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.
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.
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.
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.
Huge.
I can imagine it's even more so for things like financials.
Do you happen to know if the 'no one gets fired for buying IBM' attitude has changed significantly in big enterprise markets ?