Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 7/11/2007 12:35:28 PM

   Between this and the seemingly never-ending onslaught of new products from IBM and Lotus, cooking school is looking increasingly appealing. :-p

1. 2  Jim Casale  | 7/11/2007 12:54:55 PM

   @1 Been there, done that in a previous life. You DON'T want to go to cooking school :-)

1. 3  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 7/11/2007 1:19:47 PM

   @2: I totally *do* want to go after reading Ruhlman's books!

1. 4  Keith Brooks http://lotustech.blogspot.com | 7/11/2007 1:31:53 PM

   Cooking school sounds good, what can you make from old iron or pentium3's?

   As to MS, your reading is correct Ed. They are making people split their houses so to speak because they just can't move Domino apps and make them 100% compatible to what they are under Domino.

   Of course that just makes more clients for me and my Domino/Exchange Integration business. And I get to try to move them back to Lotus at the sametime.

1. 5  Keith Brooks http://lotustech.blogspot.com | 7/11/2007 1:34:54 PM

   You are not at liberty to tell probably, but I am sure someone will ask, how many seats did we move from Exchange to Notes?

1. 6  Timothy Briley  | 7/11/2007 1:35:24 PM

   @1, @2, @3. Depends on the cooking school. I'd like to go to one for amateurs who want to become better amateurs. That would be fun and worthwhile. On the other hand, a cooking school for future chefs might be worthwhile but probably wouldn't be fun.

1. 7  Jim Casale  | 7/11/2007 1:38:04 PM

   @4 Splitting the house is what they want to do here. Exchange on email and apps on Domino. Last time it was proposed (a few years ago)the users balked and it never happened.

1. 8  Jim Casale  | 7/11/2007 1:46:52 PM

   @6 Cooking as a job for the most part stinks. Long hours, hot environment, cranky people....oh wait that is my present job... But seriously...working in a kitchen is no fun

1. 9  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 7/11/2007 2:25:35 PM

   Converting Notes apps to MS technologies is like crawling from Alaska to Argentina. Sure you *could*, but it's going to be a long painful journey, and by the time you get to the end you've forgotten why you did it in the first place.

1. 10  Timothy Briley  | 7/11/2007 2:52:23 PM

   I know that "where we is, is where we is", "no crying over spilt milk, etc. but couldn't all of this been Notes to Exchange migration been headed off years ago if IBM/Lotus had just put enough effort into the R6 client to make it comparable to R8 Basic?

1. 11  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/11/2007 3:14:10 PM

   @10 that's a chapter for my tell-all book once i retire :) I know there's a lot of Tuesday-morning quarterbacking we could do on things that went on with prior releases. Still, the Notes business is stronger than it has been over many of those years (10 consecutive quarters of publicly reported growth), so IBM has done many things right even prior to the Notes 8 release.

1. 12  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 7/11/2007 3:49:09 PM

   Are you suggesting that emotion and politics are the only reasons to chose Exchange over Notes?

1. 13  Sean Burgess http://www.phigsaidwhat.com/ | 7/11/2007 3:50:59 PM

   I would gladly go to cooking school if I didn't have to rely on being chef to pay the bills. If I could win the lottery and then open my own restaurant, that would be totally kewl.

1. 14  Ian Connor http://ianconnor.blogspot.com | 7/11/2007 3:52:52 PM

   Migrations are big business and the business partners tend to do very well out of them. However, you have to feel sorry for the poor customer as the food for the frenzy has to come from somewhere.

1. 15  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/11/2007 4:24:04 PM

   @12 I am saying they are the primary reasons why it is done. And yes, I know where there are technical differences, even the few points where some might suggest there are advantages, but I have yet to see a business case that shows that these advantages of changing e-mail/calendar functions from a system that does e-mail/calendar and applications with one that just does e-mail/calendar provides a cost savings or return on investment.

1. 16  Randy Smith  | 7/11/2007 4:28:20 PM

   @12 - Certainly not. Ignorance and resume-building also seem to be fairly popular reasons.

1. 17  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 7/11/2007 5:21:33 PM

   @12 To *choose* Exchange over Notes? Maybe not (though like many here I wouldn't have any trouble putting together a compelling argument for Notes over Exchange on the merits). But to *migrate* from Notes to Exchange for email, especially while keeping Notes for apps? That's a whole different question, isn't it?

1. 18  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 7/11/2007 6:01:08 PM

   Ed, we have seen this before. More than 10 years ago there were other office suites. SmartSuite was competing with MS Office and you would have been hard pressed to come up with a business case to replace one suite with the other. It happened nevertheless. You could have said emotions and politics but there were actually other reasons, like file formats for instance.

   With email, c&s, contacts I also see other reasons, to name only one: ubiquitous support for Outlook/Exchange in mobile devices or CRM applications.

   Rob, what I am seeing is a slightly different scenario: move business processes into SAP, move mail to Exchange, simple collab stuff onto Sharepoint, keep remaining Notes apps on life support as necessary.

   Which leaves the question open, what drives these scenarios that DO exist? Emotion, politics, or ignorance and resume-building? If that is the only explanation, then there is no defense.

1. 19  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/11/2007 6:45:28 PM

   @18

   The suite situation was completely different. There were two reasons that people switched from Lotus to MS then -- 1) Pivot tables and 2) OEM bundling of MS Office. #2 was the reason my own former employer went to Office as a standard - when it was US$50 more with a Gateway PC, who wouldn't have done that back then. Then the document formats enforced the standard.

   The mobile device support situation is changing, but I recognize that it is a factor in people choosing Exchange. Same with CRM integration, though there too, integration with Notes exists in the market leaders. Either way, though, are those really reasons to switch an entire organization? Are there really companies running 100% Windows Mobile devices with no Berries or Nokia E90s to be seen? The tease was out that the iPhone would support ActiveSync, but no such announcement has materialized.

   In the -vast majority- of the migration scenarios I have seen, it is absolutely emotion or politics that drives the decision. Recently we saw a migration decision that will cost US$6 million and was decided without input from the end-users. Skepticism reigns as to whether it will even happen or not, or within budget. But the decision is done.

1. 20  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 7/11/2007 7:55:16 PM

   Volker, I always wonder what drives that sort of decision, because without all the information and based only on small subsets of facts, they do seem indefensible. And there are certainly lots of foolish decisions made in corporations all the time. So to my cynical eyes, that is the most likely explanation. Is there a glaring reason that I'm missing?

   I've been involved in a couple of merger/acquisition scenarios where one company used Notes and the other Exchange, and in both cases the decision was made to convert the Exchange company onto Notes because the ROI was much better (fewer admins was a big factor, as was hardware costs 'cause there were more Exchange servers for fewer users). But I know people who were never allowed to present an ROI-based case, where the decision was made by the CxO as soon as they arrived from another company. What is that sort of decision based on? Familiarity plays a part, certainly, which ultimately is emotional.

   PS Moving all non-trivial development to SAP? That can't be cheap or fast. Is that an ROI-driven decision or is it based on other factors? I know the "One System To Rule Them All" factor is appealing, but to what extent?

1. 21  Karen Demerly  | 7/11/2007 8:11:35 PM

   @20 Rob - "PS Moving all non-trivial development to SAP? That can't be cheap or fast. Is that an ROI-driven decision or is it based on other factors? I know the "One System To Rule Them All" factor is appealing, but to what extent?"

   "We can move that into SAP." I hear that a lot where I work. In fact, we have an entire project devoted to researching which Notes apps can eventually be moved into SAP and off of Notes. I guess their line of thinking is, "We spent a bazillion dollars on this ERP system, we're not about to cease investing in its capabilities."

   That, and the entire top tier of IT just arrived from SAP/MS shops, so they know just how they think it should look. (Sprinkle with, "Oh, everyone does it this way", and let set for 2 hours).

1. 22  Cal Hampton  | 7/11/2007 8:51:34 PM

   I tend to see the migration decision made for other reasons:

   * Third Party Software integration: Exchange/Outlook is not only always first; but companies EMBED their apps in Outlook (which cant easily be done in the pre Notes8 world) & they build (sometimes free) sharepoint portlets for their apps. Try finding even one example of that for Notes\Websphere\Workplace.

   * Enterprise Agreements: Firms with EA agreements with Microsoft for Windows, Office and Servers; almost get Exchange\Outlook for "free". Why pay extra for Notes.

   * Notes 8 didn't exist. Lotus admits Notes needed a refresh BAD; well, for years that has been obvious and users\corporations made non-emotional decisions based on that.

   To name a few.

1. 23  Keith Brooks http://lotustech.blogspot.com | 7/11/2007 9:23:46 PM

   Hard to argue with free, no question and MS has shown that many times through the last 20 years.

   However, the costs involved in an Exchange environment, nom atter how high, are negated by the fact no one wants to migrate 1,000's of users to a new system.

   Even if it will save them $1million a week in server downtimes. Sad but true and proven many times over.

   @21, is probably the most common reason, SAP is just SOOOOOO expensive companies feel like they MUST do everything with it. Of course SAP only recently started helping them do this properly.

   But it is probably like the mianframe was early on, it cost so much every application had to be on there.

   So Ed, what if we up the price of Domino to 1/2 million and drop the client licenses :-)

   Oddly enough, in executive speak, the more something costs, the more important it must be! (Kind of like the people that feel the more you pay for something the better quality it is?)

   Remember the Seinfeld episode, George decides to do the opposite!

1. 24  Mike Robinson http://www.invcs.com | 7/11/2007 9:34:19 PM

   The more and more I talk to customers big and small, the more I've concluded the Notes vs Exchange thing is mostly emotional and political. One person I was talking with today described it well (he referred to his boss's desire for Outlook as "Outlook Lust").

   Along that same line of thinking I'm really seeing the brilliance in the N8 UI enhancements, putting N8 on a slide next to Outlook, there's not that shocking difference as there was with prior releases. At least you can say they look (somewhat) the same.

   And yes, I've done the vast technical comparisons, the disaster recovery and AD nightmares with Exchange, etc. the N8 UI has gone much further than most of the technical comparisons.

   One thing that would be helpful for IBM to do is more cover stories on # of internal users deployed on D8 and N8. It would go a long way to demonstrate that IBM (arguably the biggest Notes/Domino user base) can upgrade/deploy with relative ease. I think there was a statement a while back on the use of Quickplaces and Sametime reducing like a million dollars in IBM travel expenses. That kind of ammo would be huge.

1. 25  Keith Brooks http://lotustech.blogspot.com | 7/11/2007 9:41:27 PM

   I expanded my thoughts at the blog site because money is everything in the end, and not the way you think.

1. 26  tonyo  | 7/11/2007 11:10:39 PM

   There are some valid reasons for customers to move from one platform to another.

   1) Infrastructure Optimization.. - moving to one directory for authentication and authorization can save money through sw licensing, hardware and administration.

   2) Application development convergence. How much does it cost to maintain a Notes programmer, a websphere programmer and someone that know both environments as well as some .Net skills. Most IT directors I know are looking to maximize their development resources or be able to find "commodity" programming houses to solve their business problems.

   Server consolidation and management.

   the more applications that can be managed and provisioned the same way saves money.

   Sometimes it has to do with Outlook vs Notes, but not always.

1. 27  Randall Shimizu  | 7/11/2007 11:23:26 PM

   The 4 million seat migration is a joke. I don't of anyone who is using Exchange Server 2007 and this what probably what MS is pushing their customers to use in these migrations. MS even downplayed Exchange 2007 at their launch.

   A friend tells me that MS there is a lot of new MS products coming out this year. But, but Vista and Office 2007 are barely functional. Their new products seem more bloated then ever.

1. 28  Won’t disclose name  | 7/12/2007 12:07:16 AM

   We are split for last 2 years and still no sight when we would get completely on MS tech(s) only. And we are what a 7000+ company, so ya can minus that from 2million figure.

   I would say reasons to move are politics and resume-buildings.

   Beside these the other reasons are a chance for massive capital expense (which benefits certain people in certain ways).

   Our move to latest Outlook forced us to have latest OS (WinXP) which forced us to have upgrade all desktop with minimum h/w config to support XP.

   Now I have not yet talked about the host of new MS (& 3rd-party) products we bought just to replace core LN functionalities. (Sharepoint, K2, Outlook, etc)

   We had many custom applications for CRM, CallTracking, etc which were kind-free and now replaced by costly license products like GoldMine, Openview etc along with Product specific skill resources. There are many still pending which no one knows what we should do about.

   Now all this was never considered in any proper study when decision to migrate was made. (of course Accenture did some analysis with all those tools to create a picture of how easy it would be or LN is dying so we have to move)

   We used R5 and this is another reason why people move to Outlook. If companies don't spend money on upgrades, its very likely they would on migration.

1. 29  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 7/12/2007 12:13:32 AM

   @22 - "...companies EMBED their apps in Outlook (which cant easily be done in the pre Notes8 world)..."

   Would you care to elaborate? I don't mind taking it to e-mail if you prefer. I'm not challenging your statement, I just want to know what you're talking about with regards to embedding apps into Outlook.

1. 30  Thomas Schulte http://www.welovenotesbut.com/blog | 7/12/2007 12:35:08 AM

   @19

   Ed we are one of those companies. No Blackberrys no Palms anymore. Just simple pure Windows Mobile handhelds.

   And we always have to argument why we need to buy the latest version of MNotes with our bosses.

   And yes. The fact that integration of exchange exists everywhere and we have to buy separate tools for notes integration is, everytime the future of Domino/Notes within our organisation is discussed, one of the arguments that IS coming up.

1. 31  Mike Brown  | 7/12/2007 1:04:10 AM

   @26 Tonyo

   Some typically arrogant Microsoft assumptions here:

   "1) Infrastructure Optimization.. - moving to one directory for authentication and authorization can save money through sw licensing, hardware and administration."

   Arrogant assumption #1: that "one directory" has to be Microsoft Active Directory. Ermmm... no, it doesn't. Last time I checked, LDAP running on Linux were both free for "sw licensing". You may need to pay higher salaries for administration costs, but even there I think you'd save money. One good, certified *UNIX admin will give you more value than 5 MSCE Zombies put together, but you won't have to pay them five times an MSCE salary.

   "2) How much does it cost to maintain a Notes programmer, a websphere programmer and someone that know both environments as well as some .Net skills."

   Arrogant assumption #2: you'll need some .Net skills. Oh, will I? Why, pray tell? What if I'm not running on Windows at all (arrogant assumption #3)?

   Yes, you'll need a Notes programmer if you're going to do apps development in Notes. But if you're not doing those apps in Notes, you'll be doing them elsewhere - .NET or whatever - and that programmer costs too.

   Nice try about the "Websphere programmer". Three years ago, you'd have probably got away with that one too!

   "Server consolidation and management"

   Are you serious?

   Cheers,

   - Mike

1. 32  David Bell  | 7/12/2007 1:09:41 AM

   @22

   "... & they build (sometimes free) sharepoint portlets for their apps. Try finding even one example of that for Notes\Websphere\Workplace."

   "So the Portlet Catalog is made of swiss cheese ? No, it contains hundreds of portlets from partners, and there are 265 free ones according to the search results on the "free" filter.

   All of the Notes templates are included at no extra charge.

   * Enterprise Agreements: Firms with EA agreements with Microsoft for Windows, Office and Servers; almost get Exchange\Outlook for "free". Why pay extra for Notes."

   You have to be joking.

   There are a number of features of Exchange 2007 that are no longer covered by an Exchange CAL, but require the additional cost of an Exchange Enterprise CAL. Close to free you say ?

   Any customer with an EA is paying far more than if they just bought the licenses they need for the software they want to use. Because the EA is made up of costs for all users of all software regardless of whether it is actually necessary or used. For example, there is a component for Windows licensing costs over 3 yrs per user, but a PC comes with a Windows license that does not have any time period associated with it. Show me a customer who has a < 3 yr hardware refresh cycle. Why should you be paying for 2 Windows licenses per user ?

   Talk about a scam. Why do you think Forrester is talking about customers being "mad as hell" ? Because they are starting to realize just how they were duped.

   If Microsoft gives so much away for free, how is Bill Gates the richest man in the world ?

   If you really believe your statement, then all I can suggest is to take a closer look.

1. 33  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 7/12/2007 2:26:56 AM

   Ed, you said "The mobile device support situation is changing". Do you care to explain how it is changing?

   > "Are there really companies running 100% Windows Mobile devices with no Berries or Nokia E90s to be seen?"

   That does not really matter. All (?) mobile phones sync with Outlook. Many sync with Exchange.

   > "The tease was out that the iPhone"

   Good example. The iPhone syncs with Outlook out of the box.

   Rob, "One System To Rule Them All" is actually not a bad explanation. SAP tends to take up a large part of the budget, so there is a gravitational force to attract business processes that have not been on the particular SAP yet.

   Tonyo "moving to one directory for authentication and authorization" is indeed another reason I am hearing. IIRC taking people out of the Notes directory into LDAP has been promised many times over, but has yet to happen.

   Mike, the "arrogant assumption #0" here was that moving to Exchange is a stupid decision. I am not so sure that holds water.

   I agree that moving Notes applications to other platforms is often not easy (Asbestos anyone?). In that light one of the stupidest decisions Lotus has ever made was taking Designer away from the general Notes publication.

1. 34  Peter Wilson  | 7/12/2007 2:40:35 AM

   > Vista and Office 2007 are barely functional. Their new products seem more bloated then ever.

   { Link }

1. 35  Randall Shimizu  | 7/12/2007 3:17:40 AM

   @33

   Notes supports LDAP today with Notes 8 there will not be a need for Domino directory if a company does not need it.

   @26 This is only applicable if you are in a windows only environment. The really irritating thing with AD is that it is not LDAP compliant and uses non-standard object ID's. Because of this a company has to use a metadirectory product. On top of all this MS has MS metadirectory services. So in other words they want you buy a product from them because AD is propietary. Besides AD does not scale well and changing the schema is almost impossible.

1. 36  GarryL  | 7/12/2007 3:32:12 AM

   @35 "Notes supports LDAP today with Notes 8 there will not be a need for Domino directory if a company does not need it."

   Really? I thought that this was coming with the next version od Domino after 8?

1. 37  Flemming Riis  | 7/12/2007 3:53:24 AM

   -The more and more I talk to customers big and small, the more I've concluded the Notes vs Exchange thing is mostly emotional and political.

   And if vendor x used a little more time showing demoing why their products are better than y , more switches would be done on facts not just because people are tired of their vendor starting a meeting using more time blasting the competetior than demoing their product.

1. 38  NeilT  | 7/12/2007 3:53:34 AM

   So many comments, so much to say, so little time....

   So. Learn to be a chef? Perhaps that is why volker has a link to the "Blend an iphone"...? Sorry couldn't resist. Although from my perspective it would be a good use of one. But I am in a minority on that.

   Actually you can make more as a plumber right now in most of the English speaking world. Contract plumbers in the UK make between 75% and 100% more than I do.... But who would want the dirty job and then have the inherent ripped up hands that happen?

   I spoke to a CIO who had a remit from the shareholders. "Get us out of IBM". They were paying £1 Million per month for IBM services. For a 4.5k user company.

   I asked why he wanted to dump Notes/Domino as "Get us out of IBM" did not necessarily mean "Run into MS arms open". He told me there were licensing issues with MS products and for the cost of an ELA for Office he could have his messaging and server environment for free (2003 time). Who says it's not a cost issue?

   That is very hard to argue with and I'm afraid IBM did that to themselves. No sympathy.

   >Outlook lust?

   Perhaps not but I did hear recently that a CEO of a large company with 23k Notes seats had "Outlook Envy". The Notes supporting CIO is gone and the new CIO is a "cost conscious" messaging guy. He'd go gmail if they came up to scratch.

   Where was IBM in the online messaging service market again??

   The very arrogant statement recently about "We are International Business Machines" struck a chord. Perhaps that could become the "International Business Museum"? It is no longer only about hardware/software but about services and value as well.

   It is a long time now since manufacturing went from monolithic "all in one" factories and split the work into outsourced components and more efficient modules so that they could concentrate on their core business. Why do we all assume that the analysts are NOT going to say the same about IT

   Portal?? We were talking about embedded functionality in "Messaging Applications". Is that a side comment to the fact that Workplace is not in fact *Dead* but just slumbering until we are less *aware*????? EU constitution anyone? Similarities? Am I the only one who thought that when Nathan replied?

   Final point. I asked Ed a while ago why IBM were not pursuing the "Get out of M$" strategy. For small businesses it is quite possible to be running Notes/Domino on Linux/Unix with SAMBA, Open Office and Dell/"pick your supplier" workstations which already have a MS license, using SAMBA networking meaning no license with MS.

   I'm still waiting to either:

   a) see some action on that front

   b) understand why it is not a good approach

   Especially as N8 will give the office suite in a supported manner without going open source.

   It was just a thought and not mine either. I was just passing on an observation I made and asking why IBM were not leveraging it.

1. 39  Mark Barton  | 7/12/2007 5:09:06 AM

   If one of the main blockades to a Notes to Exchange migration are the custom Notes applications then now is the time to get those thousands of applications in order (and your development processes).

   One of the strengths of Notes has also been one of its weaknesses and that's its ease of developing custom applications. It has often been perceived as quick and dirty development which I and I am sure other Notes professionals take offence at.

   Often there are no defined processes in place around Notes development e.g. Change Control, Release Management, Version Control. Some companies don't even have at least 3 environments (DEV, UAT, Production).

   If we want to be taken seriously and you in a company that's requires any form of compliance then get your environment audited - find owners for applications and clear out the trash, get it secured and get your processes in place.

   Don't give them the reason to drop Notes development, and where that might lead, just because you haven't put in place the same processes 'proper' developments do typically J2EE or .net and no its no excuse to say "but we can't develop as quick". Notes has allot of technical advantages over other technology's - cutting corners isn't one of them.

   Of course you all knew this and have everything in place - right?

1. 40  Jim Bernardo  | 7/12/2007 6:42:58 AM

   I'm just grinning...

   @Volker, thanks for injecting some reason into this discussion.

   @32, David, I guess you've been too busy to read the news...Bill's not the richest guy in the world anymore. And the Enterprise CAL gets you a bunch of stuff that you have to purchase third party if you run Notes/Domino, so I'm guessing it ends up less expensive...but, of course, I'm just one of those arrogant Microsoft people, so you should probably immediately disregard what I say and excoriate me...

   @Ed, I don't know a single customer who's decided they're going to move to Exchange for email, and leave all their apps on Notes...in fact, when I talk to customers considering the move, I usually suggest that if that's their plan, they probably should either rethink it, or stay on Notes...

   :-)

1. 41  Roberto Boccadoro  | 7/12/2007 7:32:56 AM

   @40 ( and 33 as well )

   If comparing Notes to asbestos is "injecting some reason into this discussion"... but what can you expect from mr. Weber anyway ? Seems he spend most of his time slapping IBM/Lotus...

   Arguments like "all the phones sync with Outlook" put forward as a good reason to choose Exchange are self-explanatory IMHO. Who cares about security ? Costs ? Platforms ? Nah... is important to sync with a phone. If a consultant would have given me this as a reason for choosing a mail system when I was a customer, he would have been out of the door in a second.

   Jim, do you really think we can believe you ? You are telling to your potential customers to stay in Notes if they have also apps ? Gee... either you are not exactly telling the truth or you have better go and talk to your colleagues who are wasting their time trying to develop a tool to migrate Notes apps to Exchange/Sharepoint, or whatever product you will have in the market by the time the tool will be ready.

   Is CW lying when they write "Over the past two years, Microsoft has released a series of tools for migrating from Lotus applications to Exchange." ?

1. 42  Henning Heinz  | 7/12/2007 7:47:10 AM

   If you don't like the message shoot the messenger. It is not the consultant that thinks syncing with a phone is very important but it is the customer that says I am fed up buying tools just to sync my Notes stuff.

   As good as you are in your business you are in some way able to drive customers in a certain direction but maybe sometimes you reach a point where if you want to stay you have to accept a customer position or maybe even worse the customer has some points that you have to agree with.

1. 43  Roberto Boccadoro  | 7/12/2007 7:58:55 AM

   @42 - I know I have to accept the customer position, that is the basis of my job; believe it or not I try to "convince" the customers that Notes/Domino is a better choice than the competition, I do not try to "force" them to accept my words ( or IBM's if you prefer) as the Gospel.

   I am saying that personally I have yet to meet a customer who thinks syncing with a phone is a feature more important than those others I quoted. Phone sync is useful but for what percentage of the employees ? Here in Italy I can tell you no more than 10% ( and believe me I am very generous ) of the people working in a given company need that. No one here will base a mail decision using phone sync as a vital parameter.

   If you prefer applying a security patch to your servers every other week in order to be able to sync with a phone, then let it be, but I prefer to think a smart customer will take other things into account before making a decision.

1. 44  Darren Duke http://www.simplified-tech.com | 7/12/2007 8:17:32 AM

   There are four basic market segments in the world and each of them have different requirements, desires and driving factors.

   1. Enterprise. Very large number of users, for me this is 10,000+. The only reason an enterprise client every changes messaging platforms is because the non-incumbent vendor pays them to. It may not be in hard cash, but could be free software, another piece of software, discounted services, etc. Show me a CxO here that can tell you the merits of either system and "I'll dance a jig". Anything that "integrates with SAP" wins. Period. The issue is that MS have done a good marketing job making CxO's think they are the choice for SAP. Notes does it (and for free to an extent in R7), but that doesn't matter anymore. Ignorance, emotions and freebies win here. (if I could so it over again, I'd be an SAP consultant....these gigs never end)

   2. Medium. 500 to 9999 for me. These guys prolly started as a Small Business and if they did it after 1998 then they are Exchange (see Small, below). Manufacturing and other industries that used AS400 are more likely to be Domino (or in some cases POP3). They are either IBM or they are MS and neither are moving unless they get a new CIO (quite likely).

   3. Small. 25 to 499. Almost all of these folks called Dell and asked for a server. Dell obliged and also sold them Small Business Server (note, no where is the word "express"). Viola, MS Exchange client for life, unless someone can show them otherwise. At lower numbers they use hosted Exchange which is reasonably priced and has addons (and some cost) for SharePoint, BES or Windows Mobile. Anyone sell Domino mail hosting for $25/user/month with the addition of content sharing (Quickr) and BES access? Moving these folks on an ROI play is pretty easy is you can get through the FUD and their "IT person".

   4. Micro (I may have just made this up, so one day I may be famous). Under 25 users. No one want these folks except the hosted solution people, ergo, defacto Exchange/Outlook users. Even then most are using POP3 because they have never heard of hosted solutions.

   If you start from 4 and work to 1, you can see a trend. MS targeted Small Business years ago and now it is starting to pay dividends. The guy that brought SBS into a company in 1999, is now a senior manager at some Medium company. "We need Outlook", goes the cry. By default, people use what people know.

   So, now the question, if messaging is the same what is the real diving factor (if it not emotions and ignorace)? Two factors:

   1. Business Intelligence for no cost. Report Services for MS SQL Server is the single most important thing MS did. All this "convert you Notes apps to SharePoint" is crap and we know it. However, all companies need reports and Crystal (after their acq by BizObjects) priced themselves out of anything except the enterprise for a real BI tool. Stage left, enter MS. You sell them MS SQL Server and GIVE them the reporting tool. Then you can publish your reports via SharePoint. Genius marketing. Now we all know the MS stack has "issues", but the point is once you're hip deep you have no where to go.

   2. CRM integration. SalesForce.com change the SMB market and the lack of a Notes pluigin (initially at least) hampered efforts to push Notes. Client tell me today the Notes plugin is still a bit rough.

   So given all of this what can we do? Start at the bottom (4) and work up (1). Like MS did. Give me a solution to take to the Micro businesses that can compete on cost, once that happens it is only a matter of time before it percolates to Small (2). Make it all work on a single server (I can't get ST 7.5.1 and Quickr on the same box!!!) and that is at least a starting point. Work with the vendors to provide Notes plugins to their apps. With R8 this is now possible. Lets make it happen!!

   IBM also need to add in a low to no cost BI alternative (maybe the Eclipse one) and allow it to be integrated into Domino and Portal for display (not data reporting, that would be DB2 Express or Cloudscape). I have seen the Dashboards and these are impressive, but only for larger (5000+) clients. I need a grass roots solution.

   At the enterprise end push the SAP stuff more. I didn't even know about the R7 stuff until recently and I use every day. MS are willing to spend a lot of money for long time to gain market share. IBM need to do the same.

1. 45  PRADHAN  | 7/12/2007 8:28:15 AM

1. 46  Randy Smith  | 7/12/2007 8:41:52 AM

   @27 - Most newer migration projects (Notes to Exchange) are probably going to Exchange Server 2007. But, this requires a hardware upgrade to 64-bit machines -- often an expense overlooked by those that are hell-bent on migrating to Exchange due to politics, emotions, etc. Add in training costs and learning curves for end users, developers, and admins, user CALs for just about every MS client/server product being introduced for the MS solution, and the TRUE migration costs soar even higher.

1. 47  Flemming Riis  | 7/12/2007 9:29:38 AM

   -If you prefer applying a security patch to your servers every other week in order to be able to sync with a phone

   give me a break , show me the number of exchange patches in recent history lets say since 2003 was launched , and line them up against the patches for domino in the same time.

1. 48  Flemming Riis  | 7/12/2007 9:32:59 AM

   -But, this requires a hardware upgrade to 64-bit machines

   keep beliving that people use 3+ year old hardware on new intalls , whats the price for onsite hardware support vs buying a new server over time.

1. 49  tonyo  | 7/12/2007 10:02:35 AM

   @31

   I'm not making this stuff up. the IT directors and CIOs are telling me this - not the other way around.

   please also don't get me wrong and think I hate Notes. I'm glad that IBM finally figured out the value of the Lotus Brand and is putting some money in it - as opposed to trying to jam Workplace everything down customers's throats.

   Customers want to consolidate, reduce their IT spend and increase their flexibility. Customers are also trying toratify their development environment - who wouldn't?

   But it's up to them which platform makes the most sense.

   Wat's better in the long term - a consolidated platform or a bunch of best of breed applications taped together?

1. 50  Keith Brooks http://lotustech.blogspot.com | 7/12/2007 10:38:23 AM

   @47, Flemming, I would be VERY careful, you might be very surprised when you tally it all.

   A few years back, aorund 2003/4 I did an analysis of this issue, let's just say we should not be throwing stones.

   Genral consensus says you are correct but that is because IBM does not handle fixes, security etc. the same way as MS.

1. 51  Roberto Boccadoro  | 7/12/2007 10:46:06 AM

   @47 - You forget that since Exchange runs only on Windows, the servers have to be patched every time there is a Windows security patch. That happens quite often, I am sure you agree...

   OTH, you can install Domino on any other OS and you do not suffer.

1. 52  Roberto Boccadoro  | 7/12/2007 10:48:37 AM

   @48 - You'd be surprised. At least here people DO use old hw for new installs. You have no idea of how many people told me they still have w2k machines and have no plans of getting rid of them anytime soon. I can install a Domino server there, MS can't.

1. 53  David Bell  | 7/12/2007 11:01:57 AM

   @40

   "...Bill's not the richest guy in the world anymore."

   He was according to Forbes as of March 2007.

   But I suppose he could have given so much software/services away for free that he's only 2nd now. The point remains and your splitting of that hair added no value to the conversation.

   "And the Enterprise CAL gets you a bunch of stuff that you have to purchase third party if you run Notes/Domino, so I'm guessing it ends up less expensive...but, of course, I'm just one of those arrogant Microsoft people, so you should probably immediately disregard what I say and excoriate me..."

   I never compared the cost of Exchange 2007 to Domino. The point I was making was that the Enterprise CAL is required to get back features that were inclusive with Exchange 2003.

1. 54  Keith Brooks http://lotustech.blogspot.com | 7/12/2007 11:11:25 AM

   @51, Roberto my friend, you too should be careful, we might run on other platforms, but issues exist, features do not work across the baord(few but it happens).

   And IBM patches their OS's too, we are not special, well the mainframe is, but you know what I mean.

1. 55  Roberto Boccadoro  | 7/12/2007 11:41:33 AM

   @54 - Keith, no OS is perfect but I have never had to patch AIX or Linux as frequently as Win. Anyway, we both (and everyone else) know what the issues are here. I stand with my opinion, obviously :-)

1. 56  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 7/12/2007 1:31:59 PM

   @53: the only such feature I can think of was default managed folders, but those are now included in the standard CAL. { Link }

1. 57  Keil Wilson  | 7/12/2007 1:37:38 PM

   @40 - "I don't know a single customer who's decided they're going to move to Exchange for email, and leave all their apps on Notes..."

   Jim, I work with an organization that's made exactly that decision, and it was proposed by the MS/Accenture consultants that did the feasibility analysis here. In fact in Microsoft's own Competitive Discussion Guide, they define a "Switcher success" as a customer who commits "...to Microsoft as their primary collaboration and communications platform, but may maintain coexistence with their Notes environment." So while I'm all for reasonable discussion, I've grown very tired of the FUD people like you try to spread here.

1. 58  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/12/2007 1:56:09 PM

   @56 - journaling on a per-user basis, I believe, is also in that category.

   @57 Keil, thank you. This was precisely my point in the original posting. That 2.5 million number is the "switcher success", which we all know is based on a meaningless statistic.

1. 59  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/12/2007 2:03:16 PM

   @57 - Yeah, I thought that comment from Jim was rather bizarre myself, as I know at least 4 companies off the top of my head that have made the decision of "Exchange for mail, Notes/Domino for apps."

   In a certain sense, once you're an Office shop and a Domino shop at the same time, it's a wash. You're paying for Office CALs that mean you get messaging licensing for pretty much nothing, and you're paying for Domino CALs that mean you get messaging licensing for pretty much nothing.

   It's all implementation costs & benefits at that point, rather than licensing & maintenance costs.

   Now, if you weren't already paying for Office, or even Windows...

   :-)

1. 60  Flemming Riis  | 7/12/2007 2:51:58 PM

   @47 Keith , depending on when you did the analyses , pre 2003 was very bad due to IIS being patched as you said almost weekly but thats a long time ago , everything needs patches but that exchange needing patches all the time just isnt true (anymore) , i dont think there is that much difference in the way ibm and microsoft public critical bug info

   @51 Roberto , everything needs patches

   @52 Roberto , a majority of the customer i see very rarely go beyong 3-4 years on critical servers due to service costs

1. 61  David Bell  | 7/12/2007 3:29:37 PM

   @40, @57 - the most laughable part of that is that Accenture is in exactly the same boat yet continue to advise customers to do the same. They have Domino applications that they have never been able to move but they keep that very quiet.

   There are numerous customers who have gone down that pointless road; to say there are none is just ludicrous. One of the biggest is in Microsoft's backyard, you cannot tell me that you are not aware of that.

1. 62  Randy Smith  | 7/12/2007 3:34:02 PM

   @57 and @59 - As much as this migration strategy (move messaging to Exchange, keep apps on Notes) seems to defy logic and economic sense, I'm also aware of a couple of companies that have gone this route... on the advice of a *non-biased* consulting group (partially owned by M$).

   So, take an environment/platform that does messaging, apps, collaboration, instant messaging, etc., etc. (extremely well, IMHO) and then carve out just one piece to put on another platform that requires additional hardware, CALs, user/dev/admin training and additional personal to support the infrastructure (at least doubling and more likely quadrupling the admin staff) and call it a "Switcher Success???". Maybe that's what they call it in their "Competitive Discussion Guide", but in the "M$ FUD Playbook" it's more likely called a "Switcher Sucker Success".

1. 63  Mike McGarel  | 7/12/2007 4:54:26 PM

   Success for MS and its partners is not necessarily the same as success for their customers. :)

1. 64  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/12/2007 5:36:23 PM

   Why is it that every time Mr. Bernardo is proven wrong on this blog, he never follows up?

1. 65  Jim Bernardo  | 7/12/2007 6:34:20 PM

   @40, Roberto, no, you misinterpret what I said...what I said was:

   @Ed, I don't know a single customer who's decided they're going to move to Exchange for email, and leave all their apps on Notes...in fact, when I talk to customers considering the move, I usually suggest that if that's their plan, they probably should either rethink it, or stay on Notes...

   Translation (I really didn't think it needed translating): If a customer says to me, we want to move to Exchange, but we're going to leave our apps on Notes, I tell them they should rethink that decision...in other words, if they're going to move off of Notes, they need to address both mail and apps...or they should stay on Notes...strangely, I almost find myself agreeing with Ed...to wit, switching out Notes/Domino for Outlook/Exchange, but leaving apps in place is not, IMHO, a wise business decision. So, jump in the pool or don't, but don't jump halfway in. Understood?

   @57, 58, 59, my advice is and has always been not to pay for two systems. And yes, lots of folks "coexist" for some period of time...I also don't know any who've taken a decision to flip the switch over a weekend...but I can't think of any (perhaps there are some) who've ONLY moved email to Exchange, aren't doing SharePoint in some form or other, aren't utilizing other (no, I'm not talking about Office) MS technologies as well, and don't have a plan for transitioning completely off of Notes.

   @53, David, READ, man! { Link }

1. 66  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/12/2007 6:45:39 PM

   @65 so let me get this clear -- as Keil said, Microsoft measures -- presumably measures you, as it is your role -- on a criteria that allows customers to migrate mail only and leave Notes in place, but you don't recommend this approach. Several people on this thread identified situations where that in fact has happened, but you don't recommend this approach.

   This will make a useful clarification. :-)

1. 67  Keith Brooks http://lotustech.blogspot.com | 7/12/2007 7:24:15 PM

   I have seen the mixed environment and it is killing the users and productivity and IT staff. It creates bad blood across the board, then when the CIO takes his package and runs, the next one is stuck with the mess and instead of reverting back to Domino does...nothing because he/she also has no idea what to do.

   All their applications for workflow relied on Doc links, but now just send an email which is not the same.

   It's like ebay sending a popup your auction is ending soon on your wanted item and click on it instead of going to the item, it goes to the home page.

   Then the developers have to go "fix" what isn't broken.

   Really this is not the way to go and if this is what Assenter does then perhaps IBM should have bought them instead.

1. 68  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/12/2007 7:46:32 PM

   @65 - "I don't know a single customer who's decided they're going to move to Exchange for email, and leave all their apps on Notes"

   Really? Not a single one? You don't know ANY customer who's on Exchange email but running Notes/Domino applications?

   Jim... do you ever talk to your customers?

1. 69  David Bell  | 7/12/2007 11:08:02 PM

   @65

   Just exactly which part of my post are you complaining about, Jim ? Come on, here's your chance to be specific and not just snipe. Is he or is he not 2nd ? According to your link he is.

   That was a guess on my part because it really does not matter if he is 1st, 2nd, 10th, 100th or 1,000th - the man made an incredible fortune and he didn't do that by giving away software for free. Get it.

   And anyone naive enough to think they are getting a bargain from MS deserves all they get.

1. 70  Jim Bernardo  | 7/13/2007 8:33:11 AM

   @66, it's not my role, Ed...and I don't know anybody at Microsoft who's measured on moving Notes customrs to Exchange, but letting them stay on Notes for apps...

   @68, Nathan, I did NOT say I don't know any customers who are on Exchange mail but running Notes apps. What I DID say is that I don't know any who have made a business decision, and let's be crystal clear, in the last five years or so (I know several who did before that)to move to Exchange for email and leave apps on Notes. And yes, Nathan, in my role, I speak with customers every single day.

   @69, David, my point is that you need to speak with clarity. You said:

   "...Bill's not the richest guy in the world anymore.

   He was according to Forbes as of March 2007.

   But I suppose he could have given so much software/services away for free that he's only 2nd now."

   You insisted twice that he was #1, but "supposed" he could have slipped to #2 because he gave away too much free software. What a silly thing to say. Last I checked Microsoft was not a registered charity.

   @all, I'm signing off this thread now... :-)

1. 71  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/13/2007 9:31:20 AM

   @70 because you know what I'm going to come right back with is what Keil quoted, and what Kevin Turner quoted in his keynote at the partner conference this week, is the number of "Notes switcher" successes -- which, by MS's own definition in your partner materials allows for a customer to keep Notes for "coexistence". So, Microsoft is measuring one and only one metric -- Notes seats that have made a commitment to some Microsoft technology -- without any other metric, like how many Notes seats were actually de-commissioned. You can deny this all you want, but I've seen the materials (spreadsheets etc) that say otherwise.

1. 72  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 7/13/2007 9:58:12 AM

   @58: nope. Journaling was per-database only in Exchange 2003. Exchange 2007 introduced per-user and per-DL journaling, both of which require the enterprise CAL.

1. 73  Keil Wilson  | 7/13/2007 10:56:10 AM

   @70 - Jim, thank you for clarifying what you said. I most certainly did not misrepresent what you said, however. I may have misunderstood your point, but that's just as much the fault of the writer as the reader.

   I want to be clear about something here Jim. While you personally may not recommend coexistence as a long-term strategy, Microsoft documents are vague about that position and consultants at a company partially owned by Microsoft, who specialize in Exchange migrations, are making that recommendation on Microsoft's behalf.

1. 74  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/13/2007 7:51:32 PM

   Manual Trackback

   { Link }

1. 75  David Bell  | 7/14/2007 12:44:05 AM

   @70

   I did not "insist" anything. I made a statement that has been pretty common knowledge for a long time, and obviously changed very recently. And it's accuracy was neither here nor there in the context of the point I was making.

   Odd for an MS employee to suddenly get so interested in facts and clarity; two words you will not see used often in a sentence about Microsoft because they are two things for which Microsoft has no regard.

   "Last I checked Microsoft was not a registered charity."

   Thank you - you get my point finally after 48 comments in this thread.

   Please explain then why so many people are so gullible as to think that they are getting software for free, or close to it, which was the assertion made in @22 regarding EA's that started my comments ?

   No comment from you on Accenture continuing to use Domino but recommend Exchange mail migrations ?

   Finally, for your education, here is a wikipedia link to the definition of sarcasm as my comment in @53 was clearly over your head:

   { Link }

1. 76  Carl Tyler http://www.iminstant.com | 7/14/2007 6:14:12 PM

   @19

   "The suite situation was completely different. There were two reasons that people switched from Lotus to MS then -- 1) Pivot tables and 2) OEM bundling of MS Office. #2 was the reason my own former employer went to Office as a standard - when it was US$50 more with a Gateway PC, who wouldn't have done that back then. Then the document formats enforced the standard."

   Well I have to differ a bit with your preception of why Lotus lost this battle, being involved in this fight at the front line, actually doing a similar role to the one you know do for Notes but for SmartSuite I have a different take. The decisions that allowed Microsoft to win the Office Suite war were:

   1. Lotus killing LotusWorks

   2. Lotus being slow to deliver a complete 32 bit Suite for Windows 95

   3. Weak management structure

   4. Removal of SmartSuite from salesperson quotas.

   5. An unhealthy fixation on the customer

   So let me explain each of these in a bit more detail...

   1. So why does Lotus killing LotusWorks matter? Well firstly let me say that very rarely was Microsoft Office offered as an OEM bundle, it was Microsoft Works that was offered as a bundle. You're probably familiar with the argument, I get outlook for free, actually you get outlook express, looks like you fell for the same thing. Lotus made a stupid decision when it dropped the Lotus Works product, because it meant the only thing Lotus had left was SmartSuite. Why is that bad? Well LotusWorks was the loss leader, the product to OEM cheaply to get people to try it out and then upgrade to SmartSuite, when it was gone, the only thing left to OEM was SmartSuite. SmartSuite couldn't be bundled cheaply as it was the Lotus cash cow, it funded Notes development and many other apps being developed within Lotus, remember, Notes did not make any profit for Lotus for many many years after the IBM acquisition. So what happened? Bundling SmartSuite failed to catch on as most computer manufacturers went for the much cheaper option of bundling MS Works.

   2. Lotus never really learnt from the Windows 3.0 lateness, the same arrogance that hit the development of 1-2-3 for Windows hit SmartSuite for Windows 95, when SmartSuite for Windows 95 arrived, it was a mix of 32 and 16 bit apps. Microsoft seized on that, and mentioned it all the time during sales pitches. Why arrogance? Well SmartSuite had pivot tables, but it used Approach to do them, the pivot tables, version manager etc. in SmartSuite were much more powerful, they all worked with live data, live formulas etc. Microsoft didn't but they had the check in the review column, so no one cared how they worked.

   3. Weak management structure, well by this I mean that the SmartSuite managers had no teeth, where as Microsoft operated in a very top down authoritarian mode, Lotus SmartSuite deve was really a collection of management teams all doing their own thing. Example Word Pro implemented ask the expert help, but 1-2-3 decided not to implement it because they did think it mattered in a spreadsheet, and didn't care about the inconsistency. Where as what should have really happened was the decision come for top and not give the teams any choices. I even remember meetings where a decision was made, and then a few weeks later each of the deve teams had decided they hadn't liked the decision in the meeting and done their own thing. Also it's important to remember that the 1-2-3 team was super arrogant, you could go to them with feedback from customers and you'd often get the impression that they invented the spreadsheet and they knew better than the customer.

   4. Sales people no longer needed to sell SmartSuite, this one was a huge decision that was made, and overnight SmartSuite sales fell. No longer did the sales rep have to sell every tool in their toolkit, and most sales people not willing for the fight focused on selling Notes instead, Notes was an easier sale in that there was no real competition, so it didn't get uncomfortable for the sales rep. Similarly, very rarely at a sales meeting would a massive SmartSuite sale get recognized, but sell a few thousand notes licenses and you were a hero. Where do you thing sales people would put their effort?

   5. An unhealthy fixation on the customer, this is a pet peeve of mine. Senior management at Lotus were so fixated on Microsoft, that they lost the value of the customer, what Microsoft did was coming before what customers were saying.

   There are other things too that impacted the Office war, File Formats was one, but by the time that truly mattered, the war had already been lost. Notes taking years to make profit was another, Iris using Office internally instead of SmartSuite also had an impact I believe, there are so many things, but Pivot tables and OEM bundling aren't the ones that I believe lost that war.

1. 77  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/15/2007 10:39:10 AM

   @76 Carl, I didn't say MS Office was free, I said it was an OEM bundle. We paid $50 for an Office license with each new Gateway PC. That was a lot cheaper than buying it from MS shirnkwrap (they were just starting to introduce Select/Open agreements) or buying an alternative from Lotus or anyone else. I didn't fall for the same thing, please re-read my comment. And I'll continue to assert that this was the primary factor, though yes, Lotus could have executed some things differently to hold/gain share.

1. 78  Bob Congdon http://www.bobcongdon.com/blog | 7/16/2007 1:58:28 AM

   @77: Like Carl, I was at Lotus during the same period. Carl's analysis is spot on. Lotus didn't execute when Windows 3.0 came out and it did an even worse job in the transition to bundled office suites and especially 32-bit Windows.

   The first release of 1-2-3 for Windows was a cobbled-together port of the DOS code base. Not exactly a stellar product. The "next generation" version of 1-2-3 was a rewrite started in 1991. It going to run on Windows, Mac, OS/2 and Unix. The project had an incredible amount of churn and kept getting delayed, forcing Lotus to release more versions of the "quick and dirty" port. The "next gen" version of 1-2-3 didn't ship until 1996 jettisoning Mac and Unix along the way. And missing a lot of customers transitioning to Windows 95. WordPro was also a major rewrite (of AmiPro) and had issues as well.

   Microsoft put its Word and Excel teams under the same management (and in the same buildings) to force them to work together. The 1-2-3 and WordPro teams were many miles apart in Cambridge and Atlanta and there was little coordination between them.

   I realize that it's easy to blame Microsoft for Lotus losing in the office suite wars. But Lotus stumbled badly. More than once. And with its flagship product. By the time that the "next gen" version 1-2-3 shipped in 1996, few noticed, and even fewer really cared.

1. 79  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 7/16/2007 9:05:09 AM

   @59 - The licensing for Outlook changed with Exchange 2007. The net effect is the previously cheap licensing for Exchange and Outlook potentially got a whole lot more expensive, depending on how the customer has chosen to license Microsoft products.

   @72 - I believe Ed's point was that you have to buy an extra CAL to get per-user journaling, which you confirmed.

1. 80  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/16/2007 4:12:10 PM

   @76, 77 & 78 - So who's running behind and releasing lackluster, inconsistent versions these days, while unaccountable management fritters away attention on totally irrelevant matters and worries more about consumer electronics than customer demand?

   Oh.... yeah.

1. 81  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/17/2007 7:31:35 PM

   For anyone who'd like a thoughtful analysis of the office suite wars, I recommend "Winners, Losers & Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology" by Stanley J. Liebowitz and Stephen E. Margolis.

   They make a good case that better products -- not pricing or bundling -- defined the outcome of that competition and on a number of others.

   Bog Congdon's post hits on some of the fundamental reasons for that.

1. 82  Bob Congdon http://www.bobcongdon.com/blog | 7/18/2007 2:10:01 AM

   @81: That's Bob not Bog ;-)

   One other comment about the office suite wars. Lotus and Microsoft weren't the only competitors. WordPerfect had been the the de facto standard word processor for many many years. Lotus tried (and failed) to buy WordPerfect in 1994 to replace AmiPro/WordPro in its suite. Novell bought them instead and formed an office suite that included Borland Quattro. It didn't go well. Two years later Corel paid Novell $210 million for WordPerfect, almost $1.6 billion less than Novell had paid in 1994.

1. 83  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 7/18/2007 8:34:21 AM

   @81 - I sincerely hope you are not trying to dismiss years of legal testimony and judgments by both the US and ECC courts. Microsoft's predatory practices are a matter of fact, not conjecture. I'm surprised you would recommend that particular book since it has been repudiated by many economists, journalists and technologists as self-serving, historically inaccurate, and Microsoft propaganda. I didn't read it because it has been so resoundingly refuted.

1. 84  Timothy Briley  | 7/18/2007 9:51:53 AM

   @81 - I remember in the first half of the 90's, Ami Pro/Word Pro consistently coming out on top in reviews of the "Big Three" word processors. I also remember a version of Microsoft Word, I believe it was 6.0, that was shipped with over 8,000 known bugs. And even at that number, it still had fewer bugs than WordPerfect For Windows.

   All the while, Ami Pro/Word Pro market share continued to drop.

   And don't forget that Freelance, Approach, and Organizer were great apps in their own right.

   So excuse me for doubting you when you say that Microsoft Office won because it had better products.

1. 85  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/18/2007 10:20:14 AM

   To follow up on Charles's comment @83, it appears that Microsoft paid for the publication of the referenced book, according to { Link } and that the authors were, at various times, hired by Microsoft as consultants { Link } .

   I should have known.

1. 86  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/18/2007 2:12:05 PM

   @85 and @83. Margolis was my daughter's professor, and he gave me the book after I had given a short lecture at the school. I did read it.

   I have to admit that I didn't know MSFT had paid for the book's publication. I certainly wouldn't have recommended it on this site had I known that, and I wouldhave looked moer closely for bias had I known.

   I realise that may position me as ill-informed, of course.

   While the book's reputation is tainted by MSFT having paid for its publication, it doesn't automatically invalidate it. All companies pay authors whose views they share, to write favourable text books for them, even to influence government decisions.

   I read the book not knowing its entire provenance and I appreciated its anlytical approach. Knowing it's history, anyone should be suspicious in reading it, but it's equally invalid to dismiss it unread.

   I don't hold a brief for teh book particularly, but I think anyone who does read it will find a sharp distinction between its content and the highly slanted and subjective opinions expressed in this thread and on this site. It may offer a consistent point of view, but it's backed up something more than an automatic repudiation of anything Microsoft.

   Which is why I referred to it. It's a pity I didn't have a cleaner example, but the point stands: it's not a real debate if there's an automatic assumption of one answer, and few facts to back it up.

1. 87  Timothy Briley  | 7/18/2007 2:48:46 PM

   @86 - You read it about. Many of us lived it.

1. 88  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/18/2007 4:25:23 PM

   @87) Timothy. I'm not sure what "lived it" means wrt Office Suites. I wasn't in desktop software development but I was in product groups at IBM from 1971 through 2000 (OS/2 1992-1996; Lotus 1996-2000)and have been at Microsoft since then.

   @19) Ed, you said: "There were two reasons that people switched from Lotus to MS then -- 1) Pivot tables and 2) OEM bundling of MS Office. #2 was the reason my own former employer went to Office as a standard - when it was US$50 more with a Gateway PC, who wouldn't have done that back then. Then the document formats enforced the standard."

   This is an odd statement: Lotus lost because Excel was had soem exclusive features (sounds reasonable) and because Office was less expensive that SmartSuite. Those are good reasons to lose, but I am inferring some complaint here.

   Let's look at the data. I'm not exactly sure when "then" was but Excel was approximately the same price to distributors and OEMS as 1-2-3 (sometimes a little higher; sometimes a little lower) from 1988 through 1995. From then until 1997, it was never more than $50 lower. Only Quattro Pro pursued an aggressively low price strategy.

   During the years of price parity (1988 through 1995), 1-2-3 went from 70% market share to 20%. Excel went from 10% to 70% in that period. The always-low-priced Quattro Pro stayed below 20% share.

   The point here is that there was little or no cost defference between 1-2-3 and Excel during that period and no clear desktop leader. The market share switch happened because of product capability. Pivot tables being just one example.

   The word processing market played out differently. Microsoft made a big bet on Windows Word Processing (vs DOS) the late 80s, long before Windows share growth. Lotus acquired Samna/Ami Pro to make up for a late entrance in that market, but by then it was too late. By 1992, Word's share of word processing was 40% and AmiPro never reached above 10% (in 1993). Despite this, Lotus maintained a premium price strategy from 1986 through 1990 despite the fact that reviews rated Wor's lead share and better reviews.

   A better product and lower prices led to Word's share growth in that period -- a period when desktop OS share (DOS, OS/2, Mac, Windows) was stiil anybody's guess.

   At the point your employer got a better deal on an OEM'd Office, Ed, Lotus had made its mistakes and those mistakes had cost it the suite game.

   Now, perhaps your complaint is document standards? Well, IBM is doing a pretty good job of sponsoring expert opinion pro ODF and con OpenXML. No complaints there, but let's not pretend that only one company does this.

1. 89  Timothy Briley  | 7/18/2007 6:08:29 PM

   @88 - Any chance you could rewrite

   "that reviews rated Wor's lead share and better reviews."?

   It doesn't make sense as written.

1. 90  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/18/2007 7:40:31 PM

   @88 Cliff, it wasn't a complaint and I have no idea why you inferred that it was. It was an ack that 1) I have, at some point in my life, chosen to buy Microsoft software, which might surprise you and your colleagues and 2) I did it for reasons of convenience and cost.

   The time period in question is 1992-1994. I believe that was MS Office 4.0. My first exposure to SmartSuite was when I came to Lotus in June, 1994. Sales by "suite" were quickly becoming the norm, and MS introduced Open and Select agreements and Lotus introduced Passport, both by early '94, which is where my recollection comes from.

   You didn't offer a source for your assertion about price parity between Lotus and Microsoft. I am pretty sure that was not the case in our buying decisions. I don't recall Gateway even offering us Lotus SmartSuite at the time, much less at price parity.

1. 91  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 7/19/2007 7:01:03 AM

   @88 - "A better product and lower prices led to Word's share growth in that period [1986 - 1990] -- a period when desktop OS share (DOS, OS/2, Mac, Windows) was stiil anybody's guess."

   WordPerfect was the de facto standard until about 1990. WordPerfect was overthrown by two things: not having a Windows version and Microsoft's unfair business practices. Perhaps you need a history lesson about the consent decree from 1994. You remember, back when Microsoft was found guilty of abusing their market position by requiring companies license other products if they wanted to license DOS or Windows. And they charged for a Microsoft OS license for every CPU sold -- even if a Microsoft OS was not installed on the system. And then they started requiring multi-year license deals in addition to the other draconian measures to further require OEM lock-in. { Link }

   Couple this with a study by professor Pai-Ling Yin of Harvard Business School and professor Timothy F. Bresnahan of Stanford concluded that distribution rather than technology has a bigger impact on adoption { Link } and you have a pretty good idea how Microsoft came out on top. It wasn't by having better products, it was by owning the distribution channels and blocking access to them.

   And, finally, when you talk about the reviews of early releases of Word being so positive, that's a slippery slope. I will have to dig for some sources, but I know I read that Microsoft paid for many of those reviews, much like they paid two noted economists to write a position piece that upholds Microsoft's innocence in the face of overwhelming facts.

1. 92  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/19/2007 11:03:50 AM

   @91) I have heard it said that only fools and lawyers argue the law, so I'll stick with the points and timing that relate to Wordperfect and Word.

   Wordperfect was the leading word processor (peaking at ~45% share) from 1987 through 1991, but it began to lose share to Word a year earlier, when Windows 3.0 was introduced. Electronic word processing atthat time was not a commonplace and WP was a pwerful and complex product which led an audience comprised largely of power usres.

   Microsoft invested in Word for Windows long before Windows 3.0 and introduced it in 1989. GUI-based word processing was far more approachable (object-action, WYSIWYG, etc) and enfranchised a much larger audience.

   Thsi was a period when there was no clear OS leader. DOS was a strong incumbent, being eclipsed by Mac, OS/2, and Window. Each OS was a contender for the GUI future.

   WordPerfect made an awkward transition to a GU. It was rated as too complex. When Windows 3.0 took off, it embraced a new audience and took Word with it.

   You know, sometimes -- just sometimes -- a product wins because it's better for the largest audience.

   I'm not arguing, btw, that every Microsoft product is superior or that Lotus and IBM products are inferior. I've worked at both (or all three) companies. There is much to admire (and little not to admire, I believe) in each.

   I am, though, offended by a community where every action by a competitor is seen as rooted in evil. If I satnd up for Microsft here, it less out of loyalty to an employer, than it is to protest against the relentless and tiresome partiality I see from many on this site.

   It seems to me likely that a company as good as IBM, with products as good as Lotus', is a little uncomfortable about a site that is as polarized as this one.

1. 93  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/19/2007 11:41:14 AM

   @92 or, perhaps, Cliff, you're just a bit irritated that IBM isn't uncomfortable, as you've expressed many times to many people over the years.

   I think your assertions would do much better if you supported them with data. I asked for that in my comment @90, and I will ask for it again.

1. 94  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/19/2007 11:55:13 AM

   @88) By that period Lotus desktop products had lost. Here's info on that.

   I don't have price data for suites. I have charts showing spreadsheet prices and word processor prices though 1997. In both cases, they are the prices received by the vendor (eg Lotus), from the distributors (eg Gateway). Sources are IDC and Dataquest.

   For the years 1992, 1993,1994 pices were (+ or - 5%)

   Excel: $175, $125, $100

   1-2-3: $130, $190, $110

   Word: $250, $160, $140

   AmiPro/WordPro: $225, $75, $60

   The more important point is that by 1994, AmiPro/WordPro market share was below 10%, and even 1-2-3 was below 30%. Lotus had lost this battle by then. They didn't bet on the Mac market at all and thsi is where the MS Word team honed their GUI skills for Word. 1-2-3 for Windpws was a straight port of 1-2-3 3.x for DOS

   Lotus also placed several other expensive and distracting bets, none of which was successful:

   -- products for OS/2, including 1-2-3/g

   -- 1-2-3 3.x (a graphical version on DOS)

   -- 1-2-3/M (for the mainframe)

   -- Improv for NeXT

   In this market -- as in most -- the villain is very close to home :-)

1. 95  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/19/2007 12:02:04 PM

   what were the prices for Office and SmartSuite as bundles, as opposed to individual products?

1. 96  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/19/2007 12:39:48 PM

   @93) The data you asked for is above. I wasn't ducking your question.

   As to this site, I believe healthy debate and diverse opinions are hugely valuable.

   This site includes some debate. Volker posed excellent questions, Bob's post was by far the most insightful on the suites wars, and Jim's was accurate and constructive.

   However, Jim provoked the usual rant. It wasn't anything he wrote, though (except maybe the smiling part). WRT Jim's points: I am sure there are customers that run the gamut of migration scenarios, but most are evaluating a platform decision (MSFT Collab vs Lotus Collab) that includes messaging as well as applications. Implementations vary of course, and also evolve over time, but they happen around a platform decision.

   As strongly as I value debate, I am offended by a relentless (and often poorly-supported) tirade against a single competitor -- wherever it comes from. There's a lot of that on EdBrill.com.

   I may be dead wrong, but I like to think a lot of people feel the same way.

1. 97  Henry Bestritsky http://www.binarytree.com | 7/19/2007 12:48:08 PM

   Ed,

   Before you start yelling at me that I am supporting my new friends at Microsoft, I am very amused by this thread. I personally do not care of what kind of practices Microsoft did in the 90's to get ahead and I sure don't care about pricing for AmiPro.

   - Did Microsoft compete unfairly? Absolutely!

   - Did IBM sell machines to the Nazis? Yes

   - Is there a huge unfair trade deficit with China? Yes

   - Should Memeber's Only jackets go back in style? God No!

   My point is.. who cares!?! History is written by the winners and the simple fact is that Microsoft owns the OS and Productivity Programs market. A more important question is what is IBM going to do about it and I am not only talking about technology?

   An analyst friend of mine was wowed by Quickr and was completely stunned that it went live and not a peep of marketing from IBM. I just got off a call where the customer compared SharePoint to where Notes was in early nineties and said that they have to move off Notes ASAP in the same breath.

   Am I the only one scratching my head here?

1. 98  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/19/2007 1:49:54 PM

   I don't have the data on suite prices/costs, but a suite consisting of a $10 and a $15 product will cost between $15 and $25. Any other range is illogical.

   In 1994 Word's channel price (price received by MS) was $140 and WordPro/AmiPro was $60. Excel was $100, 1-2-3 was $110. Excluding other products for the moment, this would put Office between $140 and $240; Smartsuite between $110 and %170.

   Neither is it the case that MS priced lower than SmartSuite in the OEM channel.

   I have the share of each vendor's suites (units and revenue) that went through OEM channels for 1996 and 1997, so I can tell teh ration between OEM and other channle prices.

   In 1996 Office sold 11% of its suites units through OEM , and that delivered 5% of its total suite revenue. This means an OEM discount of about 50%. Smartsuite had 77% of units and 20% of revenue. That's an OEM discount of about 70%.

   1997 Office 15% of units 9% of revenue (about 40% discount); Smartsuite 84% units, 46% of revenue (about 40% also)

   The simple point here is that the Office products (as shown by share data in earlier posts) had eclipsed the Lotus competitors by 1994. The suites wern't priced that differently either. It is likley, though, that an OEM, faced with the choice between a market leader and a market laggard, chose to sell the leader, even though it cost a little more.

   I can see how you'd see the issue in 1994: Gateway didn't OEM Smartsuite because it was not selling well. If anyone did want it, the SmartSuite non-OEM price was twice the OEM price.

1. 99  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/19/2007 2:03:22 PM

   @97) Good post, Henry .... and not because I am one of your new friends at MSFT :-)

   You should add that IBM was convicted of competing unfairly and signed a consent degree for competing unfairly and operated under a consent decree that was fully in place through 1996 and not completely lifted until 2001.

   It's a commonplace that companies that achieve a strong market position by competing fairly, are often found to maintain their strong position unfairly.

   What's distressing is that people who have studied the issue relatively little, throw terms they don't understand at topics they don't relate to, simply becuase they appear to suit their preconceptions.

   We all make judgments of companies in some way, but when we consistently and reptitively cite a single competitor as evil, then it's likely the real problem is the face in the mirror.

1. 100  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/19/2007 2:16:35 PM

   @88 Charles, you said:

   WordPerfect was the de facto standard until about 1990. WordPerfect was overthrown by two things: not having a Windows version and Microsoft's unfair business practices. Perhaps you need a history lesson about the consent decree from 1994. You remember, back when Microsoft was found guilty of abusing their market position by requiring companies license other products if they wanted to license DOS or Windows. And they charged for a Microsoft OS license for every CPU sold -- even if a Microsoft OS was not installed on the system. And then they started requiring multi-year license deals in addition to the other draconian measures to further require OEM lock-in.

   I won't argue the law with you but you have conflated two items: suite share and the 1994 consent decree.

   By 1996 MIcrosoft had been operating under the consent decree for two years, yet only 11% of Office units sold that way. By contrast Smartsuite (aided by a friendly acquisition by hardware vendor IBM) was selling 77% of Smartsuite that way.

   One logical explanation for that is that Office and its companoents were successful in their own right through based on R&D that began in the mid-eghties ... long before there was any clear OS winner (beyond DOS of course :-) )

   Equally, it would be hard to show how OEM arrangements had anything to do with it.

1. 101  TimB  | 7/19/2007 2:20:33 PM

   While this is surely blasphemy on this site, here goes:

   Who cares? 70-ish comments about the "office suite" battle decided 15 years ago? I've been involved with Notes/Domino since late "R3" days -- I can argue the competitive merits as well as anyone.

   But there is a whole different angle, and it's not "resume building" -- call it career pragmatism. I've seen a number of Fortune 100 companies that I've been involved with - one way or another decide over the long haul to move away from a Lotus Collaboration platform to something else (usually Microsoft). While I violently disagree with the technical merits -- these usually happened at a level far too high for me, or my peers (or the readers of this blog?) to influence.

   Certainly there are those that go the other way as well. But however you feel about Microsoft -- if you're going to be a (gainfully employed) technologist, you're going to have to make peace with it....or move away from technology entirely.

1. 102  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/19/2007 3:38:17 PM

   @99, Cliff, why does it always come down to personal attacks?

   I can't reveal IBM internal information here, so I can't provide additional texture to some of the information behind my own comments. Unfortunate. But a few things are certain:

   - Someone from Microsoft has deliberately misrepresented or misled in their comments on this thread

   - The discussion about Office prices from 10-15 years ago wasn't the point of the posting

   - The key points of this posting have been completely ignored by the Microsoft employees commenting here, who have tried to change the subject.

   As for "when we consistently and reptitively [sic] cite a single competitor as evil, then it's likely the real problem is the face in the mirror."

   - On a seven-month average, out of 40-50 postings a month on edbrill.com, only two are commentary on Microsoft. And I'm hardly the only blogger who chooses to occasionally examine Microsoft from a negative viewpoint. I might be more blunt than others at times, but everything that I've written in this blog post has been fact-based.

   - Sometimes it's the face in the mirror, Cliff, and sometimes its an image on a security camera. My business has grown 30% over the last three years, and is weeks away from the best Notes release, ever. This blog has been a direct factor in that success. This despite your protestations about it to IBMers. I'm not covering up any mirrors around here, not now.

1. 103  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/19/2007 4:48:59 PM

   @102) I have made no personal comments here, Ed, except to comment favorably on a few other posts. If you are referring to the point about the mirror, I'm a bit surprised. It was a general point, not a personal one. That's clear from the context and reinforced by the fact that it wasn't even in a response to you.

   My point overall, Ed, is to observe that there is no underlying evil, persistent stupidity, or malicious lying behind the competition with Lotus.

   A vigorous and occasionally heated debate would be healthy. I expect Edbrill.com to be partial, but I do think it's desirable to reduce the crowd-pleasing but consistently snide and inaccurate observations. Here are a few from this thread alone:

   @0 >>> In other words, Microsoft has successfully convinced some customers to waste money running two overlapping systems because of emotions and politics. <<<

   Translation: lying Microsoft; stupid customer

   @16 >>> In the -vast majority- of the migration scenarios I have seen, it is absolutely emotion or politics that drives the decision. Recently we saw a migration decision that will cost US$6 million and was decided without input from the end-users. Skepticism reigns as to whether it will even happen or not, or within budget. But the decision is done.<<<

   Translation: migration decisions have little or no business basis and most migrating do not exercise good judgment.

   This demonstrates a pretty remarkable disrespect for customers. I'm sure migration reasons vary, but I believe in the main that migarting customers have good reasons for their decisions. Would you be willing to make that comment to the CEO of the -vast majority- of companies making that decision? Would you be happy making that quote the opening slide of every customer presentation you give?

   @44 >>> Why is it that every time Mr. Bernardo is proven wrong on this blog, he never follows up? <<< this is mild, but is it necessary?

   @0 >>> In other words, all of those corporate customers that buy Windows and Office, products that make Microsoft at least 90% profit, are covering Microsoft's cash flow for all those gamers sending back their defective Xboxes. I'm sure those thank you notes will be in the mail, soon. <<<

   Translation: Microsoft should not use profits from one area to subsidise R&D in others.

   It's an opinion, I guess, but 1-2-3 and mainframe profits supported Notes for many years.

   @15 >>> I have yet to see a business case that shows that these advantages of changing e-mail/calendar functions from a system that does e-mail/calendar and applications with one that just does e-mail/calendar provides a cost savings or return on investment.<<<

   Translation: no-one has convinced me a switch was warranted.

   Is there some reason they should? Given your stated view that the -vast majority- of migrating customers make their decisions bassed on emation and politics, do you think anyone will check with you?

   I will make my first personal comment: you have the opportunity to raise the tone a bit. I hope you don't find that suggestion offensive.

1. 104  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 7/19/2007 4:54:20 PM

   @101 - Tim, if 70 or so comments have happened about this, then it means something to folks. If you do not like the conversation, do not read it.

   And a good technologist always learns and tries to understand multiple vendors and technologies. But I know lots of folks who never touch a Microsoft technology in their daily life and do not do anything with Notes. And in 5 years, if things go the way they are, we maybe having the same discussion about Microsoft as Google rules the world.

   @97 Henry, what did you do when that customer contacted you? Were you a good consultant, understand the problem, and offer information and options? Or did you just take the conversion project and give MS the win? I am not being flipant ... PSC does migrations to and from Microsoft and IBM technology ... but sometimes is more important to listen and talk the customer thru the process than just take their check.

1. 105  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/19/2007 4:54:54 PM

   @89) Sorry Timothy. I missed your question.

   I meant to write: "Despite this, Lotus maintained a premium price strategy from 1986 through 1990 despite Word's lead share and better reviews."

   I do spell better than I type, honestly.

1. 106  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/19/2007 5:07:40 PM

   @97 Henry, the Quickr machine is still ramping up. It will be very prominent in the Lotus Collaboration Summit events...in fact, already is on the Lotus website { Link }

   @103 Cliff, re:

   "This demonstrates a pretty remarkable disrespect for customers. I'm sure migration reasons vary, but I believe in the main that migarting customers have good reasons for their decisions. Would you be willing to make that comment to the CEO of the -vast majority- of companies making that decision? Would you be happy making that quote the opening slide of every customer presentation you give?"

   Actually, it IS in my presentations, and has been since late 2005, when Gartner issued its report entitled "Focus on Business Issues, Not Emotions, When Considering IBM Lotus Domino"

   What do you think prompted Gartner to write such a report? The airtight business cases they were seeing to justify such migrations?

   { Link }

   Other analysts like Ovum have written similar papers. And in this very thread, customers and business partners have indicated that they have watched irrational migration decisions executed. And in at least two of them, I did in fact meet the CIO. And in at least one other, I was lied to. So it happens.

1. 107  Cliff Reeves http://cliffreeves.typepad.com | 7/19/2007 5:33:01 PM

   @106 You may have mis-read the questions.

   One question was "Would you be willing to make that comment to the CEO of the -vast majority- of companies making that decision?" You answerd that you did this twice and one CIO lied to you. Is two or three a vast majority of migrations?

   On the second question: "Would you be happy making that quote the opening slide of every customer presentation you give?" It's one thing to warn a customer to focus on facts vs emotion in migration, it's quite another to claim that the -vast majority- of decisions are. Gartner is in a different position. They can give this kind of advice impartially.

   As a vendor, I'd be worried if my primary messages to migrating customers are:

   1 - If you haven't started yet, don't do this based on emotion. (I'd consider that a given, rather than advice they needed from me)

   2 - If you've already made up your mind, then it was likely a decision based on emotion and politics. (I think teh kindets thing a customer could say is it reflects perhaps a narrow perspective)

   I've never been in sales, though, so perhaps I'm not the best judge.

1. 108  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/19/2007 6:04:46 PM

   Cliff, what do you think prompted Gartner to write such a report? The airtight business cases they were seeing to justify such migrations?

1. 109  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 7/19/2007 6:29:01 PM

   Cliff, I would offer one additional perspective:

   The vast majority of decisions **that Ed has seen recently**.

   And maybe another perspective: I believe that good decisions have to be made with emotion. After you checked all your facts you sometimes end up with a situation you are not comfortable with. Careful analysis would have shown that the original IBM PC was a piece of cobbled together junk. Ken Olsen dismissed it on those terms. Most others did not.

1. 110  TimB  | 7/19/2007 7:10:21 PM

   @104 -- John, of course it means something to people -- apparently a lot of people have been very angry for a very long time. I'm openly speculating how to balance that passion with pramatism. (I don't have the answer) Weren't you an undisputed expert in Smartsuite programmability? What percentage of your business last year involved *that*?

   Finally (cc @97)-- my personal opinion is that it will be well-under 5 years before MS ceases to dominate the Office/productivity franchise.

1. 111  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 7/19/2007 8:13:07 PM

   @Cliff - Any rebuttal would be a rehash of what I have already presented as my point of view and support for it. As far as I can tell you either did not read what I wrote or you have some misguided belief that somehow Microsoft's unfair business practices were either acceptable or not a factor. In either case, I have made mine and I stand by it.

   You may not be aware that I'm one of the few people here who use Microsoft products because I consider them the best available for the tasks they handle. I'm up for a debate any time on what that means, but as soon as your tone turns pedantic I'm done. That was at about comment #92 here.