From: David W. Fenton on
Salad <salad(a)oilandvinegar.com> wrote in
news:0eqdncSAVLU849LRnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:

> If a company doesn't have Sharepoint and wants an Access app on
> the web, it appears one must use hosting.

You have to have a Sharepoint server, yes. Either you run your own
and expose it to the web, or you use hosted Sharepoint. This has
been mentioned as part of every discussion of A2010 and Sharepoint
2010 and the new Access Services that I've seen. It shouldn't come
as a surprise, it seems to me.

> I'm sure there's a cost having your
> own site, BTW. In hosting there is a per-user fee to that. The
> hosting company I talked to the range per user, excluding
> sharepoint hosting space, is between 7-8 dollars...per month.

I understand what you referring to now.

If you were running your own site, you could do it without that
cost, which means it might very well be worth it to invest in your
own web-facing Sharepoint server if that's what you needed.

That said, my assumption all along was that the vast majority of
Access developers who would use this new feature would be doing it
within an Intranet or over a VPN.

> If one had 100 active clients and you wanted them to view reports
> on the ir stuff...say the status of there order...then if I
> understand it correctly you need to add them on as a user...or
> about 90/year per user.

I'd have to look at the fine print on exactly what kind of user
setup was involved. Are those AD users or Sharepoint users? If the
latter, it seems excessive.

> If a company had a lot of users that could run into some
> serious
> cash. You start adding in your staff and the cost is heading
> upward...quickly.

....which is why I assumed most of these Sharepoint-hosted Access
apps would be served on local networks, and not over the open
Internet.

> I can understand having data entry people scatterred across the
> US, working 8 hours a day, and it being cost effective. Paying
> $7.50 a month for something that may be used once a month, kind of
> steep.

It seems to me that much more cost effective would be to set up the
Sharepoint server yourself and have the log onto a VPN. In that
case, you could be using AD authentication, since they are on your
local network.

Whether or not that's superior to just using Windows Terminal Server
with Access is a different question.

> A person can develop an app in A2010. Convert to an MDE.
> Distribute it. Cheap. Saying to the boss...and you can also
> spend $10,000 or more per year so the client can see a report
> he/she may or may not use and the boss might say..."send em an
> email with a pdf attachment.".

I really don't see this as any different in terms of cost basis than
hosting an app on Terminal Server. The one advantage of the
Sharepoint-hosted Access app is that there is no requirement for the
end users to have any the license for Access on the workstation they
are connecting via RDP with.

> I asked in a forum if anybody has a sample app I could view or
> play with. Not a nibble. If the person needs to cough up $8 so I
> can view his app, what would be the reason? How soon is he going
> to recoup his loss with me? He'd be waiting a long time.
>
> I can understand the need for security. I don't see the reasoning
> of having an item prices itself out the market. Microsoft gains.
> The hoster gains. Does the company I develop for gain as well?

I think you're assuming Sharepoint-hosted Access apps are intended
primarily for use outside a walled garden. I would assume exactly
the opposite. That is, you're taking the exceptional use case and
assuming it's the default case.

And I'm not sure that your beef is with Microsoft so much as it is
with the hosting companies for their pricing policies.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
contact via website only http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
From: Salad on
David W. Fenton wrote:
> Salad <salad(a)oilandvinegar.com> wrote in
> news:0eqdncSAVLU849LRnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:
>
>
>>If a company doesn't have Sharepoint and wants an Access app on
>>the web, it appears one must use hosting.
>
>
> You have to have a Sharepoint server, yes. Either you run your own
> and expose it to the web, or you use hosted Sharepoint. This has
> been mentioned as part of every discussion of A2010 and Sharepoint
> 2010 and the new Access Services that I've seen. It shouldn't come
> as a surprise, it seems to me.
>
>
>> I'm sure there's a cost having your
>>own site, BTW. In hosting there is a per-user fee to that. The
>>hosting company I talked to the range per user, excluding
>>sharepoint hosting space, is between 7-8 dollars...per month.
>
>
> I understand what you referring to now.
>
> If you were running your own site, you could do it without that
> cost, which means it might very well be worth it to invest in your
> own web-facing Sharepoint server if that's what you needed.
>
> That said, my assumption all along was that the vast majority of
> Access developers who would use this new feature would be doing it
> within an Intranet or over a VPN.
>
>
>>If one had 100 active clients and you wanted them to view reports
>>on the ir stuff...say the status of there order...then if I
>>understand it correctly you need to add them on as a user...or
>>about 90/year per user.
>
>
> I'd have to look at the fine print on exactly what kind of user
> setup was involved. Are those AD users or Sharepoint users? If the
> latter, it seems excessive.
>
>
>> If a company had a lot of users that could run into some
>> serious
>>cash. You start adding in your staff and the cost is heading
>>upward...quickly.
>
>
> ...which is why I assumed most of these Sharepoint-hosted Access
> apps would be served on local networks, and not over the open
> Internet.
>
>
>>I can understand having data entry people scatterred across the
>>US, working 8 hours a day, and it being cost effective. Paying
>>$7.50 a month for something that may be used once a month, kind of
>>steep.
>
>
> It seems to me that much more cost effective would be to set up the
> Sharepoint server yourself and have the log onto a VPN. In that
> case, you could be using AD authentication, since they are on your
> local network.
>
> Whether or not that's superior to just using Windows Terminal Server
> with Access is a different question.
>
>
>>A person can develop an app in A2010. Convert to an MDE.
>>Distribute it. Cheap. Saying to the boss...and you can also
>>spend $10,000 or more per year so the client can see a report
>>he/she may or may not use and the boss might say..."send em an
>>email with a pdf attachment.".
>
>
> I really don't see this as any different in terms of cost basis than
> hosting an app on Terminal Server. The one advantage of the
> Sharepoint-hosted Access app is that there is no requirement for the
> end users to have any the license for Access on the workstation they
> are connecting via RDP with.
>
>
>>I asked in a forum if anybody has a sample app I could view or
>>play with. Not a nibble. If the person needs to cough up $8 so I
>>can view his app, what would be the reason? How soon is he going
>>to recoup his loss with me? He'd be waiting a long time.
>>
>>I can understand the need for security. I don't see the reasoning
>>of having an item prices itself out the market. Microsoft gains.
>>The hoster gains. Does the company I develop for gain as well?
>
>
> I think you're assuming Sharepoint-hosted Access apps are intended
> primarily for use outside a walled garden. I would assume exactly
> the opposite. That is, you're taking the exceptional use case and
> assuming it's the default case.
>
> And I'm not sure that your beef is with Microsoft so much as it is
> with the hosting companies for their pricing policies.
>
Good points all, David.

I really can't have a beef with the hosting companies. They have to pay
MS a license fee, I don't. I just feel the hosting companies will have
to have some salesmen that can sell refrigerators to Eskimos. That
don't just take orders but can show the benefit of their product and how
it is cost-effective, not cost-exorbitant.