Sign in / up

back to article Like paying huge amounts for Salesforce? Don't read this

Visit Salesforce.com’s website and you’ll find a rather helpful list of 10 benefits of the cloud, which includes – in no particular order – flexibility, disaster recovery, and increased collaboration. The fact that there’s no need for capital expenditure makes it in at number 4: “And because cloud computing is much faster to …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Focus on the strategy of the business rather than what the technology can do"

    Never mind Salesforce, this should be repeated every morning by techies, tattooed on the managers, and carved in stone above the office doorways.

    8 0 Reply
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Same price?

    "non-sales types such as HR where those staff get given the same, standard, enterprise CRM license – priced $85 per user per year.

    But those users don’t need that full CRM functionality. Rather they’d benefit from a Force.com license priced £55 per user per year"

    My mate Google tells me that today $85 is worth £55.18.

    4 0 Reply
    1. Federal
      Reply Icon

      It's not per year, it's per month

      $1,500 per person, per year for base CRM

      $3,000 per person, per year, for full CRM

      http://www.salesforce.com/crm/editions-pricing.jsp

      ...make sure you read the fine print before you sign up.

      :-)

      1 0 Reply
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The organisation I work at...

    ...appears to have fallen into every single one of these Salesforce elephant traps (two years and counting and still nothing tangible).

    Luckily not the bit I work in (anon nonetheless).

    2 0 Reply
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "while lowering costs emerged as a major driver for cloud adoption, 36 per cent ended up paying more for on premise cloud compared with the equivalent services delivered by a provider"

    I don't think anyone ever claimed that running your own 'cloud' in-house was going to be cheaper than buying space on a mass commodity cloud - did they?

    You can run an open-source cloud (ganeti / openstack / etc) with commodity hardware, but you're still not going to get the economies of scale that Amazon, Google or Microsoft can get.

    If by 'on premise cloud' people just mean 'virtualization', then maybe they're realling talking about big redundant servers with a big SAN and hefty virtualization licence fees to go with it. That *definitely* isn't going to be cheaper than a public cloud, and in some cases it may end up just as expensive as running bare-metal servers.

    (The selling point then isn't the price, but the flexibility and manageability)

    1 0 Reply
    1. jonathanb Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Hardware costs are usually Petty Cash in the overall scheme of things.

      0 0 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      My brother (or sister) anon is right. When people talk about an "internal" cloud they probably mean a VMware server farm or the like. While it's possible you could do things cheaper with big iron by aggressive use of containers, that's probably never going to happen. Here's why:

      Although no one will admit it, with the headlong rush into external SaaS solutions the ranks of *experienced* people needed to go back to PaaS have been decimated. That talent is never coming back. and having witnessed what happened to them, their potential successors have steered clear of the field.

      0 0 Reply
  5. Daniel Voyce

    Yeah but

    $125 for an extra 500MB of cloud data storage a month is just taking the piss!

    1 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like