What PaaS Isn’t: An Application with an API
For some time, I thought I was alone in battling the cloud taxonomy war. With SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, RIA, etc. being tossed around on a regular basis, I often find myself looking for clarification when it becomes obvious that someone’s definition and understanding of one of these acronyms is different than mine and those that share a similar view as my own.
Given my relationship with SaaSGrid, the one that hits closest to home is ‘platform’ and PaaS. I bumped into a great read by JP Morgenthal that attempts to build some understanding around PaaS. Morgenthal asks whether or not simply having an API makes a web application a ‘platform.’ Does it? No. As Morgenthal points out, it seems difficult to justify Facebook as a ‘platform’ if it doesn’t act as host to application code, but simply exposes an integrations API. Unfortunately, we see folks throw platform and PaaS around all too loosely. If we think about desktop applications, it would be awkward to refer to Microsoft Word as a “word processing platform” or an “office tools platform” simply because it has an API. Some do it on occassion, but everyone is comfortable calling Word an application. Furthermore, Microsoft never made silly claims like “Write the next Word on Word” or “All desktop software will be written on the Word API”. It has it’s place in the world. However, everyone is comfortable calling .NET, or Java, or the JBoss Application Container ‘platforms’ because beyond having APIs, they act as hosts to guest software. I would say this is critical minimum criteria in claiming to be any sort of platform.
My guess is that marketing departments found that using ‘platform’ makes everything sound bigger and better. It’s not a sales management application, it’s a ‘sales management platform’. It all reminds me of a bet by the Royal Chemistry Society: they are battling the marketing folks that have used the word ‘chemical’ as negative spin in hopes of boosting the image of ‘natural, chemical free foods.’ They basically claim that the word ‘chemical’ has been misused in a very harmful way, teaching people that ‘chemicals’ are bad. In fact, all foods have ‘chemicals’ and being ‘chemical free’ is an absurd claim created by marketing departments. ‘Platform’ is a little more ambiguous than this, but the spirit is the same.
Do you agree that platform and PaaS are often misused? Does it seem to you that the word ‘application’ is falling out of favor as a proper description for standard, non-host software?
The SaaSBlogs group on LinkedIn now has 1400+ members and it’s growing every day; make sure you are not missing out and join today.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
“Do you agree that platform and PaaS are often misused?” – YES – that Facebook is a good example of the “fast and loose” “fake platform marketing”. AND you can blame the moron VCs for promoting this hype.
I’ve found Marc Andreessen’s classification of platforms in to three different levels to be helpful when thinking about internet platforms: http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/09/the-three-kinds.html
Access API == Level 1 Platform
Plug-In API == Level 2 Platform
Full Runtime Environment == Level 3 Platform
Levels 1 and 2 are APIs. His Level 3 can be be cleanly distinguished as a ‘platform’. Best platform examples: operating systems of many types and database management systems of many types. Force is a trend setter in PaaS and we will see in the long run whether most of the ‘applications’ built on Force are just add-ons to Salesforce CRM or broader business applications.
Hi Russ,
The problem with Force is that it was borm from extracting “platform” functionality from Salesforce.com’s CRM application so its capabilities are limited to the extent of a CRM extension API with the goal of enhancing Salesforce.com,
Granted since Force was launched and announced it has grown to a more general purpose platform but it still has many limitations that make it a hard choice for an ISV trying to develop their application if it has nothing to do with CRM.
Cheers,
Abe
Russ, I’m in agreement that Andreessen’s first two levels are APIs and don’t really need to be described as ‘platforms’.
As for Force.com, I lean in Abe’s direction. What makes me shy away from calling it (Force.com) an all out platform is that while it is a runtime environment per se, it’s very diluted. Am I going to make complex analysis software or an online 3D rendering engine to deliver ondemand? Probably not. It fits a niche, and some could argue it might fit that niche well (CRM-focused runtime).
Unfortunately, as per Andreesen’s post, everyone and everything is a ‘platform’ as soon as they open up an API, making the whole topic very confusing!
Abe and Sinclair, thanks for these clarifications and additions. I am wondering if it is also useful to distinguish between 1) classic platform technology and 2) systems or applications which become ‘platform like’ as a result of effective API evangelism. In this sense any popular application API which is well evangelized, and develops a large stable of API integrated 3rd party ISV solutions, begins to experience ‘platform like’ competitive benefits in it’s particular marketplace, where the wide range of bolt on solutions provides desireable network effects. This may very well have been a key rationale for Force in the beginning.
As I try to come up to speed on SaaSGrid, the approach of being an extension to .Net strikes me as also having the potential of providing the most positive network effect in the dev community…and many in that community may want the most advanced and immediately available alternative in the near term. Seems like the titanic player there tiptoes into the space trying to carefully manage the financial impact of a business model change as a public company.
Personally, I wish you guys had been around 3-4 years ago. See these ’10 easy steps’ and you may understand why.
http://blog.saasrealist.com/2009/01/22/become-a-saas-realist-in-these-10-easy-steps.aspx?ref=rss
Best,
Russ
Russ,
Thanks for the follow up. Good point regarding the evangelization of a technology forcing ‘platform-esque’ network effects from a business model perspective.
This notion plays well with the idea that spin has co-opted the platform definition.
PS: The 10 Easy Steps post is great stuff given that it’s “from the trenches”
Russ,
Thanks for the follow up comment, I think you are right on with your platform distinction.
As the industry becomes more aware of choices like SaaSGrid and comparable solutions, it will be harder and harder for the look alikes to continue calling themselves platforms or whatever the standard term is at that point in time.
In the meantime the more information that can be made available on the difference of the models the more it helps the cause!
Cheers and keep up the great content,
Abe
“Do you agree that platform and PaaS are often misused? Does it seem to you that the word ‘application’ is falling out of favor as a proper description for standard, non-host software?”
I completely agree that the term platform and PaaS are often misused. The Rearden Personal Assistant, with which we are seamlessly integrated, is a true platform in the original sense. ExpenseWire is an expense management SaaS application. While we are integrated with a host of partners, we are still a SaaS application. Thank you for setting the record straight.
True but misues mostly by the sales and marketing department to make sentences in ppts and brochures look nice and trendy. The difference is clear to the people who work with technology daily like architects and specialists.
I was reading through some articles on Microsoft MSDN site. In some places they refer to WSS as a set of API’s and foundation to build a we application and MOSS 2007 as a single and integrated application. There are also places where they refer to SharePoint as a platform. I think neither WSS nor MOSS is a platform because they both sit on top of .net framework.
But even if you have yourself a level 3 platform. If it is not used no one will call it a platform. I am sure that in a few years time it will have another name.
Does a customer really care how you call it?