pH sensing of the extracellular media of breast cancer cell lines

Chou (2012) suggest that the cloud ecosystem view takes the cloud platform view one step further, and includes partners and third parties that enable their services to participate in an ecosystem. Further, the platform with the largest and most diverse ecosystem gets to ride the paradigm shift and enjoy a dominant position for that particular generation (Chou 2012).

According to Beimborn et al. (2011) the PaaS ecosystem consists of three groups of actors: the PaaS provider, the ISVs, and the SaaS customer. In the case of aPaaS (application based PaaS), a software firm offers a core application usually SaaS. In order to increase scope of this product, the firm also provides a platform which enables ISVs to develop add-ons for the core application.

Second group consist of ISVs who deploy and develop applications or add-ons for the core application aPaaS on the PaaS platform. In the third group, customers receive the application

developed by the ISVs as SaaS service from the platform provided by the PaaS provider.

(Beimborn et al. 2011) Figure 14 illustrates the typical interaction model between the parties involved in an aPaaS scenario.

However, from a contractual perspective, the PaaS scenario can imply that the customer has to engage in multiple contractual arrangements with different parties, which PaaS provider try to reduce. (Beimborn et al. 2011)

Figure 14: Flows of money and services in the PaaS scenario (Beimborn et al. 2011)

Beimborn et al. (2011) argue that the aPaaS provider operates the platform and, based on this, provides both the core application, and the add-ons, developed by the ISV, to the customer. They suggest that normally the provider will receive a proportional share of the ISV’s revenue.

On the other hand, in a pure PaaS scenario the platform provider will normally charge fees for additional services, for example, for certifying the application /add-ons. The customer pays the fees directly to both the ISV and the aPaaS provider. In this case, the latter will provide the complete support for the core application and the first-level support for the add-on. This way the provider will become the first contact for the customer. Normally, in case of incident, the PaaS provider will first identify the source of the problem and then, if necessary, involve the ISV to provide support as well. (Beimborn et al. 2011) This view is congruent with Microsoft director.

“Microsoft builds services around PaaS to make the ecosystem more interesting for partners. For example, configuration, billing trials, images, etc.” (Director A, 07.12.2012)

For traditional vendors, the essential things are a broad platform that allows them to supplement and enhance their applications, and to decide which platform is used in the licensed model.

Platforms for SaaS are similar in that they require vendors to establish a set of application programming interfaces (APIs) and standards for data exchange among applications. However, platform partners in the SaaS model can also build onto the back-end infrastructure of

applications, where the billing, metering, provisioning, and advertising functions may reside.

This approach can reduce development costs for partners, but it may also increase costs for the platform provider. (Dubey & Wagle 2007) In the cloud platform (PaaS) scenario, Microsoft’s ecosystem is similar to the view of Beimborn et al. (2011). Channels are either direct or via ISVs.

PARTNERS’ NEW ROLE

Hilkert et al. (2010) suggest that moving away from a small number of partners bound by

contracts towards a market-organized ecosystem will make it inevitable for platform providers to develop new skills in the management and orchestration of ecosystems.

According to Beimborn et al. (2011) in PaaS model, each of the actors pursues their own interests. They argue that in terms of development, marketing, and sales, the platform services provide substantial cost saving potentials for the ISVs, e.g., by using standardized certification and marketing processes of the platform. Hence, ISVs might gain access to a previously closed market of potential customers. They also cite that PaaS can be seen as special configuration of the software value chain which offers the potential to create a sustainable win-win situation for all relevant stakeholders. On the other hand, the usage-based fees for the PaaS services allow a market entry with low startup costs. (Beimborn et al. 2011)

With shared services, the ISVs run the risk of giving up strategic areas of control within their value chain to the platform provider. ISVs might get locked into the platform due to proprietary standards, which are common on platforms. Therefore, ISVs need to develop and maintain their

applications on multiple, competing platforms. This method is called “multi-homing”.

(Beimborn et al. 2011)

Furthermore, from the user perspective, the software acquisition and operations model changes from a software license and in-house operations model to an external operations and usage fee model. The usage fee can either be a usage based or a usage independent fee. (Beimborn et al.

2011). These findings are congruent with the cloud services revenue models by Ojala 2012.

Beimborn et al. (2011) present a potential risk for PaaS providers. Due to the virtualization of the service provisioning, safeguarding the infrastructure and technical operations of the application is part of the PaaS provider’s duties. Also they suggest that service availability is the largest hurdle for cloud computing. Thus, the user should agree with ISVs and ISVs with PaaS provider on certain SLA, which contractually regulates the service availability, their protection, and possible consequences in case of non-compliance (Armburst 2010, Beimborn et al. 2011).

According to Beimborn et al. (2011) the economic aspects for the platform depend on the PaaS model. Whereas pure PaaS mainly aims at transforming existing idle capacities and fixed costs into earnings or on generating revenue by renting out resources, aPaaS provider is primarily interested in increasing the attractiveness and marketability of the core application.

NETWORK EFFECT

Beimborn et al. (2011) brought up the existence of network effect in PaaS. They point out that a platform will only be attractive for an ISV if it can expect many users. This again will only be the case if many ISVs are active on the platform, i.e. an ISV’s decision in favor of a certain platform depends on the behavior of other ISVs.

To reach a critical mass of positive decisions among the group of relevant ISVs, the platform provider has to develop adequate marketing strategies. Therefore, it needs to create expectations about whether a sufficient number of users can be acquired. Consequently, the success of the platform depends on multiple market sides, whose decisions are determined by the behavior of both the same and the other side. (Beimborn et al. 2011)