Why Enterprise Software Sucks • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#191

Post by Plyphon_ » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

ridaj wrote: post #152

freddie_mercury wrote: post #20

I think this gets it wrong. The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. If you look at all of the most successful software of all time they are the complete antithesis of the Unix…

No, this does completely get it right. Enterprises thought they needed all the control and security features of Blackberry until the iPhone came along and made the UX gap unsustainable. Enterprises thought they needed on-premise hosting of Exchange, Office and SharePoint instances under their control for email and productivity, until GSuite came up with a better, less configurable user experience based on consumer fe…

In enterprise the incentives are all wrong - individuals who are decision makers for enterprise software/networking/security/etc have an incentive to make their job as complicated as possible so they can be promoted or build their empire through hiring new resource to keep on top of the complex web they've built

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#192

Post by jasode » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

freddie_mercury wrote: post #169

bhauer wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same reaction. I was wondering, "Since when are Word, Excel, and Photoshop enterprise software?" I've been using these as consumer desktop software for decades. That said, I do agree with GP that enterprise software is complex because it's designed to be adaptable to existing processes, whereas simpler software seeks to adapt the user to its prescribed process. And even without being an enterprise, I often…

> Since when are Word, Excel [...] enterprise software? Since Word 1.0. Why do you think it is called Microsoft Office ? The 1989 edition of Microsoft Word cost $500, equivalent to over $1,000 today, for a single seat. That's not consumer software. Microsoft Home didn't exist until 1993, a decade into Office's life, when it had achieved complete enterprise dominance -- thanks largely to its competitors' failure to re…

>Why do you think it is called Microsoft Office?

Some friendly fyi of MS history...

Microsoft didn't use the "Office" branding until 1995. Before that, the computer industry called it "productivity software" instead of "enterprise software". In the 1990s, other software companies (like Borland and IBM) were bundling word processors + spreadsheets + presentations + databases into an "office suite" for a lower package price.

In the 1980s, Microsoft Word was competing with WordStar and WordPerfect and those were all consumer software for personal computers. Consumers could go into an office supply store and buy shrinkwrapped boxes of those software titles. They didn't need a purchase order from corporate accounting to buy an "enterprise volume license". And consumer magazines like PC Magazine and PC World would run articles comparing MS Word to WordPerfect, etc.

Yes, a Fortune 500 corporation today can buy a enterprise volume licenses of MS Office (or Office 365 cloud subscription) but MS Word's roots definitely included the consumer sector. I don't think the example of MS Word fits the author's idea of "enterprise" software.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#193

Post by ken » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

freddie_mercury wrote: post #20

I think this gets it wrong. The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. If you look at all of the most successful software of all time they are the complete antithesis of the Unix…

I don't buy it. I've worked at a Fortune-100 company with "complex and unique workflows", and we used plenty of customized enterprise software, and they were the worst systems you ever saw -- both before and after our customizations were implemented. The best ones were those where we completely replaced the native UI, and the only reason we weren't running our software against a plain database is legacy momentum.

You're either so big you're essentially doing custom development (or should be), or you're small enough you can't afford that and use whatever you're given with minimal tweaks to the UI.

I believe it's possible to make software that's both good, and flexible enough to stay good while avoiding complete custom development, but it's incredibly rare, because the 'users' in that case (i.e., local developers) are twice removed from the sales process.

"We have complex and unique workflows and need to customize the software to our needs" is simply another excuse used by executives to buy crap that users will hate.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#194

Post by shadowgovt » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

sambeau wrote: post #153

freddie_mercury wrote: post #20

I think this gets it wrong. The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. If you look at all of the most successful software of all time they are the complete antithesis of the Unix…

Companies like Basecamp and Trello are here to prove that assertion wrong. Basecamp is in every fortune-500 company more than once and never officially. Why? Because you don't need IT to approve it first and it's price is just under what most managers can stick on their company credit card. One of Basecamp's mottos is "Do Less". It's also worth pointing out that the simpler the software, the more likely it is to fit…

> It's also worth pointing out that the simpler the software, the more likely it is to fit in with more companies' workflows

The problem is that's not a continuous function. Leave out specific features and you lose entire industries.

Incentives are not aligned for enterprise software authors to lose entire industries.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#195

Post by vetinari » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #122

airstrike wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the workplace, people like using MS Excel because the alternatives are ridiculously inferior

I would say that its because people understand how to use it. Excel is frequently used as a database, not because it makes a good database but because people don't understand how to use Access (or any other relational database) but Excel is easy enough that they can get something usable.

Often they understand Access, they just don't have it.

Office Standard and Home & Business SKUs are without it, you need Office Professional Plus. Because it costs few hundred more for just Access and Skype, most workers will get the Standard one.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#196

Post by rrdharan » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #85

ch4s3 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People love excel and Photoshop. I’ve never met any heavy excel user that prefers any other spreadsheet software or even has anything negative to say about it.

Half of the people I know who love Excel in that way would now be making significantly more money if they didn't. These people fall into two groups: The spreadsheet jockey who just likes doing cool things with the data. Excel is just powerful enough to satiate this guy long enough for him to fall out of the habit of rethinking his workflow. If he had moved on earlier he'd be a DBA or a data scientist by now. The othe…

You said "half of the people.. would be making significantly more" and then proceeded with further grouping. I assume the subgrouping applies to that same half?

The other half of folks are quite successful hedge fund, private equity and consultancy partner types, and I suspect those folks would not be making significantly more money if they had stopped using Excel and invested time in becoming DBAs, Data Scientists or accountants...

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#197

Post by mfer » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

ridaj wrote: post #152

freddie_mercury wrote: post #20

I think this gets it wrong. The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. If you look at all of the most successful software of all time they are the complete antithesis of the Unix…

No, this does completely get it right. Enterprises thought they needed all the control and security features of Blackberry until the iPhone came along and made the UX gap unsustainable. Enterprises thought they needed on-premise hosting of Exchange, Office and SharePoint instances under their control for email and productivity, until GSuite came up with a better, less configurable user experience based on consumer fe…

Enterprise software is a sub-class of business software. Enterprises often operate quite differently from SMBs. Public US companies will have things like SOX compliance. And, the enterprises offering up services, like email, may be competitors in another space. If you are competing with Google on phones do you want them to host your email? Likely not.

The business world is complex.

Some complex business software is fantastic. For example Excel. It's complex but you can do amazing things with data without learning to program (which is most people). You can use it while being on or off the Internet (this is great on a plane).

For UX many have given up security features. Many of us now have free credit monitoring because that lack of security has lead to leaks everywhere. I know people who have had their identity stolen and even attacks on retirement funds all due to companies lacking in security. Our drive for the new shiny has left many vulnerable.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#198

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #115

freddie_mercury wrote: post #20

I think this gets it wrong. The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. If you look at all of the most successful software of all time they are the complete antithesis of the Unix…

Sometimes I wonder, what if we just fundamentally took a new approach the OS. Today at the root of your operating system is the file system. It would be interesting if the file system was changed to essentially the concept of a simple object store. In much the same way we have "standard file formats" today, we could move to something like a "standard class". Objects would be a first class citizen in the OS. I think t…

Effectively "Enterprise" systems have this already, but the "OS" is called Oracle. Or SAP.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#199

Post by investinme » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

kragen wrote: post #186

investinme wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking more about the GUI/command line divide. SolidWorks/Blender are fundamentally GUI apps, even if they do contain some programmatic features (like parametric filters/models/...). Also, all media software have something like "Unix tools who do one thing well" - plugins, filters, ..., but you compose them using the GUI.

It sounds like you're being confused by the surface appearance of things, rather than paying attention to their fundamental nature. Maybe that's why you weren't able to understand the arrogant Vim guy's utterance and wrote him off as delusional instead of figuring out in what sense he might be saying something true. It's good that you did figure it out eventually even if you couldn't hear it from him. Unix wasn't dis…

I understand your point about Vim not following Unix philosophy, also the way Vim and Blender are similar.

I disagree that the GUI/command line divide is a "surface appearance". I'm not talking about Vim/VS Code kind of thing, where one is implemented in the command line, the other in the GUI, but are basically the same. I'm talking about apps which fundamentally require a pointing device. In Photoshop you point at a pixel and say "do something here", in command line ImageMagick you say "x=100 y=200". This is not a trivial difference to me, it changes everything and generates different usage scenarios.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#200

Post by shadowgovt » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

ridaj wrote: post #152

freddie_mercury wrote: post #20

I think this gets it wrong. The real reason enterprise software sucks is that enterprises have complex and unique workflows and would prefer to buy software that they can fit to their workflow rather than change the workflows of their profitable business with tens of thousands of staff who will need retraining. If you look at all of the most successful software of all time they are the complete antithesis of the Unix…

No, this does completely get it right. Enterprises thought they needed all the control and security features of Blackberry until the iPhone came along and made the UX gap unsustainable. Enterprises thought they needed on-premise hosting of Exchange, Office and SharePoint instances under their control for email and productivity, until GSuite came up with a better, less configurable user experience based on consumer fe…

It's worth noting that outlier in size or organization-count may not be outlier in money, and money talks when designing enterprise software.

There are a handful of banks, but they have all the money. The specialized features they care about speak very loudly at feature prioritization meetings.