Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
ALL cloud applications should offer downloadable installs.
superboyac:
Just today, I've pinpointed what bothers me most about cloud applications. Most of them only offer their services as a subscription based thing that is hosted on their own servers. All of these companies should, in my opinion, offer separate downloads of their applications so that users can install it on their own servers, if they chose to. If this became a trend, I would have zero problems with cloud applications. I used to think I didn't like the fact that my stuff would be all over the internet rather than my own computer, but I've realize that is not the case.
Of course, we know why they do this. It benefits the software companies, and that's it. That's the only reason why they wouldn't offer what I am saying. This way, they are in complete control. They control piracy by having basically the only copy of the software in their possession. They make the users pay monthly for the software. The users are completely at their mercy. They get to have registrations for all users, rather than just those users who want to participate in their forums or something (like with normal, locally installed software).
So many of the nice conveniences of shareware as we used to know it are gone. We can't download fully functional trials anymore. We have to register for every little thing, and you know you hate that. We hate having to commit to monthly fees instead of just a one time $30 or something. I hate coming across these cloud software these days. I just hate it. What do they expect? That I want to start paying monthly fees for every little software that I want to use? This is what is happening and I hate it.
What? Just because a software is used for collaboration doesn't mean it MUST be a subscription service. There's no reason for the old shareware model to be broken just because of Web 2.0. They are still files. We just put them on a server now. Big flippin deal.
Now, if you don't want to deal with the installation, sure, by all means pay for the monthly service. But that just means that these companies are glorified hosting companies. Is there any difference? They say you pay for the software, but you are really paying for the hosting. But I'm probably paying for real hosting for something else. Why should I pay for other hosting? Why can't I pay for hosting, and pay separately for software.
This reminds me of DSL companies and how for some reason, they have all adopted the annual contract model, and cable companies all do it with the more flexible monthly model. What's with DSL? What is so different about it that we have to commit for a year? Same with cell phones? There's no reason. It's just that one did it, they realized it's good for their revenue and they all started doing it. Nothing about it benefits the consumer.
This is the trend unfortunately. I hate it. Be prepared as cloud computing takes off...it's going to all be monthly fees. Any software that can find an excuse to charge monthly fees will eventually do it. Oh, here is our new version 12...Now you can store your data online and access this software from anywhere! Yeah! And by "can" we mean you MUST store your data online or you can't use it anymore. Oh, but you are of course free to use the old version of the standalone software for as long as you like, no problem. But the new one is now a monthly fee because we will make sure everything in the software is running smoothly. Also, you have to download a client anyway for your pc. But you can access your data from anywhere in the world.
I was recently looking for business modeling software. I was surprised that most of them were cloud applications. Like 10-1 ratio of cloud to standalone. I saw the same with collaboration software, and some other ones recently.
Anyway...who wants to join in on my rant?
JavaJones:
I don't think you quite understand the point of "cloud" applications then. Yes, a big part of the benefit to the developer/publisher is that they can change subscription fees, but before "cloud" applications came along, all anyone had were server-installable apps. Those options still exist. So why are cloud services so popular despite the option of hosting something yourself? Because there are benefits you're not seeing
They host, maintain, and keep the software updated. This is a big benefit for a lot of people and well worth the often low monthly fee. Seldom any performance issues, and while you can use shared hosting to host some similar apps, try scaling those apps on that hosting to a production level. Not having to worry about updates, performance, resources is very empowering and freeing.
They also maintain your data backups, hopefully/ideally in a heavily redundant environment. Granted this could be seen as a weakness as well, but if the company is handling it right, your data is likely far more secure on their end across multiple RAID-driven servers than on your own computer. Granted being able to backup your own data is a definite nicety. Some services offer it, others you have to find creative workarounds for, but in most cases you can back things up somehow.
They provide support, and a lot more readily too given it's on their servers. This depends on the application and vendor, not all provide good support (Google, I'm looking at you), but generally anything you pay decent money for gets you decent support.
Finally, some applications are really only possible - or at least reasonable - to do in a "cloud". Global sync like Dropbox or Humyo needs large amounts of remote space and an always-on system. It's going to cost you $100/mo to have decent hosting with 100GB of space like Humyo gives you for $100 *a year*. Many of Google's services rely on the massive power of distributed computing to enable their nifty bits, for example lighting-fast Gmail search, voice recognition, and more. You'll never get enough CPU power at a decent price to do that stuff as well yourself.
Not to mention that dealing with the needs of end-user maintained installation processes and support of them is something a lot of people just don't want to have to deal with anymore. And I can't blame them.
- Oshyan
Paul Keith:
Great reply JavaJones. (Sorry, couldn't help adding this sycophantic sounding bit - first time I rated something in DC and it was due to the quality of the first reply.)
superboyac:
Well, I fully understand the benefits of cloud applications. So what am I complaining about? I'm really asking myself...
It's just that I don't like cloud applications. I'd rather use locally installed apps. If I do need some kind of server functionality, I'll go out of my way to set up a server myself or use an independently hosted server before I start using cloud apps that I have to pay monthly fees for. I hate monthly fees. And I suspect a lot of people do, too. I'm much more comfortable paying a one time fee vs monthly fees. I just don't like this trend.
Here's a good idea, maybe they exist already...
A company should offer fast and generous hosting for an affordable fee. This will allow users to go into the cloud, yet still give them the freedom to install their own software on their servers. I'd do it at home, but normal ISP speeds for upload/download can't compare to professionally hosted servers. So it's just a matter of speed and storage for me. If someone offered like that for $100-200 a year, that wouldn't be so bad. $100 a month is too rich for normal consumers. So I'd like to see that happen. I want to see the prices for decent servers to go down a bit. I actually don't know what the normal prices are, I'm starting to look into it for the first time.
superboyac:
To continue on with my point above...
What do I like about the locally installed app? More so than anything else, it's the fact it's going to be much faster and responsive than anything on the web. Bandwidth will never be able to compete with local hardware. For $100, I can get a 1TB hard drive and access it with top speed...and it lasts for years. To get 100GB hosted with good speed is $100 a month?? So $1200 a year. Wow, that's a lot. Will these rates go down as we see cloud computing increase? Isn't there an opportunity for a company to offer a lot of speed and storage for consumer-friendly affordable rates?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version