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

Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

thebaffler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#71

Post by seanhunter »

troyvit wrote: post #67
seanhunter wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think it’s meaningfully different to ask for a subscription for content than for a service it would add a lot if you could share why rather than just a sneering hot take. It’s certainly not obvious to me that one is good and the other is not.

Sorry about that, you're right that it was kinda low. This is from a previous comment. It's still not the nicest way to put it, but it gets the point across. - Does reading The Baffler trap you in its ecosystem? If you cancel The Baffler do you lose functionality? - If The Baffler closes up shop because it was bought by a larger newsletter does it brick any of your devices? - I turned uBlock off for this page (it was…

Thanks for doing that. Honestly I think some of the criticism of Saas behaviours seem fair. On the other hand I don't necessarily think the criticism of the saas model itself is completely fair.

Making a website or newsletter requires an ongoing investment in people to produce content. So it's ideal to have an ongoing stream of subscription revenue to match that ongoing cost. As a user I happily subscribe to certain news outlets because I recognise the value they provide to me on an ongoing basis and think it's a fair quid pro quo.

Lots of things that people expect from software (ongoing updates, support, online features etc) incur an ongoing cost from the team so a subscription-type model is also better for the software company than a one-off payment.

So you can see why saas businesses and their investors like it. I think what they often fail to do, is show users that this model represents a good deal for them also. In other words they want to charge for software as a service but actually only provide software as a subscription (without real service behind it).

Ie if you're charging a subscription the user should get great support. They should get ongoing updates etc etc - things which cost money on an ongoing basis.

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#72

Post by sacul »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #15

I subscribed to the Baffler because they write well, and to break out of my own echo chambers a bit. Glad to see them on HN, but a bit disappointed in the response. They article is mostly correct in it’s lampooning. Even if you disagree with points or find it ironic that they offer a subscription (btw equating producing a publication with SaaS is quite erroneous) — I think its useful to take this as a datapoint on ho…

The fact that both offer a subscription is not ironic - it simply highlights the central point. In the end, those paying a subscription for thebaffler.com or for salesforce.com are paying for something very similar: they are paying for words and ideas.

People think that building a software program is like building a house. And, I grant, in some ways it is. But in the end, the customer is not paying for anything tangible. He's paying for words and ideas.

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#73

Post by jtbayly »

sacul wrote: post #72
hardwaresofton wrote: post #15

I subscribed to the Baffler because they write well, and to break out of my own echo chambers a bit. Glad to see them on HN, but a bit disappointed in the response. They article is mostly correct in it’s lampooning. Even if you disagree with points or find it ironic that they offer a subscription (btw equating producing a publication with SaaS is quite erroneous) — I think its useful to take this as a datapoint on ho…

The fact that both offer a subscription is not ironic - it simply highlights the central point. In the end, those paying a subscription for thebaffler.com or for salesforce.com are paying for something very similar: they are paying for words and ideas. People think that building a software program is like building a house. And, I grant, in some ways it is. But in the end, the customer is not paying for anything tangi…

That’s interesting. The thing is, the Baffler continues to create new words and ideas, and I pay for those new words and ideas every month if I subscribe.

No new words or ideas show up next month on your software, so why should I keep paying you? I know you’ll say maintenance and updates, but from the user’s perspective there is quite the difference.

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#74

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

sbarre wrote: post #50
_xnmw wrote: post #41

Brilliant. Bravo. Well said. Look at the companies in any recent YC batch and it’s mostly just a long list of ridiculously simple SaaS ideas that anyone who knows how to use a spreadsheet doesn’t need. It’s amazing that so much money and talent in the West is dedicated to expanding rent-seeking and financing, instead of actual innovation or economic productivity. No wonder we have a housing crisis and a stock market…

And yet many of them succeed? So unless you think all their subscribers are stupid, they must see a reasonable value exchange. In the large enterprise where I work, I've often argued against building our own in-house XYZ with the position "do we want to be in the business of building and maintaining XYZ or do we want to focus on our core business?" In some cases it definitely makes sense to build something yourself,…

The internal products I support may not be as fancy looking as the specialized commercial products, but it will be designed for our exact workflow and internal weirdness. IME users will generally prefer the product that has only the 7 fields they need, and already "knows" that on alternate Tuesdays the TPS reports get printed in landscape, because of that silly local council rule.

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#75

Post by sbarre »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #74
sbarre wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet many of them succeed? So unless you think all their subscribers are stupid, they must see a reasonable value exchange. In the large enterprise where I work, I've often argued against building our own in-house XYZ with the position "do we want to be in the business of building and maintaining XYZ or do we want to focus on our core business?" In some cases it definitely makes sense to build something yourself,…

The internal products I support may not be as fancy looking as the specialized commercial products, but it will be designed for our exact workflow and internal weirdness. IME users will generally prefer the product that has only the 7 fields they need, and already "knows" that on alternate Tuesdays the TPS reports get printed in landscape, because of that silly local council rule.

The counter-point here is that 10 years passes and processes have changed and needs have evolved and everyone's still stuck using that old internal app that was built by people who are no longer at the company and no one wants to update it because it's toil and there's no budget, and so processes are cumbersome and artificially complicated because everything has to go through that app.

Case in point at my company there's an internally-built ITSM app that requires a user to select "Approved" no less than 8 times across 4 screens to approve an internal request.

My point here is that there will always be edge cases that disprove the rule, so yes you're right, but are you right most of the time? I doubt it.

In my 30 years working in this field (and 10 of those years were spent helping companies deal with poor internally built apps), the majority of internally-built applications at companies that aren't modern software companies (i.e. most companies) age very poorly, have poor internal support and little to no technical health budget, have terrible user experiences, and are generally disliked by most employees who have to use them.

Particularly in these times when everyone can compare the tools they work with to the stuff on their phones or laptops that they use every day. It's an unfair comparison but it's still there. The expectations for interfaces and software usability have increased faster than most companies can manage for their internal products.

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#76

Post by smitty1e »

sbarre wrote: post #44
smitty1e wrote: post #13

Done at "...another CEO-turned-MAGA ghoul". Snark-as-a-Service seems oxymoronic.

He's not wrong though. David Sacks isn't exactly shy about being pro-Trump for all the worst/selfish reasons.

I find "MAGA ghoul" offensive.

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#77

Post by sbarre »

smitty1e wrote: post #76
sbarre wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not wrong though. David Sacks isn't exactly shy about being pro-Trump for all the worst/selfish reasons.

I find "MAGA ghoul" offensive.

Honest question: why?

MAGA's brand is being unapologetically offensive. Surely they can take what they give.

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#78

Post by sbarre »

troyvit wrote: post #69
sbarre wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's called Google Workspace.

Maybe some aspects, but I don't know about the VPN side of it, and my point was directly to the idea of managing shared drives.

That's fair.. Google does have BeyondCorp but that's not standard in Workspace.. So it's not a packaged deal.

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#79

Post by rdslw »

financetechbro wrote: post #37
Closi wrote: post #14

> The result? Some SaaS companies achieve gross profit margins of 75 to 90 percent, rivaling Windows in its monopolistic heyday. Gross profit is a misleading statistic in the software industry, where almost all of the effort comes from building the thing.

I wouldn’t say it’s misleading, it’s still a very important financial metric. You just have to be aware of its limitations

In this article using it is very MISLEADING, exactly as Closi writes above.

Exercise: compare net profit of Visa/Master card to net profit of those "highly profitable" saas marvels.

Exercise two: compare gross profits of them.

Result: whole paragraph turns not being true while not aligned with the article opinion and showing actually opposite :-D

p.s. I do agree with the overall article :)

Re: Spreadsheet Assassins – A short history of "software as a service"

#80

Post by benhurmarcel »

japanuspus wrote: post #4

To me, Obsidian is a perfect example of how to get SaaS-revenue without making the user captive: All data is stored in an accessible form on the user hardware, and what you pay for is sync. X-user kepano (who is a/the creator of Obsidian) has some nice insights on this _file over app_ philosophy.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a large part of Obsidian’s use are free accounts illegally using it for professional purposes.
Post reply on HN