企业SaaS和Coghead课程
TechCrunch just recently reported the demise of Coghead, one of the Web’s most popular SaaS enterprise solutions. Coghead suggested via this article, that the economic downturn is to blame for its woes. There is however a more basic and realistic flaw for many such developments. The longest running argument against any SaaS platform has been data backup and security, and this is detrimental in any economic situation.
TechCrunch最近刚刚报道了Coghead (一种Web上最受欢迎的SaaS企业解决方案)的消亡。 柯格海德(Coghead)在这篇文章中暗示，经济下滑是其困境的罪魁祸首。 但是，许多此类开发存在一个更基本和现实的缺陷。 针对任何SaaS平台，最长的争论一直是数据备份和安全性，这在任何经济情况下都是有害的。
In a recent article by Larry Dignan of ZDNet, both data backup and economic aspects of SaaS are brought into question. Though the economic downturn may be a concern for SaaS, as is data backup, another element has been overlooked. Raw data, no matter how it is “banked” (as Dignan points out) is literally useless without an application to run it. In this one respect alone, developers of Web based business SaaS have made a crucial error. No business, however small, can afford even the remote possibility that their data gets stuck in limbo.
ZDNet的Larry Dignan在最近的一篇文章中 ，对SaaS的数据备份和经济方面都提出了质疑。 尽管经济下滑可能像数据备份一样是SaaS的问题，但另一个因素却被忽略了。 原始数据，无论如何“存储”(如Dignan指出的那样)，如果没有应用程序来运行它，实际上就毫无用处。 仅在这一方面，基于Web的业务SaaS的开发人员就犯了一个关键错误。 无论规模多么小，任何企业都无法承受其数据陷入困境的遥远可能性。
Why some of these developers never made a “stand alone” version, including proper documentation, is a mystery. My expertise in this space consists of testing some of these services early on (Coghead in particular), and working with Iceberg, helping with their new site design and release news. The viability of Iceberg and Process Maker are particularly relevant for this argument in that they do have “on site” services.
为什么其中一些开发人员从未制作过“独立的”版本，包括适当的文档，这是一个谜。 我在该领域的专业知识包括尽早测试其中一些服务(尤其是在Coghead)，并与Iceberg合作 ，帮助他们进行新的网站设计和发布新闻。 Iceberg和Process Maker的生存能力与该论点特别相关，因为它们确实具有“现场”服务。
The chart below illustrates a comparative of several SaaS services including; Coghead, Zoho, Process Maker, QuickBase, SalesForce and Iceberg.
下图说明了几种SaaS服务的比较，包括： Coghead， Zoho ，流程制造商，QuickBase，SalesForce和Iceberg。
Updated chart illustrating features
更新的图表说明了功能
生存力冗余 (Redundancy For Viability)
However much we all want SaaS to be successful, viability effects everyone from developers to end users – business or individuals. Time is money, as they say, so losing data or even having it “detained” is not an option for most. Coghead’s ultimate fate as a technology is uncertain, in today’s news that SAP acquired it. Irregardless, redundancy with regard to both application and data would seem prudent for SAP now.
无论我们多么希望SaaS取得成功，可行性会影响从开发人员到最终用户的每个人，无论是企业还是个人。 正如他们所说，时间就是金钱，因此丢失数据甚至“扣留”数据对于大多数人来说不是一种选择。 在SAP收购了Coghead的消息传出的今天 ，Coghead作为技术的最终命运尚不确定。 无论如何，现在对于SAP来说，在应用程序和数据两者上的冗余似乎都是谨慎的。
最后说明 (Final Notes)
Coghead as a Web 2.0 (or whatever) development is significant. I reached Wayne Byrne, Co-founder of Iceberg, to get his thoughts on this news. Even given his development’s somewhat unfair comparisons early on to Coghead, his statement reveals a lot about Coghead as an innovation:
Coghead作为Web 2.0(或其他任何形式)的开发非常重要。 我联系了Iceberg联合创始人Wayne Byrne，以了解他对这一消息的想法。 即使考虑到他的发展在早期与Coghead的比较有些不公平，他的声明也揭示了Coghead作为创新的很多内容：
Coghead simplified and communicated the message of SaaS, webware in a way that none of the other players were able to, and captured peoples imaginations.
Coghead简化并传达了SaaS(网络软件)的信息，其方式是其他参与者无法做到的，并吸引了人们的想象力。
I also asked Byrne about backup for SalesForce, given their massive acceptance. Byrne replied: “Salesforce’s customers can request backup, but it is given in the form of Excel spreadsheet, and it would take companies months to sort all this out.” Also, my original contention about “useless raw data”, seems valid too. Every development in this space has its strengths and weaknesses, but at the core of an SaaS company, data security has to be at the top of lists. Suggesting viability without this “guarantee” seems ludicrous.
考虑到他们对SalesForce的大量支持，我还询问了Byrne。 Byrne回答：“ Salesforce的客户可以请求备份，但是以Excel电子表格的形式提供，这需要公司花费数月的时间来解决所有这些问题。” 同样，我最初关于“无用的原始数据”的争论也似乎是正确的。 该领域中的每个发展都有其优点和缺点，但是在SaaS公司的核心中，数据安全性必须排在首位。 在没有这种“保证”的情况下暗示生存能力似乎是荒谬的。
Author’s Note & Disclosure: As I mentioned in the body of this article, I consulted with Iceberg for website design, PR and SEO early in its development. Any opinion expressed or implied is not intended to be an advocacy of one product over another, and is certainly not the suggestion of SitePoint or its community. I suggest that the Web community as a whole, evaluate these services more completely. In so doing, we can more easily guarantee the art of the development and the end users are not left wondering what happened.
作者的注意事项和披露：正如我在本文正文中提到的那样，我在其开发的早期就向Iceberg咨询了网站设计，PR和SEO。 所表达或暗示的任何观点均非旨在提倡一种产品优于另一种产品，当然也不是SitePoint或其社区的建议。 我建议整个Web社区更全面地评估这些服务。 这样，我们可以更轻松地保证开发的艺术性，而最终用户也不会想知道发生了什么。
Update: Intuit contacted me via their PR and suggested that workflow, Excel integration and other features are available. I include the work flow (though there still is no visual work flow), and Excel as givens. As for API suggested utility, an open API doesn’t mean you can upload your own code to the app. They also wanted to know what data base integration was. This allows one platform to get data directly from another data base, which seems indispensable given that Coghead’s users need someone to integrate their data now.
更新： Intuit通过其PR与我联系，并建议可以使用工作流程，Excel集成和其他功能。 我包括工作流程(尽管仍然没有可视化的工作流程)和Excel。 至于API建议的实用程序，开放的API并不意味着您可以将自己的代码上传到应用程序。 他们还想知道什么是数据库集成。 这使一个平台可以直接从另一个数据库获取数据，鉴于Coghead的用户现在需要某人来集成其数据，这似乎是必不可少的。