Software-as-a-service: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}{{a|tech|}}[[Software as a service]] — fondly known as [[SAAS]] but known to [[user]]s as [[rent-seeking as a service — is greedy capitalist [[rent-seeking]] by means of [[intellectual property]] or some other kind of monopolistic behaviour. It is also basically the only business model [[reg tech]] entrepreneurs — aka refugee Latham & Watkins associates with JavaScript developers from Bucharest they found on the dark web — can figure out. | {{g}}{{a|tech|}}[[Software as a service]] — fondly known as [[SAAS]] but known to [[user]]s as [[rent-seeking]] as a service — is greedy capitalist [[rent-seeking]] by means of [[intellectual property]] or some other kind of monopolistic behaviour. It is also basically the only business model [[reg tech]] entrepreneurs — aka refugee Latham & Watkins associates with JavaScript developers from Bucharest they found on the dark web — can figure out. | ||
The equivalent of selling a warranty on a toaster. Charging a running cost for a software application which shouldn’t ''need'' a lot of maintenance, unless you ''built it'' to need maintenance. | The equivalent of selling a warranty on a toaster. Charging a running cost for a software application which shouldn’t ''need'' a lot of maintenance, unless you ''built it'' to need maintenance. | ||
Revision as of 19:33, 21 August 2020
|
|
JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
|
Software as a service — fondly known as SAAS but known to users as rent-seeking as a service — is greedy capitalist rent-seeking by means of intellectual property or some other kind of monopolistic behaviour. It is also basically the only business model reg tech entrepreneurs — aka refugee Latham & Watkins associates with JavaScript developers from Bucharest they found on the dark web — can figure out.
The equivalent of selling a warranty on a toaster. Charging a running cost for a software application which shouldn’t need a lot of maintenance, unless you built it to need maintenance.
If your software were any good you would design a user-interface easy enough for the meatware to deal with so you didn’t need a service contract. Right?
Then there’s blockchain, of course
The latest iteration — talked about in tones of reverent optimism here — is “blockchain as a service”. But a service to whom? And did I hear a siren going off?