Comments on: Are There REALLY Multiple Strategies for ISVs?

By: links for 2007-11-21 « The Adventures of Geekgirl

links for 2007-11-21 « The Adventures of Geekgirl — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:19:18 +0000

[...] Are There REALLY Multiple Strategies for ISVs? (tags: saas isv) [...]

By: Sinclair Schuller

Sinclair Schuller — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:16:48 +0000

Anshu,

I stand corrected. I interpreted your approach as not recognizing market needs. I should have realized that not mentioning long term needs did does not imply you didn’t find them important;-) I should mention, however, that I do agree that there are many ways to implement SaaS – multi-tenant, single instance is just one way (which tends lean toward efficiency)

Ben, tightly siloed areas – yes. Distinct -�to a degree. I think that a lite version allows for targeting a different market (which is where the concept of “distinct” should be) while maintaining a relationship and alignment with the primary offering.

By: Ben Kepes

Ben Kepes — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:45:46 +0000

I don’t entirely agree that Bob’s suggestion is the same as your “lite”concept. My contention is that ISV’s need to create tightly siloed areas to create SaaS within. But to be effective these need to be distinct from their primary offering – as such it is more of a SaaS diversification model than a SaaS lite one

By: Anshu Sharma

Anshu Sharma — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:10:12 +0000

I did not suggest that ISVs should not consider long-term market needs. I mostly agree with you (and Phil) that there is a wide range of choices available today – and that one particular architecture (multi-tenant single instance) may be the most suitable choice for many. I also believe that this may not be the case for some – including ISVs that primarily cater to large enterprises deploying complex business processes.

There will still be a substantial (but minority) number of SaaS ISVs using alternative architectures for SaaS in the long-term.

Of course, history will be the judge.