I only see failures in adapting to new circumstances, even sometimes in recognizing there are new circumstances.
82 replies (most recent on top)
I would say that Snowflake most definitely faces existential threats from FOSS.
However, they have the advantage of being a public company and face much more scrutiny than SAS ever did.
It seems they are already starting to transition from being a product company, into one that offers industry solutions, and an active marketplace of add-ons and data products. Success in those two areas will help protect them against FOSS.
Whereas SAS tried and failed at industry solutions, and talked about a marketplace but never delivered it.
It seems Snowflake, with their modern cloud native platform have captured a segment of the market that allows them to continue innovating and delivering enough value to remain relevant with reasonable growth to boot.
Does Snowflake have serious competition from FOSS that could soon put them in the kind of decline that SAS is already facing? It was sad to see their market cap fall precipitously when Slootman retired a few months back.
You've given us a birds-eye view of the BI market.
FOSS is free; PowerBI is cheap; and... everybody else better offer something darned good.
expensive proprietary tools
At my org, we're mainly using Snowflake, python, and Power BI. The first tool is expensive and proprietary, but we likely won't switch for 10 years, based on our past patterns. The second is FOSS and is gaining more adoption. The third is perceived as free due to being included with our Office subscription. These tools are more than good enough, so it doesn't make sense to pay more for other proprietary tools. We are trying to sunset those kinds of tools. The main pain I see in the above is that Snowflake has expensive usage-based pricing. Something more expensive wouldn't address that pain, though.
It seems you are still thinking analytics tools — the lion’s share of SAS’ historical market. I think most people would agree that FOSS now rules that segment and cis progressively displacing that part of SAS’ legacy. Given this truth, does anyone think there is an opportunity to profitably grow and sell expensive proprietary analytics and data management tools from 2024 onwards?
However, SAS also has a 20+ year history of building enterprise software for specific industries/applications. The point is that SAS could reinvent itself with a reimagined set of Enterprise verticals on a simplified architecture with a data platform powerful and flexible enough to scale across a broad range of custom sizings and enough innovative, modern features to make this a differentiator. SingleStore, a full featured DRDBMS makes this possible and can do so economically from small footprint, deployments all the way up to massively scaled distributed systems for the cases where that is necessary. CAS is It not a database and requires a much more resource-intensive, complex architecture, plus the addition of a real DBMS If the goal is the bill integrated enterprise solutions on top of a common platform.
Ultimately then, how does SAS stay in business and have hope at future success? Is it continuing to try to chip away as a relatively small analytics vendor in a shrinking niche market share making pleas to “ethical AI and data governance”? OR, are the steps suggested by @ecab+1tzt7zME a realistic means to fund a reimagined company that builds a well-defined suite of enterprise vertical solutions, with effective AI features (using as much OSS as possible) on an extremely powerful data substrate (SingleStore).
If it is to continue as a successful, growing company (and not be acquired by some piranha that will milk it until it’s dead), SAS needs markets where it can reasonably succeed and build off its enterprise analytics application heritage and it needs to be able to deliver products that have deep value proposition and tremendous flexibility for helping Customers succeed. Apparently, Viya is not this technology, yet, a serious platform substrate is still required to make this work. A Technology like SingleStore is not an unreasonable answer to this dilemma.
...where we came in?
"an entirely new suite of (hopefully rebranded) deeply AI-enabled modern products"
Isn't that SAS Visual Analytics?
"atop a truly innovative, highly scalable data substrate that already deploys cloud native"
Isn't that the Cloud Analytic Services server?
"Basically a rebooted SAS"
Isn't that Viya?
Isn't this...
NO — instead an opportunity to build an entirely new suite of (hopefully rebranded) deeply AI-enabled modern products atop a truly innovative, highly scalable data substrate that already deploys cloud native. Basically a rebooted SAS, which I think @ecab+1tzt7zME is getting at.
"A merger with SingleStore ..."
Because there are SO MANY customers lined up for Viya with SingleStore?
@ecab+1tzt7zME outlines an initially brutal plan, yet one that ultimately frees enough of the declining revenue stream for investment to reinvent SAS as an evolved Tech company with effective leadership and a lean, brilliant and productive Engineering team.
Rebranding would be a good idea as well. A merger with SingleStore to seriously jumpstart a greatly streamlined/modernized platform and data substrate would be an excellent part of this plan.
People suggest ideas to “save SAS” because we wish that someone would.
Many of us spent many years there, trying to build a great company. So naturally we are saddened by its decline.
The plan suggested by @ecab+1tzt7zME would work. But I agree with the author that those steps will not be taken.
I don’t remember seeing any messages that said “we must save SAS!”
“ Why are people worrying about a company that couldn't give two squirts about them? Once you are out, you are nobody to them.”
Why are you worrying about what people say on an anonymous site? By your logic you shouldn’t because nobody on here gives two squirts about you or me.
And wtf does two squirts even mean…
Don't discount other majors. Many majors take the same courses, they just apply the tools to different problems.
Why do these "we must save SAS!" messages keep appearing? There's no saving SAS. The game is over and there is no rewinding the clock. Hasn't this dead horse been kicked enough?
Why are people worrying about a company that couldn't give two squirts about them? Once you are out, you are nobody to them.
- … flap = flat
For most of its history, SAS R&D was staffed with highly competent, often brilliant technical people, most of whom had very strong software development skills and required understanding of the fundamentals of computer science/computing. The problem is, these were not necessarily the same people whose voices prevailed in making decisions critical to the ongoing growth and success of SAS software.
’
IMO, the only way to effectively arrest SAS’s current decline is:
- Lay off the bottom 50% of performing/irrelevant employees. This includes most of the bloated middle management class and probably most of the non-owner executives.
- Keep as many true SME’s (often older engineers), to see the product and themselves through via natural attrition/retirement
- Use the money saved from 1. to hire a small team of world-class business and product experts, who can help shape a new direction for SAS based on a rigorous/realistic assessment of what is possible in the current and future tech marketplace.
- Hire a new crop of research/engineering experts who can build what 3. comes up with.
- Keep the new organization as flap and lean as possible. Demand superlative performance and stop SAS corporate nanny socialism.
- Increase compensation/provide some form of equity to the highest performers
Given the age, historical behavior and billionaire status of the current primary owner, the probability these steps will occur approaches zero.
plenty of bad programmers and managers from "technical" majors as well, probably many more so. having A success with B players was in one of those management studies for a while. not sure any of it was true with benefit of even more hindsight.
FOSS (Free and Open-Source software) began offering similar features to SAS twenty years ago. Now R, Python, Spark, and other packages offer just about all of the commonly-used features of SAS. The SAS business model worked well enough to maintain the original revenue stream, until these free alternatives appeared.
The Peter Principle is the tendency of people to get promoted above their level of competence. Dr. Peter wrote that this happens in most hierarchical organizations. It happens unless the organization is actively managed to stop it.
The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when a person’s lack of skill in a given area causes them to overestimate their own competence. It also causes people who excel in a given area to underestimate their own competence, thinking that the task is simple for everyone.
I agree, this was a significant effect. In R&D, SAS promoted to high management positions people with no education in the field. We promoted business majors, communications majors, history majors, psychologists, and even one forester. They all thought they were darned good at software engineering. The people who promoted them thought so too. But their track record is clear.
So now we’ve written the new case study: Open Source, Peter Principle, and Dunning-Kruger explain it all. Somebody call Harvard Business School 😂
"Open Source and the Peter Principle"
Those six words decoded? OS
Don't forget Dunning-Kruger. The cancer ki-ling SAS for the past dozen years or so has been a toxic combination of Dunning-Kruger, Peter Principle, and complacency. FOSS didn't outcompete SAS. FOSS merely continued to improve while SAS became stagnant and failed to respond to market conditions despite ample opportunity to do so.
I just read a couple of the old business school case studies. They make you sad for what was lost 😪.
The business schools will write new case studies. But I think most of the decline can be explained by Open Source and the Peter Principle.
“Have to wonder how many business schools(Wharton et al) are in the process of writing another case study about SAS...”
You don’t HAVE to. You choose to.
And the answer is likely zero. But it could also be 43 million.
Have to wonder how many business schools(Wharton et al) are in the process of writing another case study about SAS...
“It was always short-sighted of SAS not to train their employees on the most modern technologies. But they chose not to.”
Absolutely true. And I believe that choice was motivated in part by employee retention. Train an employee on the most modern technologies and they’re more likely to dip a toe in the job market. This was the stated reason for not offering tuition reimbursement.
SAS retiree here.
SAS - It's not just a job, its a religion.
“I put in a 40-hour week, and gave those id--ts my best work. I hated my job, but I kept my integrity.”
I’m one of the folks that constantly criticise some of the people on here. Those I criticise don’t care but fwiw I have nothing but respect for that statement. Integrity being the key.
“Look what Broadcom is doing to VMWare. This is the likely future of SAS.”
Difference is VMWare employees are going to the bank with payday. At least the ones I’ve talked to.
It was always short-sighted of SAS not to train their employees on the most modern technologies. But they chose not to. We all knew the deal, so it was fair.
We all have our situations. I worked for a decade at SAS under horrible managers. I could not leave because of family illness. I put in a 40-hour week, and gave those id--ts my best work. I hated my job, but I kept my integrity.
Only if I were young would I try to “throw myself off that cliff, and soar”. The tech job market is tough right now, especially for older folks.
The most valuable asset of SAS is its $3B declining revenue stream. Therefore, the likely buyer of SAS is a firm that buys declining revenue streams.
Such companies don’t try to “arrest the decline”. They don’t care whether employees are frustrated by “stale technology”. They do mass layoffs and outsourcing, to maximize their profits.
Look what Broadcom is doing to VMWare. This is the likely future of SAS.
https://www.thelayoff.com/vmware?sort=active
@8qgn+1tzt7zME Go tell your manager you want a raise/promotion. And then when they ask why you think your work warrants such you can tell them that you work doesn’t but SAS owes it to you because of lost opportunities. Take some responsibility.
You are just too awesome then. Please don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, and don't break any mirrors admiring yourself.
Meow. Can haz layoff?
@8sgl+1tzt7zME That was a lot of words just to say you have no honor or work ethic.
“ We're being paid for lost opportunities while supporting a sinking ship.”
Must be easy going through life su-king off the teet of a company you blame for your own inadequacies.
YOU are responsible for your decisions and where your skillsets are. But blame some large company instead.
And yes I could soar if I left. Had plenty of offers over the years. I like where I am and continue to work hard and find challenging problems. That was MY decision. Not that of SAS.
"I honestly can’t picture how anyone can look themselves in the mirror in that case. I’m sure someone will call me high and mighty for looking down on parasites."
It's pretty easy. Simply look at your peers in other industries and the currency of their skills and the mobility of their careers. Compare that to endlessly marching in place working on stale technology. What, you expect us to do that in perpetuity for free? We're being paid for lost opportunities while supporting a sinking ship.
Us parasites have some knowledge and interest in "Game Theory" (not the D&D store). We all have a situation, and compare our alternatives and payoffs. Unless we are still susceptible to adolescent bravado, the likes of which you often propose, we are not going to throw ourselves off the proverbial cliff to test our wings based on your dares.
If you can throw yourself off that cliff, and soar, without negatively affect yourself and your family, then you are a much better person than the rest of us, regardless of your high-and-mighty attitude.
“ Unless there is an offer to leave (VRBP), retiring-in-place makes the most sense.”
Retiring in place means not really working while still being employed.
I hope that is not what you mean makes sense.
If you meant continue actually working at SAS with the intent of retiring from there then great.
If you meant the other then you deserve to be dumped out of the office doors.
I honestly can’t picture how anyone can look themselves in the mirror in that case. I’m sure someone will call me high and mighty for looking down on parasites.
Unless there is an offer to leave (VRBP), retiring-in-place makes the most sense.
Each of those loser products has some little aspect that may be used in a new loser product. For example, I once heard something similar to this:
"We are going to adapt this (old) product to forecast strawberry shortcake consumption. Yes, we have other products specifically for forecasting different markets. But this product builds models that are 0.001% more accurate than the models built in that other application. (It's not clear if the 0.001% improvement has practical or statistical and significance for the strawberry shortcake market. Plus, the boss paid good money for this application and the staff to maintain it in perpetuity, so we have to justify our presence by finding a use for it.)"
Cleaning the product portfolio is like cleaning some old farmer's barn -- "Stop! Don't get rid of that! I might use it one day!"
Loser products not producing revenue are less of a drain on this place than the hundreds of oxygen and benefits theives who are retired in place. Unless and until these people are sent packing nothing will change.
I agree, both are true. Years ago, the owner decided to tolerate loser products, so not generating revenue became part of the culture.
Now the decision is to cut costs via layoffs. This decision probably is delegated, because I can’t imagine any owner wanting it to be part of the culture, or wanting to be personally involved.
Is there is a way to arrest the decline? Yes.
"DECLINE! - STOP! You are under arrest!"
both can be true. the top exec/owner decides. that among many things filters down and gets set as culture. had many positives in the great days. sounds very challenging now.
@7vpi+1tzt7zME I don’t think it is a SAS culture thing. JG runs the show and makes those decisions as is his right.
These decisions aren’t things he delegates and washes his hands of.
"More importantly it sends a message that not generating revenue is NOT acceptable."
Therein lies the problem. SAS has tolerated this behavior for so long it has become ingrained into SAS culture and is unwilling to change it.