• Software as Disservice

    by  • July 22, 2007 • Jargon & Curiosities • 3 Comments

    I have come to the conclusion that, far from liberating consumer’s and businesses, the whole ‘Software as a Service’ movement, is inherently disempowering to users.

    thinclient3

    Firstly, some definitions. In referring to ‘Software as a Service’ (SaaS) I include Application Service Providers (ASP’s) because, although the ASP model is seen as inferior in service to the more recent SaaS model, they both essentially do the same thing… they process data outside the client’s PC as a service. This idea has steadily gained momentum and along the way has become associated with ‘Web2.0-Think’. Tim O’Reilly et all, talk of ‘Web as a Platform’ and ‘Software above the Level of a Single Device’ and consequently, ideas like this have been jumped on by companies like Microsoft who have tried to co-opt the movement by coining new cool sounding terms like CloudOS which is really just another Microsoft euphemism for continued world domination… Visualize Steve Ballmer chanting:“developers, developers developers, developers!”

    msquote

    The anomaly that I see, is that the broad SaaS trend is fundamentally at odds with the massive investment consumers and businesses have made and continue to make in computer processing power, and Web2.0’s ‘Architecture of Participation’ is built on that processing power. The extent to which the Web2.0 movement have actually embraced the SaaS model as serving some undeniable user benefit is unclear and therefore to assume so, could potentially be misreading the situation. However, the reason I am drawing the parallels here is that it is an issue that needs to be cleared up. ‘Software as a Service’ inherently serves the interests of vendors as much as, if not more than end-users by attempting to make users dependent on licensing technology and services rather than owning them and maintaining those competencies in-house. Chris Anderson and Tim O’Reily et al talk of the ‘Long Tail’… Steve Ballmer talks of “selling to the Long Tail”.

    In my view, this goes all the way back to Hotmail. In the early days people used a hotmail account only when traveling or for non important or ‘anonymous’ email. Of course many students and ordinary folk used hotmail as their primary email account and that fed its stunning growth. However, it was also a curse, as I noted in an earlier post (Putting P2P in Perspective – April 22 2006) even Bill Gates freely admitted that:

    “…over half of what goes through (the hotmail servers) is actually mail that’s spam that people are not interested in receiving.” - Bill Gates

    The trouble is now, as I found out the other day when helping a friend with her new Mac, that webmail is the only kind of email that some people know about. My friend simply had no idea that there was any other kind of email! She has never used a proper email program, has never had a proper email address and had no idea what I was talking about when I said:

    “With a real email program, you download your email and it stays on your computer, including the files you receive, like pictures, PDFs etc. So, you don’t have to go online to review all the emails you have received”

    She had no idea… To her, when you check email, you have to go online and log onto Hotmail and that is the only way to get email or to review old emails. She is clearly not an early adopter, obviously. She in fact is what marketers call “a lagard”, but if you look at the product adoption curves for market growth on the web you will know that she is far from alone. This is where the disparity becomes evident. She is able to afford the latest iMac, (easily) but the little ‘Mail’ icon in the tool bar is a foreign area for her. She’s got an abundance of processing power and storage space, she only ever checks email from that PC, but the market has trained her to depend on a third party for a service as basic as email… I think she has been disadvantaged.

    Now, consider Salesforce.com and such sites. They want everyone to throw away their in-house software and migrate on mass to the quasi ‘thin-client’ approach and use their software instead of yours. This trend is pushed heavily by web2.0 entrepreneurs and the venture capital industry because its a business model that keeps ‘control’ with the vendor and keeps the client having to come back time and time again to that vendor for a service that in earlier models may have meant sporadic or once-only purchases. It also provides the ‘multiplier’ to shore-up the business model. So, where does the benefit really lie, and who’s really driving this model, consumers or vendors?

    The ‘Software as Service’ doctrine is that it is a: “low-cost way for businesses to obtain the same benefits of commercially licensed, internally operated software without the associated complexity and high initial cost.” (wikipedia) However, in many ways its a model that is also at odds with the service enabled by P2P applications like Skype, where users individually and collectively power the software that underwrites the service. This undeniable trend (eDonkey, Limewire, Bittorent) is pointing in the opposite direction, as it utilizes each consumer’s capital outlay in PC processing power and bandwidth. So… What is so ‘web2.0′ about Software as Service? This is web2.0 vendors in service of themselves, arguably.

    3 Responses to Software as Disservice

    1. March 21, 2009 at 9:05 pm

      Below are previous comments made by users at previous blog URL:

      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

      Well said….unfortunately even a rubbish idea sometimes has life and money will be thrown at it….people will follow for a while.
      Some companies would love to take away your desktop power again…I doubt they will succeed…a Mac, OSX and free open source apps. equals the most powerful machine on the planet…
      add: a clever person with a great idea.

      Posted by Anonymous Anonymous | Mon Jul 23, 08:47:00 PM

      – – – – – – –

      The mob will also have a thin client iPhone.
      They will ask it for a solution and it will get the network to perform a function and deliver the answer. The iPhone needs only to know how to listen and talk
      (to the user and network).

      Posted by Anonymous Anonymous | Tue Jul 24, 05:16:00 AM

      – – – – – – –

      Who is the “Mob” in your scenario? Do you mean a vendor or consumer Mob? …and the iPhone would make a very Fat thin-client! If anything the iPhone is a mobile device that has the processing power to do a lot of stuff that other normal phones might struggle to achieve.

      Posted by admin | Tue Jul 24, 05:54:00 AM

      – – – – – – –

      The mob means (to me) the millions of people that will be on buses and trains at school etc. expecting to be able access all sorts of network functionality easily…
      They will willingly pay ($1) per week for an SaaS assisted interface that gives them that …
      1 million people x $1 = …:-)
      Looks like the iPhone might be called a hybrid client…can do a bit of both.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_client
      And it runs a (cutdown) Mac OSX….sweet. It will no doubt gain greater power in later versions.
      Wiki says we will get it in Q1 2008
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
      ….can’t see how they know that, but I will be in line…and developing HMI for same til then.

      Posted by Anonymous Anonymous | Tue Jul 24, 01:02:00 PM

      – – – – – – –

      maybe they are taking us for a ride in keeping so much in house, but as long as the experience works for us, then why the hell not. I don’t buy your argument on unused processing power. You don’t buy a computer to run the fastest but to do stuff that’s useful for you. Sure P2P is the most efficient distribution but client/server works too.

      Posted by Anonymous james | Mon Sep 10, 03:05:00 AM

      – – – – – – –

      James,

      “I don’t buy your argument on unused processing power. You don’t buy a computer to run the fastest but to do stuff that’s useful for you.”

      I think you have answered your own comment… If you just use a computer to do stuff that’s useful to you, then there’s going to be a lot of unused processing power.

      Client-Server works… of course, but it retains the ‘power’ separate from the user.

      Posted by admin | Mon Sep 10, 08:17:00 AM

      – – – – – – -

    2. Edward bartolli
      April 8, 2011 at 9:51 am

      Your statement about the woman not knowing anything but web mail is not due to a market re-education by web mail companies. its due to the market education of a mac user. mac philosiphy has always been make it simple, make it dumb, make it restricted and we should avoid problems. heck the primary reason behind the 1 button mouse on a mac for so long is because they believed two buttons would confuse the user. the hidden control click was for “advanced” users.

      Your baiting statement on twitter about “can PC’s run iOS?” shows your lack of knowledge in this area aswell. Its not an incapability of PC systems to run mac but a licensing issue. Mac make Mac computers and the Mac OS and only allow the use of the Mac OS on Mac computers. This being said it is very easy and quite common place between educated users to run the Mac OS as a secondary OS either virtually or as a primary OS on a secondary computer.

      You are also missing many points of cloud computing. Thin clients are generally sold much cheaper than standard business machines, can have embedded OS’s further reducing costs, have lower computing requirements and can therefore run with a much lower power requirement and can also help reduce carbon footprints of businesses. The push to consolidate by virtualisation was the beginning and cloud takes it a step further by removing the need for the initial infrastructure outlay. Cloud also enhances the ability to fully utilise distributed work forces.

      Saas and thin clients are already in the banking sector. Take a trip to you local Westpac and use their customer kiosks. Thin cliens offering purely online services.

      This is the future where you computer can be as small as your phone, run for days without charge and still utilize the massive processing power available in the cloud, all whislt flying across the globe.

    3. April 10, 2011 at 7:00 am

      Edward, interesting observations. However, for the record that woman was a long time PC user who had only just bought her first Mac, but had used web-mail for years. – I think your insights into Apple’s strategy and hardware design betray more than a little anti-Apple bias. It would be more true to say that Apple has always been obsessed with the aesthetics of simplicity in product design, not because the company thought their users were stupid or easily confused, but that they (Apple) were basically Design zealots. My “baiting statement” as you called it, was part of an ongoing (light hearted) tit-for-tat with an old friend who loves to poke fun at mac users. I’m sure you and he would get on well.

      Regarding cloud computing, I understand and know the spin associated with SAAS. Yep, many worthy organisations (like Westpac) have utilised the natural economies inherent in the thin-client approach, but I stand by my observations about this branch of computing in that it is not in the best interests of ordinary users and more leans to the self-interest of a sector of software vendors and Businesses that want to effectively rent services. One only has to look at the massive swing toward downloadable Apps that is being driven in the mobile space to see that saas is not where consumer growth and interest is burgeoning.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *