Well, now the analyst-report-shoe is on the other foot.  Let's say upfront,

This report was developed by Robert Frances Group, Inc. with IBM assistance and funding. This report may utilize information, including publicly available data, provided by various companies and sources, including IBM. The opinions in this document are those of RFG, and do not necessarily reflect IBM's position.
Also upfront we have the fact that the report is on the analyst firm's website, not IBM's.  What you might find fascinating about the report is that it shows that some of the costs involved are not necessarily lower for WebSphere... but they are competitive.  At least it goes against the perception that WebSphere is drastically more expensive than .NET, in terms of acquisition, development costs, and definitely in management and support.
WebSphere deployments may involve more architectural elements and higher developer salaries than Visual Basic(VB).NET. However, better out-of-the-box security levels, higher functionality, higher server-to-administrator ratios, and more extensive  management interfaces reduce long-term ownership costs, and make the platform a much better choice in the long run.
WebSphere also addresses enterprise elasticity because it provides customers with choices should a hardware platform or operating system change be required. Strategic elements such as these can provide long-term benefits that can help a company meet aggressive growth schedules, weather tight economies, and address other business challenges. RFG thus believes WebSphere is generally the best choice forenterprise development projects.
I wasn't involved in this report's creation, so I'm not blogging it with the intent or ability to discuss content specifics.  I am interested to see how this report is viewed, fully expecting the same critical eye to be applied to this one as blog readers have to other recent sponsored research.
Link: Robert Frances Group: WebSphere vs. .NET: Choosing an e-business platform in the enterprise >

Post a Comment