Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Enterprise Software Sucks

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 570 posts

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#351

Post by scarface74 »

gertrunde wrote: post #348
scarface74 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone took almost a decade to get to the appropriate functionality. The part you're leaving out is most executives just ended up carrying two devices and whined to IT about "why can't YOU make my iphone as good at email as my blackberry???" That’s not true. The iPhone became good enough to replace the BlackBerry around 4 or 5 years in. By 2011, the BlackBerry was losing market share as Apple added enterprise fea…

And yet neither Android nor iPhone today as as good at doing email as Blackberry was 10 years ago. They do lots of other things a lot better, but email? Nope.

In what ways?

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#353

Post by gnicholas »

> Other baby outfits are meant for parents. They’re marked "Easy On, Easy Off" or some such, and they really mean it. Zippers aren't easy enough so they fasten using MAGNETS. A busy parent (i.e. a parent) can change an outfit in 5 seconds, one handed, before rushing to work.

Magnets? That sounds like a terrible idea, since babies are not supposed to be around little magnets that they could swallow (and after a few times through the washer/dryer, magnets could come loose.

Is this really a thing? I have two kids (and one baby, so we're in the thick of it), and I've never heard of this. More importantly, we wouldn't think of buying anything for a baby that has little magnets sewn into cloth.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#354

Post by WorldMaker »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #324
lmm wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the time the client would be better off buying actual custom software. It's very easy to end up with a SAP (say) "configuration" so complex that you'll spend more on maintenance than you would if it were a standalone program.

That's very true but still, in my experience anyways, it's much easier (i.e. perceived as 'less risky') to buy SAP and attempt to roll it out than to convince others that custom software would be better. 'Custom' is scary in a way that 'customizable' isn't.

It's hard not to wonder what might happen if more managers and executives became aware of "The Inner Platform Effect" and that "customizable" often just means "custom, but a worse, more expensive programming language".

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#355

Post by braindeath »

ch4s3 wrote: post #33
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…

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.

Well there isn’t any better spreadsheet software in 2019. Like what even comes close in terms of features and fit?

Photoshop. I think it’s a tiny little more mixed opinion of the overall program in terms of UX, but again, the closest replacement might be Affinity. And that is too new.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#356

Post by ridaj »

tw04 wrote: post #326
ridaj wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. The iPhone took almost a decade to get to the appropriate functionality. The part you're leaving out is most executives just ended up carrying two devices and whined to IT about "why can't YOU make my iphone as good at email as my bl…

> Except I can count on one hand the number of fortune 500 enterprises that moved to gsuite over o365.

That's maybe another way of showing that UX is not the winning differentiator in enterprise that it is in consumer.

> This reads like someone who lives in the valley and thinks the valley is in any way reflective of corporate America.

I don't live in that valley, and I fully know that it doesn't reflect the rest of US or world, and that is why, indeed, enterprise UX does suck! :)

I think we agree... I'm not hearing an argument from you that it's because of superior UX that people are sticking to O365.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#357

Post by cjfd »

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 these tweets get it exactly right. A problem is software that gets sold on golf courses without any regard the people who are actually going to use it.

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#358

Post by true_religion »

gertrunde wrote: post #348
scarface74 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone took almost a decade to get to the appropriate functionality. The part you're leaving out is most executives just ended up carrying two devices and whined to IT about "why can't YOU make my iphone as good at email as my blackberry???" That’s not true. The iPhone became good enough to replace the BlackBerry around 4 or 5 years in. By 2011, the BlackBerry was losing market share as Apple added enterprise fea…

And yet neither Android nor iPhone today as as good at doing email as Blackberry was 10 years ago. They do lots of other things a lot better, but email? Nope.

What did blackberry do so well in email?

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#359

Post by robocat »

lmm wrote: post #253
ibejoeb wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they’re glorified custom development shops with a few high paying customers That's true, but sort of necessarily so, though. How else do you build a product that meets such a broad set of needs? Someone's got to do the work. At some point, features are going to drop linearly.

A lot of the time the client would be better off buying actual custom software. It's very easy to end up with a SAP (say) "configuration" so complex that you'll spend more on maintenance than you would if it were a standalone program.

> A lot of the time the client would be better off buying actual custom software.

I agree in theory, but I thoroughly disagree in practice.

If a client could spec/develop good software and cost it realistically, then sure. But I have rarely had clients like that - instead they think the problem-space is simple and end up with a half-baked solution that can't be maintained.

Developing greenfield software is a high risk strategy. (Edit: with a high reward if core function, and not much reward if not core).

Re: Why Enterprise Software Sucks

#360

Post by conexions »

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 really would say your just restating the OP conclusion from the point of the of the purchaser instead of from the point of view of the software developer.

An executive at an Enterprise would state their search for some piece of software as: I have such and such problem. I wish someone would make a magic wand and fix it for me(how hard can it be anyway).

To which some software developer will reply. Hey we make magic wands. We make incredible magic wands. Let's schedule some time to show them to you. And the fact that the people who have to use it are not involved makes a huge difference in quality.

You give Word, Excel and Jira as examples of Enterprise Software. If these are examples of Enterprise Software they are by far the best examples of such Software.

Enterprise Software that currently makes my life miserable on a daily basis would be products like Remedy for workflows and approvals, Serena and Harvest for Change Management, WebSphere Middleware, CyberArk for secrets management, and WebMethods for an Enterprise Service Bus. All of these have horrible documentation, are extremely expensive, and most have superior open source equivalents.

The only reason that companies like this can still stay in business is because there are executives who still believe in magic wands and then believe sales people when they say they have them for sale.

Post reply on HN