Google was the subject of other coverage unrelated to the new office apps.
Informationweek has an interesting take on the SaaS phenomenon, pointing to SANS Insitutute research that says that SaaS apps are less secure than desktop ones. But the story is a little schizophrenic. While raising that initial alarm, it then goes on to point out that SaaS apps are also easier to patch. And the story acknowledges that because the apps are less mature, comparing them to entrenched desktop programs like Word is kind of an apples-and-oranges thing. In fact, the piece concludes with the SANS's Alan Paller saying that on-demand software is inherently more secure.
In case you still labor under the belief that large enterprises don't use SaaS, consider that RightNow just signed P&G as a customer.
EWeek Labs Director Jim Rapoza raises the possibility the SaaS apps have an inherent risk: the vendor could get shut down by a lawsuit. He cites recent litigation between NTP and RIM as well as Tivo's suit against EchoStar as examples of healthy companies potentially being put out of business by the courts. I don't think I buy that one. It seems to me that packaged software vendors face the same risk.
InternetNews.com raises the possibility that big, established software companies may come into the SaaS market and pound pure-play upstarts into dust because of all their systems integration expertise. That could be true, but can you think of one example of a company that managed to dominate a market through a major platform shift? I can't.
Over at UtilityComputing.com, Ahmar Abbas of Slashsupport Inc. points out that SaaS companies, unlike traditional packaged software vendors, have to provide robust 24X7 infrastructure in order to play in the game. That means there are a few extra questions you need to ask these software providers that you didn't have to ask a few years ago, he notes. Good point.
The SaaS Revolution blog is brought to you by SaaScon and Computerworld.