eWeek: IBM Unveils Its Latest Open Client Offering

February 13 2007

I didn't get a chance to cover this announcement from yesterday due to a bit of a 24-hour-bug....

IBM has a new open client offering that runs on Linux, Microsoft Windows and, later this year, the Apple Macintosh, and which is supported by services from IBM, Red Hat and Novell. ...

"This is a cross-platform, open-client offering that is built on top of the Eclipse rich client platform. It combines a number of recently announced Lotus products, such as Notes and Sametime, as well as services," Adam Jollans, IBM's worldwide open-source strategy manager, told eWEEK. ...

The goal is to offer choice to customers, such as those who are already using Lotus Notes, Domino or Sametime, but also have a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. Many of them are currently weighing a move to  Windows Vista and Office 2007 and looking at all the associated costs.
While a lot of the wording around this announcement is directed at Linux, the real story here is that IBM is able to offer a consistent set of capabilities to all users within an organization, regardless of desktop operating system choice.  The offering also is set up to help organizations provide different services and capabilities to different user profiles within an organization.

What's important about this announcement is how it demonstrates the overall IBM, and marketplace, commitment to the Lotus portfolio.  The open client solution announced is about Lotus Notes, Sametime, Expeditor, and WebSphere Portal.  It has the support of Red Hat and Novell from the outset.  It leverages open standards and platforms where possible -- things like Eclipse as the base client infrastructure, ODF as the document editor file format, and full support for Firefox as a browser.

So what's not to like?  The boo birds from Redmond came out in force yesterday, already damaged in this arena by last week's Open XML drubbing.  Microsoft Watch quotes Microsoft's Bill Hilf:
"I don't really see what's new and 'open' here. This seems to be a proprietary software 'recycle' strategy trying to breathe life back into Lotus," he said. ..."If they [IBM] are concerned about lowering the cost of computing, why not help their customers get off the mainframe which is four to five orders of magnitude more expensive than anything offered on x86," he said.
Actually, most IBM customers running mainframes today do so because of reliability, scalability, and, in fact, lower overall operational costs.  His quip might have sounded clever back when Stuart Alsop declared the mainframe dead in 1991, but years later, it just sounds uneducated (and even Stuart eventually ate those words).  As for breathing life back into Lotus, I think there's every indication that that mission has already been accomplished -- Burton Group, Gartner, Redmonk, Ferris Research, Osterman Research, Robert Frances Group, and many others seem to have said so in the last few weeks alone.

One other funny thing that I saw mentioned in a few places about this -- IBM release doesn't specify a single price tag for this offering.  That's because IBM offers choice -- this isn't a "one size fits all" offering.  It can't be and it shouldn't be.  In fact, everything about this announcement is about choice -- a word that simply doesn't exist in Microsoft's vocabulary.

Link: eWeek: IBM unveils its latest open client offering >

Ed Brill Chicago, IL USA Category:  Lotus  Add/View Comments [48]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 2/13/2007 2:27:20 PM

    I'm a little confused. I get that Notes 8, Sametime 7.5 and Expeditor are all built on the Eclipse RCP, which open source. I get that part of the "open client initiative". I'm not sure where Websphere Portal fits into this "open" discussion. It's definitely not open source and it's also definitely not a client of any type.

    The press release you reference describes Websphere Portal 6.0 as "A server-based foundation for building portal applications and services accessed through a common entry point via popular browsers such as Internet Explorer, Firefox and Safari." Doesn't Domino do the same thing?

  1. 2  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 2/13/2007 2:27:58 PM

    I'd be interested in hearing Bill Hilf's take on MS's doubling of software costs in many circumstances by now requiring both Core and Enterprise CALs, and the new hardware costs associated with moving to 64-bit hardware. Is the Open client for everyone? No. But as you've pointed out, IBM is providing choice to customers who don't want to have only one option. MS seems far more interested in telling customers what to do instead of providing them options.

  1. 3  Flemming Riis  | 2/13/2007 2:59:43 PM

    -I'm not sure where Websphere Portal fits into this "open" discussion.

    it uses apache as recomended frontend ;) err i mean ibm http server

  1. 4  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 2/13/2007 3:16:51 PM

    @1 - Sure, Domino can do that too. There are just a lot of ways in which WP6 does it from a broader collection of sources than Domino does *easily*. It fits in because it's a way for open clients to get easier access to proprietary systems. Hence it's role as "middleware." It sits in the middle.

    Ed, don't forget to emphasize the inclusion of the productivity editors in all this stuff. That's a huge element that's probably being overlooked as part of the "Open" aspect.

  1. 5  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 2/13/2007 3:34:42 PM

    @1 Domino can't host an Expeditor application, can it? You would need Portal on the backend to roll an Expeditor application out to your Open Client, right?

  1. 6  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 2/13/2007 3:36:36 PM

    @5 - Actually, it CAN. You just need the Domino 8 Eclipse plug-in deployment template, as detailed in the latest Taking Notes podcast. :-D

  1. 7  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 2/13/2007 3:53:16 PM

    @6 - Damn me, falling behind on my podcast listening! Sweet!

  1. 8  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 2/13/2007 4:01:52 PM

    I think Domino can just host Expeditor client applications, where as portal can host both web and client. I do know that you need portal to host portal applications :)

    Just because Domino (and Notes) can do something, does not mean it is the best solution for the customers. Some customers prefer the Websphere route, and that should be embraced. We need to be open minded enough to realize that not everything has to be about Notes.

    That being said, "Use the client, Save the World"

  1. 9  Tony Palmer http://palmerweb.blogspot.com | 2/13/2007 4:04:28 PM

    @4 - I thought that WPS sat more as a thin client, aggregating domino, sameyime, quikplace,wwcm etc for those users that do not require a rich client like Notes/Expeditor rather than 'middleware'

    Portal is also 'somewhat' open in that you can build JSR168 Portlets and deploy them on other JSR168 Portal Server (or in Notes 8)

    but that's just my take on it.

  1. 10  Bruce Elgort http://www.TakingNotesPodcast.com | 2/13/2007 4:13:34 PM

    Here is a link to the podcast we did with Thomas Gumz of IBM where we talk about making Domino an Eclipse Update Site:

    { Link }

  1. 11  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 2/13/2007 4:19:06 PM

    @9 - "aggregating domino, sameyime, quikplace,wwcm etc"

    Perhaps I'm using the term incorrectly, but aggregating disparate systems sounds like the definition of middleware to me. :-)

  1. 12  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 2/13/2007 4:44:48 PM

    This is confusing for me because the press release says that the Open Client Solution can include Lotus Notes, Sametime, Websphere Portal, and Lotus Expeditor. Notes, Sametime and Expeditor are all definitely clients. Portal is not.

    I'm not debating the usefulness of Portal, I'm just unclear why it is being mentioned in an announcement about open *clients*. With Domino 8 I can deploy an application to Notes 8, Expeditor or a web browser. How is this any different than what Portal offers in terms of client functionality?

    @8 - Notes 8 is Expeditor and can deliver applications deployed on either Domino or Portal. My statement was concerning why Portal is part of the "open client solution" but Domino isn't. The description provided for Portal could just as readily be used for Domino. The press release makes no mention of Domino, which I find rather odd and could probably be attributed to not understanding what, exactly, is being announced.

    @9 - Portal is the middleware framework that allows portlets to be consumed. Portlets can be built to do aggregation, using Rational Application Developer, Lotus Component Designer, or Eclipse, but you MUST deploy them to a J2EE server (such as WPS), *then* consume them with a client of some type, such as a web browser, Notes 8, or Expeditor.

  1. 13  Stephen hood  | 2/13/2007 4:46:00 PM

    "I don't really see what's new and 'open' here. This seems to be a proprietary software 'recycle' strategy..."

    Ed, are you sure he wasn't confused in some way. Sounds like he's echoing everyone's sentiments about Vista not Lotus.

  1. 14  Arthur Fontaine  | 2/13/2007 6:36:58 PM

    ...and the one that Bill Hilf missed. This is about IBM deploying desktop capabilities that work across operating systems, re-establishing the simple logic that your applications are what matter, not the plumbing underneath them.

    If you're at IBM and work in both Linux and Windows (as I do), you know that you can do all your work either way. Ed's a Mac guy and he can do all his work too. See the point here? No one is telling us that we *need* to be in Windows anymore. Since all our applications just work across operating platforms (and that's the Portal point, as we support all major browsers), we just work too.

    The takeaway from Open Client is that IBM has figured out a way around the desktop OS dependency conundrum, and now we're able to help our customers achieve the same. That's only bad if desktop OS dependency is a positive thing for you. Hmmmmm... now who could that describe?

  1. 15  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 2/13/2007 6:57:37 PM

    @12 No Charles, Notes 8 != Expeditor ... Think of Expeditor as a toolkit that IBM built on top of Eclipse. You can use it without ever having anything Notes related installed. Notes 8 happens to be a result of IBM using Expeditor to build an application.

    They are not the same thing .. that is the point. Expeditor is a toolkit where you can build your own applications.

  1. 16  Andrew Price http://www.healthspace.com | 2/13/2007 7:06:49 PM

    <plaintively>

    I am confused. Is there a nice picture somewhere so that bears of little brain can understand how all these pieces fit together?

  1. 17  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 2/13/2007 7:37:49 PM

    @14 - I hear that loud and clear, and I applaud it. It's like Java's JVM and Microsoft's .Net CLR taken to a whole new level. I think it's a great strategy.

    @15 - John, I meant to say "Notes 8 is built on Expeditor". The last thing I want is to add to any confusion on this subject. I also understand that the clients mentioned (Notes 8, Expeditor, Sametime 7.5) are cross-platform. I'm stuck trying to figure out what Portal has to do with anything happening on the client side. Do you have any insights there?

    @16 - It sounds a lot more complicated than it really is. Eclipse RCP is the foundation for Expeditor; Expeditor is the foundation for Notes 8.

  1. 18  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 2/13/2007 8:52:04 PM

    @17 - Replace the word "client" with "user access point". I think client is making you think "an installed peice of software on the user's computer". Portal is one of the many "user access points" that Lotus provides to your companies business systems. Some users use Notes, some Sametime, some use Portal. Some consider their office suite as one of their main "clients". Most use a combo of all of them.

  1. 19  Catherine Helzerman http://helzerman.com | 2/13/2007 9:49:55 PM

    Hope you're feeling better and over the bug. By the way.... I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. Expect to see a blog post from me soon on how much I missed Notes while I was gone!

  1. 20  Greg W http://www.thewarrantygroup.com/ | 2/13/2007 10:05:10 PM

    Ya know, so much of the dribble coming out of Microsoft reminds of Krushchev and the old Soviet Union. Let's see a pic of Steve Balmer's head on the photo of Krushchev pounding his shoe at the UN, and operative phrase here is "freddom of choice".

  1. 21  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 2/13/2007 10:28:45 PM

    @18 - Ah, I understand what you're saying, but the verbiage in the press release says "client". By definition a client is a piece of software installed on a user's computer. The choice of wording in this case was very poor and misleading.

  1. 22  Ian Randall http://www.emsoft.com.au | 2/13/2007 11:10:26 PM

    @21 - Who said that the definition of a client is a piece of software installed on a user's computer?

    For example Domino uses client/server architecture and includes a whole bunch of processes that interact with each other and some of that interaction doesn't necessarily involve any software on the end users PC.

    Client/server architecture is not about big computers in a corporate data centre talking to little computers on an end users desktop, it's simply about multiple processes interacting with each other.

    Even the Notes Client uses client/server architecture when your laptop is disconnected from the network (e.g. full-text indexing a database).

  1. 23  David Bell  | 2/13/2007 11:22:56 PM

    @21 - Expeditor contains a portlet container that can run portlets on the client side, if I'm not mistaken.

    So, this is a way to run Portal applications at the client, and also how they can be used in a disconnected fashion.

  1. 24  David Bell  | 2/13/2007 11:28:26 PM

    Lots more documentation in the Expeditor InfoCenter:

    { Link }

  1. 25  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 2/13/2007 11:44:31 PM

    @21 Is Domino Web Access a client?

  1. 26  Tony Palmer http://palmerweb.blogspot.com | 2/14/2007 4:23:02 AM

    @11 - I suppose, but then everything from the browser to the backend db is 'middleware'. I see portal as more of a presentation layer for a 'user access point'. I don't have to install Domino or Expeditor to use iNotes/Sametime/Quickplace - Portal Server will present that UI in my browser - nothing else needs to be installed.

    @25 - No, the browser that displays DWA is the client. Like portal, the code that generates the interface is running on a server - but without a browser how would you access DWA ? or the Domino iNotes Portlets without a Portal Server ?

  1. 27  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 2/14/2007 7:18:41 AM

    Sorry, late to the party...

    "...why not help their customers get off the mainframe...?"

    x86 isn't necessarily cheaper if you replace one mainframe with 80 Wintel boxes. Microsoft are quite good at marketing and creating nice-looking apps, but they're not much cop at maths.

    I guess what really irks Microsoft is that someone may point out that IBM offer a choice... Windows, Linux, Mac. In a mixed estate that's invaluable. What's the Microsoft set of choices? Vista now or Vista later. Great, thanks.

  1. 28  Ports http://www.mrports.com/ | 2/14/2007 7:29:16 AM

    More on this here from The Register "IBM plants Linux on the Desktop"

    { Link }

  1. 29  Kevin Mort  | 2/14/2007 8:02:50 AM

    @25/@26 - I would argue that DWA is actually a client...a "web-based" client.

    In fact that is essentially how it is licensed and positioned. ; )

    K.

  1. 30  Kevin Mort  | 2/14/2007 8:10:17 AM

    Oh and one other thing....

    Looking at Hilf's wording. He offers nothing more than an attempt at negative spin by saying what he thinks will make it look bad, (because everyone knows whatever MS says is Gospel) even though his comments show he has no idea what he is talking about.

    Classic Microsoft.

    K.

  1. 31  Roberto Boccadoro  | 2/14/2007 8:27:37 AM

    Let me add to what Darren said @27

    They are not good at creating a reliable OS either. Regardless the cost I have yet to see a Wintel box with the same uptime of a zSystem. And security ? Let's stop here... Microsoft and security in the same phrase is an oxymoron.

  1. 32  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 2/14/2007 9:22:15 AM

    @22 - In the context of this conversation most of the products mentioned in the press release are software installed on a user's computer: Notes, Expeditor, and Sametime. The only odd duck is Websphere Portal Server, which is why I was confused. I know processes can interact with no PC in the middle. That's beyond the scope of this discussion, though, and doesn't mean there is no client involved. The statement that Portal is a "user access point" is nebulous. To me that just means its a server, the same as Apache or vsftpd. I still need something to get the information off the server, which means I need a client of some type. I'm not buying that WPS is a client no matter how many semantic hairs you split.

    @25 - No, DWA is a set of server side technologies. The client is a web browser.

    Sorry Ed, I truly didn't intend to make this into a tempest in a teacup. I was just confused about why Websphere Portal Server is included in a client initiative. :-P

  1. 33  Joel M. Phelan http://www.steinmart.com | 2/14/2007 9:36:28 AM

    "But Bill Hilf, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, told me that the move appeared to be more of the same from IBM."

    Hear! Hear! Keep up with more of the same, IBM, by all means. Deliver quality products and provide solutions your customers want. If IBM and Microsoft both continue to do "more of the same" in product development, then IBM by far comes off the better.

  1. 34  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 2/14/2007 9:36:00 AM

    @32 to be fair, so was I :-D I think the point is in terms of client interface/access, as several have suggested here. It's also possible that the release suffered a bit of a "pile on". But most here (and in the press) have deduced the intent of the release overall (thanks to my colleagues for helping with earlier points in the discussion).

  1. 35  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 2/14/2007 9:54:59 AM

    @34 Is it possible that Portal is referenced because the offline capability of Expeditor uses a local instance of a tiny Portal server? I distinctly remember hearing that, but hey, I may have missed a Podcast or two that would supersede my (lack of) knowledge...

  1. 36  Danny Lawrence  | 2/14/2007 9:58:39 AM

    @27 Come on Darren! MSFT is offering lots of choices, You have Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, Vista Ultimate, and Vista Enterprise, that's 5 choices! Compare that with the IBM offerings which run on Windows, Mac or Linux, that's only 3.

  1. 37  Gerry Shappell http://www.protopage.com/lotusblogs | 2/14/2007 10:51:23 AM

    This sounds like it has the potential to be verrrry powerful. The key now is for IBM knowing how to present/explain it simply so that they can sell it.

  1. 38  Axel Janssen  | 2/14/2007 12:44:02 PM

    @Charles: You are definitely right, but an important target audience of this are managers and I assume that they simply don't care too much about those details. This whole client-server thing gets fuzzier, anyhow.

    Maybe we can interpret the inclusion of Portal 6 as a new bonus friend all those clients can talk too. :-)

  1. 39  Keith Brooks http://kbmsg.blogspot.com | 2/14/2007 2:01:39 PM

    DWA is a CAL I believe. Portal Server well it has many incarnations.

    Mainframe is expensive, sure, but the alternative makes the mainframe (1 box, 1 power, many OS's) look even better, didn't I see you can scale dozens if not 100's of virtual servers now on it?

    Thus the IBM commercials where everything was replaced in the data center by one machine.

    1 Box, 1 data center, nothing but an atheist OS inside.

  1. 40  Bill Brown  | 2/14/2007 3:09:18 PM

    Can I see if my interpretation of this announcement is correct?

    The "Open Client" offering is not a single product. It is a collection of products that run on multiple client operating systems, including Linux, Mac OS, and Windows. The products are the Notes Client that we all know and love, Sametime, The Eclipse based Expiditer client and the ability to use browsers (Internet Exploder, Firefox and in some cases Safari) on those OSes.

    Or am I confused. I had one customer emailing me that they want to sign up for this new service after reading about it in the trade rags.

  1. 41  This isn’t slashdot.  | 2/14/2007 3:32:04 PM

    Deleted

  1. 42  Andrew Price http://www.healthspace.com | 2/14/2007 4:02:00 PM

    Following on from my bleat @16 ... Thanks Charles (@17) and David (@24).

    However I haven't yet found a nice picture :( The only one in the expeditor docs wasn't very helpful.

    I'm afraid I am deeply suspicious of anything that isn't explained using meaningful pictures that depict how the actual pieces (not meta-pieces) fit together.

    :)

  1. 43  Deleted  | 2/14/2007 9:39:13 PM

    Deleted -- please post with a valid e-mail address

  1. 44  Ports http://www.mrports.com/ | 2/15/2007 7:46:29 AM

    @32 DWA is a XML parser using client side Javascript/DHTML to compose a client interface from the data marked up with XML in the mail file. Hence the browser is mearly the container for the DWA client in the same way that Win/OS/x/Linux is the container for Notes - but not the client itself.

  1. 45  Deleted  | 2/18/2007 12:12:40 PM

    Deleted - No anonymous comments allowed.

  1. 46  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 2/18/2007 1:28:47 PM

    @45 - I am not a business partner, not a consultant, and not an IBMer. I am a customer. I think IBM is headed in the right direction with Lotus, finally. There are obviously still questions about what the Open Client is, but I really don't think it's the apocalyptic abomination Daniel Lyons makes it out to be.

    It's dangerous to uphold Daniel Lyons as some paragon of technical acumen. He has fallen flat a number of times. His opinion, which is what the article you reference is, is not based on any research. It's just one guy's opinion, so don't read too much into it.

  1. 47  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 2/18/2007 2:24:09 PM

    @45: LOL. Wake up and smell the astroturf!

  1. 48  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 2/18/2007 9:27:32 PM

    @45 - Dear reader from Washington state, who has also posted from the same IP address with a different name -- please use your real name and valid e-mail address next time. Thanks!