大型SaaS煤气灯效应
The Great SaaS Gaslight

原始链接: https://unworkableideas.com/the-great-saas-lighting-how-it-users-got-gaslit/

## SaaS 幻象:从承诺到困境 软件即服务 (SaaS) 最初的承诺——按需付费、释放资金并专注于核心业务——在很大程度上被客户锁定所掩盖。微软和谷歌等主要厂商优先考虑获取和留存,而非真正的客户成功,利用数据收集和“客户成功经理”来确保持续订阅,而不是为组织带来益处。 这种模式助长了客户的*屈从*和惯性,庞大的规模和网络效应营造了一种安全感,使组织对潜在风险视而不见——特别是灾难性的、不可预见的风险。集成的 SaaS 解决方案日益复杂,导致上下文和专业知识的丧失,使得大量数据在不了解其用途的情况下变得毫无意义。 对“最佳实践”和通用应用程序的依赖进一步加剧了平庸,阻碍了创新。SaaS 已经变得类似于一个可预测的、受控的购物中心,优先考虑规模和利润而非真正的价值。然而,未来可能在于根据个人需求量身定制的、策划的和自托管的解决方案,拒绝当前 SaaS 领域“一刀切”的方法。

## SaaS 虚假繁荣:摘要 最近 Hacker News 上的一场讨论探讨了人们对 SaaS(软件即服务)模式日益增长的不满,质疑其收益是否超过了成本和它所要求的控制权。虽然承认 SaaS 的效率——自动更新、减少维护——许多评论员认为它已经变得具有剥削性,将收入最大化置于用户需求之上。 核心问题在于从为软件功能付费转变为永久租用访问权,通常伴随着供应商锁定和功能臃肿。人们对 SaaS 订阅成本不断上升表示担忧,尤其与过去的一次性购买模式(已考虑通货膨胀)相比。 讨论中提出了一些观点:软件开发的经济现实往往被免费/开源贡献所掩盖,SaaS 激励了功能分级和数据收集,并且该模式通常偏袒企业利益而非个人用户价值。自托管和开源解决方案被提倡为替代方案,但支持和维护方面的挑战也得到了承认。最终,这场讨论凸显了用户对一个软件供应商日益控制他们的系统的日益沮丧。
相关文章

原文
  • Pay as you go
  • Just pay for what you need
  • Free up time
  • Free up capital
  • Focus on your business not the technology

But that’s not quite the way it worked out, is it?

Maybe they meant it when they said it, but it is not the driving force behind the great SaaS purveyors of our day. Yeah, I am looking at you Microsoft, you too Google, and where do you think you’re hiding Intuit? There is nothing wrong with creating a product that your customer wants to buy, but something is off when the customer is forced to buy something they don’t want. Customer needs are completely secondary to customer lock-in. Sadly, the SaaS model has become too big to care about customers. They spew customer satisfaction surveys at you after every interaction in an effort to show that they care. But these surveys are just another brick in the big data wall. The results are secondary. They kind of care what you think…but mostly they just need you to hang around and keep paying. They collect the data to guide incremental improvements around the edges.

The irony is that just about every SaaS vendor has created the role of customer success manager. These are people that are assigned to your account to help you onboard and have success with the product to keep you from off-boarding. Success doesn’t necessarily translate into helping your organization succeed, just that you ‘succeed’ enough with the product.

I don’t begrudge anyone’s success in creating a product that customers find useful and want to buy. That is not an easy thing to do. But after a while, the SaaS business model is not about customer success or satisfaction anymore. It is about customer submission and inertia. At a certain point, the customer base becomes too big and the product becomes too big to change.

Safety in Numbers

It is the path of least resistance. If everyone else is doing it, it must be good or at least good enough. Plus, there is value in the network effect. Yet, numbers are only safe up to a point. Numbers blind you to unseen risks. Black swan type risks. Rare, but catastrophic. They are so rare and potentially disastrous that no one really thinks about them.

Maybe your backup, disaster recovery, business continuity or whatever they are calling it these days will save you from a single system failing, but it won’t protect you from context and know-how loss. The real problem isn’t loss, it’s accumulation. Too many programs, too many APIs, too many integrations, too much complexity masquerading as sophisticated systems. Context recovery systems don’t exist, yet successful organizations rely on context, not data. Terabytes of data mean nothing without knowing why you have the data, what it means and how you need to make use of it. Maybe the software rules take care of it, but that is a dangerous thing to rely on.

Information and content is infinite and stochastic. It is not necessarily predictable. More information doesn’t lead to better decisions, it just leads to more data.

This preys on the fear and risk of not knowing.

You can never know all the information before you have to make a decision, but when faced with unknowns and uncertainty, adopting “best practices” provides a cozy security blanket.

Undifferentiated Best Practices

Gotta love the industry ‘best practice’ templates. About a million years ago, I remember an old printed newsletter called the ‘Best Practices Report’ which featured, you guessed it, best practices. The trouble with best practices — then and now — is that they pretend that the world has stopped changing. But the reality is, the world is not static. Things change. You need to keep getting better, you need to keep evolving. Blindly adopting templated best practices is not a path to be best (to paraphrase someone), but rather a path to bland mediocrity.

This preys on the ‘why reinvent the wheel’ logic. Why spend the time and effort on figuring out something that has already been solved.

The reality is that you will be really good at achieving parity with your competition.

Bland and Generic Applications

Speaking of bland mediocrity, all you have to do is to look at the landscape of commercial software. There are thousands of applications across thousands of categories, but we are still getting different takes on note taking or calendar applications.

Some programs might look prettier or feel more intuitive, but they are tackling the same problems.

Software keeps iterating on solving the same soluble problems because the remaining challenges are really difficult to solve with technology. Communication and coordination are full of nuance and subtleties that defy digitization.

This is not unique to SaaS vendors, but most, if not all, software vendors have jumped on the SaaS bandwagon for marketing and selling their products. The free version that does just enough to lure you into the paying membership. Then you face the standard three options to subscribe with the good, better, best offers.

Adding communication tools hasn’t improved the quality of communication despite massively increasing the volume of communication.

Let’s Go to the Mall

SaaS has become the technology American shopping mall of the 1980s. It is overpriced and predictable. The goods are largely the same in every mall. This is not a dynamic market. It is very much a controlled market. The landlord sets up the platform and the retailers rush in to this great location to make the huge profits and get the advantages of scale. The retailers that can afford the mall’s rates, have very controlled experiences. The mall of the 1980s was not a place of bold experimentation and risk taking. The risk was signing the lease.

While Google and Microsoft are stores in the mall, they are also the landlords. They control the mall experience. Apple runs its own mall — just shinier, not different. (Today’s physical malls would be ghost towns without an Apple Store bringing in traffic.)

Somewhere along the line, the culture tired of the mall experience. Across the country, the US is full of abandoned malls. The model works up to a point and then the fashion changes.

The small store with the carefully curated merchandise appears on the scene and draws in its crowd.

The future is much the same for Information Technology. The point is not to have the same system that everyone else does. The point is to have the information system that works for you.

This issue of the newsletter was written on a self hosted WordPress site on multiple devices with no monthly fees. 

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com