Forrester Wave Paas for Vendor Strategy Prof.p

8/3/2019 Forrester Wave Paas for Vendor Strategy Prof.p

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/forrester-wave-paas-for-vendor-strategy-profp 1/19

Making Leaders Successul Every Day

Ma 19, 2011

The Frrester Wave™: Patfrm-As-A-Serve Fr Vedr StrategPrfessas, Q2 2011 Stefa Red, Ph.D. ad Jh R. Rmer

fr Vedr Strateg Prfessas

http://www.forrester.com/



© 2011 Forrester Research, Inc. All rights reserved. Forrester, Forrester Wave, RoleView, Technographics, TechRankings, and Total Economic Impact are trademarks o Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property o their respective owners. Reproduction or sharing o thiscontent in any orm without prior written permission is strictly prohibited. To purchase reprints o this document, please email [email protected]. For additional reproduction and usage inormation, see Forrester’s Citation Policy located at www.orrester.com. Inormation is

based on best available resources. Opinions refect judgment at the time and are subject to change.

Fr Vedr Strateg Prfessas

ExEcuTiVE SuMMARy

Platorm-as-a-service (PaaS) oerings represent a critical space within the broader cloud ecosystem, as

they provide the linkage between application platorms and underlying cloud inrastructures. In order

to build a viable cloud market strategy, vendor strategists o independent soware vendors (ISVs) and

tech service providers need to understand their partnership opportunities in this area. In this report, we

outline how Forrester’s 149-criteria evaluation o 10 PaaS vendors can be used to determine the best

partner choices. Our research unveils that salesorce.com, because o its comprehensive PaaS eaturesand strong vision and strategy, represents the top choice or ISVs. For service providers, we see strong

perormances o Cordys, LongJump, Microso, salesorce.com, and WorkXpress, which support multiple

deployment and business models. Although PaaS overall is still in the early stages o its evolution with

lots o potential risks or buyers, without a strong set o PaaS choices, vendor strategy proessionals will

struggle to make a sae inrastructure bet or their SaaS application platorms or local ecosystems.

TAblE oF conT EnTSPaaS: Te Ke To Ulock Cloud Computi’s

Power

PaaS: A Immature Market Wit AFrameted Vedor Ladscape

PlatormAsAService Evaluatio Overview

PaaS: Te ISV Parter Sceario

PaaS: Te Service Provider Parter Sceario

Vedor Profles

Supplemetal Material

noTES & RESouRcESFrrester dted a-ased evaats

J ad Agst, 2010 wth 10 vedr

mpaes: casp, crds, Gge, lgJmp,

Mrsft, orageSape, saesfre.m, T

Sftware, WaveMaker, ad Wrkxpress. We

dd pdate tervews drg Jaar 2011.

Frrester tervewed 22 stmers der

dt f amt.

Related Researc Documets

“ The Frrester Wave™: Patfrm-As-A-Serve Fr

App Dev Ad Dever Prs, Q2 2011”

Ma 19, 2011

“Patfrm-As-A-Serve Market Szg”

J 13, 2009

“Patfrm-As-A-Serve is Here: Hw T Sft

Thrgh The opts”

Apr 1, 2009

Frrester’s Patfrm-As-A-Serve Referee

Arhtetre

Ferar 20, 2009

Ma 19, 2011

The Frrester Wave™: Patfrm-As-A-Serve Fr VedrStrateg Prfessas, Q2 2011idetfg The best Parter ches Fr iSVs Ad Serve Prvdersb Stea Ried, P.D. ad Jo R. Rmer

wth Pasa Matzke, Adrew Magare, Assa Aders, ad Mrsaw lsserma

2

4

6

8

11

13

16

http://www.forrester.com/go?docid=56710&src=56295pdf

















© 2011, Frrester Researh, i. Reprdt PrhtedMa 19, 2011

The Frrester Wave™: Patfrm-As-A-Serve Fr Vedr Strateg Prfessas, Q2 2011


2

PAAS: ThE KEy TO UnLOCK CLOUD COMPUTIng’S POWER

Cloud computing is exciting or ISVs and service providers because it oers instant access to

resources or development and testing; deployment in minutes; easy, even automatic, scaling

up and down; and pay-or-what-you-use pricing. Strategy proessionals on the ISV side need to

evaluate whether their next-generation soware-as-a-service application is only based on a cloud

inrastructure or will actually leverage pre-integrated components o a platorm-as-a-service

oering or ecient application development and rapid deployment. Service providers also see an

emerging opportunity to consider PaaS platorms as a new alternative to established middleware

stacks or the deployment o custom applications they create on behal o their clients. Many PaaS

technology stacks are only oered as a service by the original vendor and could be connected and

combined to existing inrastructure. However, some PaaS technology stacks are also available as

licensed soware stacks and can be operated by local service providers or upcoming cloud providers.

Tis is why platorm-as-a-service (PaaS) is so important. With good PaaS products, vendor strategy pros will quickly gain cloud’s benets. Without good PaaS products, cloud development is simply

too dicult, and the benets o cloud will fow slowly, i at all, to a broad range o shops.

PaaS Defed

Forrester denes platorm-as-a-service as:

A complete application platform for multitenant cloud environments that includes development

tools, runtime, and administration and management tools and services. PaaS combines an

application platform with managed cloud infrastructure services.

PaaS Provides Accelerated TimeToMarket For Vedors — I It Is Complete Eou

Te key value to soware vendors o PaaS is obviously the ability to ocus on the business application

and not on platorm technologies. Tis is especially relevant or ISVs that want to bring a soware-

as-a-service (SaaS) application to the market.1 Business requirements need a ast turnaround into

a continuous fow o eatures and releases. Most SaaS applications that have been on the market

or a long time use a proprietary platorm stack and do not leverage a general-purpose PaaS stack.

Meanwhile, most new SaaS applications leverage at least an IaaS or even one o the PaaS oerings

evaluated in this report. Salesorce.com is the only original SaaS vendor to clearly separate its

platorm rom the original CRM application. Tis puts salesorce.com in the PaaS category in

addition to its presence in the SaaS CRM vendor space.

Despite all the enthusiasm around PaaS, there are still potential risks and shortcomings ISVs and

service providers will have to take into account:

· Smaller ISVs cannot aord a re-implementation — migration is key.Many PaaS stacks

achieve an amazing eciency or application development, the required multitenant capacities,



© 2011, Frrester Researh, i. Reprdt Prhted Ma 19, 2011



3

and the manageability in the cloud by introducing new development paradigms. Smaller

vendors are not able to rewrite their existing application in a new programming language or

to re-create an existing database without reusing existing SQL schema. Leading platorms like

salesorce.com’s Force.com realized this challenge and the operations o standard Java (Spring)applications or Ruby applications in addition to a disruptive development paradigm. Tis allows

ISVs to migrate existing apps aster and combine them with new development based on the new

paradigm and capability o the PaaS platorm.

· Platorm vendor lock-in is a major concern. Te deployment o a SaaS application on a

specic PaaS platorm is a lietime bet in most cases. As the category o PaaS matures over the

next several years, Forrester expects more interoperability between the leading PaaS providers.

However, the possibility to port an application written or one PaaS into another vendor’s

oering is ar in the uture.

· PaaS should help ISVs make money. Te time-to-value chain or SaaS applications is beyond

the technical ability to develop and deploy business applications in a multitenant mode. ISVs

need support to bring their apps to the market with an app store and many other horizontal

PaaS services like billing and SLA management.

· Completeness means time-to-market advantage.Te more complete a PaaS oering is, the

less time the ISV needs to invest on its own. Strategically, the benets o completeness confict

with the lock-in concern, i the PaaS components are not based on industry standards. Figure 1

gives an overview o the ideal set o components provided by a PaaS service (see Figure 1).

Forrester’s reerence architecture also contains services important to application development anddelivery proessionals, such as corporate developers. For an analysis o how the PaaS market satises

the requirements o that audience, see “Te Forrester Wave™: Platorm-As-A-Service For App Dev

And Delivery Pros, Q2 2011.”2






4

Fiure 1 Frrester’s Patfrm-As-A-Serve Referee Arhtetre

Source: Forrester Research, Inc.56295

SaaS ISV

Browser onlyNo clientfootprint

Localintegration

hubLegacy/cloud

integration(optional)

Traditional appplatform: “coded”

business logic;application

server — DBMS

Subscriber

Multitenant platform

SaaS applicationProvided by the ISV

Application-components-as-a-service

Application components providedby OEM supplier

Web 2.0 UIUser interface

framework

Model platformBPMS, BRMS,

CEP, BI

Integration platformMediation of SaaS components

and legacy interactionESB — MDM — metadata

Application platform“Coded” business logic

Application server — DBMS

SaaS security framework

Infrastructure options:

• Hosted by PaaS provider

• Provisioned by scale-out clouds

• Licensed to “private clouds”

SaaS application

Subscriberportal

Subscription orpurchasing of functionality

Usermanagement

Orchestrationof multiple

SaaS apps

Congureintegration of legacy apps,data, metadata,master data

SLA reporting

Providerportal

Marketing

Pricing

Contracting

Billing

SaaS ALM

(versioning,testing,

deployment)

SLAmanagement

Provisioning

SaaS migration

PaaS sandbox

Single-tenant

dev.test

PaaSIDE

PAAS: An IMMATURE MARKET WITh A FRAgMEnTED VEnDOR LAnDSCAPE

Te PaaS market is a sprawling, ast-changing, and immature market. Most PaaS vendors are small,

and even big vendors like Google and Microso have incomplete, new products. Salesorce.com has

the most mature PaaS, but it just acquired an entirely new PaaS product (Heroku) whose t into the

portolio and strategy isn’t at all clear.

Developers vote with their dollars and energy, and both our data and continuing conversationswith clients suggest they are not yet voting or any PaaS products. Google App Engine, Microso’s

Windows Azure, and salesorce.com’s Force.com get attention and adoption, but many ISVs preer

either to work with inrastructure-as-a-service options led by Amazon Web Services or to postpone

development in the cloud. Forrester expects ISVs and service providers to shi to PaaS as the

available options improve.






5

Te PaaS market’s immaturity is also evident in the relatively low scores registered by many o the

vendors in our Forrester Wave analyses. Whereas many Forrester Waves have our or more Leaders,

ours only has two.

Te Four Major PaaS Cateories

Part o the problem customers have with the PaaS choices is the lack o a clear denition or the

category. Dozens o vendors call their products “PaaS,” despite huge industry disagreements about

the denition o a PaaS.

Tere are our major categories o products labeled as PaaS (see Figure 2):

· Integrated development environment (IDE) with cloud deployment is a hybrid approach.

Te largest category o PaaS products seeks to introduce cloud deployment without changing

amiliar development environments. Te idea is that developers working in Eclipse or VisualStudio will work as they always have, but when deploying, they provide the additional

inormation needed to deploy their applications into a cloud. Developers create code on their

local machines but deploy it to a remote cloud data center.

· Cloud IDEs place all development in the cloud. In contrast, cloud IDEs oer browser-based

development environments aimed at coders who execute in a cloud data center. Developers

code in a remote cloud data center and deploy to that cloud data center as well. Te cloud IDEs

are similar in unction but not the same as amiliar Eclipse-based IDEs and Visual Studio.

· PaaS or business experts provides powerul new approaches. Several o the PaaS options

target business experts, not “coders.” Tey do so with innovative and powerul new tools orcreating applications without coding. Some ISVs and service providers will nd these products

attractive alternatives to IDEs because they speed delivery o new applications.

· IDE-neutral cloud runtime solves hal the development problem.Some products labeled

as PaaS don’t provide development tools at all. Rather, these products provide a platorm

to manage deployment o applications into cloud data centers and the ongoing scaling and

management o those applications. Developers can use the development tools o their choice

within the constraints set by the environment. Te biggest constraint: Most o these PaaS

products today support only one programming language. Tese products don’t t Forrester’s

denition o PaaS, which requires the vendor to provide a complete platorm.






6

Fiure 2 Fr categres of PaaS Prdts

Source: Forrester Research, Inc.56295

Cloud IDE PaaS for business experts

IDE with cloud deployment

• salesf orce.com

• Servoy

• Tibco Software

• Vaakya

• VMware

• WaveMaker

• WSO2

• Appian

• Google

• LongJump

• Magic Software

• Microsof t

• NetSuite

• OutSystems

• Herok u

• Joyent

• Microsof t

• Red Hat

• techcello.com

• VMware

• Amazon

• Appistry

• Apprenda

• CloudBees

• Cloudsof t

• Engine Yard

• GigaSpaces

• Appian

• Cordys

• Intuit• salesf orce.com

• TrackVia

• WOLF Frameworks

• Caspio

• Cordys

• IS Tools• OrangeScape

• WorkXpress

• Zoho

IDE-neutral cloud runtime

PLATFORM-AS-A-SERVICE EVALUATIOn OVERVIEW

o assess the state o the PaaS market and see how the vendors stack up against each other, Forrester

evaluated the strengths and weaknesses o top PaaS vendors. We initially selected 11 vendors because:

· Each corresponded to our PaaS denition, including providing a hosting approach or

production deployment.

· Each had a product generally available to customers as o May 30, 2010, when this research began.

· Te collection o vendors represented the most important choices in the market or vendor

strategy proessionals.

Te nal list o 10 vendors and the products we evaluated is shown below (see Figure 3).3






7

Fiure 3 Evaated Vedrs: Prdt ifrmat Ad Seet crtera

Source: Forrester Research, Inc.

Vendor

Caspio

Cordys

Google

LongJump

Microsoft

OrangeScape

salesforce.com

Tibco Software

WaveMaker

WorkXpress

Product(s) evaluated

Caspio Bridge

Cordys Process Factory (CPF)*

Cordys Cloud Provisioning (CCP)*

Google App Engine (GAE)

LongJump

Windows Azure

OrangeScape

Force.com

Tibco Silver Product Suite:

Tibco DataSynapse FabricServer

Tibco DataSynapse Federator

Tibco Silver CAP (Composite Application platform)

Tibco Silver BPM

Silver BW

Silver MFT

Tibco Silver Spotre

WaveMaker

WorkXpress

Product version(s)

evaluated

6.95

5.0

4.0

1.4.0

7.1

R3.0.x

3.0.2

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

6.2.5

2.4

Version

release date(s)

December 2010

December 2010

January 2010

December 2010

September 2010

November 2010

December 2010

December 2010

August 2009

January 2010

May 2010

May 2010

December 2010

December 2010

December 2010

December 2010

December 2010

Vendor selection criteria

Vendors corresponded to our PaaS denition, including providing a hosting approach for productiondeployment.

Vendors had a product generally available to customers as of May 30, 2010, when this research began.

Vendors represented the most important choices in the market for vendor strategy professionals.

*Based on Cordys Business Operations Platform (BOP-4, June 2009)






8

Our Evaluatio Criteria Provide A Compreesive View

Aer examining past research, user need assessments, and vendor and expert interviews, we

developed a comprehensive set o evaluation criteria. We evaluated vendors against 149 criteria,

which we grouped into three high-level buckets:

· Current oering. Te current oering criteria measure the eatures provided by the vendor

within its PaaS, addressing architecture, perormance and scaling eatures, application

development tools and services, administration and management acilities, cloud connectivity

services, standards and interoperability eatures, and ISV eatures. Current oering scores are

depicted on the vertical axis o the Forrester Wave diagram. Te evaluation’s current oering

scores do not measure either product perormance or stability and should not be used as a

proxy or benchmark tests.

Our scoring emphasizes eatures to enable PaaS in the public cloud, and this put ibco Sowareat a distinct disadvantage in our evaluations. With its Silver portolio, ibco is primarily

addressing internal or private clouds. Proper evaluation o internal cloud oerings awaits

urther research.

· Strategy. Te strategy criteria assess the vendor’s product road map and corporate strategy, as

well as licensing and support options available or its product. Forrester’s assessments o product

and corporate strategy are subjective; the other scores are based on data. Strategy scores are

depicted on the horizontal axis o the Forrester Wave diagram.

Forrester eliminated pricing and cost criteria or this Forrester Wave, as the range o vendor

capabilities diverged too much to make comparisons meaningul. All o the vendors exceptibco publish their prices on their websites, and so prices are transparent.

· Market presence. Te market presence criteria include the size o the vendor’s employee and

customer bases as well as its sales orce and other channels. Market presence scores determine

the size o the circle surrounding each vendor’s dot on the Forrester Wave diagram. Te

evaluation’s market presence scores do not measure market share and should not be used as a

proxy or such estimates.

PAAS: ThE ISV PARTnER SCEnARIO

Tis analysis answers the question: Which is the best choice or an ISV that ocuses on the creation

o a business application in a SaaS deployment? Application development and ISV services are

weighted relatively high. Administration and platorm management and perormance and reliability

are weighted with less priority here, as this is something that a PaaS provider will deliver as a

managed service and won’t be among the concerns o an ISV. Te evaluation uncovered a market in

which (see Figure 4):






9

· Salesorce.com leads the pack with its Force.com oering.ISVs deployed more than 290

native Force.com applications listed on the AppExchange marketplace. More than 700

additional solutions are listed on AppExchange as interacing or certied with the salesorce.

com CRM application. Some native Force.com applications, which are totally unrelated to

the CRM core application, are not listed at all on AppExchange. While many ISVs value the

technical completeness o Force.com, Forrester estimates a similar number are simply leveraging

this platorm because o the strong market momentum around the AppExchange marketplace.

· Cordys, WorkXpress, LongJump, Microsof, and WaveMaker oer competitive options.

While Microso has one the world’s largest ecosystems o developers and ISVs, the Windows

Azure oering is still on its journey to complement the strong inrastructure service with a

complete PaaS unctionality. Te PaaS oerings o Cordys, WorkXpress, and LongJump provide

extremely competitive value or ISVs without existing code that is intended to be migrated into

the PaaS oering. WaveMaker, recently acquired by VMware, will very likely integrate closely with the Spring ramework soon. It is the only open source PaaS oering we evaluated and

provides competitive value or orm and data centric business applications.

· Google, Tibco Sofware, Caspio, and OrangeScape lack competitive ISV PaaS value. While

many o these vendors perorm very well in other weighting views, they provide very limited

value to ISVs looking to create a SaaS oering based on higher-level platorm components.

Google, or example, provides very competitive inrastructure eatures with a unique pricing

model with its Google App Engine. However, ISVs looking or unctionality beyond the scalable

inrastructure might select another oering.






10

Fiure 4 Frrester Wave™: Patfrm-As-A-Serve, iSV Sear, Q2 ‘11


Go online to download

the Forrester Wave tool

for more detailed product

evaluations, feature

comparisons, and

customizable rankings.

Risky

Bets Contenders Leaders

Strong

Performers

StrategyWeak Strong

Current

oering

Weak

Strong

Market presence

Caspio

Google

WorkXpressLongJump

TibcoSoftware

salesforce.com

Microsoft

WaveMaker

OrangeScape

Cordys






11

Fiure 4 Frrester Wave™: Patfrm-As-A-Serve, iSV Sear, Q2 ‘11 (ct.)


CURRENT OFFERING

Architecture

Performance and reliability

Application development

Administration and management

ISV services

Cloud connectivity

Standards and interoperability

STRATEGY

Product strategy

Partner strategy

Corporate strategy

Financial strength

Go-to-market model

MARKET PRESENCE

Current usage

Services

Employees

Distribution channels

C a s p i o

2.04

3.26

3.75

3.29

2.63

1.25

1.19

0.57

2.73

2.66

2.35

4.45

2.75

2.00

2.33

0.30

4.00

2.50

2.50

F o r r e s t e r ’ s

W e i g h t i n g

50%

15%

5%

20%

5%

30%

10%

15%

50%

35%

15%

15%

10%

25%

0%

25%

25%

25%

25%

C o r d y s

3.15

3.28

3.00

4.05

4.00

2.90

4.55

1.13

3.64

3.60

3.50

3.25

3.00

4.25

3.03

1.60

4.00

3.50

3.00

G o o g l e

2.17

2.56

4.00

2.95

3.00

1.55

0.76

2.05

2.19

2.84

0.10

2.45

3.80

1.75

2.23

1.90

2.00

5.00

0.00

L o n g J u m p

3.35

3.62

3.50

3.65

2.75

3.70

3.65

1.91

3.34

3.16

4.10

3.35

1.80

3.75

2.85

1.90

4.00

2.00

3.50

M i c r o s o f t

2.86

3.22

4.75

3.95

3.50

1.90

1.67

2.93

3.86

4.14

4.80

4.54

4.50

2.25

3.83

2.80

5.00

5.00

2.50

O r a n g e S c a p

e

1.83

2.74

2.50

3.83

2.00

0.25

0.96

1.71

2.94

3.70

1.95

3.11

3.20

2.25

2.03

2.10

2.00

2.00

2.00

s a l e s f o r c e . c o m

3.68

4.22

3.50

3.27

4.25

4.05

4.07

2.59

4.32

5.00

5.00

4.70

4.30

2.75

4.55

4.70

5.00

4.50

4.00

T i b c o S o f t w

a r e

2.26

1.98

3.50

3.39

3.38

0.30

1.96

4.37

1.91

2.16

2.70

1.44

2.85

1.00

2.80

0.70

4.00

4.50

2.00

W a v e M a k e r

2.20

2.28

2.75

3.12

3.25

1.85

1.78

1.38

3.59

3.70

4.30

3.06

3.20

3.50

2.33

0.30

4.00

2.50

2.50

W o r k X p r e s s

3.06

2.84

3.75

2.50

3.13

4.50

3.76

0.41

3.72

4.50

2.80

3.10

2.00

4.25

2.25

2.00

4.00

2.00

1.00

All scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).

PAAS: ThE SERVICE PROVIDER PARTnER SCEnARIO

Tis analysis answers the question: Which is the best choice or service providers that want to

act as a local PaaS provider with the help o a licensed PaaS platorm or or systems integrators

that would like to oer custom developed applications or integration services between corporate

users and the PaaS provider? As these service provider models are quite dierent, we encourage

strategy proessionals to view detailed product evaluations and adapt the criteria weightings tot their individual business model through the Forrester Wave Excel-based vendor comparison

tool.4 However, the average service provider weighting is a good starting point. Te perormance,

reliability, and administration eatures are weighted relatively high in this scenario to support the

hosting on a PaaS stack within existing provider landscapes. Furthermore, the architecture criteria

are weighted high, as they contain the multitenancy and security eatures that are crucial or every

service provider. Te evaluation uncovered a market in which (see Figure 5):






12

· Salesorce.com is the leader in the service provider scenario. Tis result is mainly based on its

strength or these service providers that oer custom application development and individual

integration services between salesorce.com’s applications and on-premises legacy applications.

Service providers that heavily emphasize a value contribution o their own hosting services

obviously may nd salesorce.com less attractive.

· Cordys, Google, Microsof, LongJump, and WorkXpress oer competitive options.Tese

vendors’ PaaS services or licensed PaaS stacks support multiple business models o service

providers and systems integrators. For example, Getronics/KPN is hosting Cordys to oer

customers the mashup o business processes between various cloud and legacy systems.

· WaveMaker, Tibco, Caspio, and OrangeScape lack value or service providers. Some oerings,

like ibco’s Silver, are relatively new on the cloud computing market and are still looking or a

way to transorm their success in other business models to the PaaS and cloud approach.

Fiure 5 Frrester Wave™: Patfrm-As-A-Serve, Serve Prvder Sear, Q2 ‘11


Go online to download

the Forrester Wave tool

for more detailed product

evaluations, feature

comparisons, and

customizable rankings.

RiskyBets Contenders Leaders

StrongPerformers

StrategyWeak Strong

Current

oering

Weak

Strong

Market presence

Caspio Google

Cordys

TibcoSoftware

salesforce.com

WaveMaker

OrangeScape

WorkXpress

LongJump

Microsoft






13

Fiure 5 Frrester Wave™: Patfrm-As-A-Serve, Serve Prvder Sear, Q2 ‘11 (ct.)


CURRENT OFFERING

Architecture

Performance and reliability

Application development

Administration and management

ISV services

Cloud connectivity

Standards and interoperability

STRATEGY

Product strategy

Partner strategy

Corporate strategy

Financial strength

Go-to-market model

MARKET PRESENCE

Current usage

Services

Employees

Distribution channels

C a s p i o

2.65

3.44

3.40

3.37

2.17

0.85

1.29

0.07

2.47

0.77

0.80

4.45

2.75

2.00

2.33

0.30

4.00

2.50

2.50

F o r r e s t e r ’ s

W e i g h t i n g

50%

20%

35%

5%

20%

5%

10%

5%

50%

10%

10%

20%

30%

30%

0%

25%

25%

25%

25%

C o r d y s

3.57

3.05

3.60

4.08

3.45

3.40

4.15

4.36

3.09

0.45

2.20

3.56

3.00

4.05

3.03

1.60

4.00

3.50

3.00

G o o g l e

2.65

2.96

3.80

1.90

2.57

1.50

0.42

0.15

2.69

1.58

0.20

3.34

3.80

2.35

2.23

1.90

2.00

5.00

0.00

L o n g J u m p

3.02

3.84

3.60

3.36

1.76

3.70

2.83

0.15

3.52

4.42

2.80

4.14

1.80

4.75

2.85

1.90

4.00

2.00

3.50

M i c r o s o f t

3.16

2.40

4.80

2.28

3.07

2.20

1.51

0.32

3.96

2.88

4.40

4.54

4.50

3.25

3.83

2.80

5.00

5.00

2.50

O r a n g e S c a p

e

1.91

2.81

1.70

3.53

2.11

0.85

0.87

0.50

2.56

0.55

2.50

3.42

3.20

2.05

2.03

2.10

2.00

2.00

2.00

s a l e s f o r c e . c o m

3.41

3.81

3.40

4.41

3.34

4.15

3.50

0.29

4.24

5.00

5.00

4.70

4.30

3.35

4.55

4.70

5.00

4.50

4.00

T i b c o S o f t w

a r e

3.07

2.07

4.20

3.58

2.62

0.50

2.13

4.90

1.56

0.27

1.10

1.35

2.85

1.00

2.80

0.70

4.00

4.50

2.00

W a v e M a k e r

2.11

2.47

2.20

1.96

2.44

1.65

1.68

0.15

3.18

0.55

3.10

3.43

3.20

3.90

2.33

0.30

4.00

2.50

2.50

W o r k X p r e s s

3.10

2.75

3.90

2.42

2.33

4.50

3.69

0.01

3.14

4.50

1.40

3.65

2.00

4.05

2.25

2.00

4.00

2.00

1.00

All scores are based on a scale of 0 (weak) to 5 (strong).

VEnDOR PROFILES

Leaders: A Cloud Powerouse Ad A Sotware goliat

· Salesorce.com. Salesorce.com helped to create the PaaS category, having begun exposing

the platorm underlying its CRM SaaS product years ago. Despite its success as a SaaS vendor,

salesorce.com executives like to say they run an application platorm company. Salesorce.com’s

aggressive investments to expand its Force.com portolio — in late 2010 adding new productsand acquiring Heroku — certainly support that notion. Forrester estimates that salesorce.com

has more than 10,000 accounts using Force.com as a development platorm (as opposed to

using it or extending the salesorce.com applications), perhaps as many as 25,000. Salesorce.

com markets the Force.com portolio through its own eld orce, but hundreds o partners also

promote and extend the platorm.






14

· Microsof. Microso got into the PaaS game relatively late — years aer salesorce.com. PaaS

is doubly dicult or Microso to embrace: It involves not only new technology but also a

dramatic change in business model. Microso’s progress is impressive; the company reports

having 31,000 customers or its Azure platorm. Microso’s partnering eorts are just beginning

to kick in, as only about 100 o its enormous partner roster have committed to Azure. Te

upcoming Azure appliance, which was not subject to this Forrester Wave evaluation, will oer

an additional option or service providers that want to leverage their own hosting capabilities.

Stro Perormers Ad Coteders: Startups, Upstarts, Ad Restarts

· Cordys. Cordys is the successor company to Baan, once a strong contender in enterprise

resource planning (ERP) soware. Cordys’ primary strategy is to spread its technology through

partnerships with ISVs and service providers, and it has built notable eatures to support

that strategy.5 Cordys’ partnership eorts are just about to show results on a larger scale, and

we expect to see much progress rom Cordys during 2011. Cordys reports having about 500accounts and more than 100,000 individual “seats.” Tis represents strong progress in a relatively

short period o time.

· LongJump. LongJump also brings extensive experience with packaged applications to its PaaS

endeavors. Te company’s innovations in development tools or multitenant applications give

it a strong product. LongJump also hopes to attract a strong ollowing o ISVs and solutions

providers, but it is just beginning to show results. We expect to see more in 2011. Forrester

estimates that LongJump has at least 100 accounts, perhaps as many as 250.

· Google. Google is also a cloud pioneer; three years ago, it began oering a platorm to

access the substantial resources that run its search service. Google App Engine (GAE) is the

centerpiece o a burgeoning roster o services available or developers at code.google.com.

Google’s initial target was web developers, but in 2010, it expanded into the enterprise market as

well. Google’s customer base is dicult to get a x on, as the service is reely available. Google

reported having 250,000 subscribers (individual developers) during the past 12 months, but the

number could be much higher. Google sells GAE primarily through its web presence but has

begun working with ISVs as well.

· WaveMaker. Tink o WaveMaker as the PowerBuilder o PaaS. Te company’s clever strategy

was to double down on an innovative tool or creating database applications in Java and

supplement that tool with open source Java rameworks to create broader platorms. Te result:a nice lio in the market, ollowed by acquisition by VMware. WaveMaker reports having

more than 7,000 accounts, and in its short tenure as an independent company, it had signed up

between 10 and 20 commercial ISVs.






15

· Caspio. Caspio is the PaaS pioneer you’ve probably never heard o. Te company was ounded

in 2000 and has customers in 40 countries and 2,500 accounts in total. You’ve not encountered

Caspio because the company ocuses on businesspeople, not developers and not ISVs. Caspio’s

reerence customers validated this claim: Tey were businesspeople, not developers. Caspio is

best known or creating interactive, database-driven web applications easily. Caspio has sold

direct through its web presence and word o mouth, but in 2011, it will begin developing a

partner strategy as well.

· WorkXpress. You’ve probably not heard o WorkXpress and denitely not seen anything like

it either. Te company began lie as a solutions house, hiring out to create applications. Te

WorkXpress platorm resulted rom the observation that “there has to be a better way to create

solutions.” WorkXpress is designed to let business experts create very sophisticated applications.

One o the company’s reerence customers was the operations leader or a small manuacturer

who had built an ERP system or his employer while doing his “day job.” WorkXpress sellsdirectly to mostly small enterprises, reports having between 500 and 1,000 accounts, and has

only recently begun to build ISV partnerships.

· OrangeScape. One way to look at OrangeScape: It lls the gap in Google’s strategy or PaaS

aimed at business experts. OrangeScape runs on top o Google’s cloud inrastructure and so

coexists with GAE. OrangeScape also hopes soon to ll the same role on Windows Azure.

OrangeScape’s innovation is its sophisticated spreadsheet-like tool or building application

models. Te company is just getting started, with about 50 accounts and about 30,000 seats.

OrangeScape has a nascent partner program.

· Tibco Sofware. ibco is one o the largest middleware vendors in the industry, and itrecognized the emergence o cloud computing as a new platorm generation early on.6 ibco has

moved relatively quickly to bring its distributed computing technology to the cloud and made

key acquisitions like DataSynapse during 2009 to urther bolster its portolio. ibco’s primary

interest is in beating its main competitors IBM, Oracle, and Soware AG to the market or

internal, or private, clouds. But we expect the company to also develop a public-cloud presence.

ibco is just getting started in PaaS, with ewer than 50 accounts and about 10,000 seats.






16

SUPPLEMEnTAL MATERIAL

Olie Resource

Te online versions o Figures 4 and 5 are an Excel-based vendor comparison tool that providesdetailed product evaluations and customizable rankings.

Data Sources Used I Tis Forrester Wave

Forrester used a combination o three data sources to assess the strengths and weaknesses o each

solution:

· Vendor surveys. Forrester surveyed vendors on their capabilities as they relate to the evaluation

criteria. Once we analyzed the completed vendor surveys, we conducted vendor calls where

necessary to gather details o vendor qualications.

· Product demos. We asked vendors to conduct demonstrations o their product’s unctionality. We

used ndings rom these product demos to validate details o each vendor’s product capabilities.

· Customer reerence calls. o validate product and vendor qualications, Forrester also

conducted reerence calls with two o each vendor’s current customers.

Te Forrester Wave Metodolo

We conduct primary research to develop a list o vendors that meet our criteria to be evaluated

in this market. From that initial pool o vendors, we then narrow our nal list. We choose these

vendors based on: 1) product t; 2) customer success; and 3) their representation o important

PaaS approaches. Te number o PaaS choices was too large to t into Forrester’s Wave researchmethodology, so we evaluated a sampling o vendors. Clients should not interpret our decision not to

evaluate a vendor as evidence that we eel that vendor is unworthy o consideration. We eliminated

vendors that have limited customer reerences and products that don’t t the scope o our evaluation.

Aer examining past research, user need assessments, and vendor and expert interviews, we develop

the initial evaluation criteria. Our criteria allowed us to look or explicit developer controls over a

cloud application created with each PaaS. Some o the PaaS options we evaluated don’t have strong

developer controls over conguration, deployment, and management — those vendors hide these

details to simpliy the environment. In our experience, enterprise developers don’t yet trust these

“transparent” approaches — they want controls.

o evaluate the vendors and their products against our set o criteria, we gather details o product

qualications through a combination o lab evaluations, questionnaires, demos, and/or discussions

with client reerences. We send evaluations to the vendors or their review, and we adjust the

evaluations to provide the most accurate view o vendor oerings and strategies.






17

We set deault weightings to refect our analysis o the needs o large corporations and like

organizations — and/or other scenarios as outlined in the Forrester Wave document — and then

score the vendors based on a clearly dened scale. Tese deault weightings are intended only as

a starting point, and we encourage readers to adapt the weightings to t their individual needsthrough the Excel-based tool. Te nal scores generate the graphical depiction o the market based

on current oering, strategy, and market presence. Forrester intends to update vendor evaluations

regularly as product capabilities and vendor strategies evolve.

EnDnOTES

1 We’ve explored the dierence between traditional ASP deployment models and SaaS deployment. See the

August 14, 2008, “Forrester’s SaaS Maturity Model” report.

2 For an analysis o how the PaaS market satises the requirements o that audience, see the May 19, 2011,

“Forrester Wave™: Platorm-As-A-Service For App Dev And Delivery Pros, Q2 2011” report.

3 We evaluated Heroku but dropped the product rom our research because our evaluation criteria would

have led to an unair comparison. We designed our criteria to evaluate PaaS products that provide their

own application development tools and services. Heroku provides a PaaS deployment ramework and basic

application services, but it relies on the Ruby ecosystem to provide development tools, rameworks, and

utilities.

4 Please reach out to Forrester’s inquiry service, i you need more explanation on the importance o specic

criteria and guidance how to create a custom Forrester Wave weighting.

5 For more insight on the strategy o Cordys and the turnaround rom the initial go-to-market to the current

partner-ocused approach, see the January 30, 2009, “Te Strategic urnaround: Cordys Repositions oVerticals With An Indirect Sales Model” report.

6 For an overview o the traditional middleware market, including revenues by vendor, see the December 30,

2009, “Market Overview: Te Middleware Soware Market, 2009” report.













Forrester Research, Inc. (Nasdaq: FORR)

is an independent research company

that provides pragmatic and orward-

thinking advice to global leaders in

business and technology. Forrester

works with proessionals in 19 key roles

at major companies providing

proprietary research, customer insight,

consulting, events, and peer-to-peerexecutive programs. For more than 27

years, Forrester has been making IT,

marketing, and technology industry

leaders successul every day. For more

inormation, visit www.orrester.com.

Headquarters

Forrester Research, Inc.

400 Technology Square

Cambridge, MA 02139 USA

Tel: +1 617.613.6000

Fax: +1 617.613.5000

Email: [email protected]

Nasdaq symbol: FORR

www.orrester.com

M a k g l e a d e r s S e s s f E v e r D a

For inormation on hard-copy or electronic reprints, please contact Client Support

at +1 866.367.7378, +1 617.613.5730, or [email protected].

We oer quantity discounts and special pricing or academic and nonprot institutions.

For a complete list of worldwide locations

visit www.forrester.com/about.

Research and Sales Ofces

Forrester has research centers and sales ofces in more than 27 cities

internationally, including Amsterdam; Cambridge, Mass.; Dallas; Dubai;

Foster City, Cali.; Frankurt; London; Madrid; Sydney; Tel Aviv; and Toronto.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hubbas8
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Forrester Wave Paas for Vendor Strategy Prof.p

Documents