5 ms·

>Then what happens is somebody making $100+/hour would spend several hours to do the job that would be covered by a tool that costs under $50/month. Sure, but

>Then what happens is somebody making $100+/hour would spend several hours to do the job that would be covered by a tool that costs under $50/month. Sure, but then there's the slightly more complicated economic calculus: do we build our own tooling now, for a significant up front cost, or do we buy the SaaS which we might use essentially forever for an unknown future TCO?

virgilp 7y ago
Nothing complicated about it. You start with SaaS, validate it's a good tool to have/actually used, evaluate monthly costs vs opportunity costs, build your own when/if it makes sense. The slightly more complicated question is "do we invest in optimizing SaaS costs/utilization? Or use those resources to start building our own?". But even for this question the right answer is usually fairly obvious.
- fhbdukfrh 7y ago
  It is complicated at scale and over time though. Look at Saas infrastructure: How you do it as you grow constantly changes the results of any evaluation.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >Nothing complicated about it. If it was so easy, why are the companies in the article "fretting"? Because putting values on "good", "opportunity" and "makes sense" (not even counting the fact you have no control over the SaaS raising prices or going out of business in the future) is harder than we can spend $400/month or $50/month.
fhbdukfrh 7y ago
How often do you build in house tooling or applications that have no ongoing operating commitments? It's upfront capital investment plus generally unpredictable maintenance vs. More predictable but maybe higher operating expenses
- Silhouette 7y ago
  How often do you build in house tooling or applications that have no ongoing operating commitments? Absolute zero ongoing commitments? Very rarely. Negligible ongoing commitments compared to the outsourcing alternative? Many, many times.
- nirvdrum 7y ago
  I don't know if more predictable is all that accurate. SaaS providers change functionality and UX regularly and that often breaks workflows. Then you have the ones that shut down or get bought out and then substantially change their offerings. Then there are those services that would have been private to an intranet, but are now public, and they get compromised. I don't think it's clear-cut. Some SaaS has worked out remarkably well for me and others I wish I had just built the thing in-house. Also, few providers give a way to actually get your data back out in a usable fashion, so you tend to get locked in without substantial cost to back out.

virgilp 7y ago

Nothing complicated about it. You start with SaaS, validate it's a good tool to have/actually used, evaluate monthly costs vs opportunity costs, build your own when/if it makes sense. The slightly more complicated question is "do we invest in optimizing SaaS costs/utilization? Or use those resources to start building our own?". But even for this question the right answer is usually fairly obvious.

fhbdukfrh 7y ago
It is complicated at scale and over time though. Look at Saas infrastructure: How you do it as you grow constantly changes the results of any evaluation.
aguyfromnb 7y ago
>Nothing complicated about it. If it was so easy, why are the companies in the article "fretting"? Because putting values on "good", "opportunity" and "makes sense" (not even counting the fact you have no control over the SaaS raising prices or going out of business in the future) is harder than we can spend $400/month or $50/month.

fhbdukfrh 7y ago

How often do you build in house tooling or applications that have no ongoing operating commitments? It's upfront capital investment plus generally unpredictable maintenance vs. More predictable but maybe higher operating expenses

Silhouette 7y ago
How often do you build in house tooling or applications that have no ongoing operating commitments? Absolute zero ongoing commitments? Very rarely. Negligible ongoing commitments compared to the outsourcing alternative? Many, many times.
nirvdrum 7y ago
I don't know if more predictable is all that accurate. SaaS providers change functionality and UX regularly and that often breaks workflows. Then you have the ones that shut down or get bought out and then substantially change their offerings. Then there are those services that would have been private to an intranet, but are now public, and they get compromised. I don't think it's clear-cut. Some SaaS has worked out remarkably well for me and others I wish I had just built the thing in-house. Also, few providers give a way to actually get your data back out in a usable fashion, so you tend to get locked in without substantial cost to back out.