David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

Platforms for SaaS Applications: Which Approach Will Win?  
# Tuesday, February 26, 2008
 
The next great application platform battle is taking shape. As more and more applications are created that provide software as a service (SaaS), it makes sense to provide a common platform on which to build these applications. Just as traditional on-premises applications depend on the platforms provided by Windows, Linux, and other operating systems, developers of hosted SaaS applications should also be able to build on a common foundation.

It's way too early to know who's going to win this battle. Most likely, there will be a handful of dominant SaaS platforms a few years from now, just as there are a handful of dominant operating systems today for building on-premises applications. But it's not too soon to think about what kind of platform is likely to win.

Two approaches to SaaS platforms are appearing. One style, SaaS-only platforms, focuses solely on supporting applications that run in the cloud. The marquee example of this is Salesforce.com's Force.com, which has attracted a significant number of application developers. The second approach aims at providing a common platform for both SaaS applications and on-premises applications. Microsoft has announced plans to do this, and other vendors are also moving in this direction.

Of these two approaches, the second--a common platform for SaaS and on-premises applications--is likely to win. Here's why:

  • Extending existing on-premises technologies to a SaaS platform means that developers don't have to learn entirely new skills and new development tools. Instead, there's a ready-made population of people who already know the basics of how to use the SaaS platform. The creator of a SaaS-only platform, by contrast, faces the challenge of teaching developers how to use whatever new tools and technologies it provides. Force.com, for example, has its own programming language, called Apex, that developers need to learn. While Apex isn't especially complicated, using it is certainly more work than writing in languages that developers already know such as Java or C#.

  • Using the same basic technologies for both a SaaS platform and an on-premises platform lets ISVs and end users more easily move their applications from one environment to the other. While the two worlds might not be exactly the same, they ought to be similar enough that SaaS applications can be brought in house without too much pain and vice-versa. Providing this flexibility is likely to be attractive to many potential users of a SaaS platform. Contrast that with a SaaS-only platform, which supports solely applications that run in the cloud. If moving an application in-house makes sense for any reason, the only real choice is to rewrite it.

Providing a common platform for SaaS and on-premises applications is harder than creating a purely SaaS platform (or a purely on-premises platform, for that matter). After all, a platform built solely for SaaS applications can focus entirely on the problems those applications face. Targeting both worlds requires addressing the requirements of each while still providing more or less the same programming environment.

Still, the advantages of offering a common technology foundation for both platform styles are clear. Five years from now, I'm betting that the dominant SaaS platforms will largely provide the same programming environment as their on-premises cousins.



2 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Hi David !

Very interesting post. I'm currently struggeling with choosing between these exact choices for a new SaaS offering.

I Find that the problem of choice no. 2 (even though this is my preferred scenario due to the same reasons you mention) is that I cant find any "environment" that provides the basic multi-tenant offerings force.com does - ex. company/user management / security / extendability etc. I have to build all this (the multi-tenant architecture) ourselves.

Maybe I do not have enogh knowledge of the market/offerings - but does such a platform exist : "We provide the hosting and multi-tenant infrastructure and serviecs for your application - you just have to bild the business functionality" ? I don't know - If you do please let me know :-)

Michael Libens
Director
ProVize www.provize.dk
mll@provize.dk
 

You might take a look at Microsoft's recent CRM Live offering. It's built on the same Dynamics CRM software as the on-premises product, and it includes a platform that provides similar services to those in Force.com, including support for multi-tenant applications. It's a quite new technology, however, so it doesn't have the track record that Force.com has built up over the last couple of years.
 

Post a Comment


<< Home