It's fun help a "savvy" Excel user understand how a relational database can reduce their byzantine VLOOKUP-based fever dreams into simple joins. Typically if somebody can grok VLOOKUP-fueled nightmares they can grok SQL pretty quickly and will actually appreciate what it can do for them.
They did, they called it Salesforce.com
Salesforce admin is a pain in the ass. There's mandatory updates 3 times a year that require low level software development expertise in order for the admin to understand what will break, building new functionality essentially requires tens of thousands of dollars of consultant development, and god help you if you want to run a report that involves objects that don't have a direct parent-child relationship.
I'm an analyst, and because I know how a database works, Salesforce stuff gets dumped on my desk all the time. I actively seek out alternative systems for everything it does, and would dearly love to see us drop this eye-watering expense.
If you're veering from defaults, you're doing Salesforce wrong. Even Salesforce's own Services team these days refuse to write custom code that'll break beyond default features.
In my experience that was guaranteed if any of the clients connected other than by ethernet.
I've not done it but I understand that it's not difficult to have an Access front end for a SQL Server backend rather than the default mdb or accdb backend.
All being Microsoft products the migration to SQL server is easy as I understand it.
I find it hard to understand why large companies would not adopt this approach.
I've done more "development" of Access-based applications over the years than I'd care to admit and, as a menu-driven front end for interaction with a client/server RDBMS (SQL Server, Postgres, etc) I think it's good cheap solution. Visual BASIC for Applications (VBA) can even do some powerful (and arguably ill-advised) stuff like directly calling Win32 APIs. It's an awesome prototyping tool in my experience.
The typical Access solution I see in large corporate environments is something knocked-together by non-IT people. Once it gets to the level of needing to be upsized to a client/server RDBMS back-end the "real" IT department comes in and demands a purpose-built solution. Usually bureaucracy, disdain for Access, licensing costs for the client/server RDMS, taking away file servers, etc, end up killing it.
Upon upgrading from Windows XP, Access was removed from the environment AND existing access databases were shoved into a database farm.
But any new business needs for something similar IE "Hey IT, we want a little app just to store XYZ business info" fell on deaf ears - the response was always "Hire IT Company to build it and hand it over." which of course would cost tens of thousands rather than a handful and thus priced it out of existence.
Which meant of course the business people started finding solutions OUTSIDE of IT Support purview....
Doesn't everyone make daily backups in production environments?
Also, aren't all backups made "just in case"? No sysadmin ever arrives at the office, thinking "Today that accountant is going to mess up the database, I can just feel it in my bones, better make a backup this time" (unless they think that every day...).
You are right on the backup thing. It's just funny to me because access databases on shared drives corrupt very regularly. It's less of it "just in case", and more of a monthly necessity
Microsoft already has built that web-based access data-layer, it's called Dataverse - http://aka.ms/dataverse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSKVxx_ghbw