B2B and B2C are completely different games. With B2C, the only thing that matters is scale, because users are incredibly fickle and price sensitive. An indivi

B2B and B2C are completely different games. With B2C, the only thing that matters is scale, because users are incredibly fickle and price sensitive. An individual can pick up and drop any particular app with zero friction. This is the environment where network effects are huge because social pressure is going to have a bigger effect than any marketing can in cases where it's applicable. Note also that there's not a huge number of profitable B2C SaaS companies, as they tend to be free or loss leaders, and get acquired by bigger companies who are paying for the eyeballs. Most SaaS is B2B, where software is doing real work of some value, and needs are dramatically more complex, but the addressable market is much smaller. In this environment, contrary to your assertion, adoption and switching costs are significant. While there still may be some network effects, much more dominant is general inertia in business where people just want to get their work done and have little tolerance for change. SaaS takes advantage of these dynamics by handling operations and providing ever more features, capabilities and integrations that cement the software's position inside client companies. At some point it becomes almost impossible to change, even for a software that 80% of the users would prefer, because of some un-handled use cases, or minority of internal stakeholders that would stage a revolt.