperon came from.)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 31/07/2015 09:56 AM, scott wrote:
> >> I've read scuttlebutt about M$ moving Windows to a SaaS model, but I
> >> fail to
> >> understand how this could possibly work.
> >
> > Locally you'd have an OS that was stripped down to just run Remote
> > Desktop (or equivalent) and interface with your hardware. When you
> > logged on it would start a remote desktop session with an MS VM
> > somewhere. *Assuming internet speeds were fast enough* you wouldn't
> > notice the difference to running full windows locally.
>
> The more I look at the IT world, the more cyclic it seems to be.
>
> There was a time when you bought the biggest, most powerful mainframe
> that money could buy, and all the users sat at dumb terminals logged in
> to the giant monster in the middle.
>
> And then everybody said "hey, putting a single desktop at each person's
> desk means you can more easily add and remove computer power depending
> on staffing levels, equip different people with different versions of
> software, etc."
>
> And now everybody's like "hey, it's a pain to manage multiple individual
> desktops. Let's virtualise everything to get a bigger return on
> investment..."
>
> And so the industry continues to alternate between centralised and
> decentralised. Because, frankly, each has different pros and cons; it's
> just that every decade or so people forget the pros of one and forget
> the cons of the other.
>
> > The benefits are obvious (a machine that has all your files and looks
> > the same no matter where you log on, an almost limitless supply of CPU
> > power and RAM if you wanted to do CPU intenstive tasks, automatic
> > backups for everyone, etc)
>
> I think you mean "we can give you less and less CPU and RAM while still
> charging the same amount of money for it, so you will continually have
> to give us more money or suffer horrendously unusable system response".
>
> And then of course, you have the problem that each morning, you log into
> your desktop, and there's a 50% probability that the software will have
> changed, and you can't prevent it changing. Already we see every time
> Facebook changes the colour of a button, somebody creates a page
> entitled "if one million users Like this page, Facebook will turn the
> button colour back to how it was before". [Erm, no they won't honey.]
> Imagine if every day, all your software could be deleted and replaced
> with something else that you didn't ask for or want.
>
> To say nothing of the privacy and confidentiality issues of having
> Microsoft have access to every file you ever create. (I doubt too many
> corporate types would like having their propriety data on a hostile 3rd
> party server.)
>
> > Their big problem will be the medium-large corporations that take
> > months, if not years to test and roll out major software updates. There
> > is no way they would accept the possibility of one day their entire
> > company coming to a halt with millions of pounds lost due to an MS
> > "update" that has broken something somewhere within their business. Also
> > a lot of systems are not connected to the internet for various reasons,
> > how would they work?
>
> They also have a problem with SOHO setups where people wouldn't know
> what "computer security" is if it hit them in the face.
>
> Why no, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?

The difference between a company with a gigantic mainframe that all the
employees log into from a single campus and the idea of Windows as a Service, is
a pretty big one, IMHO.

Now we have people whose office is the world.  They take their computers into
the field where they sometimes won't have internet access for days on end, and
when they do, it's in some third world country over a satellite feed that has
limited bandwidth.

Then too, at what point do you think that the governments of the world will
become comfortable with their internal communications being stored -- even
temporarily -- in the buffer of someone else's computers? Personally, I think
they'll go back to using typewriters first, but realistically, they'll probably
just switch to linux.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:47:14 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Selling "support" also works. Provided you have the staff to actually
> deliver support.

The problem with this is that if you're selling support, your product is 
poorly designed and difficult to use.

If you're a software company that depends on support and training as 
bottom-line revenue figures, you're doing software wrong IMHO.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message