Perhaps standards and data portability could help here: if it is easy to deploy logic and data to more than one location at once, and to move it around without major refactoring or transportation costs.

Agree with Fred on the current weakness of the SaaS/bank analogy. But then I’m sure when banks first came to be there was little in the way of regulation. But it may take a number of unfortunate incidents before governments put in place effective measures to protect SaaS consumers.

But in any case I think service mash-ups most certainly have a brighter future than their musical counterparts - which quickly became tiring and a rather embarrassing source of momentary interest.

Aside: The SaaS/bank analogy doesn’t stand up to close examination. For example, there are gazillions of regulations for financial institutions - but if your service provider shuts down, you mostly don’t have any leverage.

Thanks for the comment. My view on the reliability of mashups is that you only attempt to control the things you are capable of. I’ll outsource reliability, scaling and dependability of my application to the people earning their living by providing a good level of service in those areas. If they aren’t up to speed, I can move on and change my mashup to work with someone else.

As the demand for mashups increases, companies will start to offer SLA’s to the people that want them. I’d thought StrikeIron provided SLA’s for the services they broker, but it would appear not. IBM has a research group looking into this.

Reliability is inversely proportional to complexity, as suggested by the KISS principle. The mash-up by definition adds complexity, and furthermore reliance on 3rd parties with whom you likely have no formal contract or SLA. And you are in essence at the mercy of their subject to change - or worse still fail - business models.

Would you build your house on land that had not been surveyed, and which you neither owned nor had a leasehold? Mash-ups bring many benefits but no certainty of scale, dependability or ongoing viability.