SaaS窘境[欣赏然后翻译之]
?Piaoger按：
還是SaaS窘境，只不過這次是翻譯了一篇不錯的英文Blog，翻譯的過程很苦，有些地方至今也還覺得生澀，慢慢改吧。
不過怎么說，收獲良多，無論是SaaS，還是Disruptive Innovation, 抑或English。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SaaS窘境
Software as a Service (SaaS) presents a classic “disruptive innovation.” Of course, in 2010 that’s not new news.
軟件即服務(SaaS)展示出經典的”破壞性創新”。當然，在2010這并不是什么新聞。
-
What is remarkable is how closely the SaaS market’s evolution matches the definition of a disruptive technology that was described by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemma (he later replaced the term with “disruptive innovation” in his subsequent book, The Innovator’s Solution). In fact, the SaaS dilemma that incumbent software vendors currently face is playing out almost page-for-page from Christensen’s books. As a result, we can use the disruptive innovation framework to gain insight into what’s to come in enterprise software.
值得注意的是，SaaS市場的進化與哈佛商業學院教授Clayton Christensen在The Innovator’s Dilemma一書中破壞性技術的定義是如此吻合(在其后的The Innovator’s solution一書中，他改為破壞性創新)。事實上，處于主導地位軟件廠商現在所面臨的SaaS困境在Christensen的書中幾乎可以得到完全演繹。正因為這樣，我們可以借助破壞性創新框架以探討企業軟件所要面臨的處境。
-
After a decade of deriding SaaS technology as too simple, functionally incomplete and insecure, vendors such as Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and thousands of incumbent “on-premise” software vendors are now embracing SaaS. It’s an awkward embrace – one that threatens to cannibalize existing revenue steams, divert resources and eat up profits.
在多年嘲笑SaaS技術是如此簡單、功能匱乏并且不安全之后，Microsoft、Oracle、SAP和成千主導的” on-premise”軟件廠商正在接受它（這是一種令人難堪的接受：它危及收入流、轉移資源并吞噬利潤）。
-
Of course, the innovator’s dilemma doesn’t destroy every incumbent. These incumbent market leaders are powerful, resilient innovators themselves. But for armchair quarterbacks like us, this the next five years will present a fascinating game to watch.
當然，創新者窘境并會不毀滅所有的主導者。這些主導市場的領導者本身就是強大和堅韌的創新者。但是對于我們這些紙上談兵的人來說，今后的五年給我們準備了一場精彩的好戲。
-
What is a Disruptive Innovation?
何為破壞性創新？
Disruptive innovation refers to new solutions – often technologies – that through a new delivery model, alternate pricing model or target market segment are able to disrupt existing competitive dynamics dramatically. For example, SaaS offers a new delivery model (i.e. hosted “in the cloud”), a new pricing model (i.e. subscription) and initially targeted smaller customers.
破壞性創新與新的解決方案（通常是技術）相關，通過一種新的交付方式、可供選擇的收費模式或目標市場細分有可能戲劇性地破壞當前的動態競爭。例如，SaaS提供了新的交付方式（即托管在“云中“）、新的收費模式（即訂閱）而且起初總是面向更小的客戶群。
注：動態競爭
http://wiki.mbalib.com/wiki/%E5%8A%A8%E6%80%81%E7%AB%9E%E4%BA%89%E7%90%86%E8%AE%BA
-
Initially, these disruptors target the least profitable customer segments – typically smaller or unsophisticated buyers. These are the only customers whose requirements are limited enough to accept the bare bones feature-set of the new system. Meanwhile, they appreciate the new model (i.e. it’s cheap and easy to get started). We certainly saw this in SaaS as small businesses or autonomous departments adopted customer relationship management (CRM) systems like Salesforce.com as early as 1999. For them, SaaS CRM was “good enough.”
起初，這些破壞者面向利潤最薄的客戶細分（通常是小眾或菜鳥級的購買者）。新系統中少的得不能再少特征集，就能滿足他們的需求。比較而言，他們喜歡這種新的模式（便宜而且易于上手）。在SaaS 中，我們的確看到，早在1999年就有小業務或自治部門就采用了類似于Salesforce.com的客戶關系管理（CRM）系統。對他們來說，SaaS CRM足矣。
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The disruptive innovation cycle applied to SaaS-----------------------------------------------------------------
Over time, however, disruptive innovators improve their performance and feature-set and can meet the needs of more sophisticated customers. Combine that with a little buzz around their new model (e.g. everybody’s talking about cloud computing these days), and the incumbent vendors start to take note. Of course, the incumbent still has plenty of ammunition to dismiss the new technology, since it remains functionally deficient relative to incumbent products and the most demanding customer segments (e.g. SaaS penetration into the ERP market remains limited).
然而，隨著時間的推移，通過提升性能和增加特征，破壞性創新已經可以滿足更多高級客戶的需求。何況，還有圍繞著新模式的嘰嘰喳喳（比如這些天每個人都在談論云計算），以及主導廠商也開始關注。當然，主導者依然有充足的彈藥去擊退新的技術，因為在同主導產品相比和大多數要求嚴格的細分市場來說，它在功能上依然有缺陷（比如，SaaS依舊很難打入ERP市場）。
-
I’ll posit that SaaS is now entering the penultimate – and most contentious – stage of disruption. At this point, the innovators start to gain serious momentum. Their products approach functional parity and they begin to steal substantial market share. The incumbents finally get serious about defending their traditional markets by releasing their own version of the innovation (in the case of SaaS, that means true web-based, on-demand, cloud computing, not just hosted client/server software). Unfortunately, it is often too late. Incumbents remain apprehensive about cannibalizing existing revenue and they face challenges replicating the innovation. Typically, most incumbents stagnate, decline and fade into obscurity. Only a few nimbly transition to the new model.
我將假設SaaS正在進入倒數第二（也是最容易引起爭議）的破壞階段。這時候，創新者開始具有非同小可的動能。他們的產品接近于功能對等并開始偷偷獲得實質性的市場份額。主導者終于緊張起來，通過發布創新版本來保護他們的傳統市場（假設SaaS意味著真正的基于網絡、按需、云計算，而不僅僅是托管的Client/Server軟件）。不幸的是，這通常都太晚了。主導廠商擔心會影響到他們的當前的收益，同時還要面臨復制創新的挑戰。一般來說，大多數主導者都會停滯不前、墮落并消失在昏暗之中。僅有少數主導者能夠敏捷地轉變到新的模式。
-
The innovator now becomes the incumbent and new innovators emerge. The cycle repeats.
這些創新者現在變成了主導者，然后新的創新者出現。周而復始。
-
SaaS Disruption Battles are Well Underway
SaaS破壞之戰還在繼續。
Christensen mentions Salesforce.com in his second book, The Innovator’s Solution:
This company, with its inexpensive, simple, Internet-based system, is disrupting the leading providers of customer relationship management software, such as Siebel Systems.
Christensen他的第二本書The Innovator’s Solution中提到了Salesforce.com：
這個公司，以它廉價的、簡潔的和基于因特網的系統，正在破壞客戶關系管理軟件的領導提供商，比如Siebel Systems。
-
I worked at another leading CRM vendor back when Salesforce.com was just a start-up. I remember meetings where executives derided the system as a toy. Most Salesforce.com implementations were just a half dozen users and most customers paid their subscription fees with a credit card (Gasp!). Since then, Salesforce.com has exceeded $1 billion in revenue and incumbent market-leader Siebel Systems sold out to Oracle after hitting tough times.
在Saleforce.com剛剛起步的時候，我在另外一家居于領導地位的CRM廠商工作。我記得在會議上，管理層總嘲笑這個系統只是個玩具。大多數Saleforce.com的實施，就那么幾個用戶，而且大多數的用戶都用信用卡支付訂閱的費用（Gasp!）。從此，Salesforce.com已經擁有超過10億美元的年收入，而市場的主導廠商Siebel System卻陷入困境而出售給Oracle。
-
While Salesforce.com in the CRM market is the best example, the SaaS dilemma is playing out in numerous software markets. Gmail and Google Apps are nascent yet serious threats to Microsoft’s Outlook/Exchange and Office cash cows. We use both of the Google services extensively. NetSuite is a contender in enterprise resource planning (ERP), but hasn’t dented SAP or Oracle too badly as of yet.
Salesforce.com在CRM市場是最好的例子，與此同時，SaaS窘境還在許多的軟件市場延續。尚乳臭未干的Gmail和Google Apps威脅著Microsoft的Outlook/Exchange和Office現金奶牛。我們普遍使用著這兩種服務。NetSuite是企業資源管理（ERP）的競爭者，但還沒有能危及到SAP或Oracle。
-
Most interesting, however, is how this same battle is being waged by innovators in so many lesser followed market segments: SaaS construction project management, SaaS electronic medical records, SaaS property management, SaaS retail point of sale. The list goes on…
然而，最有趣的是，同樣的戰爭，創新者在眾多少擁有較少跟隨者的細分市場將如何開戰：SaaS 建筑項目管理、SaaS電子病歷記錄、SaaS財產管理、SaaS零售賣點管理。名單還在變長ing。。。
-
Most SaaS Shortcomings are Addressed
SaaS被詬病的缺點
As I mentioned earlier, I believe we are entering the final stages of SaaS disruption. The SaaS model and its proponents have not defeated the incumbents, but SaaS solutions have reached functional parity to the point where incumbent derisions are starting to fall on deaf ears.
正如之前所提到的，我相信我們正在進入SaaS破壞的最后階段。盡管SaaS模式和它的擁護者還沒有擊敗主導者，SaaS解決方案在功能上的對等已經達到了可以無需理睬主導廠商嘲笑的程度。
Let’s examine each of the top five objections to SaaS:
讓我們逐一審視反對SaaS的5個最大的理由：
??????? 瀏覽器的交互性不夠。當Web程序需要整頁刷新以完成事務，這是事實，但是JavaScript，AJAX，Adobe Flex和其他Web UI技術的成熟可以解決這個問題。HTML5將了結這個問題。我發現我的SaaS程序比任何” on-premise”程序都快并值得依賴。
??????? 托管的數據不夠安全。這一點常讓我迷惑，因為如此多的人早在十年之前就已經習慣了網上銀行。很少的系統能夠比金融交易更有價值。更況且，很少有軟件購買者有能力實現與具有與專業的SaaS數據中心同樣的安全基礎設施。
??????? 不可能集成SaaS。誠然，很少的SaaS提供商開發API，并且沒有針對SaaS的中間件。如今，API集成到SaaS程序還不是一件小事，但是它不會有” on-premise”集成更難。我本來應該知道的；我們剛剛成功完成了SaaS市場提供商Marketo的集成。
??????? 無法定制SaaS系統。再次聲明，事情正在改變。盡管許多SaaS程序依然被完整 “打包“，但很多廠商已經成功把它們定位為benefit（即”提供最佳實踐“）。同時，SaaS定制工具正慢慢成熟。Salesforce.com已經建立了一整套開發環境：force.com.
??????? 大公司想擁有軟件，而不是出租。盡管這在某些情況下依然是事實，但是在這個經濟體系中中，訂金的可續性是非常有吸引力。它使得廠商有更多責任去爭取未來訂金。我不相信，這對大企業來說會展示出具備強有力的競爭力。
Incumbents are Now Challenged to Counter SaaS
面對SaaS，主流廠商飽受挑戰
Now that SaaS vendors and incumbents are locked in a real battle – the gloves are off and incumbents are releasing their own SaaS systems – our analysis turns to the big challenges that incumbents will face. Let’s examine the five most significant characteristics of SaaS systems, and then explore why they are great for SaaS purists and a real challenge for incumbent on-premise vendors.
現在，SaaS廠商和主導者卷入一場真正的戰斗中（手套已經摘掉，主導者正發布他們自己的SaaS系統），我們的分析轉向主導者將面臨的巨大挑戰。讓我們審視SaaS系統最顯著的5大特性，然后解釋為什么對SaaS擁躉是很棒的，而對主導的” on-premise”廠商則是一個真正的挑戰。
| Great for SaaS companies | Tough for incumbents | |
| Browser-based | They can promote the benefits of not installing and maintaining client-side software. Plus anyone can use a web browser! | Moving to a web-based architecture is a near-complete rewrite. "Web-enabled" options are temporary, at best. |
| Subscription pricing | Not needing to justify a big purchase up front means fewer approvals and fewer risk-averse buyers to assuage. Also, great recurring revenue. | This is the core cannibalization issue: moving to subscription pricing will stall growth and maybe lead to revenue declines for some time. |
| Multi-tenant architecture | With all users on one codebase and database, changes are made in one location, but roll out globally. Also, computing resources are shared. | With thousands of installs, it's impossible to consolidate. There are incremental benefits to multi-tenancy, but the legacy customers remain. |
| Rapid release cycles | With changes being made to one codebase/database, releases can be rolled out weekly, even nightly. More releases = better products. | The quarterly, bi-yearly or annual release cycle is deeply ingrained in the DNA of an on-premise development organization. |
| Bought by business, not IT | It's far easier to sell to business units with their own budget, without the need for IT approval or budget. Faster sales cycles = growth. | IT relationships are a core advantage of incumbents. With SaaS, those relationships are less relevant - a competitive barrier is lifted. |
-?
| Great for SaaS companies | Tough for incumbents | |
| 基于Web | 無需安裝和維護客戶端軟件。而且每個人都用瀏覽器。 | 遷移到基于Web的架構相當于重寫。“可網絡化“選項只是最多只是暫時的。 |
| 訂閱付費 | 無須為大采購預付款進行辯解，意味著需要更少建議，和更少的風險厭惡者要去安撫。同時還代表著常續的收入 | 這是一種同室操戈：轉向訂閱可能減緩發展并可能導致收入下降 |
| 多租戶架構 | 由于所有用戶使用同一套代碼和數據庫，一處改變而全局批量更新。同時，計算資源是共享的。 | 數千個安裝是不可能去合并的。盡管多租戶有這些好處，但歷史用戶還在。 |
| 快速發布周期 | 由于所有用戶使用同一套代碼和數據庫，每周都可以發布更新，甚至是晚上。更多的版本發布=更好的產品 | 一季度、半年或一年的發布周期已經是” on-premise”開發機構根深蒂固的DNA了。 |
| Bought by business, not IT | 讓每個商業分支使用自己的預算變得容易，而無需IT批準或者預算。更快的周期=成長 | IT關系是主導者核心優勢。利用SaaS，這些關系就沒那么無法避免（一個競爭壁壘并解除）。 |
?
? It’s Not Over Yet – Not Even Close
戰斗還沒有完-甚至還沒有接近尾聲
Microsoft, Oracle and SAP still own the large enterprise market and the SME market. In hundreds of niche software markets, on-premise incumbents dominate. Even ten to fifteen years into the evolution of SaaS, SaaS vendors still possess minimal market share relative to incumbent vendors. While still powerful and often growing, all of these incumbents face the daunting challenge of SaaS disruption. Moreover, each of the major incumbents has started in earnest on credible SaaS offerings.
Microsoft，Oracle和SAP依然擁有很大的企業用戶市場和中小型企業（SME）市場。在數百個利基軟件市場中，”on-premise”主導還處于支配位置。盡管在經歷了10到15年的進化后， SaaS相對于主導者來說，依然只能擁有很小的市場份額。當它們依舊強大且繼續成長，所有這些主導者都正視SaaS破壞挑戰的恐嚇。此外，主導者已經開始認真地提供可靠的SaaS。
Note: 利基市場指向那些被市場中的統治者/有絕對優勢的企業忽略的某些細分市場，指企業選定一個很小的產品或服務領域，集中力量進入并成為領先者，從當地市場到全國再到全球，同時建立各種壁壘，逐漸形成持久的競爭優勢。 選擇一個細分的消費群體，獲得最大的邊際收益
-
Microsoft has released Microsoft Dynamics CRM Online – the first Dynamics family application to be offered in a SaaS model. Microsoft has also released Microsoft Office Online as a counter to Google Docs.
微軟已經發布了Microsoft Dynamics CRM Online （第一個以SaaS模式提供的動態系列應用）。Microsoft還發布了Microsoft Office Online以對抗Google Docs。
-
Oracle, meanwhile, continues to grow its Oracle OnDemand solution set. While much of Oracle OnDemand consists of managed services for traditional on-premise solutions, their SaaS CRM offering (acquired through the Siebel deal) is true SaaS. So too are other solutions they acquired in recent years.
同樣，Oracle還在增加它的Oracle OnDemand解決方案集。Oracle OnDemand包含了為傳統” on-premise”解決方案所提供的可管理服務，而他們所提供的SaaS CRM（通過收購Siebel）則是真正的SaaS。他們近年來收購的其他解決方案也是如此。
-
Finally, SAP’s Business ByDesign appears to be a pure SaaS, on-demand offering that is operating independently from the SAP mothership. Our own conversations with SAP employees have shown that the company is maintaining an arms-length relationship with the Business ByDesign team so that this in-house “start-up” can truly function as a nimble SaaS entity, unconstrained by SAP’s on-premise legacy.
最后，SAP的Bussiness ByDesign看起來是一個純粹的SaaS，按需交付、與SAP母艦獨立運作。在我們與SAP員工的交談中可以看出，SAP與Business ByDesign 團隊保持一定距離，以便使這個機構內部的 “Start=up”能夠作為敏捷的SaaS實體運作，而不必拘泥于SAP的” on-premise”傳統。
-
If the disruption examples and case studies in Christensen’s book are a guide, we can expect to see a massive number of incumbent vendors stall, fade and become irrelevant over the next decade. Others will deftly navigate the transition.
如果破壞的例子和Christensen書中的個案研究具有指導意義，我們會看到大量的主導者廠商在下一個十年內停滯不前，消逝然后變得毫不相關。其他的主導廠商則能敏捷地完成遷移。
In our comments section below, I’d like to start a conversation about which incumbent vendors will fade and which will transition. Please share your opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?原文：
?http://www.softwareadvice.com/articles/enterprise/the-software-as-a-service-dilemma-104071/
Piaoger后記：
On-premise沒有硬譯，它是與On-demande相對應的一種模式。
上一篇與SaaS/Disruptive Innovation相關的文章是從Adobe Subscription editions扯到破壞性創新
轉載于:https://www.cnblogs.com/piaoger/archive/2011/04/18/2020269.html
總結
以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的SaaS窘境[欣赏然后翻译之]的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。
- 上一篇： 推荐算法（一）电影推荐系统
- 下一篇： OpenDDS-1