We have been a pretty loyal customers to SFDC in the past, mostly because of the systems being up and running by the time that Sugar hit the marketplace, so that switching cost kept us from looking at alternatives, especially open source ones, so far.
However, over time, the reasons to look at alternatives, and - more important - the reasons for newbies to never start with salesforce.com are accumulating.
Just now another one was added, when we (not even aware of there being one) reached our "storage limit" of 20MB per user (with a 1GB minimum). With 14 users paying far more than $100 each PER MONTH, it is quite archaic to see oneself confronted with a 20MB per user storage limit, given that each salesforce object (a mail, a contact, anything), even without any content, just has a systemic storage requirements of some 100KB.
While salesforce.com can do what they want to do, I think people should know that, once locked in, like with any closed source vendor, they are going to be milked down the road, and they should, at least, properly negotiate adaquate storage limits.
Moreover, the community should cry "foul" whenever salesforce.com tries to showcase itself as a 2.0 or open source company, which seconds Matt Asay's respective post.
For someone charging $1,500 per year for only 500MB of additional storage, you are not even a 1.0 company. You are simply not getting it to see how much of your reputation and customer loyalty you can ruin for a small, quick buck, compared to executing a forward looking company strategy.
It's time to look at Sugar, guys!