Rurik Bradbury

Now Is the Time to 'Rip and Replace' IT Thinking

Interesting argument (and I agree with you on SOA) but in general I think the opposite is true: now is NOT the time to rip and replace.

First, with shrinking budgets, the resources are not there to replace complex, customized systems with new alternatives. Consultant time and expertise must be paid for in order to transition, and the money is not available.

Second, the replacement technologies are not yet ready for primetime. Even forgetting the standard CIO objections like security, data access, uptime etc, SaaS and the cloud cannot handle the complexity and custom requirements of most enterprises. SaaS providers succeed by offering standardized, one-size-fits-all, mass appeal services (I know this first hand having built one of the largest SaaS providers, Intermedia) because that's how they gain economies of scale. So handling these custom requirements is not a good business model for them.

In fact, that's where the SaaS/cloud hype falls down. One-size-fits-all business models are what SaaS companies do well, yet enterprises need custom code. Platforms like Force.com that allow custom code start to get expensive (because custom code is always expensive) -- but they ALSO add the downside of proprietary SaaS platform lock-in, so enterprises are WORSE off than when they run their own custom systems on-premise.

I think SaaS is at a peak of inflated expectations and we're in for a 2009 of disappointments, blow-ups, failed projects, important data leaks and maybe some SaaS provider failures (eg Entellium) which leave customers high and dry.

If that's the case, then 2009 is definitely NOT the year to be dumping functioning legacy apps...

Rurik

Google: Telecom-Funded Study Can't Be Trusted

Consumers pay for Web access. They can (theoretically) shop around for the best prices. Google pays for huge amounts of Web access. They can (definitely) shop around.

If a broadband supplier to Google's datacenters thinks its customer is paying too little, they can try to charge them more. Then Google can switch broadband suppliers -- which it will.

If a broadband supplier to consumers (eg Verizon, AT&T, Comcast) thinks its customers are visiting Google 17 times too much, they could perhaps try to levy an extra surcharge on consumers for each visit to Google.com. Let's see how consumers, Obama and the FCC react to that...

This whole report is totally bogus. As a consumer, all I want from my telco/cable co. is a dumb, neutral pipe with maximum bandwidth for minimum price. The reason the broadband suppliers are fighting this tooth and nail - via fake research and other means - is that being a dumb pipe reduces them to a commodity and lowers their profits.