Post #1

03-15-2005, 10:49 AM
DanH
Newsletter/Forums Member

Hello,

I am hoping someone could point me where I can find information that compares

Enterprise software vs desktop software sales.

The software company I work at has been providing (engineering focused)desktop (fat) software solutions for 13 years. We have a technology meeting coming up and I would like to be able to discuss the different trends of different software sales.

I think it is obvious that the large enterprise prefers to invest in thin applications, but I have nothing to support my thoughts.

Are there any links you know of that could help? Any pay sites that could provide some insight into this?

I would also love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks,

Dan

Post #2

03-17-2005, 06:22 AM
Skraner
Moderator

This isn't what you asked - but what did occur to me is that the strong trend I see is a preference for specialized ASP's - like SalesForce.com. I see this preference in the big companies, even more than smaller ones.

__________________
Steve Kraner
Principal
TopLine Solutions, Inc.
www.hightechguru.com

Post #3

03-17-2005, 06:29 AM
DanH
Newsletter/Forums Member

Skraner,

Thanks for the reply. I am still searching for some charts or data to support my belief that sales of standalone, desktop software applications are flat.

I think I am getting closer to what I need when i search thin client vs fat client.

Anyone else thinking of the barriers of selling fat client software?

Thanks,

Dan

PS

Here is a conversation that I found useful and might explain what I am looking for.

http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/d...joel.3.74919.24

Post #4

03-17-2005, 08:07 AM
Ken Beam
Moderator

It could be that I'm hanging with the wrong crowds or not reading enough of the right (correct?) white papers, but the terms thick(fat)/thin are seldom heard anymore in my circle of business associates when referring to an organizations' IT needs.

I do recall, some years ago, participating in many sales presentations that generously evoked these two terms to gain a strategic advantage when the competitors' product could be viewed as inferior because it didn't offer one or the other; but, until this posting, I haven’t heard either term used for some time. Our research has established one undeniable fact however - every ISV has the most 'robust' product in the industry...if you're impressed with generalized verbal vagaries

As Skraner pointed out, the buying decisions and new product development strategies usually revolve around buying or developing an ASP model, an Enterprise model, or both. It's beginning to appear that the ASP model is gaining a strong foothold for businesses spanning the entire size and revenue spectrum.

When I hear an application described as a "desktop" product I immediately think, "ah, a consumer product.", not a commercially viable or enterprise product. I think limited workforce collaboration, integration and usability lifecycle. There are also software management, licensing and inventory issues that would trigger an immediate negative reaction if I were the IT person responsible for those things and approving the purchase.

With the evolving art/science of SEM/SEO it becomes more important than ever to reach into the minds of those who might be searching for the class of product your organization delivers, and use terms that are relevant and current for two key reasons; 1) Easier to locate - increase hits, 2) Not appear dated as a technology due to functionality description(s).

Who are you targeting for this, or future, versions of your product? What are "they" asking for?

__________________
Kenneth G. Beam
Team Captain
The VAR-City
" ...solving the Partnership Puzzle"
Phone: 972.240.8793
Web: http://thevarcity.com
Email: kbeam@thevarcity.com

Post #5

03-17-2005, 09:04 AM
dubicki
Moderator

Take your cue from where development tools have been going for the past several years.

.NET, J2EE, Web Services, Service-based applications

For business, software is moving to web based environment almost completely. Managing applications with a destop footprint has not been where its at for the past several years.

Sources for industry trends:

gartner.com

idc.com

forrester.com

metagroup.com

aberdeen.com

I'm with Ken Beam, this is like old news. The whole thin client vs. fat client deabate ended about five years ago IMO. You are looking at history.

__________________
| allegiance.ca | Robert Dubicki

Post #6

03-17-2005, 03:12 PM
Judy Schramm
Moderator

I agree with Ken and Robert. I haven't heard anyone talk about thin vs. fat in a couple of years.

The analyst firms Robert mentions should have the kind of statistics you're looking for.

But the people in your company might be more impressed if you do a quick survey of other companies in your industry. Just go look at the press releases on their websites. If you can say that 8 of the top 10 companies in your industry now offer web-based software, that's a pretty powerful indication of where the market is going.

__________________
Judy Schramm
JMR Consulting
703-931-9273

Post #7

03-17-2005, 04:37 PM
LisaMoody
Moderator

I think it's a mistake to not offer a desktop option right next to your web based option, if web based is even a good option for you. There are plenty of viable synchronization techniques available that don't require hosting confidential information in an ASP model.

Production (non-consumer) applications are being created every day that are not ASP models. I just attended a seminar to hear about Raytheon's latest invention of an Emergency Patient Tracking system in the event of a homeland security attack. They use the same non-ASP based programming scenario that we use in our company. There are PALM and Windows CE devices all utilizing synchronization techniques that do not utilize an ASP model. Granted, there are options for web based apps in the same realm but it is not always the right way to go, regardless of what the "consultants" say should be happening. Create your app based on what the customers say should be, not consultants.

Lisa

Post #8

03-17-2005, 04:45 PM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member

Before the web, there was three-tier client-server. Fat and thin client-server was two tier. Then, the web came along and brought us n-tier. Now business rules technology is bringing us four-tier client-server, web developers are separating structure from content and presentation, and forms developers are separating forms from content and presentation. So it's up to you to decide how many tiers to have. Aside from having seperate servers for each tier, which increases administrative expense, it really doesn't matter to the clients.

Business rules technology will change the IT game as much as web-based technology has to date. And, it too will bring on another round of IT unemployment.

David Locke

Post #9

03-18-2005, 09:18 AM
cfrancisvoice
Moderator

You state that:

"I think it is obvious that the large enterprise prefers to invest in thin applications, but I have nothing to support my thoughts."

I'm not seeing this trend with my software customer base at all. Both my "thin" and "fat" developers are growing equally.

I would argue that whether a company chooses to go "thin" client or "fat" is not a generic enterprise decision but rather a decision based on the application requirements, the results needed the make up of the company and the market. Not all applications work well in a web based application, nor are they mature enough to support an enterprise roll out.

Using CRM as an example for my clients that do 100% telephone work never travel and have all sales reps in one office, I recommend a client server application rather than an ASP or web based application. If they have reps working from home all over the country then a web based application makes sense.

__________________
Colleen
Engage Selling Solutions - Inspiring Results
www.Engageselling.com

Post #10

03-18-2005, 09:51 AM
dubicki
Moderator

I'll put a different slant on what cfancisvoice has said.

Why have ERP applications such as SAP and Peoplesoft have moved to the web? Don't accountants sit behind their desk all day? So why would they need a web application?

Because IT departments don't want to be managing desktop software. Plain and simple. It is much less expensive to manage hosted applications. That is why the web has been a strong trend. And collaboration and sharing of data works much easier and better via "web aware" applications. The web adds a powerful dimension to do more ... and rethink how an application actually works. Wether you sit behind a desk all day or on the road, is not the main factor IMO.

__________________
| allegiance.ca | Robert Dubicki

Post #11

03-18-2005, 10:36 AM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member

IT is commoditizing itself. If IT offers no competitive advantage, then it should be outsourced. Web services is one way to do that. Now, you might answer that question about IT and competitive advantage with a yes or a no. That implies that some IT can't be outsourced and some can.

The place you drive costs down is where you are getting no competitive advantage. The place you are willing to pay higher costs is where you are getting competitive advantage.

From a technology adoption perspective, late mainsteam is where commoditizaiton occurs, because you are running out of available new customers. This is the place where the web services, utility computing, model should live. Cheaper and cheaper is important there. Vendor profits decline. M&As happen regularly. IT layoffs are a big part of the picture.

You can also look at industry organization and how that affects the picture. In the bowling alley where you have a portfolio of vertical applications, you fight it out for market dominance. Afterwards, you end up getting organized into an industry heirarchy. That heirarchy dictates how much money you can make. The market leader takes 77% and each subsequent vendor takes 77% of the remaining after the larger vendors have taken their cut. This assumes execllent operations by each vendor. This means that by the fifth position, you really are not making that much money even in a $nB market.

Moving towards late mainstream consolidations occur. The market leader ends up with the customers. Shifting to webservices only means less money and lower margins. There ends up being one provider for a particular webservice. Anti-trust might kick in, but not right now.

By going with the ASP/webservices model, you are saying that you really don't need that much money and would love to work very hard for very little payoff. You are skipping all the intervening markets and going directly to the late mainstream. There is no reason for a vendor to adopt and push this technology, because the technology is detrimental to their business. It's detrimental to their customer's businesses as well, but nobody sees that just yet.

Utility companies are monopolies, because they couldn't have survived till now if they had to compete. When you change your economics from marketshare matters economics to marketshare doesn't matter economics or utility economics, particularly utility economics without physical constraints like having to run more wires, you end up with much less in market cap.

Think grocery stores vs. Wal-Mart. Most stores are moving to the luxury end of the market. They are doing this, or they are going out of business. With ASP, there is no luxury position. You are opting to go out of business, laying off your people, and finding a desolate future. Say no to ASP.

There will always be a place for the mom and pop place at the end of the street. But, it will only keep two people alive, mom and pop. They can't even afford to have a kid come in a sweap up. That is an outsourced, webserviced IT industry.

Let's not even consider Grid computing, data privacy, and identity theft issues around webservices. Some technologies should not be adopted. Here let me clone your wife.

David Locke