This is a bad take and a false dichotomy. The reasons for choosing a library or a service are so myriad and context-dependent that any generalization about which is "better" is just silliness. It's like saying, "If you have to get somewhere, running is better than walking." Sure, in the case of a race or escaping a predator, running is probably the best option. But what if you want to take in the sights or you can't sweat in your clothes? Running would be a bad choice, even though it's faster. There are just too many variables in the real world to make any sort of blanket statement about which approach is "better."
I agree. But if we steel-man this,it could make sense for services that can be replaced by libraries. So simple services that could be replaced by a slim library on the user's machine.
Some actual examples could go along way towards making a better point. Obviously some things are better as services and other better as libraries. The question is under what circumstances to choose one model or the other. I didn't think the article really shed any light on that question.
I also think that the author (and other commenters in this thread) underestimate how much the move to SaaS is driven by what users want as opposed to what the providers want. I'm old enough the remember the pre-SaaS/pre-cloud days when everything was a library. And it was a nightmare. You have to run all of your own infrastructure and the pace of development in the products themselves was terrible. And of course it makes sense. Need to store some data? A SaaS provider can pick a storage layer that meets their needs and be done with. But of course a purveyor of enterprise software has to support every possible storage layer under the sun.
