[vasaulys]

Isn't it unfair to think of Saas as a classification of software a la "word processing software" and more as a business model?

Like, nobody sets out to build a page that will host ads. One builds the product and then later settles on a way to get revenue. I've always thought of Saas like this, just another potential business model to follow.

[tcskeptic]

From an Enterprise perspective (and I'm in the belly of the fortune 50 beast at a division level ~10bn/yr mfg) SaaS discussions internally aren't really about data security -- they're about lock in and leverage by the vendor. For anything of a certain level of criticality SaaS is just too much vendor leverage. Enterprise software licensing is a vicious lawyer on lawyer battleground with deeply unethical behavior and brinksmanship regularly displayed on both sides. If you think I want to give any of those vendors the possession of my server and data during a dispute, you're nuts. The enterprise SaaS model seems fundamentally flawed.

[briancl]

The challenge is to provide more value than the alternative. Enterprise SaaS works where it makes sense, and it doesn't where it doesn't.

[tonyedgecombe]

On the other hand some users/departments within enterprises see SaaS as a way to escape the IT department lock-in.

[some-guy]

I think the classification has less to do with the technology itself, but rather boils down to the fact that enterprise software is hard to switch internally as an employer because of red tape. If I'm a 50,000-employee company and have used BigEnterprise Inc's non-cloud HR software for 20+ years, it's really really hard to switch to a new solution for something like payroll or HR. Also if the old software keeps working, and everyone is used to it, why switch?

A lot of large companies however are so fed up with on-premise enterprise that they are willing to make the switch. That said, new cloud-based companies aren't making nearly the same profits that BigEnterprise Inc is on their old systems. SaaS has thus become a keyword for these smaller cloud-based "disruptors", even if it is technically possible for BigEnterprise Inc to move to the cloud.

[AndyNemmity]

Many Enterprise companies have cloud options, and they still aren't viable because leadership is risk adverse to having their data outside of their ownership. This is especially true regarding laws in various jurisdictions.

I work in Enterprise Software and speak to 100s of C level leadership. People aren't "fed up" with on-premise enterprise. They aren't refusing to switch due to it being difficult.

I mean, this is an interesting conversation we could take in a lot of directions, but I wanted to clarify that I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here about enterprise software.

Same is true of SaaS, it's not a keyword for these smaller cloud-based software. It's a literal description of your ownership of the service.

You are right that there is less margin in cloud vs. on-premise, but that's true of BigEnterprise's software and offerings as well.

What you're saying fundamentally makes sense as a theory, but in practice I think the reasons and thoughts just have different outcomes.

And this isn't just software, this is also for hosting the hardware as a whole.

[simula67]

> People aren't "fed up" with on-premise enterprise.

Do you happen to know if the 'no one gets fired for buying IBM' attitude has changed significantly in big enterprise markets ?

[kristianc]

UrbanCode is still absolutely huge and IBM will be serving that market segment for some time.

[warfangle]

There is a huge amount of red tape to any SaaS to store PII.

Huge.

I can imagine it's even more so for things like financials.

[sdesol]

> A lot of large companies however are so fed up with on-premise enterprise

Is this anecdotal or is there some number behind this? When I was developing internal tools for massive companies, cloud was never an option. Red tape is definitely a given with large companies, but some of the red tape were a necessity to meet ISO certification and other regulatory needs.

[nol13]

Well it's usually not an option, but if they pay enough money for it it and have an SLA then it might still qualify as enterprise grade.

[7952]

IT departments can be a lot like cloud providers anyway. The big enterprise HR system may well not be controlled by the actual HR department. It will be a shadowy service at the end of a network cable with a "helpdesk" for support. It may be good or bad but that actual user has little control either way. Vendor lock in at its worse!