Thanks to Duffbert for pointing me in the direction of this one early this morning; Tom has some observations and analysis on the interview as well.
There is so much I could highlight and discuss from this article, but allow me just to focus on two bits.

RAIKES: At the Q&A session for the partners after the keynote, a partner from Norway wanted to know what we're doing about [IBM/Lotus] Notes and Notes migration and prescriptive architectures. IBM's move to, in effect, force Notes customers over to WebSphere has generated so much customer interest in what we're doing.
CRN: I don't think IBM would say it's doing that.
RAIKES: You're right. They wouldn't say that. We'll agree on that. But that's how the customer feels. I'm going to New York City tomorrow, and--I won't disclose the customer--but it's a Big Four firm that's thinking, 'We have all this Notes stuff. If we have to migrate it, we might as well be looking at migration to Microsoft.'
It's the battle of the titans relative to Information Worker productivity, not just migration. The IBM strategy is--I'm trying to think how they'd say this--but it's kind of anti-partner. They won't say that, but it's all about moving people to IBM middleware and IBM servers for IBM Global Services. We shouldn't kid ourselves about what the grand aspiration is of the IBM Corporation. The opportunity here is to juxtapose the Microsoft strategy relative to information work as well as juxtapose the partner set. I'm positioning that in our favor, but I believe it's in our favor.
The IBM approach is, let's treat as many people as we can as a structured task workers, give them inadequate tools and tell them that's the way it should be. The Microsoft approach is, we want people to have rich tools to do the kinds of things I showed in the presentation. It's better for the customer and better for the user. IBM's approach is, let's move everyone to WebSphere because that's where we generate a lot of IBM Global Services revenue. The Microsoft approach: We're investing in Information Worker Competency, and we're creating partner opportunities, including the opportunity to move customers from Notes to Microsoft's SharePoint collaboration strategy.
Now, I could have siphoned some of that out, but I thought it was important to read exactly how a Microsoft executive positions IBM vs. Microsoft in this space.  As in, Notes is dead, forced migration, get onto WebSphere because then IBM can bring in the army of consultants.  Isn't this getting tired and old?
Note also once again that the customer he's meeting (gee, I think I know who it is) is "looking at" migration to Microsoft.  I think you could say that's good corporate due dilligence, or maybe it's responding to Microsoft's FUD or sales pressure, or maybe it's something else.  But looking at and doing are two different things -- and IBM doesn't exactly roll over in an account like that.
Last, this is the first time I've seen a Microsoft executive admit on the record that their strategy is specifically Notes to SharePoint.  Remember when it was Notes to Exchange?  Or Notes to .NET?  Or Notes to maybe-if-we-shove-a-bunch-of-stuff-together-they-might-buy-it?  What will it be next year?  And how does this impact Exchange, anyway?  Oh wait, here we go:
CRN: The other thing I hear about Exchange is that it's now a non-starter and messaging is becoming a commodity--that Oracle is low-balling pricing and Microsoft will throw in the towel and offer messaging for free. True?
RAIKES: Not true. Exchange is still very important.
Long-winded answers (or non-answers) all over this interview.  The chance to set the record straight on Exchange?  A swing and a miss, Mr. Raikes.
There's a bit in-between there where he tries to explain that the reason for the shift in focus to SharePoint is because of "web protocols", but it sounds like a bunch of double-speak to me.  If anyone can understand it, let me know.  
I also really like the bit towards the end of the article where Raikes admits to the reporters that the answer he is about to give is "revisionist history."  How much of the rest of this is, too, Jeff?
Link: CRN Interview: MS's Jeff Raikes >

Post a Comment