Microsoft's licensing policies are driving on-demand ISVs to open-source alternatives. Even its latest acquisition, bought to fold into its own 'live' services, runs on Linux.
Software as Services
In the best-informed blog on software-as-a-service and on-demand business applications, Phil Wainewright cuts through the vendor spin, analyzes the trends to watch and adds his thought-provoking insights.
Since 1998, Phil Wainewright has been a thought leader in cloud computing as a blogger, analyst and consultant.
I am frankly bemused that anyone seriously believes Microsoft or anyone else is going to fund their on-demand applications from advertising revenues. The idea is complete bull.
Today's announcement of Microsoft's "live era" is a holding operation. Announcing an offering that doesn't exist yet is a ploy to buy time while the vendor brings it into being.
If Google bought Rearden Commerce, as one analyst has suggested, it would derail the latter's strategy of conquering the corporate market first on its path to world domination.
Old-school software developers believe that creating great software is a service for which they should be rewarded, year in, year out. On-demand vendors know they have to give users more.
Bugs in on-demand applications get fixed fast, sometimes in less time than you'd spend just holding to get through to tech support at on-premises vendors.
Take it from me, no one in their right minds who has a choice will ever voluntarily opt for an exclusively hosted desktop.
There are two tiers to the on-demand market: services designed for access via an API, and applications that assemble those services for the benefit of users.
People are used to the idea of paying by the minute for their phone services. It's the ideal platform for introducing the notion of payment for online content and services.
Steve Ballmer believes a 'short twitch' innovation cycle is once every nine months. For an on-demand vendor, that's not a short twitch cycle, it's a death twitch cycle.