TL; D.R.1: a myth can be true in some conditions and false in others
TL; D.R.2: I saw a holivar - take a closer look and you will see people who do not want to hear each other
Reading another article written by biased people on this topic, I decided to give my point of view. Maybe someone will be useful. Yes, and it’s more convenient for me to give a link to the article instead of telling a lot.
This topic is close to me - we create contact centers, offering them according to both models, whichever is best for the client.
SaaS in this article refers to the software distribution model, when the server is located in a public cloud, and users connect remotely, most often via the Internet, via a web interface.
By on-premise in this article we mean the software distribution model, when it is installed on the client's server, and users connect locally, most often using the windows application interface
Part one. myths
Myth 1.1. SaaS is more expensive on-premise
Myth 1.2. On-premise is more expensive than SaaS
SaaS vendors often say that the cost to start using their software is much lower. Only X dollars per user per month. Much cheaper than XXX on-premise.
On-premise vendors multiply the SaaS price by many months and say their software is cheaper. They even draw graphics. Wrong.
The wrong schedule does not take into account that the price of licenses is not everything. There is also the cost of setting up. And the cost of education. And the price of mistakes of undertrained employees. There is a price for the admin who services the server. There is a price for upgrading the server and repairing a burned-out PSU or HDD. In short, straight lines do not work either there or there.
In the reality, cheaper or more expensive depends, for example, on the length of the period when no big changes are expected. For example, when our client knows exactly how many people he needs and what they will do, on-premise is more profitable for him. If a contact center is a kind of experiment for him, he is better off choosing SaaS. Moreover, change one to another, if that is possible with us without losing data.
So which is cheaper? For some cases it's one thing, for others it's another.
Myth 2.1. SaaS is more secure on-premise
Myth 2.2. On-premise is more secure than SaaS
Our clients are divided into two large, approximately equal groups. Some say “so that my data is somewhere on the Internet? God forbid! What if evil hackers hack, steal or delete? No, let them be on my server, here, in my office. Others: “so that my data is here in the office? God forbid! A friend of a fire, theft or a mask show? No, let them be somewhere on the Internet.
In reality, security is a multifactorial concept, the location of the server is just one of many factors, it is not serious to say that one is safer than the other.
So which is safer? For some cases it's one thing, for others it's another.
Myth 3. SaaS is poorly customizable
In theory, for on-premise, you can add in the code what you need for a particular client. In practice, this will lead to an increase in the number of versions. Escort costs will skyrocket, and no one tries to do anything like that. Instead, some config is loaded and the application of any kind will configure itself.
In the reality customizability depends on the maturity of the software and on the foresight of the developer. And not from the method of distribution.
So what is better for customization? In some cases it's one thing, in others it's another.
There are other myths that are less popular. But just as wrong. But for now, for illustration, these will suffice
Part two. holivar
There is such a thing as the "Muller number" - the number of entities that we can operate on. 7+-2. Everyone has their own, in stress it can decrease up to 1.
If there are many entities, we begin to simplify and generalize. Here lies the catch - we simplify and generalize each in our own way, and we use the same words.
In general, in any holivar at least one of two errors is visible. And more often both at once:
1. Different meanings of the same words
For example, for someone twice cheaper = better. Because it only needs to be used once. And the other looks, due to which the price is such, and sees that shnyaga was made using the dendro-fecal method, which is unacceptable for him. Better for him = more expensive, but okay. Then they argue, forgetting to clarify what is meant by "better".
2. Not everyone is ready to see another person as ANOTHER person and admit that he has his own goals and priorities.
For some, technical characteristics are important, and for others, ease of use. It’s really more important, in his situation it’s uncomfortable = “I’ll earn less money a month” or “I’ll be irritable and growl at my family”. It is important for him to overpay a few percent of his income for many hours of good mood for his wife and children. And someone lives on his own, an extra few hundred dollars are important to him, but there is no one to piss at home. If these two do not want to hear each other, then meet a holivar like "Mac vs Windows" or something like that.
By the way, “they don’t want to hear each other” is very often the MOST main reason for holivar. Unfortunately. As soon as they want, it turns out that they can shrug their shoulders, say “well, yes, in your case so” and change the subject.
Have you noticed this? Or, on the contrary, did you notice something else?
Source: habr.com