In my last post I described the growing challenge that corporations are facing in exchanging very large files with their business partners. Today, companies employ multiple different techniques to exchange large files – e-mail, B2B integration gateways and specialized Managed File Transfer (MFT) software. But none of these three are the ideal model for the growing volume of large file exchanges. Take e-mail, for example – Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) and popular e-mail servers such as Microsoft Exchange are not designed to manage high volumes of gigabyte-sized file transfers. Consequently, most corporate IT organizations set maximum file size limits for e-mail users. Even the free web-based e-mail programs from Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google have restrictions on the size of file attachments (on the order of 20-50MB). Lycos is an exception as it does support multi-gigabyte messages.
There have been open standards efforts to develop new communications protocols, which had the potential to solve the large file transfer problem. But many of these efforts such as AS3 have failed to achieve any meaningful adoption. The standards lack the compression, encryption and checkpoint/restart features that proprietary MFT vendors offer. In fact, I have suspicions that MFT vendors have conspired to prevent the introduction of an open-standards alternative to their products.
Today’s Approach – Managed File Transfer Software
The best method for transmitting large files with business partners is to purchase a Managed File Transfer (MFT) software package. These MFT packages can support high volume transmissions of large files, both internally and externally. Sounds good, but there are a few small issues:
-
Specialized – MFT platforms are not the only gateways through which files and messages are exchanged with business partners. End-users often try to send these large files via e-mail. Others send these through traditional integration platforms such as B2B gateways. In order to send a large file through an MFT platform, most end-users will have to contact IT to request the transmission. Even if you could control internal users, there is no way to ensure large files from business partners will be sent to the correct platform. Customers are not going to trouble themselves with worrying about whether a B2B gateway is configured to handle a multi-gigabyte file.
-
Proprietary – Most of the MFT software packages leverage proprietary communications protocols to support features such as checkpoint/restart necessary for large file transfers. Consequently, the MFT software only works if the trading partner you are sending the information to uses the same proprietary communications protocol (i.e. the same software product). This is a great model for the vendor as it creates a viral effect that leads to a high degree of “stickiness” with a community of end-users. However, it is bad for the customer who is now locked into a vendor’s proprietary software product.
-
Expensive – The leading MFT software packages are expensive. Because of the lock-in effect created through the proprietary protocols, owners of these proprietary software products have little negotiating power with the vendor. If you talk to companies with MFT software they will tell you that their 18-22% annual maintenance fees are about as painful as an adjustable rate mortgage. MFT software owners often find themselves trapped between a choice of paying to migrate to an alternative software package or paying the outrageous recurring fees to their current provider.
Adjustable Rate Mortgage
Source: Ventura County Star
6 Responses to “Technology Challenges with Large File Transfers”
I would also check out ZipSend from WinZip as it allows you to leverage the cloud to send large files by email. There is a software add-in for Outlook that let’s you send a large file as you would normally but delivers an email with a link to the file rather than the file itself.
[...] a B2B e-Commerce practitioner or regular reader of this blog you might have guessed that TFTP is yet another proprietary Managed File Transfer protocol that is creating barriers to frictionless com…. Unfortunately, you would be incorrect. TFTP refers to the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program [...]
File Apartment is another option..
- Up to 1 GB
- Easy to use
- Free option, safe, and secure
- No software to download or registration required
Good clarifications above from Greg. Expensive is a relative term. In the post, I was referring to some of the Fortune 500 companies I know which are paying in the millions of dollars for MFT software from the leading vendors. Of course, this is just the beginning as the annual maintenance fees range in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Sorry, really really unfortunate oversight saying “GNX” instead of “GXS”. Feel free to edit the original comment appropriately or simply keep this comment as my apology for the mistake!
Certainly concerns, but they’re not always in place for every vendor:
1. Specialized: this is only a problem if the end-user is required to have specialized knowledge or particular credentials. If all they need is a URL which in turn loads a Java applet that looks like any other filesystem explorer/browser they’ve ever used, it’s not an issue.
2. Proprietary: this can be solved a few different ways:
a) create fallback to standard protocols like FTP
b) provide tools that require no end-user purchase or installation
c) make the entire experience transparent. If they don’t have to install, configure, download, or otherwise fuss around with proprietary software, it will never even occur to them that their data is going over a proprietary channel. They just know, “my files got there!”
3. Expensive: true, most MFT software is expensive. It’s hard to argue that point because everyone’s definition of expensive is different. Vendor A that provides a complete end-to-end solution with every feature imaginable might be charging $100,000 plus $10,000/yr renewal. That’s expensive to most of us, but maybe not to a multi-billion company that has metrics showing that the system helps them make more money than that.
On the other hand, Vendor B might sell a product that packs only the features that the buyer needs (with option to expand later) for $5000 plus $1000/yr renewal. That’s pretty cheap by comparison, but is still rich for very small companies.
Vendor C might sell comparable products to A and B, but with an additional “no frills” package that’s $1,000 with the only recurring yearly fees being support (if you don’t need support, you don’t buy it) purchased a la carte in hourly chunks.
In short: no real debate from me over here… just a reminder that expensive is a relative term. The purchasing company simply needs to calculate if ROI balances out by deciding if the MFT component is vital to attracting new clients, keeping existing ones, or recovering man-hours that are otherwise spent fussing with email and FTP.
As I believe I saw GNX announcing in another post, cloud-based solutions are likely to be the way forward. By purchasing at an hourly or per-bandwidth rate, companies will be unlikely to ever hit that $100,000 price tag. The times they are a-changing.