Comments on: Is multi-tenancy more important than just cost savings?

By: Throwing Around the Term "Multi-tenancy" Isn't Helpful | SaaS Blogs

Throwing Around the Term "Multi-tenancy" Isn't Helpful | SaaS Blogs — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:52:10 +0000

[...] to get that out before starting – there are plenty of posts that deal with this topic (one, two, three, etc.). Instead, I want to tackle a different issue: the issue of what multi-tenancy means in a [...]

By: Is Multi-Tenancy a prerequisite for SaaS? « Managing Software Development

Is Multi-Tenancy a prerequisite for SaaS? « Managing Software Development — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 04:06:35 +0000

[...] http://www.saasblogs.com/2009/04/24/is-multi-tenancy-more-important-than-just-cost-savings/ [...]

By: Is Multi-Tenancy a prerequisite for SaaS? - Is Multi-Tenancy a prerequisite for SaaS?

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:12:48 +0000

[...] http://www.saasblogs.com/2009/04/24/is-multi-tenancy-more-important-than-just-cost-savings/ [...]

By: Abe Sultan

Abe Sultan — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:23:44 +0000

@Matt & @Sameer,

Both great points; we’ve written about the SaaS benefits several times before but this post summarizes some of the key benefits.

Cheers,
Abe Sultan

By: Sameer

Sameer — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:45:06 +0000

You are right Matt, SaaS is not only about the TCO, its more about the ‘value’ – and not only for the provider but also for the consumer.
There are so many factors which could determine the cost but still we only talk about the architectural styles.
I am asking the same here – Yet another SaaS debate

Thanks,
SC

By: Matt MacKay

Matt MacKay — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:57:14 +0000

SaaS is much more than just cost savings. It allows for creative pricing models that can provide a steady recurring revenue stream and it facilitates data aggregation. There is a good description of SaaS benefits at the bottom of the site http://www.metrisoft.com.

Thanks,

Matt

By: Thomas Lukasik

Thomas Lukasik — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:23:43 +0000

Sinclair.. for you to write “opening up an API could unleash massive benefits in trade for a possibly reduced security model” and then immediately follow with “I’m not advocating trading features for security” then you are obviously conflicted. Enough said.

By: Sinclair Schuller

Sinclair Schuller — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:51:01 +0000

Great stuff from everyone! Russ, to clarify a couple of things, I do agree that there are other things that make multi-tenancy valuable, but my discussion is purely around single instance, multi-tenant. Virtualized tenancy can still accomplish things like reduced new account activation costs and operating costs when compared to other models. As for rolling out updates, a mechanized/automated approach across instances is also possible. My goal was to target benefits that are difficult to replicate in other architectures like virtualized tenancy approaches.

Thomas, we’ll have to agree to disagree on some of these issues. I don’t see your approach as practical. For example, it’s common now to open up secure APIs to your business applications, trivializing functional access to core business functions and opening up the door to integrations capabilities. This is how the world works. Is it more secure to never open up an API? Yes. But if done right and with a small controlled surface area, opening up an API could unleash massive benefits in trade for a possibly reduced security model. I’m not advocating trading features for security. That’s an absurd suggestion, I’m just pointing out that you can “open things up” and allow for trivial use of complicated topics without some massive sacrifice on the security side, that’s all.

As for salesforce.com, you’re trivializing their (and most) column based implementation. Many good (caveat being good) column segregated multi-tenancy models leverage things like role/user based view filters, credentialed access to indexed ranges, optimized indexes for querying, and full lockout on underlying datasets. All of this is on the back of column partitioned data, but it’s not ‘only the value of column x’ protecting data. I’m sure some folks have built multi-tenancy with simple column filtering and a bunch of SQL WHERE clause filters in their application code, but those bad examples don’t justify trivializing or dismissing an entire implementation practice.

By: Thomas Lukasik

Thomas Lukasik — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:29:39 +0000

@russ

>> “I think things need to be kept a bit simpler when discussing benefits of multi-tenancy.”

I completely agree. There are so many safer and better arguments for SaaS adoption than “de-segregation can be trivial”, including those that you’ve pointed out: reduced costs (that can be passed on to the Cloud consumer) and frictionless updates without up-charges.

By: Russ Hertzberg

Russ Hertzberg — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:14:07 +0000

I think things need to be kept a bit simpler when discussing benefits of multi-tenancy.

Seems like there are at least two major end customer benefits to Multi-Tenancy. First, the SaaS vendor has reduced operating costs for infrastructure and the new account activation process, which could lead to lower activation and monthly subscription fees. Second, the SaaS vendor can upgrade the application and it’s supporting platform software to all tenants instantly, leading to faster delivery of fixes, enhancements, and major new functions.

So some end user benefits of multi-tenancy are lower software costs and faster availability of fixes and new features.