Reply to: Salesforce - worth getting into?

[amyacker]

Both as in Dynamics and Salesforce?

Add Netsuite (oracle) in your bucket too.

[eek]

Are you working for microsoft or a microsoft partner?

$100 for 100,000 views is reasonable I do agree with that but $200 for 100 logins is pure insanity and my biggest objection since I would absolutely looooove to be able to use powerapps portals as a solution but can't with that pricing. There is just no way to make that work except for low volume occasional usage which there isnt much of a use case for because there is little added value in handling those interactions on a portal.

I hope there will be a change when the first few months of licensing numbers come in.

Formerly Microsoft (2.5 years for Consulting Services) but I left to become an ISV / Partner (it's an easy sell when you start the conversation we are $1000 per user per year less than Dynamics by itself).

But nice to see your main complaint is the login charge - it's mine as well. If you are a partner complain as it's only going to be complaints that solve the issue...

[jayn200]

It's $10 a month for a platform on which you can actually run very complex applications (say BCA's lease car inspection software or one of mine which is an Austrian Bank's bank teller software) and is a rather great deal when it was previously $95 (minimum $40 after all discounts) for the same software when you don't need any of Dynamics bits. So it does do slightly more just something sitting on top of an existing application. And that $10 a month includes 2 apps (we usually offer the Outlook Client on top when selling our CRM solution..

As for premium connectors with that same $10 a month license they are included in the price see Pricing - Power Apps - so yes things were moved to premium connectors but its not exactly difficult or expensive to get access to them..

Finally apart from the authentication costs (something on which my opinion is well known within the product team) $100 for 100,000 views is a very reasonable price when a similar wordpress integration is $200-500 a month (and again when you compare it to Salesforce prices its a significant discount and when you compare it to an episerver / sitecore ($25k before you begin))..

So I'm really not sure where you are getting your ideas from - the people we are selling our solutions and the platform to are very happy for what their get for their money...

Are you working for microsoft or a microsoft partner?

$100 for 100,000 views is reasonable I do agree with that but $200 for 100 logins is pure insanity and my biggest objection since I would absolutely looooove to be able to use powerapps portals as a solution but can't with that pricing. There is just no way to make that work except for low volume occasional usage which there isnt much of a use case for because there is little added value in handling those interactions on a portal.

I hope there will be a change when the first few months of licensing numbers come in.

[eek]

$10 per app per user per month is extremely expensive when you're talking about a powerapp that is basically just sitting on top of an existing application or 2 and offering a consolidated output or input or both.

Remember you're not paying $10 per user per month for a subscription to an application. You are paying $10 per user per month for the rights to build your own application.

This only works $$ with a low number of users. These solutions could be deployed to a sales team for example or possibly to management or a head office or possibly for the solution you described but an organization wide deployment wouldn't make business sense. It's unfortunate because some of the best use cases for powerapps and powerapps portal are at the bottom rung of your organization.

Powerapps portals licensing structure is even more outrageous. It only works $$ with a really low volume model. Even medium sized company with an average number of customers or vendors will find that it's much cheaper to get their partner to custom build and support a portal.

Some of the most widely used and flexible connectors got moved to premium as well. The SQL connector and the CDS connector for example.

The whole thing doesn't make sense to me, Microsoft is trying to push people to using CDS but then makes the CDS a premium connector. Microsoft is trying to push organizations to creating their own portals but then charges an exorbitant rate for the licensing that makes it cost effective for only the smallest volume applications.

I just think this isn't the way to get more of an organizations tech into the microsoft sphere.

It's $10 a month for a platform on which you can actually run very complex applications (say BCA's lease car inspection software or one of mine which is an Austrian Bank's bank teller software) and is a rather great deal when it was previously $95 (minimum $40 after all discounts) for the same software when you don't need any of Dynamics bits. So it does do slightly more just something sitting on top of an existing application. And that $10 a month includes 2 apps (we usually offer the Outlook Client on top when selling our CRM solution..

As for premium connectors with that same $10 a month license they are included in the price see Pricing - Power Apps - so yes things were moved to premium connectors but its not exactly difficult or expensive to get access to them..

Finally apart from the authentication costs (something on which my opinion is well known within the product team) $100 for 100,000 views is a very reasonable price when a similar wordpress integration is $200-500 a month (and again when you compare it to Salesforce prices its a significant discount and when you compare it to an episerver / sitecore ($25k before you begin))..

So I'm really not sure where you are getting your ideas from - the people we are selling our solutions and the platform to are very happy for what their get for their money...

[thelastrosbif]

$10 per app per user per month is extremely expensive when you're talking about a powerapp that is basically just sitting on top of an existing application or 2 and offering a consolidated output or input or both.

Remember you're not paying $10 per user per month for a subscription to an application. You are paying $10 per user per month for the rights to build your own application.

This only works $$ with a low number of users. These solutions could be deployed to a sales team for example or possibly to management or a head office or possibly for the solution you described but an organization wide deployment wouldn't make business sense. It's unfortunate because some of the best use cases for powerapps and powerapps portal are at the bottom rung of your organization.

Powerapps portals licensing structure is even more outrageous. It only works $$ with a really low volume model. Even medium sized company with an average number of customers or vendors will find that it's much cheaper to get their partner to custom build and support a portal.

Some of the most widely used and flexible connectors got moved to premium as well. The SQL connector and the CDS connector for example.

The whole thing doesn't make sense to me, Microsoft is trying to push people to using CDS but then makes the CDS a premium connector. Microsoft is trying to push organizations to creating their own portals but then charges an exorbitant rate for the licensing that makes it cost effective for only the smallest volume applications.

I just think this isn't the way to get more of an organizations tech into the microsoft sphere.

Jeez SQL is premium now? so that leaves what, static excel input? Sharepoint lists?! Nice job microsoft....yikes for the smallfry guys

[jayn200]

I want to add that my opinion is not my opinion alone, look out there at the microsoft and other forums. People are not happy with the licensing changes. It's very apparent that microsoft just priced themselves out of the majority of what should be the ideal use cases for the power platform.

[jayn200]

What recent license changes? this link is the latest version of the license guide and there really has not been any significant changes since September nor will there be until September.

And the significant changes back in September (except for authentication of users) were the exact opposite of what you.

$10 /app / user / month is a good deal for an automated business process with built in data storage usable across computer and mobile devices (we use it for our simple CRM solution and that includes Outlook tracking)
$40 / user / month is a good deal when multiple processes are in use

Compare that to what Salesforce charge and you will see it's at least half the price...

$10 per app per user per month is extremely expensive when you're talking about a powerapp that is basically just sitting on top of an existing application or 2 and offering a consolidated output or input or both.

Remember you're not paying $10 per user per month for a subscription to an application. You are paying $10 per user per month for the rights to build your own application.

This only works $$ with a low number of users. These solutions could be deployed to a sales team for example or possibly to management or a head office or possibly for the solution you described but an organization wide deployment wouldn't make business sense. It's unfortunate because some of the best use cases for powerapps and powerapps portal are at the bottom rung of your organization.

Powerapps portals licensing structure is even more outrageous. It only works $$ with a really low volume model. Even medium sized company with an average number of customers or vendors will find that it's much cheaper to get their partner to custom build and support a portal.

Some of the most widely used and flexible connectors got moved to premium as well. The SQL connector and the CDS connector for example.

The whole thing doesn't make sense to me, Microsoft is trying to push people to using CDS but then makes the CDS a premium connector. Microsoft is trying to push organizations to creating their own portals but then charges an exorbitant rate for the licensing that makes it cost effective for only the smallest volume applications.

I just think this isn't the way to get more of an organizations tech into the microsoft sphere.

[eek]

I don't know I think the recent licensing changes will probably kill any momentum at least for powerapps.

What recent license changes? this link is the latest version of the license guide and there really has not been any significant changes since September nor will there be until September.

And the significant changes back in September (except for authentication of users) were the exact opposite of what you.

$10 /app / user / month is a good deal for an automated business process with built in data storage usable across computer and mobile devices (we use it for our simple CRM solution and that includes Outlook tracking)
$40 / user / month is a good deal when multiple processes are in use

Compare that to what Salesforce charge and you will see it's at least half the price...

[jayn200]

Well the Dynamics and PowerApps wave is actually just getting started. If you want to join the ride start learning...

I don't know I think the recent licensing changes will probably kill any momentum at least for powerapps.

[eek]

For anyone interested there is another App in a Day introduction to the Power Platform in April 14th at Microsoft's London Office (Paddington). App in a Day - QuantiQ @ Microsoft-London

[eek]

Those three areas seem to match what my mate described for SF, so at least on that front it's similar.

The package I'm coming from is more script / dev heavy with only some stuff being configuration, but that makes it fairly interesting and also flexible (pain in the ass if you need to start modifying core libs though).

Project-wise, aren't most customer requirements fairly similar as in it's 80% the same stuff + 20% extras which might be more tricky / hard to implement? I'm simply trying to understand what a basic project might cover.

To be honest I can't say. Most of my current work is very similar - small customers all wanting the same type of things on a cheaper code base (remember I'm selling an ISV solution designed to offer just the functionality a small company needs for basic lead and opportunity management with simple support requirements). Prior to that as part of the Global consulting team my work was very much security focused so I got the more interesting security pieces of work which probably also meant more interesting projects.

So I can't say as currently my work is 100% the same and previously it was 80% different trying to identify how to resolve their very specific issues.

[dsc]

Those three areas seem to match what my mate described for SF, so at least on that front it's similar.

The package I'm coming from is more script / dev heavy with only some stuff being configuration, but that makes it fairly interesting and also flexible (pain in the ass if you need to start modifying core libs though).

Project-wise, aren't most customer requirements fairly similar as in it's 80% the same stuff + 20% extras which might be more tricky / hard to implement? I'm simply trying to understand what a basic project might cover.

[eek]

Sure I understand that there's differences from project to project, but as it's all CRM isn't every package very similar up to a point where you can create a base project and just add / remove features depending on the client? this is the bit I was refering to when saying it's repetitive.

Btw it's not like control engineering is super exciting, most SCADA projects which are basically a GUI for all the equipement the client has on site are very similar, the thing that makes it a bit more exciting is the equipment you have to interface with ie. controllers, other subsystems / DBs, "smart" devices in the field etc.

In my world, Dynamics CRM / Power Platform work is split into 3 areas:-

Configuration (disabling / enabling bits) - straightforward takes no time - we get junior Functional consultants to do it as they demonstrate the system and see how the company works and what data they need to collect.
Customisation - small changes that you can do within the application (I don't know what Salesforce has, Dynamics had Business Rules for front end rules and Workflows / Power Automate for business logic). Functional consultants (i.e. BAs with experience in the product) can usually do that.
Custom Development - big changes that require a large amount of effort. Ideally you don't do this and you wander off to Appsource and find an ISV solution that closes matches the requirement and use that. If however you can't find such a solution you need technical consultants and developers to perform that piece of work and it will be big and probably expensive.

So in reality step 1 of any project is to find out how complex the customer needs the system to be and then it's a battle of minimising what they want into something that is as close to out of the box as possible.

Now you may or may not enjoy that but Dynamics is still constantly changing and there are things that I wanted to do back in November that I can only really start doing yesterday and that constant improvment / changes is what makes things fun.

It's also why we are developing what we are developing as currently Dynamics automatically rolls out changes but ISV products are kept static until upgrades are manually triggered. For banks that removes a lot of risk (and should give me a very nice business model)..l

[dsc]

Sure I understand that there's differences from project to project, but as it's all CRM isn't every package very similar up to a point where you can create a base project and just add / remove features depending on the client? this is the bit I was refering to when saying it's repetitive.

Btw it's not like control engineering is super exciting, most SCADA projects which are basically a GUI for all the equipement the client has on site are very similar, the thing that makes it a bit more exciting is the equipment you have to interface with ie. controllers, other subsystems / DBs, "smart" devices in the field etc.

[eek]

First of all - huge thanks for all the replied.

Second thing - my mate currently works at a Salesforce company and did so previously, so he mostly knows SF people and HR people from those companies. So it's kind of a SF-or-nothing kind of deal as he can only mention my name / push my CV in front of SF oriented peeps.

Main problem I have though is that it's a leap into the unknown as I've never used the product. I did a degree in control engineering cause it's fairly interesting, with SF it looks/sounds boring and repetitive right from the start. I need to do some basic training in it first just to understand what's what.

I can't help you as I don't find it repetitive. We automate processes and they are all different - granted our steps are usually the same, Analysis, prototype / proof of concept followed by iterative development (on the odd occasion the process is bigger than just a short piece of work) but every week it will be a new project and things will be different again.