Report comment

Hi Ben. You are correct. That part didn't get transcribed well and missed the context of the discussion. The comment was actually in reference to the fact that many firms and indeed suppliers we've found associate (and in some cases outright equate) remote hosting with cloud computing because the server isn't physically in the office. We view cloud computing apps in the modern sense, taking cues from Salesforce.com and Dropbox - of which multi-tenancy is certainly a defining characteristic.

As to your later point - I can't speak for others, but I will say as a SaaS provider and a "one stop shop" - we've taken care of the integration - because it is cost effective for us, and we do pass those savings on: No training fees, no maintenance etc. I do agree it's not feasible for yourself as a end user law firm to cost effectively integrate the last mile. The other aspect on multi-tentant vs single tenant risk - it comes down to scale. As an individual firm, I would suspect it is more expensive to add additional levels of resiliency because you are shouldering these costs yourself. A multi-tenant provider can afford to invest in more comprehensive architecture precisely because these costs are shared.