As an ISV moving to PaaS, you need to understand what choices are available to pick the right one. The Cloud Computing, Saas and PaaS market map is a good high-level view, but does not go into enough detail. To understand PaaS vendor positioning we need something more.
Phil Wainewright has a good five-layer PaaS model on the Software as Services blog that is more helpful. Phil splits the PaaS market into the following five layers:
- Do-it-yourself. You build your applications with whatever tools and architecture you want. You select, buy and run the hardware to support your SaaS solution.
- Managed hosting. You have full control of the software, but you leave the hardware to a specialist hosting provider. They make some of the hardware decisions, but you are still responsible for most of the technical decisions.
- Cloud computing. Utility providers transform compute and storage into abstract services that you use and pay for on-demand. An abstraction layer hides the hardware details so your SaaS solution can use simple APIs.
- Cloud IDEs. These vendors say you should develop web applications in the same environment you will deploy them. Professional developers use cloud IDEs to design, code, test, deploy, support and maintain SaaS solutions. They bring the SaaS pay-as-you-go model to the complete development lifecycle.
- Cloud application builders. These go further and focus on specific classes of application with comprehensive frameworks of standard functionality. The cloud application builders are intended more for power users than professional developers.
I think that Phil’s five-layer model is a good basis for understanding the PaaS market and its vendors. I will use these layer names on paasTalk.
Coming up…
Phil also asked readers which of the five layers they would prefer to use to build SaaS solutions. In part two of this article I look at how the results match the needs of European ISVs building SaaS solutions for their vertical niche.
What do you think about these five PaaS layers? Is this a good way to classify PaaS vendors? Please share your views in the comments…
Permalink |
Trackback
Tags: cloud-application-builder, cloud-computing, cloud-ide, diy, isv, managed-hosting, paas, phil-wainewright, saas
4 responses to “If you can’t tell PaaS vendors apart, use this five-layer model to classify them”
Very interesting blog, and quite useful to understand the needs of European ISVs contemplating this approach. My question to you is, within Europe, who would buy these services? Are ISVs the primary customer? Bigger companies who don’t want to deal with IT but have a special project need?
I’m curious to hear how you think this will evolve in Europe.
Thank you again, and I’ve enjoyed your blog.
@Bob,
Thanks for your comment and welcome to paasTalk.
There are many ISVs in Europe that focus on specific vertical niches. Many of these started in their home country and have expanded over the years into other countries, often using resellers.
These ISVs face big challenges with SaaS, as it means changing much of what they have been doing in the past, both business and technology. SaaS also lowers the barriers to entry for new competitors to storm into these vertical niches.
To survive in the SaaS market ISVs must change in many ways. Instead of building platforms and supporting technology, they will buy external services. This will be difficult for ISVs who have in the past resisted third party components.
ISVs must focus on using their domain skills to build exciting and convincing SaaS solutions. This will be a challenge for many ISVs who like to think that have been adding value with their technology. Many customers see it differently, however, and will seriously consider simpler and cheaper SaaS solutions.
So to get back to your question, I think the main market for PaaS in Europe is with ISVs.
Over the last 15 years or so I have seen the number of large organisations with in-house developers drop dramatically. Those with in-house IT must maintain legacy systems and have little to spend on new ideas like SaaS.
I do not see such in-house developer being big adopters of PaaS. They will buy in services to meet specific needs. Whether those services come from Salesforce.com, niche ISVs or large SIs will not matter so much.
PaaS is a great opportunity for ISVs that can leave developing in-house platforms and technology behind. Those ISVs that can make the leap will have a good future in front of them. They can (finally) concentrate on their domain and buy everything else they need as a service. They can get new SaaS solutions to market more quickly and quickly improve to meet customer needs.
Those ISVs that try to take a wait-and-see approach are at a much greater risk. They will see their old market quickly dry-up as unexpected (to them) competitors steal their customers away…
Andrew.
Andrew,
Thanks for responding, and I have to say I’m a bit surprised, but then again I don’t know the European market that well. In the US where you have an established ISV with an established application that is sold in a traditional manner, the decision to shift strategy to a PaaS offering to re-build their solution is a pretty big deal, and not one I would think many would jump to right away, but that’s the US market. I see the market in the US being for PaaS being the startup ISV, as well as the enterprise. It’s still a young market though, and lots of time to change.
Thanks again for your perspective.
Regards,
Bob
Bob,
I agree that start-up ISVs can and should build their SaaS solutions using PaaS from day one. I think it is also interesting to sell PaaS to existing ISVs that have on-premise products and customers. These ISVs have proven domain knowledge and that is the key skill ISVs must show.
As you say, PaaS is a big leap for existing ISVs (as we see with SAP and Business ByDesign). Even so, I am convinced ISVs have no choice if they want to survive. They can milk the maintenance stream for some years, but not for ever.
Helping existing ISVs adopt PaaS to build SaaS solutions is my focus here on paasTalk. It will be difficult, but challenging and I hope rewarding.
Regards,
Andrew.