Deceptive on the Exchange competitive website???
March 22 2004
Last week, I discovered that Microsoft has
reinstituted a "Competitive
comparisons" section of the Exchange website.
It's lighter than it was in the past, and notable because instead
of featuring Microsoft's own competitive papers, they are now letting industry
analyst papers do the talking. Interesting that the analysts are
letting their work be used in a public, directly competitive way, but that's
not the real surprising bit.
The link that really surprised me was the one that claims that "Exchange
and Outlook are still the market leaders". It links to a 2002
IDC market share report, which covers the market as of end of 2001. That
was the last time that IDC reported on "seats" as a measure of
collaboration market share. In the 2003 report, IDC reports
only on revenue -- and shows IBM as continuing to be the market leader,
not Microsoft.
It seems to me that it's a bit deceptive to post a report that is now more
than 18 months old as representative of their position in the market, especially
since the more recent reports identify IBM, not Microsoft, as the leader.
Post a Comment
- 2
Jerry Carter www.datatribesoftwerks.com | 3/22/2004 12:37:01 PM
Ed, the problem is that Microsoft has at its root only a love of money. Any sense of serving the customer with something besides more billing statements is out of their universe of thought. By this measure, they have no capacity to see a weak attempt at publicity as the lie it is. To them, it's only slightly old and self congratulatory news, which I'm sure in their minds cements it as valid for all time.
I can't feign surprise. After their multiple attempts to back door or 'de-compete' my desktop with 'critical' patches and their misguided application of the classic shake-down (what did they call it? software assurance? sounds like "we won't bust your knees insurance".), patently misleading information is hardly a shock.
- 3
Jack Dausman leadershipbynumbers.com | 3/22/2004 4:01:05 PM
The latest raft of reviews that have floated in from the press have been uniformly pro-IBM/Lotus. It's making my job a little easier. Just today I had someone mention that Exchange 2003 had completely overtaken Notes. "What are you talking about?" was my reply. Here, look at InfoWorld's "Leaderboard" listing (this week): Domino 6.5 is rated at 8.2, Lotus IM at 7.6 and Exchange, well I have to turn the page, oh, here it is listed last with a 6.4 rating.
Market leaders? What about innovation leaders?
- 4
David | 3/23/2004 1:55:43 PM
Where these obviously uninformed people are coming from is what makes me curious. Despite the facts (Notes RULES) the worry is what the senior executives believe. I think IBM should blitz with advertising now (and maybe with the help of some skilled/artistic Notes gurus).
- 5
Missy | 3/23/2004 9:48:49 PM
Well, a new study from the Radaci Group seems to point to newer data that shows Exchange as the market leader. Just trying to get a little balance here; interesting to get a view from the other side of the coin. :) http://searchexchange.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid43_gci956167,00.html?track=NL-368&ad=478767
- 6
Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 3/24/2004 8:04:33 AM
IDC says IBM Lotus is #1. Gartner says IBM Lotus is #1. Both of them measure the entire software market, not just messaging, and have for years. Radicati surveys 100 customers and says that represents the whole market.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe IDC and Gartner.
- 7
Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 3/24/2004 8:17:07 AM
Client: "I read an IDC report on MS's website. It shows them as #1 in seats and IBM as #1 in revenue."
Me: "I know, but did you notice the date on that report? Covers 2001. There's a newer report."
Client: "Oh? But I saw another report from Radicati Group that showed MS ahead."
Me: "How about we look instead at the newer report from IDC. If you were willing to believe them once, you'd believe them again, right?"
Client: "I guess so"
Me: "OK, the report that IDC published last year shows IBM as #1 in revenue. They didn't report a seat count anymore, acknowledging that it was a legacy metric. IDC doesn't report seats on any software market, so they moved instead to just reporting the consistent metric of revenue. And by that metric, IBM is still #1 and always has been."
Client: "Does that mean you charge more for your product?"
Me: "No, the prices for the products are pretty similar."
Client: "OK, so IBM is #1 according to IDC. What about that Radicati report?"
Me: "They survey some number of customers and represent it as 'market share.' Wouldn't you rather trust IDC and Gartner Dataquest, who are known throughout the industry for their market measurment methodology?"
Client: "OK, that makes sense. Thanks!"
- 8
Scott | 3/24/2004 8:23:44 AM
Sorry, Missy. Microsoft bought that research and the associated paper. A vendor-neutral or co-sponsored study would hold more weight. This just makes Radicati look incredulous and anyone with half a brain wouldn't give that study the time of day. Radicati typically sells their research papers for $2500 - $4000, but mysteriously this one is free and posted on several websites. You think it may be the MS seal of approval at the end of the study???? While I admit that MS may have made some advances in their own product, I still believe the co-sponsored study a couple years back is more accurate, albeit a bit outdated. I know from real-world experience, Notes/Domino did not get more expensive to install/support with version 6, in fact, this version is the easiest to install, support, configure, & maintain to date. Also, MS didn't necessarily get any less expensive, unless you consider upgrading from Exch.2K to 2003, although considering the vast majority of REAL Exchange customers are still on 5.5....AD and rip and replace (TWICE!!) costs $$ so we have to keep track. :-) Oh, and the Trustworthy Computing thing for the "indestructible" newer Outlook clients, it seems they are still vulnerable to the latest security threats and require constant maintenance and patches. Real-world examples from customers and code talks. MS has a long way to go to meet the functionality and cost of running a Domino COLLABORATION system, despite what Ms. Radicati was paid to say.
then they are in trouble. That is a sorry batch of papers. The TCO one...sponsored by Microsoft. Shocking results! Links to Exchange 2000 vs. R5? Questions about what to do about runaway storage in Domino? As if Exchange doesn't have more and worse storage concerns? That is a truly pathetic batch of research. Ed -- You guys should link to those studies from IBM.com, saying, "If this is the best the competition can come up with, why would you both with them?"