As a (too) long time enterprise guy, this post and the parent are incredibly true to life. I think you've hit the nail on the head with the appeals of SaaS. So

As a (too) long time enterprise guy, this post and the parent are incredibly true to life. I think you've hit the nail on the head with the appeals of SaaS. Something else I would add to that from my "inside" perspective. * People tend to be less territorial about SaaS as regimes and responsibilities change. It makes sense, premise stuff is a tangible reminder of someone else's influence and there can always be question about the quality of the implementation. Not so much with SaaS, it's regarded much more like a utility - no need to fire the existing ISP or power company when you take charge and no need to drop the SaaS contract. * Less implementation friction. SaaS tends to be smartly designed with working around and through traditional barriers in mind. When all you need is a web browser and an innocuous configuration change or perhaps a lightweight agent or appliance to get started it's faster to get to the point of convincing adoption through demonstration as opposed to talking about it. * No complications from folks who "buy" a product, but won't pay for ongoing maintenance creating mine-laden islands of trapped expense. >"But there's still a ton of money to be made in on-premise enterprise software, it's just a long, annoying, dangerous sales process." Yeah, I see it being particularly tough on an individual vendor. If you're addressing something apparent enough for one of the big monstrosities to notice they'll be looking to acquire/claim a solution to push you out. If you're addressing something emerging, forward-thinking enough that the cartels haven't caught on to it, you'll have a steep uphill battle convince anyone what it is and how why they'd actually want it.