Shared Spaces on the Radicati "Corporate Messaging Market Analysis"

July 23 2004

Last month, The Radicati Group published a paper entitled, "IBM Lotus & Microsoft -- Corporate Messaging Market Analysis".  It follows the April publication of a similar "IBM Lotus Messaging Software, Market Analysis".  About a week ago, I started receiving queries as to whether IBM had any comment on the June Radicati paper.  Uncomfortably, I had to admit that I had not seen the paper.
A couple of days ago, the job of providing a response to the paper was made much easier, when it became available for free download on The Radicati Group site.  This was surprising, given that it was a US$2500 paper just days before.  Connecting the dots, I found that the paper is also now available for download on the Exchange section of the Microsoft website, posted, not coincidentally, about a week ago.  
So, now I've seen the paper.  And yes, for those who have asked, now I am working on an official IBM response.  I hope to have it ready next week, though it may take a few days to get through the cycle and up on lotus.com.
In the meantime, if you are looking for an expert analysis of the Radicati paper, Michael Sampson of Shared Spaces Research & Consulting has penned "Response to the Radicati market analysis study of June, 2004".  Michael has been an observer of the entire messaging wars market era, so he knows the history of the various products discussed.  More importantly, he's applied a critical eye to the analytical technique as much as the analysis.  There are some places where our views diverge -- personally, I think the section of the IBM response covering "IBM Lotus' end-of-life strategy" will be written in bold red large font, not merely that "something different will happen" -- but Michael has taken the time to view this report from the perspective of the customer, rather than the marketing departments of my organization or the competition.
Comments?

Ed Brill | Highland Park, IL USA Category:  Messaging  Add/View Comments [24]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Mark Hughes  | 7/23/2004 8:17:42 AM

    I notice that Domino 7 and 8 features are not discussed, while features already in Domino 6 are touted as new improvements for Exchange.

  1. 2    | 7/23/2004 10:30:20 AM

    The Radicati web site lists several $2500 reports, than this free one that has no basis in fact. I guess you really do get what you pay for! Usually a free sample at a store makes me want to buy more from them, In this case, the free report makes me completely skeptical of anything this company would write. Has the author (who is paid to be an industry expert?) attended any IBM events (like Lotusphere or the Workplace Launch) or MS Events (like TechEd) in the last year? I'm not defending either IBM or MS, but the information coming out of those events certainly seems different that whatever Radicati is hearing. I'd think that an educated customer can get more information about the two companies just from reading trade magazines (and of course this blog) and then make up their own mind about which company has a better roadmap.

  1. 3  Isaac  | 7/23/2004 11:01:14 AM

    If this report is about messaging why is collaboration discussed only on the IBM Lotus side? It doesn't seem fair to be critical of collaboration features not included in the current version of Workplace when these features don't exist for Exchange at all.

    Corporations using Domino have already addressed many of the concerns of this report.

    This report feels backwards. When is less bang for your buck and future product ambiguity a good thing?

    At least I learned a new word.

  1. 4  Nathan T. Freeman  | 7/23/2004 11:59:17 AM

    I think some of you guys might be missing the real magnificence of this report. As an industry analysis, it's somewhat lacking, but as a humor piece, it's absolutely priceless! With lines like "Exchange Server 2003 focuses on a more lucid, albeit less quixotic, set of features," I was in absolute stitches. (Read it aloud for extra laughs.) Or how about "Lotus' migration path is difficult to assess, due to the company's complex strategy of annual Domino and Workplace releases?" (One wonders whether Radicati has trouble remembering when to throw their Christmas party or file their taxes.) Perhaps even "Users which require advanced collaboration features can easily add this functionality..." (Apparently publishing in ebonics is the big trend in Palo Alto now.) Surely an obvious shill of this magnitude with so many blatant self-contradictions is meant to be satire.

  1. 5  Ports  | 7/23/2004 12:35:57 PM

    Is it common practice to release a white paper like this with no author, sponsor or real sources specified?

  1. 6  Chris LeRoy http://www.brainbent.com | 7/23/2004 12:59:27 PM

    ROFL

    *breathe*

    ROFL (some more)

    I mean, really??? This is an incredibly one-sided analysis, lacking credibility, and reaking of bias. M$-worship is dripping out of it's very pores.

    Who wrote this? Who are the sources from IBM and Microsoft? What customers of each platform even offered any insight?

    Excuse me for not finishing my thought, I need a tissue to wipe the tears my eyes. =P

  1. 7  Hans  | 7/23/2004 1:50:16 PM

    IBM is subsuming Domino into Workplace.

    Workplace does require portal & is J2EE.

    IBM hasn't worked out all of the Workplace strategy yet.

    Most of the new functionality is about Workplace and J2EE or DB2.

    I looked at Remail and half of the functionality is a straight lift from Outlook 2003.

    Exchange 2003 is an excellent mail server.

    Exchange Edge Services add value and there is no Lotus or IBM equivalent.

    Microsoft has made the migration to Exchange 2003 substantially easier.

    We are starting to think that .Net is outpacing J2EE and Microsoft are overtaking IBM in collaboration tools. Some of their future stuff is amazing.

    The analyst makes a good point - Microsoft are addressing the challenges customers face today while IBM are working on a migration roadmap.

    Let us debate the points raised and not have the sillyness of the derision for the report.

  1. 8  Douglas Himmler  | 7/23/2004 3:13:49 PM

    Anyone who knows anything about Lotus/Domino will recognize the bias in this paper. Seems like it was written by Microsoft themselves.

    What can IBM, partners, ND pros, etc. do to change market perception and regain market share? Advertising, price-cuts, lower-cost support?

  1. 9  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 7/23/2004 3:27:02 PM

    @Hans: The remail functionality was announced well before Outlook 2003 shipped -- and if you think it's just some Outlook ripoff, you should watch the Esther Dyson video from a few days ago and read her report. If one of the industry's most well-known luminaries thinks IBM is out in front here, perhaps there is more to the story.

    Exchange Edge Services is still slideware, but promises only to fix some of the core problems in the Exchange architecture; IBM/Lotus have no such offering because there's no market need (oh, and "Exchange" Edge Services has nothing to do with Exchange other than a brand name).

    I hardly think IBM is ignoring the challenges customers face today. Perhaps it is just that IBM customers face fewer challenges.

  1. 10  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 7/23/2004 3:28:59 PM

    "Advertising, price-cuts, lower-cost support?" Been there, done that -- we've been running Exchange migration banner ads for several weeks in the Americas (they'll start in other regions shortly); we just announced Domino Messaging Express -- US$48 trade-up license from Exchange or other mail systems; support now bundled into license/maintenance. Our business grew 15% in Q1 2004 -- sort of flies in the face of the analysis in question here, or the market perception. I'm open to other thoughts.

  1. 11  Ed Brill http://www.ericmackonline.com/emo/emonline.nsf/dx/is-there-a-future-for-microsoft-and-ibm | 7/23/2004 3:40:21 PM

    at link above -- it is titled "When does a 'market analysis research' become 'Marketing?'"

  1. 12  Chris LeRoy http://www.brainbent.com | 7/23/2004 3:44:22 PM

    Comments such as "Microsoft on the other hand, by focusing on the key

    concerns of today's corporations, including security, reliability and

    scalablity..." (page 4) while not even make the off-handed suggestion that

    Exchange runs on ONLY Microsoft products, while J2EE-based Workplace runs

    on multiples platforms, offering scalability, lacks credibility.

    And this is just one example of information that has been omitted, either by design or by oversight, that takes away from the credibility of this accessment and demonstrates bias.

  1. 13  Ed Maloney  | 7/23/2004 6:15:12 PM

    It's already started... first Steve Balmer's call to go after all Notes seats, then the deal with AOl/Yahoo IM and now this. M$ has given up on claiming that Exchange is better than Notes and is now trying to sell their collaboration "suite". IBM needs to come up with a very clear message to counter this. I'm already being told internally that we need to rethink our collaboration strategy.

    Ed... your "the boss loves M$" presentation has saved my job more than once by presenting the facts. I hope you can do it again, and publicize it beyond the Lotusphere crowd this time.

  1. 14   http://www.bruceelgort.com/blogs/be.nsf/plinks/BELT-636TSU | 7/23/2004 6:15:57 PM

    http://www.bruceelgort.com/blogs/be.nsf/plinks/BELT-636TSU

  1. 15  Dovid Gross  | 7/23/2004 7:05:53 PM

    It is really great seeing how Microsoft still -h-r-t-s-, uh, CARES for this market. They're still trying to prove how well they address messaging and collaboration. With Java/.Net, market saturation, etc., IBM and Microsoft have recently left it to web mail vendors and Novell to make it seem like the space counts. Even SharePoint vs Workplace now seems like a potential war. Hey, I'm gonna party like its 1999!

    (All kidding aside, that yearly release cycle HAS made it more complex to predict a, well, not a migration path, but an options and direction forecast. Do I want to think about 6 now if I haven't upgraded? If I'm at 6, do I want 7, 8, or wait and see what happens with Workplace? Of course, I'm more pragmatic. if it is here, now, and out long enough to be proven, I will take it if I have a reason to upgrade. Subtract any of the above, and I'll wait for all of 'em to be true.)

  1. 16  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 7/23/2004 10:04:41 PM

    first, I sent you a note previously to the e-mail you specified here..no response.

    second, there is a link on this very page to my "boss loves Microsoft" pitch, including a webcast archive of it on e-Promag.com's site. That seems beyond the Lotusphere crowd. I've publicly done that pitch a half dozen times this year, and of course am always updating it.

    None of these new tactics scare me. They are rehashes of MS drivel I've seen before. Obviously I don't have my head in the sand -- I did say in the blog posting that I am writing a formal response - but these are tactics, not daisy cutter bombs. Tell me what you need, and we'll get past this, as usual.

  1. 17  Randall Shimizu  | 7/24/2004 2:12:10 PM

    The Radicati study defintely seems like a sponsored study. On the otherhand IBM and Lotus needs to step up there marketing. I do have to admit that there still is lack of clarity with regards to the Workplace roadmap. After seeing several presentations on the roadmap I find myself having to back and rexamine the slides. There also does not seem to be a consistent availablity or organization of materials. For example: Why weren't the slides made available for the

    Workplace launch....???

    I heard recently that Microsoft has started going after large Notes accounts. There has also been reports that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer has been courting some of these CEO's. On the Lotus side they were only able to get some low level executive to visit the customer.

  1. 18  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 7/24/2004 2:55:51 PM

    yes, it wouldn't be a controversial thread unless it devolved to someone telling me "Lotus marketing sucks." Sigh.

    I don't know your anecdotal story, but merely repeating it here without the facts does more harm than good, since it gives me nothing actionable. I think most blog readers know that I can be contacted anytime (right Tom? ;)) for help with defending Notes, and that my success rate is very high.

    Heini (www.domnotes.de) has also commented on the Radicati report now. I think it's interesting that the two non-native-English speakers who have commented so far have indicated they find the report balanced or accurate or whatever, vs the native English speakers (and Hans, I'm making an assumption since you commented from an IP address at the Munich airport). I wonder whether some of the superlatives or subtle criticisms get "lost in translation". Does it get any better?

  1. 19  Heini  | 7/24/2004 5:36:40 PM

    but I am not sure if this is needed here.

    I am also not sure if I correctly read the comment on Shared Spaces. (for the Domino part)

    That's sort of true.

    Agreed,

    Agreed,

    Agreed,

    Yes, true,

    I believe something different will happen.

    The Radicati report is only about messaging and Exchange definetely IS a strong messaging platform (although I personally do not like it a lot).

    I have also read Nathan's comment on Bruce Elgort but I do not think Domino gets better if you talk bad about either Radicati, Microsoft or Exchange. There are customers on Exchange that are happy with what they have and it works for them and their money does not stink either.

    Radicati is saying that IBM messaging seats will increase (they are talking about a near 30% plus until 2008).

    One point might be that I look at the report as a German . This can be totally different than e.g. what is going on in the US or elsewhere.

    We can all meet again in 2008 and see if Radicati was all wrong or not.

  1. 20  Nathan T. Freeman  | 7/24/2004 7:12:47 PM

    Y'know, I didn't directly respond to the points in the Radicati report because I think it's so absurd that it doesn't deserve to be treated seriously. But I just finished watching the movie "Conspiracy" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/) and so I am thinking now that seemingly absurd propositions should be opposed most clearly and rationally. So addressing only a tiny fraction of points in Radicati's study... 1) Lotus's yearly release schedule (augmented by "maintenance releases" more frequently) is an absolute godsend for planning. Anyone thinking "this is a strain on budgets" must some how be thinking that IBMGS employees will be marching into their offices with rifles to force upgrades. If you don't want to upgrade your version, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. Lotus has a LONG history of providing version-jumping capabilities in the product -- you can install Domino 6.5 over Domino 3 without a hitch. It's Microsoft that forces upgrades to go through incremental points, increasing cost and commitment of resources. It would be nice if Radicati would limit themselves to comparing messaging-to-messaging, but they seem unable to do so, constantly complaining about the limits of collaborative features in Workplace, without bothering to point out that the comparison product, Exchange, neither offers such features, nor intends to. Only Domino and it's companion products actually deliver that feature set. Exchange has to focus on virus, spam and security controls, while Lotus does not, because Lotus has addressed these to a much greater extent in their existing versions! This is like being critical of US hospitals because they aren't focusing on Cholera or Polio treatment strategies -- when those diseases are not major factors in the US. (And don't attempt to divert the matter by claiming that Domino doesn't ELIMINATE viruses, spam and security concerns -- we all know that well enough -- but the situation is VASTLY improved over Exchange environments.) Radicati applies a double standard on nearly every point in their report, applauding Microsoft for providing capabilities that Lotus has offered for years, while panning Lotus for advancing Domino past all competitors, and not providing a version 1.0 of Workplace that surpasses a product developed over the course of nearly 20 years. MS provides "service packs" and forced iterative upgrades at random timeframes, and this is "customer-centric," while Lotus putting out releases like clockwork, and providing easy routes for Domino shops to skip versions, is "confusing." And Heini, talking bad about Radicati is exactly the point here, because it's THEIR report that applies the same absurd set of double standards that I see everytime some Exchange flunky wants to defend a platform that's held corporate messaging in the mud for the last 5 years.

  1. 21  Heini  | 7/24/2004 7:55:09 PM

    so I do not think that it makes sense to argue here. I have read through your comment and they mention some valid points.

    I apologise that I mentioned your comment. A comment field sometimes is too small to explain an opinion in detail.

    I am sure IBM will find a proper response to the Radicati research.

  1. 22  Bob Obringer  | 7/25/2004 10:29:31 PM

    Nathan's take in his post on Bruce's site is a great tongue in cheek look at a report that HAS tongue in cheek report. We're left to read the report and do our own analysis.

    Even his response here only takes on one or two of Radicati's points with a serious look. I suggest reading both his post over on Bruce's site and the report side by side and try to make your own unbiased judgement. I think it's pretty clear what's going on here... and I'm sure Sara's bank account is just a bit fatter for it.

    Can you say... shill?

  1. 23  Bob Obringer  | 7/25/2004 10:33:23 PM

    The first line of my last post makes no sense... so read it again with 'HAS tongue in cheek report' replaced with 'HAS TO BE a tongue in cheek report in and of itself'.

    Guess that means... it's time for bed.