SaaS makes sense for some applications, but a lot of what I'm seeing it applied to is just a money grab. Some things are just set up and go, I don't need updates or support, so long as the software does what I bought it to do. A great example of this is a point of sale system I'm installing. Nearly every company wanted an upfront fee plus anywhere from $40-$60 / terminal / month. I found software that allows multiple terminals for $1k (no monthly recurring). This will pay for itself in probably 6 months.
On Thursday, October 16, 2014, Travis Johnson via Af <[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > How do you figure? Everything will eventually be SaaS... and it's a much > better model for both sides. The software stays updated and current and bug > fixes are instant. The initial cost to start with the software is usually > 1/10th what it would be to buy, and it allows people to use the software > from anywhere. > > Many years ago, I was of the same opinion. Then I started to realize my > time (or anyone else's time) was better spent focusing on the product we > sold rather than installing/fixing/supporting someone else's software. > > I know I personally spent at least 50+ hours over the previous 15 years > installing/fixing/supporting Quickbooks on our LAN. Getting it installed on > a server, setting up the shares, mapping drive letters, installing it on > each PC, etc. The software cost us $500 to buy, and then the yearly updates > were usually $200-$300. Or you can subscribe to the online version for > $39/month and be done with it. It's automatically backed up, you don't have > to host it on your own server, or worry about upgrade issues or users with > problems, etc. > > Time is money. Spend your time doing what you know how to do, and hire > someone else to do the other tasks. :) > > Travis > > On 10/15/2014 9:31 PM, Tyler Treat via Af wrote: > > True story. > > ___________________________ > Mangled by my iPhone. > ___________________________ > > Tyler Treat > Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. > > [email protected] > ___________________________ > > > On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:30 PM, Jason McKemie via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah, SaaS is great for the company that owns it, not so great for > everyone else. > > On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Travis Johnson via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Nope... mainly SaaS companies and real estate. Best of both worlds. :) >> >> Travis >> >> On 10/15/2014 3:40 PM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: >> >>> Someone told me you were getting into manufacturing�� >>> >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> President >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> www.aeronetpr.com >>> @aeronetpr >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/15/14, 5:31 PM, "Travis Johnson via Af" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> It just depends on the day... :) >>>> >>>> Involved in 11 companies now, and looking at a 12th. Always stuff going >>>> on. LOL >>>> >>>> Travis >>>> >>>> On 10/15/2014 3:16 PM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: >>>> >>>>> Travis, are you getting bored at your current job? Lol!! >>>>> >>>>> Great to see you active in the list! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>>> President >>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>> www.aeronetpr.com >>>>> @aeronetpr >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/15/14, 4:14 PM, "Travis Johnson via Af" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The other issue is p2p traffic between two people on the same AP.... >>>>>> and >>>>>> if you are doing bandwidth shaping in your router, even at the tower, >>>>>> you will never see these packets. Or in the case the original poster >>>>>> asked about, that customer could keep a high-def window open of all >>>>>> their video cameras at the other location, using 3-4Mbps of constant >>>>>> traffic, and you would never see it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Travis >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/15/2014 1:48 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> When you forward SM-to-SM traffic upstream, there's nothing the >>>>>>> router >>>>>>> can do about it. Put the two locations on different IP subnets so >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> traffic between the two has to be routed. Or turn off SM isolation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I leave SM isolation off because I'm not that paranoid. The biggest >>>>>>> risk is broadcast/multicast crap flying around. So use the SM uplink >>>>>>> broadcast/multicast rate limiting. This is one of the best features >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> Canopy, IMO. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/15/2014 2:23 PM, Christopher Tyler via Af wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have a customer that has two SM's on the same AP at separate >>>>>>>> physical locations (home and office). The have a DVR at each >>>>>>>> location >>>>>>>> that they want to view. Everything is configured properly on their >>>>>>>> end to view the DVR's on port 80 through their routers. Problem is >>>>>>>> that we have SM isolation turned on with option 2 to forward packets >>>>>>>> upstream and they want to see the home when at the office and the >>>>>>>> office when at home. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I set up a mangle rule in my Mikortik to mark the packets with a >>>>>>>> routing mark based on the SRC and DST addresses, and then used a >>>>>>>> static route for anything what that mark and send it back to the AP >>>>>>>> port. It doesn't work, what am I doing wrong, any suggestions short >>>>>>>> of disabling SM isolation? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >
