Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  Corey Davis http://www.conxsys.com/blog | 6/12/2008 3:42:50 PM

   As a final word this is a good post, Ed. I very much appreciate the comparison between Apple and RIM and you are exactly right in that most people (myself included) do not push much blame onto IBM for lack of features on the Blackberry but we do for lack of support in the iPhone. This may have something to do with most of us receiving BB's from our employers and thus having a contact with RIM with which we can gripe to, but with the iPhone we are individual consumers and thus have no direct contact to turn to and therefore turn our frustrations out on IBM.

   I was a bit taken aback over the past couple days by the amount of frustration that some have conveyed. I admit that I gripped about this back in March ({ Link } ) but have since come to my senses and realize that while we (IBM/BPs/users) have some work to do in getting Apple to see Notes as enterprise e-mail, the ability for the iPhone to support Notes sits almost solely with Apple.

1. 2  Keith Brooks http://lotustech.blogspot.com | 6/12/2008 3:50:58 PM

   Your point about Apple being Enterprise ready was one which CIO magazine posited a week or so ago and my thoughts were then, and quoted, Apple needs to equal a BES server before it goes corporate.

   Article here : { Link }

1. 3  Alan Hamilton  | 6/12/2008 3:57:19 PM

   Good round up, Ed. The input and additional perspective helps make it more understandable for us innocent bystanders. It seems though that Apple is hell-bent on Exchange integration, including building support for Exchange directly into their Address Book, iCal and Mail in the Snow Leopard (10.6) operating system due out next year. Perhaps IBM could get on that particular bandwagon now so that a similar opportunity isn't lost again.

   Or perhaps we'll see an ActiveSync adapter for Domino which would kill the problem stone dead altogether. Doesn't Nokia do that with Intellisync Mail?

1. 4  Volker Weber http://vowe.et/about | 6/12/2008 4:22:58 PM

   This would be the direct link to his comment: { Link }

   RIM is not the only party chuckling. Here is another one: { Link }

1. 5  bv  | 6/12/2008 4:36:04 PM

   In regards to Brent Petters statement "but would be good to share passion for Notes integration with your Apple Sales rep as well."

   It should be noted that there really isn't such a thing as and Apple sales rep unless you count the young pretty people a the genius bars.

   However most companies do at least have an AT&T sales guy.

1. 6  Adam Burrell http://itwouldbesocoolif.blogspot.com | 6/12/2008 5:24:22 PM

   @5 - Apple has a very active enterprise sales division. They used to have a business sales rep in house at the Apple stores but don't any longer. This page has a list of contact numbers. Apple Enterprise Sales (877) 412-7753 is who you would contact to get a rep assigned to your company most likely.

   While I don't feel that iPhone support alone is going to persuade people to switch to Exchange, I do think that it help to shine light on the fact that with an Exchange server, you get a very capable mobile device management system. Domino shops currently spent tons of time and money standing up and supporting BES servers not to mention costs for airtime. Given the current economic climate, we'd be silly not to consider the Exchange solution.

   While it's great that IBM and RIM have spent years cultivating a productive partnership to provide robust and powerful capabilities to the mobile Domino community, I think that IBM would be better served by cutting out that middle man and interfacing with their customers directly in the mobile space. It's obvious to everyone right now that the mobile platform is about to go supernova and the Blackberry has some incredible competition now. Wouldn't it be great if IBM could give us a solution in Domino that would let us deploy and manage our mobile workforce regardless of device?

   iPhone aside, the Android platform is right around the corner and the mobile handset alliance will most certainly produce some incredibly compelling devices that many Domino shops may want to deploy. IBM has what I believe to be the greatest pool of engineering talent in the world by far. It would be stunning to not see IBM move forward with an open, standards-based mobile messaging and device management solution that would readily accommodate any mobile platform in the world. I would think that this could be a standard Domino service as well as a standalone product that could easily be plugged into an enterprise and leveraged regardless of the messaging platform.

1. 7  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 6/12/2008 5:48:40 PM

   Hm. Not sure the comparison with RIM is *entirely* accurate. People did complain to IBM (and you, specifically, Ed) when Blackberry's support for Domino 8 was delayed. And people do blame IBM for the lack of third-party hand-held sync tools (the tools for Outlook come with the smartphone). So I'm not sure the blame for the Apple situation is completely out of the blue. I'm not saying there's no truth in your RIM comparison, though, to be clear - just that it isn't quite that straightforward.

   That said, I have the sense that most of the frustration has much more to do with Microsoft's prominence than it does with IBM's absence. If we couldn't sync an iPhone with Exchange, you wouldn't be catching this much heat. It's not so much the fact that you (IBM) didn't do something as it is the fact that your competitor got to stand up on stage and brag about what they did. And for Apple to say iPhone is completely ready for the enterprise because they support Exchange is extremely insulting. And there's absolutely no chance that Steve Jobs doesn't know that. It sure looks like IBM is being snubbed deliberately.

   And no, I have no inside information (note to self: call college buddy running Apple s/w dev team). And I'm probably wrong. Happens all the time. But that is the perception, and telling us to talk to Apple just reinforces it. If Apple needs to hear from us, the implication is that you (IBM) aren't having much luck getting them to budge and you need outside pressure brought to bear. I'm not saying you (IBM) aren't trying, but I am saying that what you're doing hasn't worked very well so far. That's not bad deductive reasoning, that's just a fact.

1. 8  Peter Wilson  | 6/12/2008 6:08:39 PM

   I don't see any benefit trying to contact Apple with the need for Domino/Notes support in the iPhone. As a consumer of Apple products I've suggested a number of features/requests over the years via their web site and it goes into a black hole.

   IBM would be better off providing a place to store all of these requests, then have someone like Sam or some other VP visit Apple. It would be more compelling sell.

   Pete

1. 9  bv  | 6/12/2008 6:13:24 PM

   Apples battle cry is "think different." Business relationships with Apple would be as unconventional as its products, stores, or styling.

   RIM's entry path to market was to cooperative, compromising with partners to achive market share.

   Apples "think different" approach has been akin to designer clothing. They've leveraging branding and superior design. Having name recognition, excellent designers, and a chest of money hasn't hurt with this approach. Now less than a year into market they are the #2 player and rising.

   It would be horribly difficult for Lotus/IBM to get a partnership with the moody loner that is Apple.

   The backlash in the Notes blogs however is not so much that Lotus Notes isn't iPhone ready, but that somehow Microsoft Exchange is. An unexpected bruise in the fight to keep Exchange from gaining market share.

1. 10  Bill Geimer  | 6/13/2008 12:10:40 AM

   And one has to factor in that tariff that AT&T charges for Business connections to Exchange. I am sure they would do the same were there a Domino connector, but compare that with the Blackberry costs.

1. 11  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 6/13/2008 12:33:20 AM

   The iPhone thing just exposes a deeper frustration with mobile support and device synchronisation in the IBM / Lotus portfolio. The brouhaha over Traveller software provision a few months back must have shown the level of interest and excitement in these technologies, surely?

   Unfortunately for IBM, the sexiness / prominence of the iPhone, combined with the lack of APIs / 'hooks' in this space from IBM, plus Microsoft's visibility have combined to create the situation we now have. That's why everyone's been venting.

1. 12  siddhartha Chadda http://oco.com | 6/13/2008 1:03:00 AM

   this in NOT the last word on the iphone and notes but the FIRST word on the iphone and notes?

   we can talk to apple reps and notes reps.

   but here is a conversation about to happen. enjoy

   boss: "so can we use the iphone with notes?"

   me:"yes i talked to some reps, not yet"

   boss: "when can we expect it?"

   me:"yes i talked to some reps, not yet"

   boss:"what did the reps say?"

   me:"not yet"

   boss:"why not"

   me:"not yet"

1. 13  Flemming Riis  | 6/13/2008 2:29:02 AM

   -We don't yet know what the Exchange support actually is in the real world.

   Sure we dont , but they stated the features they will support so guess we will see in a month from now.

1. 14  Dr. Mueller  | 6/13/2008 4:37:46 AM

   Steve Jobs at keynote: "and the iPhone has a colour screen" the croud is totally excited and overwhelmed. "Also it has Google maps." The crowd (who apparently are IT professionals) cannot believe it... "And Apple is the first vendor to have 3G on a phone and copy and paste" (wait a moment this is not yet confirmed...)... ;)

1. 15  David  | 6/13/2008 4:42:01 AM

   Yep. Its stated in the blog entry that IBM thought DWA would be a good step. I agree, but that is a great step for iPhone 1.0, for 2.0 it seems more like a workaround. Then it says that IBM waited for the SDK. The thing is, its obvious that something like ActiveSync is further down than the SDK. The whole Notes Traveler concept is a good one because more can be controlled (security of the info on the device) through such a concept, but we are still missing something here. Microsoft gets on the iPhone with a LOT of press because they provide ActiveSync in an easy to understand way, allowing the vendors email products to tie into Exchange for push, etc. What is the equivalent IBM/Lotus technology that Apple could have licensed (for free or for a fee)? Granted, there are disadvantages to the approach because of security on the device, but to enable ActiveSync or an IBM equivalent should be the organizations choice (as the proxy for their users) and it shouldn't cost the enterprise more either. That would be great if an enterprise had real choices:

   1) Don't support mobile connectivity at all

   2) Support it only through DWA

   3) Support it through the mail client on iPhone, Palm, or Windows through an ActiveSync like technology for Lotus Notes

   4) Support a full client on supported devices through Notes Traveler

   THAT would be a great set of choices, but IBM/Lotus seems to be leaving out option 3 (and if it is a choice, then failing in the marketing dept). Heck, why not also cozy up to Apple and offer not only MobileMe integration (including the iPhone) but offer some of the Lotus Connections technologies to the MobileMe cloud and take some of the etnerprise collaboration stuff public hand in hand with Apple - now that would be cool - being able to challenge LinkedIn by integrating Connections with MobileMe, and making it all compatible with iPhone.

1. 16  Neil Wainwright http://www.nexonia.com | 6/13/2008 7:26:47 AM

   As I said before, IBM needs to give Apple a clean, well-designed protocol that works with the service framework that fits the iPhone, and if IBM does that they won't have to push at all. Apple will embrace it. A clone of ActiveSynch (maybe improve on it too) would be a good start. Or even better...ask Apple what's missing and design the protocol with them. My two cents. Neil.

1. 17  Kevin Mort http://www.theglobalmind.com | 6/13/2008 7:48:07 AM

   I was pretty surprised to see that Jobs indicated they actually asked customers what they wanted. That's just not their normal way of doing things.

   There was a feature in Wired a couple months ago about Apple's "let them eat cake" attitude to customers. Essentially if they don't have it, you don't need it.

   Your opinion doesn't matter because they'll decide what to produce and you'll like it and buy it because Apple says so. The Apple fan sheeple of course go right along with this, and honestly they're just as defensive about Apple products as we are about Lotus product.

   So sure, we can mention it to the Apple reps, it's worth a try, but I don't know it would matter much.

1. 18  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 6/13/2008 8:07:56 AM

   This comes down to many very loud people who really like the iPhone and really want Notes to work well with it.

   Scream all you want, but IBM can't demand that Apple do anything. Apple has always taken a bit too much pride in doing their own thing. They also have a long history preferring the proprietary over the open. When you buy and Apple product, that's what you're getting.

   Plato said the best form of government is a benevolent monarchy. He also said its a very small step from there to the worst form of government -- a tyrannical monarchy. Sometimes, the difference is merely which side of the king you're on. Apple runs what most of its users perceive to be a benevolent monarchy. Since they don't share power, they can make things any way they want. Closed systems are easy to control for quality and consistency as well as design. Apple uses those things to their advantage and makes products with high quality, high style, and high consistency. They also make it really difficult for vendors to do things without their buy in.

   They've released an SDK for the iPhone which doesn't allow developers to control the revenue stream -- in fact they just announced that they were changing what was a lucrative stream for developers into one that is "more consistent with the industry" (pays less) now that they've got a few apps. The don't allow any background tasking, they terminate your app without warning if a phone call or other important event happens, and so on.

   I like the iPhone too -- if Verizon had them I'd own one -- but you don't buy into Apple without knowing that you buy into their determination of what you want. Not yours.

1. 19  Tripp Black http://www.mindwatering.com | 6/13/2008 8:31:48 AM

   Great response.

   As both Apple Macs and PC (Microsoft) users, with Treo and iPhones, we look forward to the solutions with Domino.

   Thanks for all your hard work in getting this through.

   Tripp

1. 20  Erik Waldener  | 6/13/2008 8:31:52 AM

   I really hope this not is the last word about iPhone + Notes. What we customers need is a plan for mobile communications with Domino. And if we are going to continue invest in Domino, there must be a mobile solution that will last for a long time. And the best option is as @ 16 says "A clone of ActiveSync (maybe improve on it too)"

1. 21  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 6/13/2008 8:42:09 AM

   "they terminate your app without warning if a phone call or other important event happens"

   Not to nitpick, but that's not totally accurate, Andrew. The OS calls the delegate ApplicationWillResignActive when inbound SMS or call traffic originates, and the application is put into a Sleep state. If the call is ignored, the OS calls ApplicationDidBecomeActive. If the call is accepted, is calls ApplicationWillTerminate.

   So, there's definitely a warning cycle. Although ApplicationWillTerminate is interesting -- you only get 5 seconds to store state information before the OS preemptively shuts you down completely.

   There's also delegate calls for ApplicationDidReceiveMemoryWarning and they make a pretty big deal about memory management in the SDK.

   Note that this "resign active" business doesn't allow for background execution. The application is in a wait state that gets ZERO interrupts while resigned. All that it really means is that while the OS is doing it's thing, the application's memory isn't reclaimed.

   That's part of the reason that the SDK really doesn't help anyone looking to do message handling on the iPhone.

   Perhaps this weekend, I'll get a chance to write up a blog article on why "push to the device" is something of a myth.

1. 22  Rob Axelrod  | 6/13/2008 10:11:41 AM

   I hate to chime in on something that has been beaten over and over like this but just two quick things...

   1. All of my enterprise customers have extensive business relationships with IBM, RIM and the wireless telecom carriers and NO relationship whatsoever with Apple. They wouldn't even know where to start to contact them at a high enough level to matter. At the most they have maybe 100 Macs in marketing departments.

   2. I hate to say it but I think that this will turn out to be just about the worst thing to happen to Notes in a very long time if there isn't some good news on this front very soon. We will lose accounts to Exchange over this even if it isn't the stated reason. Execs at all of my customers have been clamoring for the iPhone since it came out and up to this point we've been able to say "it isn't Enterprise ready, just look at the trade rags and Gartner". Now we are going to be faced with saying not that the phone isn't ready but the platforms that we selected aren't ready.

1. 23  Adam Burrell http://itwouldbesocoolif.blogspot.com | 6/13/2008 10:19:32 AM

   @17 - The enterprise customer and the consumer are treated differently in this regard. It's easier to guide the consumer in a particular direction and Apple has been very good at knowing just what the consumer needs often before the consumer realizes it. Enterprise customers have very specific needs and it's nearly impossible to meet them without a dialogue. Of course Apple asked their potential enterprise customers what capabilities they needed the iPhone to have.

   @11 - Ben, you just summed it up perfectly. The story should just build from your statement alone. Hopefully IBM has heard all of us and is making native mobile sync and push a priority.

1. 24  Sean Burgess http://www.phigsaidwhat.com/ | 6/13/2008 10:32:41 AM

   I really hate to bring up something as un-sexy as security when talking about a gorgeous little product like the iPhone, but in this day and age where mobile devices seem to disappear in the blink of an eye, how is Apple/Microsoft planning on addressing security. For an admin, one of the nice things about a BB is that you can remotely lock/wipe the device if it's lost. Is the ActiveSync integration going to include this ability? Can security policies be implemented to require passwords and certificate synchronization?

   Instead of using ActiveSync, I'd really love to see RIM get their Blackberry software running on the iPhone, but I understand that a lot of things need to change int he security arena before that can happen.

   To me it seems that the iPhone is a great consumer product that is not quite ready for the corporate environment. I can't wait to see the news story the first time a prominent CEO of a public company loses his Exchange enabled iPhone. I wonder how long it will take to get that confidential information to the Internet.

1. 25  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/13/2008 10:33:01 AM

   I should clarify when I said "last word", it was in the context of the volume and veracity of this week. It's clearly not the last word ever -- heck, we put up a new web page just this week on iNotes + iPhone { Link } but was just trying to round out the discussions of this week.

1. 26  Sean Jennings  | 6/13/2008 10:55:02 AM

   I think people may have missed my previous posting, but apparently Apple have noticed and come up with a solution to the push service to background apps that amongst other things, seem to be the reason why IBM found the SDK lacking and why Apple originally had to license ActiveStink to support from Microsoft.

   See AppleInsider...

   { Link }

1. 27  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 6/13/2008 11:11:07 AM

   @24 The Exchange Server implementation of ActiveSync supports remote wipe, yes, and this is part of the iPhone offering. As you rightly point out, that's an absolute must for something like this. It also supports pushing down certain policies (don't know the extent of that), and Cisco VPN support, digitals certs etc are all included.

1. 28  Flemming Riis  | 6/13/2008 12:43:47 PM

   -To me it seems that the iPhone is a great consumer product that is not quite ready for the corporate environment

   sure its not for a CEO of fortune 500 , but a majority of corperate around the world is not fortune 500 and dont have a extreme security requriment.

   so the real world SMB this is most likely enough the rest will stick with managed windows mobile/symbian or blackberry

1. 29  John Turnbow http://www.navasoata-unified.com | 6/13/2008 12:46:07 PM

   No name calling here. I know it's on the Apple side. I understand how hard you guys work!

   Remember MS$$$ owns 10%+ of Apple so THEY get to be in on the decision making process which I bet makes it hard for IBM since they own 0% of Apple. I am betting that has something to do with it, might be wrong but I still remember the days of when MS$ said change the W OS till Lotus does't work! (yes, I'm that old and have a long memory)

1. 30  Flemming Riis  | 6/13/2008 1:25:19 PM

   -Remember MS$$$ owns 10%+ of Apple so THEY get to be in on the decision making process which I bet makes it hard for IBM since they own 0% of Apple.

   Wrong.

   -I am betting that has something to do with it, might be wrong but I still remember the days of when MS$ said change the W OS till Lotus does't work! (yes, I'm that old and have a long memory)

   NT4 SP6(a) is a long time ago even microsoft changed since that.

1. 31  Henning Heinz  | 6/13/2008 4:41:04 PM

   I doubt that Microsoft still holds significant shares of Apple. The deal has been long ago.

1. 32  Rav  | 6/13/2008 6:12:55 PM

   Hi Ed. As one of the the most visible faces of IBM/Lotus I'm not surprised the flak you may have received over the last few days, and I can certainly understand your position.

   I suspect many of the comments reflect a great deal of frustration and disappointment from a community who is fiercely passionate about the Lotus brand - no one likes to feel their on the back foot and no one likes to feel their on the losing side - even though the "numbers" may not reflect that, it is perception that counts and perception is all important.

   To see/hear Steve Jobs (a man who the media listen to intently) only talk about Microsoft, and only talk of Exchange and even describe Apple's own new "Mac Me" service as "Exchange for everyone else" - and Lotus, despite having 140 million+ seats in the marketplace not even get a mention - well, you can see why you would be getting angry and frustrated comments from the community.

   I believe the community is looking to people like yourself and other senior IBM execs to raise the perception and value of Lotus within Apple - Microsoft have certainly been able to successfully negotiate and publicly partner with Apple on the iPhone (despite Apple being a major MS competitor in many areas) so this begs the question - why can't IBM/Lotus do the same in a more timely manner ?

   Even an announcement from Jobs saying "....and this will be coming in the future for Lotus Notes" would have been better than not even being mentioned.

   It comes back to the fundamental issue of Marketing and Perception. It doesn't matter what great work you do with the products, and what's going on behind the scenes - if the industry doesn't know about it, and perceives nothing is happening you're dead in the water.

   Modern business is full of great products that have been killed off by inferior competitors - this whole iPhone situation is to my mind symptomatic of a failure to get the Lotus "message" out there in the industry.

1. 33  David Cox  | 6/13/2008 8:08:55 PM

   I understand that you've been put in a tough spot, and I find the declarative content of your statements perfectly reasonable (basically: "we're working on it; it's hard").

   However, I can't help feeling that the tone of your posts is that of a child who got a bad grade, says he's sorry, but REALLY it was the teacher's fault because she has a grudge. And I think that's a big part of what is rubbing people the wrong way.

   For whatever reason, you guys didn't put it together. Microsoft did. The reasons why are seriously not my problem.

   You need to avoid the perception that you are making excuses. And not because anyone is going to change their enterprise solution because of the iPhone. Rather, because the lack of iPhone support is going to irritate a relatively influential subset of the users of Notes who are already weary of years of awkward clients with alien user interface metaphors and poor performance. Maybe things are finally turning a corner with more recent versions, but you really don't need any more straws on the camel's back. The perception that you are repeatedly making excuses doesn't help

1. 34  Paul Gagnon  | 6/13/2008 9:00:47 PM

   If its anything like the iPod, iPhone 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 should be coming up soon!

   Plenty of opportuinities lie ahead for Notes and iPhone to work together.

1. 35  Dave Madison  | 6/14/2008 1:24:06 AM

   Even a high school student taking Business 1.0 could quickly figure out why Apple chose the Exchange route into the enterprise Just walk down the F100 list and identify who has standardized on Exchange for email. What faster way to get the iPhone into the enterprise than ride on the coat tails of Exchange using a protocol MS is all to happy to license?

1. 36  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 6/14/2008 2:46:28 AM

   @29 MS don't own that share of Apple, not even close. I believe they have a fraction of a per cent via trusts. You may be getting mixed up with when MS bought a token amount of non-voting shares some ten years ago.

1. 37  Henning Heinz  | 6/14/2008 5:10:27 AM

   @Dave(35) If you have such a list then don't keep it secret.

1. 38  Neil Wainwright http://www.nexonia.com | 6/14/2008 6:33:23 AM

   Hey guys...again, if IBM had an ActiveSynch equivalent I doubt Apple would ignore it...they'd implement it. It better be stable too...historically something IBM's Apple code has been anything but. Apple competes with Microsoft head-to-toe in almost every market...they wouldn't be handing MS the iPhone corporate e-mail market integration by choice. I doubt there is an ActiveSynch comparable protocol from IBM.

   Really...if IBM announced "Notes Connect for mobile devices", I doubt Apple would sit on the sidelines for long. They want world domination, not just Exchange world domination. :-)

   ...Neil

1. 39  Kevin  | 6/14/2008 1:53:21 PM

   @32/33 - Yes on both counts. That's precisely why folks react as they do.

   IBM is delivering what they said they would in the UltraLite code, however, it's been trumped in release and precieved benefit by effectively embedded Exchange support and well, that stings.

   While the numbers might be up overall, there are plenty of us out here who are struggling to build more support for the line and having the competitor get more press doesn't help.

   It is what it is though, we can only continue to try and move forward.

1. 40  Frank  | 6/14/2008 7:44:59 PM

   @24:

   Remote WIPE and Enforced PASSWORD policies are supported via Active Sync and Exchange 2007SP1.

   Apple supports these features now also:

   { Link }{ Link }

   Learn how to integrate iPhone into your enterprise.

   Support for Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync and industry-standard corporate security standards allows IT professionals to seamlessly integrate iPhone into their corporate environments.

   Want to deploy iPhone in your enterprise? Learn more

   Features include:

   Push email

   Push contacts

   Push calendar

   Global Address List (GAL) support

   Certificates and identities

   WPA2/802.1X

   Enforced security policies

   More VPN protocols

   Device configuration

   Remote wipe

1. 41  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/14/2008 9:31:39 PM

   @40 the spec list sounds good, I agree. Waiting to see it in practice.

1. 42  siddhartha Chadda http://oco.com | 6/15/2008 1:12:14 AM

   I am hearing a lot about the iphone not ready for the corporate environment.

   In the past 5 years the same has been said of Linux, ipod's, podcasts, wiki's, blogs, open source, mashups and chat.

   They are all in the corporate environment. This is a different time and a different way people are looking at things.

   It is no more CISCO, IBM, Microsoft ruling the enterprise

   It is now Apple, Google, SalesForce, Wipro, Infosys, etc.

   And in the future it might be Costco, Fedex, Zimbra, 2 guys in russia no one ever heard of.

   Why today I read an article about no email fridays in a corporate environment.

   So I appreciate that as the first response to the iphone 1.0 but not towards the iphone 2.0

1. 43  siddhartha Chadda http://oco.com | 6/15/2008 10:45:20 AM

   btw this is where everyone should request the feature with apple. it is read by their global marketing group. please flood accordingly.

   { Link }

1. 44  Paul Gagnon  | 6/15/2008 12:39:03 PM

   @42 - Cisco, IBM, Microsoft along with Lotus, Dell, APC, VMWare, BES,and HP pretty much rule our enterprise. Are we behind the times?.. hmm, I really don't think so. These are some of the products that solve our business problems based on requirements and needs and resources to manage them.

   Don't count out those 3 top vendors, I'd bet money that they will be front and center at many, many companies for a long, long time. All 3 are very resilient and can come back strong when they're on the ropes, they've got the resources to do so.

   I do agree that the companies you mention do bring compelling solutions and competition to the mix, especcially Salesforce, and competition is always welcome in my book.

1. 45  Gavin Bollard http://dominogavin.blogspot.com/ | 6/15/2008 9:32:56 PM

   Well, there's gonna be no iPhone for us until we get Notes support... and even then.... well, that depends on Blackberry.

   On a worse note, Ed, are you aware that Blackberry is downgrading all small organisations (in Australia at least) from Blackberry Enterprise to Blackberry Professional and that, (apparently) Sametime support is a casulty.

1. 46  JohnEBoy  | 6/15/2008 10:18:50 PM

   I agree with Adam Burrell, cut out the middle man. The Apple iPhone is a platform, no differnt than the Mac and should be supported. Same with any other platform that generates enough excitement and users.

   We have Blackberry, but it is a mess, our messages go to Canada before they are delivered! Why? Why can't it be simple like the iPhone's Exchange support, simply a connection between our server and the client with nobody else in the middle!

   I'm getting the iPhone, I hope IBM/Apple support it with a native client soon!

1. 47  David Bell  | 6/16/2008 12:13:14 AM

   @35 - like Henning, I suspect a number of us on this thread would like to see the facts that support your assertion.

1. 48  Erik Waldener  | 6/16/2008 6:57:05 AM

   @ 41 (and the list presented by @ 40) Ed, why wouldn't it work in practice? Is that how IBM present new features? - Make a nice list that doesn't work i reel? Or no list at all...

   I'm more worried about the "iNotes ultralite on iPhone". No specification or description about the features on the IBM web. Only three screenshots.

   { Link }

   Since the app runs over 3G/Edge network, there will be a lot of traffic because it checks for new calender entrys or email every 5 min?

   And you are only able to read entrys when you are connected. Or is the information cached? If it is - is it possible to do a remote wipe?

1. 49  Rav  | 6/16/2008 6:03:21 PM

   This is a very interesting and comprehensive article from the Sydney Morning Herald about Apple's strategy for making the iPhone a corporate device ->

   { Link }

   I can't help but echo the sentiments of some of the postings here - to your typical CIO / IT Decision maker the lack of Notes support is just going to be viewed as "on more thing that Notes doesn't do", and another argument that people will add to the list of reasons to move to Exhcange.

   Expect to see iPhone and Exchange consistently mentioned in the same breath from now on.

1. 50  Dave Madison  | 6/17/2008 5:53:47 PM

   @47. Why should I do something you easily do? This data is pretty easy to research. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

1. 51  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 6/18/2008 2:19:19 AM

   @50 cop-out.

1. 52  David  | 6/18/2008 10:25:01 PM

   @42 makes a good point. Yes, Cisco, IBM and Microsoft are going to be in the Enterprise for many, many years to come, but some of the influence will diminish. Why, because just as there is convergence in mobile devices, there is also a convergence of technology influencers. Corporate tech decisions are not driven only by IT or Business Execs. They are being made by Consumers and their devices as well, and the sooner IBM understands this convergence, the better. The whole IBM Collaboration suite is supposedly really good. However, I predict that it won't explode in popularity until a consumer, or public version is made available and that it is made interoperable with the corporate version so that while using Sametime and the other collaboration tools, I can communicate with my clients without them having to be an IBM/Lotus customer. There is just too much collaboration these days that takes place beyond the boundaries of the enterprise. The reason i bring this up is that we are seeing the consumer market influence the corporate market with the iPhone too, there is a call to use it in the Enterprise. Part of the responsiblity is definitely Apples, but IBM has responsibility to see that coming and to pro-actively respond to that need as well. Otherwise IBM/Lotus will be left behind. Even if it is not fully enterprise ready, make it available and give the reason's why it is not Enterprise ready. Many would still prefer to have any management capabilities that are possible to try to stop the insecure workarounds that are currently taking place (like forwarding all corporate notes mail to gmail using an agent and then accessing it through iMAP). Microsoft apparently 'got it' in the iPhone's case (at least that is the perception of the ActiveSync/Exchange integration).

1. 53  Paul  | 6/19/2008 5:53:06 PM

   What is it that the iphone does that RIM BB can't for a corporate user?

   Can I read e-mail? check

   Can I get calendaring? check

   Todo list? check

   Push? check

   Applications? Ok, let's chat in a year and see where apple is with their apps. Right now it's vaporware.

   Frankly IBM could tell Apple to pound sand at this point and my company isn't going to care. We can't afford to go throwing around upgrades and new software just cause someone wants a 16g music player and a pretty browser.

1. 54  David Bell  | 6/19/2008 6:50:06 PM

   @50 - so that just for once, a competitive statement from an MS employee is actually delivered with supporting facts rather than just being flung out and left open to reader interpretation.

1. 55  Christian  | 6/19/2008 9:52:53 PM

   It's doubtful anybody at RIM is "chuckling." They've had their asses handed to them on a plate by a) the iPhone SDK and b) the $199 iPhone 3G price point. Of course they're still making money hand over fist right now, but the devices in their forthcoming product pipeline are nothing to scream about.

   The folks in Waterloo have the same problem you folks at IBM have: A huge investment in Java that had short term benefits that are now coming home to roost as an enormous, unmanageable burden.

   I'm sorry, Ed, that so much of the response to this debacle comes across as either cantankerous towards you or flamboyant towards Apple, but it's really just the way things have shaken out.

1. 56  Andreas Schmidt  | 6/21/2008 5:37:56 PM

   The other side amusingly plays paternoster, too. Or maybe boomerang with an upward spin:

   "If you're in a business now using SharePoint, talk with your Microsoft account manager to tell them how important SharePoint support on your Mac is to you. Getting that kind of feedback through our internal mechanisms is hugely important for us as we make resource allocation decisions. Saying "some guy commented on the blog" isn't nearly as powerful than "the head of IT for a major company asked his account rep"."

   { Link }

1. 57  Jim Bernardo  | 6/23/2008 10:10:05 PM

   @24, Sean, the Activesync protocol includes tools for policy and security management, including remote device wipe, password strength and age restrictions, and password-based device locking and lockout. There's a white paper you can refer to at { Link }

   @47, @51, 84 of the Fortune 100, and 71 of the Global 100 use Exchange as their email system. That's not folks thinking about it, and that's not mixed shops. That's companies using Exchange for all of their employees who have email. Am I going to give you a list of names? Wish I could, but haven't asked permission of each company on the list to use them for PR purposes...

   Ed likes to talk about (did it in Bremen a few weeks ago) stats like "More than half of the global 100 corporations use Lotus Notes and Domino software"...may be accurate, prima facie, but use for what? By that (loose) characterization, we at Microsoft are in that group...we have fully licensed Notes/Domino software...we "use" it...yet I wouldn't characterize us as a Notes shop by any stretch of the imagination...

1. 58  Vitor Pereira http://www.vitor-pereira.com | 6/24/2008 4:53:18 AM

   @57 Jim, You're talking about email. So one could infer that those same 84 of the Fortune 100, and 71 of the Global 100 which use Exchange as their email system also use Lotus Notes and Domino software for applications, right?

1. 59  Lerxst  | 6/24/2008 4:31:10 PM

   @57 - So Jim by those numbers your contention is that we should all give it up because you own nearly all of the enterprises out there.

   You trying to lend clarity to the oft maligned comment that it is really 85%+ to MS & maybe 2% IBM Lotus in the global market - in terms of mail system use?

1. 60  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/24/2008 9:29:00 PM

   @57 Jim, since you've been hanging out here a lot today, perhaps you could comment on your presentation at TechEd? It's in the post just before this. Thanks.

   As for your claim of 84/71...for "all of their employees of who have email". Pretty bold claim, especially since it's inaccurate. I can certainly list more than those numbers for F100 companies that are using Notes/Domino -- specifically as an e-mail system. But even if they are only using Domino for collaboration...why does that matter? Why don't you go ahead and claim the whole F100, so then I can point out that IBM, ExxonMobil, etc. are all using Notes/Domino for e-mail --TODAY-- in part or in whole.

1. 61  Jim Bernardo  | 6/24/2008 9:53:13 PM

   @58, yes, Vitor, absolutely. The point, however, is that email touches every seat in the org (including, increasingly, what IBM calls "structured task workers" since computers have become so inexpensive in the last five years. As an example, a very large consumer products manufacturer in Ohio :-) which used to not provide computers to such workers five years ago, now provide them to all workers, because the cost for a desktop PC in volume is <$500 US. So, absolutely true, Notes may be used, but in 84 of the Fortune 100, it's not being used for email.

   @59, Lerxst, I said no such thing...please don't put words in my mouth. I drew no conclusions, I merely stated some numbers. Nor did I try to lend clarity to anything -- I neither said nor implied it. But, since you ask, back in February, Ferris (an analyst firm usually respected by IBM) released a study contending that only about 10% of enterprises were actually using Notes, as opposed to having licensed it. IDC, Gartner/Dataquest typically release numbers based on licenses sold, and so those numbers often look MUCH closer. However, you've not seen Microsoft ever claim that we had 85% share of the email market, that I'm aware of.

   @60, Ed, now you acknowledge that I was "the presenter" at TechEd? Nice... No, I don't plan to comment on your post, since it was mostly ... sorry... crap.

   If my claim here is inaccurate, Ed, prove it. Yes, ExxonMobil and IBM are two of the 16 who don't use Exchange for their email. As I said, the number includes only those customers who only use Exchange...not mixed shops, not those "thinking about it". I'd love you to prove me wrong...with names and numbers, Ed... I didn't say anything about what they're using for collaboration. My point, simply, was that when you do slides that say "More than half of the global 100 corporations use Lotus Notes and Domino software", you don't explain how they use it, you don't say what they're using it for, you don't say how broadly it is deployed within those companies, and so you let folks assume, and god knows they do, liberally. Your purpose in making those assertions (unless you're a really lousy marketer, which I believe you are not) is to convey a sense of market leadership and momentum, and I assert that you're doing so, in your words, inaccurately. As I said, we at Microsoft "use" Notes and Domino by your definition. So I guess you count us as a loyal customer?

1. 62  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/25/2008 7:06:38 AM

   In the same way that you count IBM as an Exchange customer, since we bought an Enterprise Agreement years ago (and thankfully, have let it expire).

   Jim, you have a long history of making inaccurate statements on this weblog and in public, and when challenged on them, you resort (as you've done again) to ad-homonym attacks or simply go silent.

   As for the inaccuracy of your claim, you and I both work at companies where disclosure of individual customer infomration is not allowed. So it depends on which year's F100 list you use, are you using the US or global list, and most importantly, depends on whether you are counting a customer as being 100% Exchange just because they've announced an intent or decision to be, as opposed to actually being in production. It's easy to count that consumer products company in Ohio you keep mentioning -- they decided to migrate from Notes (to Netscape, as their first try) in 2001. But there are many others on that list who have deployed 50 people in the direction of a political decision, and that doesn't count at all as "everyone".

1. 63  Lerxst  | 6/25/2008 1:39:40 PM

   @61 - No Jim you didn't say that directly, but clearly you're implying that MSFT has already "won" so we should all just pack it up and go home...because YOU say these are the numbers and the "facts."

   At least privately MSFT reps have indeed made claims of 85% market ownership, or some similarly baseless number.

1. 64  Jim Bernardo  | 6/26/2008 12:53:53 PM

   @61, Lerxst, I implied nothing. I'm not saying pack up and go home...in fact, totally unreported by Ed in his post about my session at TechEd, I said, look, if there is no business case for your org to move from Notes to Microsoft, then don't!

   BTW, If there are Microsoft reps who have made such a ridiculous claim, I'd like to have their names...you can email me...

   @62 Ed, be serious. First off, nobody I know of at Microsoft has EVER counted IBM as an Exchange customer...that's patently absurd.

   We used the 2007 lists, both US and Global, and as I said, several times, we count ONLY customers USING Exchange...not those which have said they will, not those which use Exchange and Notes for email...and only those in production. For the record (stay tuned for the public case study), that consumer products company NEVER moved any significant number of users to Netscape. The migration they've done over the last year has been from Notes/Domino to Outlook/Exchange...and from Sametime to OCS...

   So, if there are ad hominem attacks happening here...they're coming from you, not me. Rant on, Ed, I enjoy it :-)

1. 65  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/26/2008 1:22:27 PM

   Well, the little crowdsourcing exercise over on vowe.net has already shown that in the Global Fortune 100, there are more than 29 companies running Notes for e-mail. Oops.

1. 66  Jim Bernardo  | 6/26/2008 2:59:25 PM

   Oh, Ed...take a breath, will you?

   Again, in case you're having problems reading English, I have said, several times now, that the numbers I've cited are based on the Fortune 100 and Global 100, not the Wikipedia 175. So, in your usual fashion, you're trying to change the argument from one you can't win to one you hope you can...again, good marketing.

   That said, thanks to Volker for starting this exercise...interesting nonetheless. I haven't/won't contribute, because I don't think I should, but I'll note the following:

   a) there are 64 which are blank...of whom a number are Exchange shops

   b) there are several errors

   c) even though I said I didn't count people who were migrating or just thinking about it, there are several companies on Volker's list that are listed as migrating, but counted as Notes shops...let's either count them or not, but if they're migrating...well...

1. 67  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/26/2008 3:17:20 PM

   And in case *you* are having problems reading English, you might want to check out the second page in the wiki, which is the Global 100. And there, more than 29 companies are using Notes... doesn't matter how many are still blank, because there are more than 29.

   Also, you have just contradicted yourself. You went to great pains @57 to say:

   "That's not folks thinking about it, and that's not mixed shops. That's companies using Exchange for all of their employees who have email."

   Now in @66 you say "there are several companies on Volker's list that are listed as migrating, but counted as Notes shops...let's either count them or not, but if they're migrating...well..."

   See, you decided to split the hair in the first place, not me. If they are migrating, but they are not "using Exchange for all their employees who have email", then they can't be counted on your list of 84/71. Some of their employees who have email have Lotus Notes, and in some cases, it's still 90%+.

1. 68  Jim Bernardo  | 6/26/2008 3:40:30 PM

   No, Ed, the second page is the Fortune Global 500. My glasses work pretty well...

   And I said...just one commment before yours, Ed, so don't twist my words, "even though I said I didn't count people who were migrating or just thinking about it..." I'm not splitting hairs...I'm standing by the numbers we've put forth publicly, and we are confident in their accuracy.

   BTW, your definition of "crowdsourcing" smacks of filling a room full of Yankees fans, and asking them to count the number of Red Sox fans living in New York... :-)

1. 69  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/26/2008 3:51:54 PM

   I guess we should be clear on which Global 100 you speak of: { Link }

   I assumed, maybe incorrectly, you meant the first 100 of the Fortune Global 500. That's usually what people mean when they say the Global 100.

   There's no way you and I are both right, Jim. Even Microsoft's own press release on the issue says it is an "estimation". And I'm quite sure, based on what I know of my own customers, where I am the sales executive for the product and you are not for yours.

   As for the Yankee vs. Red Sox fans, I guess Tony Ollivier, Peter De Haas, and Francois Cornely are (still) rooting for the Yankees, since all three of them contributed edits to the wiki.

1. 70  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 6/26/2008 3:59:28 PM

   @68 re "crowdsourcing", no-one is stopping anyone from stepping in and providing some hard 'n' fast data on the wiki.

   The fact that people like myself have done so is because we have first-hand experience of what these places are doing with their technology. And yes, I mainly work with Domino technology. So shoot me ;o)

   How about less of the bickering over definitions / snarky comments and more hard data?