How Complex Can SaaS Offerings Get?
It’s common place to equate Software as a Service with CRM, HR, or other “business function” style implementations. Although these implementations are not simple by any means, they generally do not require the computational rigor of an offering that performs complex mathematical analysis or photorealistic 3D rendering. In fact, it’s rare to hear that a company is pursuing this sort of “non-traditional” SaaS offering.
A recent discussion across two blog posts (this one and this one) sparked an interesting discussion about the viability of the SaaS model in the computer assisted design (CAD) space. The discussion revolved around issues like data access and security, but an important takeaway is to highlight that discussions are cropping up regarding application types that were traditionally considered “desktop only”. We see people discussing CAD, and even Adobe talking about bringing Photoshop online.
It’s my opinion that almost any application can be brought online these days, and that making those applications work well is a problem whose solution is rooted in good software engineering. SaaS offerings need not be restricted to applications that serve only horizontal business functions, but can branch out into non-traditional verticals such as CAD. I would even go as far as saying that in many cases, online versions may “out feature” and “out value” desktop counterparts. Take CAD for exampe: can every architecture and design firm afford servers that can perform photorealistic rendering? Probably not, but you can bet that a SaaS provider along with a massive render farm can give that sort of value to anyone on earth.
Do you feel my take on this is too agressive? Is it too early for traditional “heavy” client offerings to move to the SaaS model?
Â
Links
View Technorati Links
SaaSBlogs Tags
Tagged with: ISV • SaaS • SaaS Benefits • SaaS Drawbacks • SaaS ISV • SaaS Vendors • Scalability • Tenant Value




I share your vision: there is no reason for any software app to be on-premise.
However, the industry tries to rationalize why it should go saas. So the first class of apps to go saas was CRM, and the formal “excuse” for going against the mainstream (i.e. being on-premise) was that sales people were mobile and needed access from anywhere.
CAD, BI (like LuucidEra), and my company, Panaya, which runs computing intensive code analytics on a grid to provide impact analysis of changes on SAP systems, probably belong to a class of companies which has a new “excuse” - our apps are computing intensive, and therefore it doesn’t make sense for each customer to have its own infrastructure required by the app.
Nevertheless, I call it an “excuse” rather than a reason, since the fundamental reason for becoming saas (and my motivation to have my product this way) is relevant to any software company: to make my product easier to consume and distribute and by that to allow high growth of the company.
Yossi Cohen, founder and CEO, Panaya Inc. – Impact analysis for SAP.