wrt (5): Is it not good for the user base at large or is it not good for users who choose to live as nomads on a boat?
I feel like we have to be realistic about the problems we’re solving here—-is the goal to optimize for 95% of users or 100%? If 100%, I have to ask if the tradeoffs for the last 5% of users are worth the squeeze to the 95%? SaaS really is the right solution for many people; not all but many.
> SaaS really is the right solution for many people; not all but many.
SaaS is a great solution for people selling software to have locked in revenue and customers who can’t leave.
For actual customers there used to be a time you could but some software, install it and then just run it for years. No forced recurring payments, no forced updates that break your workflows, no unnecessary look&feel changes every year, etc.
While that might be a neat write-off mental model for the convenient few, from the perspective of most of the world, many modern software developers is live in affluent situations where processing power, memory, screen size, and connectivity are basically guaranteed. Anywhere else (much of the world) has issues with the systems they design.
This is not a 5% thing, it's a >50% potential users thing. Viewed that way, it makes commercial sense to consider them. However, SaaS was usually an exploitative now-or-never growth model seeking unrealistic returns in a short period based on false economics, so give-a-damn was already managed out of corporate scope.
The off the grid experience and journey discussed highlights how little hardware and connectivity we really need. Writing that off on the proviso it's economically 'smart' to ignore users misses the intellectual point.
I feel like we have to be realistic about the problems we’re solving here—-is the goal to optimize for 95% of users or 100%? If 100%, I have to ask if the tradeoffs for the last 5% of users are worth the squeeze to the 95%? SaaS really is the right solution for many people; not all but many.