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

Why Cloud Computing Splits Enterprise and ISV Developers  
# Monday, February 04, 2013
 
Up to now, building custom enterprise applications for in-house use was much the same as building packaged applications that were sold to enterprises. Whether a developer worked for an insurance company or an independent software vendor (ISV), her skills could be similar. Moving between the two often didn’t require much retraining.
Increasingly, though, that’s no longer true. Developers who work for ISVs now need different skills than developers who create custom applications for enterprise users. And the change is caused by cloud computing.
In the pre-cloud era, applications built by both enterprises and ISVs were designed to serve users at a single organization, either the enterprise itself or a customer of the ISV. Accordingly, those applications were built to be moderately scalable and to run on servers inside the organization’s datacenter.
For enterprise developers, the rise of the public cloud doesn’t fundamentally change this. True, custom applications used by the organization's employees might run their server logic on a public cloud platform, such as Windows Azure or Amazon Web Services, but the target user population remains the same. Because of this, the application’s scalability and reliability requirements are also the same.
For ISVs, however, cloud computing has given rise to Software as a Service (SaaS). A SaaS application serves users at many customer organizations from a centralized instance of the software, which means it must be much more scalable than a traditional enterprise application. Since it serves so many users, the application must also be more reliable—a failure affects everybody, not just the users at a single customer. And handling many customers means that the application must be multi-tenant, able to separate data and more for all of the organizations that use it.
Building this kind of scalable, reliable, multi-tenant application is significantly more challenging than building traditional single-tenant software. As a result, enterprise software developers won’t typically create applications like this. Why waste the effort? But the ISV world is shifting rapidly to SaaS, which means that ISV developers do need to face this challenge. The result is that enterprise developers and ISV developers need different skill sets today because they need to build different kinds of applications.
As technologies get more diverse, the people who work with those technologies must get more specialized. The split between enterprise and ISV developers, rooted in the rise of SaaS, is just one more example of this general principle.


2 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

David, I have a question for you. In this post you assumed that SaaS has to be multi-tenent, why? Additionally, I think the skills gap can be bridged until true cloud PaaS standard is established, thru the use of IaaS+ Application Server with Application VM? What do you think? Really appreciate your insight.
 

You're right: SaaS doesn't necessarily have to be multi-tenant. It usually is, though, which is why I see this as a common distinction between ISV and enterprise apps going forward.

To me, an app server in a VM isn't enough to paper over the differences between a SaaS app and an enterprise app. The differences are just too great. And the arrival of a true cloud PaaS standard is at best years away. A more likely outcome is that no such standard every really takes hold, leaving a fragmented world where a few PaaS platforms from different vendors each have some degree of success.
 

Post a Comment


<< Home