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

Gartner's 2014 MQ for PaaS: Organizing the Chaos  
# Friday, January 31, 2014
 
I don't envy the Gartner analysts whose job it was to put together their new Magic Quadrant on PaaS. Even defining PaaS is challenging--different vendors provide quite different offerings--and so figuring out how to position this diverse bunch on an MQ couldn't have been easy.

Figure 1.Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Application Platform as a Service

The only easy part is choosing the leaders: Salesforce's Force.com and Microsoft's Windows Azure. Unlike Gartner's latest IaaS MQ, which put Amazon off by itself in the upper right corner, the PaaS MQ (correctly, I think) indicates that nobody's really that far ahead in the PaaS market.

What's most interesting to me, though, is Gartner's decision to put Salesforce well ahead of Windows Azure. This perhaps stems directly from the MQ's stated focus: It's for enterprise PaaS applications. An MQ focused on ISV PaaS apps might well have put Windows Azure ahead of Force.com, while one balanced across enterprise and ISVs would likely have shown them neck and neck in the leader's quadrant.

For enterprises, though, the MQ's authors put substantial weight on the easy-to-use graphical tools that Force.com provides for building applications. Windows Azure PaaS is oriented toward lower-level development using C# or JavaScript or some other programming language. None of this is outside today's enterprise development world, of course, but these technologies do require a higher level of developer skill than Force.com. In Gartner's terminology, Windows Azure provides a high-control developer experience, while Force.com provides a high-productivity environment. ISVs are more likely to opt for control, which can make Windows Azure a more attractive choice for them.

As Gartner points out in the report, however, Microsoft also offers a direct competitor to Force.com with xRM. Available both in the cloud and on-premises with Dynamics CRM, xRM offers the same kind of graphical tools that the MQ's authors admire in Force.com. Yet for reasons I've never understood, Microsoft doesn't push xRM as a cloud platform. One likely path to improving Microsoft's position in this MQ is to change this, making clear that Microsoft offers a high-productivity environment alongside Azure's high-control approach.

In giving Salesforce the lead, Gartner puts a lower priority on the risks of cloud lock-in, an area where Windows Azure outshines the cloud-only Force.com. And the report only briefly mentions a benefit of Force.com that I'd argue has been critically important to its success: the ability of Force apps to easily use data that's already stored in the cloud. Once an organization buys into Salesforce.com CRM, as so many have, they're obliged to keep lots of interesting information in the cloud. If the organization then wants to build new enterprise applications that use this data, the obvious home for that new code is Force.com. Unlike the other vendors in this MQ, Salesforce's SaaS success drags its PaaS platform along with it.

A few more thoughts:
  • Putting Google as a challenger just outside the leader's quadrant must have been a tough call. Still, I think this is exactly right. App Engine is still too narrowly focused, especially for an enterprise-oriented MQ, to qualify as a leader today.
  • Some inconsistency seems unavoidable in putting together an analysis covering such a diverse market. For example, the report says that "The combined selling of Google Apps (SaaS) and Google Cloud Platform (IaaS and PaaS) is a promising business opportunity", listing this under Strengths for Google. For Microsoft, however, Gartner observes that "Spreading its efforts across a wide range of IaaS, PaaS and SaaS offerings dilutes focus", listing this as a Caution. Which is it? Is offering all three varieties of cloud service good or bad? The answer, I suppose, is that it depends on how well a company does it.
  • And finally, where is Amazon's Elastic Beanstalk? Perhaps it doesn't qualify as PaaS from Gartner's perspective (a view that I would dispute), or perhaps Amazon chose not to participate in the MQ. Whatever the situation, Amazon has historically been the best in the cloud industry at figuring out and quickly filling customer needs. The company's apparent lack of emphasis on PaaS says something interesting about its view of the prospects for this market.




0 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Post a Comment


<< Home