(re-post from Josh Greenbaum's blog) A fascinating display of ping-pong! I must admit that early on I was much of a multi-tenant purist - the mathematics is too tantalizing. And if you're just starting out developing a cool app - that's definitely the way to go (that's what we did!). Phil often states the advantages of multi-tenant architectures, and no one can argue with them, it's better all around. But unfortunately, business is not that clean cut. The purist approach of "multi-tenant or die" appears to ignore the impact of the transition for an existing ISV with all its legacy code, infrastructure, and revenue streams to deal with. And let's not forget shareholders and the BoD! There needs to be a middle ground that can provide some of the advantages of the Cloud without re-writing a company's balance sheet overnight. Keep in mind that for a consumer to gain value from a vendors software, that vendor still needs to exist and be financially viable.
Never has a dogmatic or purist approach to any new technology been relevant over the long haul. (Ask all those folks who thought the 68000 architecture running OS-9 was the "better solution"....it was! But who cared? Wintel won.) Look over your teller's shoulder at Bank of America and you'll see a DOS client running virtualized on WindowsXP connected to a mainframe...and it's 2010! Is that an optimal solution? Traditional ISV's are vulnerable to upstart SaaS vendors, and a single-tenant approach is a way to strengthen their position and provide added value to their customers. Will it immunize them against these competitors? No. Is it the ideal solution for everyone? No. Will it work? Yes. And that's all we really care about. Having said all that, it's only through these debates that the overall course that we're on as an industry is improved and enhanced. Let the ping-pong continue!
Discussion on:
Message 8 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
