Anyone that has been involved with software license enforcement over the last 20 years will almost certainly have heard of floating licenses. The concept of a centralized license manager serving licenses out to waiting applications on a first come first served basis is pretty well known and understood. But as soon as you start thinking about that deployment model, you will probably start thinking about failure: failure of the license manager, failure of the network, failure of the software. When you have license manager providing centralized license control, you have a single point of installation, a single point of administration and a single point of failure. One crash, and hundreds, maybe even thousands of innocent workstations can’t get a license anymore. Work grinds to a halt. It sounds serious, right? Yet this is one of the most commonly ignored gremlins in software licensing.
Cloud is changing the way Software Publishers (ISVs) are monetizing their offerings. An increasing amount of workload is now moving from on-premise to cloud. This transition is driven by two factors: what customers and/or competition are dictating, and the need for ISVs to expand their reach to new segments. As a result, more and more ISVs are making the inevitable move to cloud.
When implementing business solutions using commercial or third-party solutions, what’s the best software delivery option? Should you look for a solution managed by the application provider? Or do you buy a license and implement it in-house, using your own staff to implement, install, and manage the solution? Of course, the answer is “it depends”. In order to determine what would work best for you, the first step is assessing the options against your priorities as a business. Here are some considerations:
Software consumption is continually changing. Users expect an evolving hyper-connected solution while their consumption needs demand licensing flexibility. As a result, providers need to offer scalable and flexible solutions now more than ever.
Running Monetization? Let me explain.
My professional life is focused on software monetization; providing software companies with solutions to further monetize on their software offering. In my personal life, my hobby is running. I’m the traditional ISV of running. I started in primary school when I realized that I was born with a Unique Selling Proposition: endurance. While others would collapse on the sidewalk trying to release a side cramp, I just endured and came first.
More than half of the companies out there that deliver B2B software have some sort of electronic license management embedded in their products. The lion’s share of this market belongs to home grown technologies, an unsurprising fact considering that the one thing software companies do is create software. The pros and cons of build versus buy have been well documented, and isn’t the topic of this article. What mystifies me is the glaring lack of metrics when it comes to this highly pervasive and extremely important issue.
SafeNet Inc. today announced that analyst firm Frost & Sullivan has presented the company with the prestigious Market Share Leadership Award for its leadership in the global software monetization market. Frost & Sullivan recognized SafeNet for its leadership in market share, growth outlook, continued commitment to the core business-to-business market, and focus on emerging cloud and embedded markets.
The subscription economy has arrived and is here to stay. One of the key components of a subscription pricing model is the ability to charge against usage or essentially a pay as you go model. In the last couple of years, there has been a clear rise in the roll out of consumption based pricing models among ISV’s and SaaS providers. However, the interesting emerging trend is the adoption by OEMs, medical devices and classical hardware manufacturers who want to monetize on the software to gain a competitive advantage.
In today’s tough economic scene where cash is king, everyone is being driven to conserve cash. As a result, buyers are asking for discounts from their vendors, converting from CAPEX to OPEX or license optimization or a combination of these. Any of these mechanisms can reduce revenue for the ISV. CAPEX to OPEX movement is of specific interest recently as this usually leads to discussions on pay-per-use and/or subscription pricing models. ISV’s typically think of migrating into SaaS offerings when they consider offering these new pricing models. Offering SaaS has its own set of challenges including requiring a hosting infrastructure, collecting payments, R&D efforts to build the new SaaS platform and its impact on current product roadmaps.