Network World: Lotus chief defines imminent battle plan

November 18 2008

John Fontana profiles Lotus general manager Bob Picciano.  They talk Notes/Domino 8.5, Sharepoint competition, hosting/cloud/SaaS, and Lotusphere:

Microsoft went on record in July as saying it wants to get Lotus customers to convert five million seats of Notes to Microsoft's collaboration tools between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009.

Picciano doesn't see that happening.

"We are leaving others like Microsoft in the rear-view mirror because they are more caught up in protecting franchises and not focused on liberating workforces and getting people to democratically share information and link together in a business context," he said. "The golden egg Microsoft is laying [with SharePoint] is coming from the chicken they have, which is a monopoly desktop environment."
The story also includes quotes and references from analysts Peter O'Kelly and Rob Koplowitz of Forrester.  A worthwhile read.

Link: Network World: Lotus chief defines imminent battle plan >

Ed Brill Sydney, NSW Australia Category:  Lotus  Add/View Comments [41]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Timothy Briley  | 11/17/2008 2:32:22 PM

    "Picciano will highlight the importance of the 'Notes 8 portal client',"

    It's no longer the late 90's, so marketing is no longer required to describe everything as a portal. Please, please stop him from using the word "portal" in this fashion again.

  1. 2  Clayton Price  | 11/17/2008 2:40:16 PM

    Just ask him to use "Cloud". It's the new "Portal"

  1. 3  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 11/17/2008 2:58:00 PM

    It could be just a slip of the tongue. If so, then -100 points and 2 days in the penalty box.

    It could also be that that's how it is thought of in terms of strategic direction. That would frankly explain a huge amount of the decisions made and architectural directions taken in the development cycle since 8.0.

    If the former, then 'nuff said. If the latter, its time for me to find a new product to work with.

  1. 4  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 11/17/2008 3:03:46 PM

    @3 I wonder if that last line qualifies as "Lotusphere session grousing".

  1. 5  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 11/17/2008 3:11:51 PM

    @4 -- I'm missing the reference. Must be a comment somewhere I haven't read.

  1. 6  John Smart http://www.greyduck.com | 11/17/2008 4:18:24 PM

    <obligatory>

    <!-- Required to keep "cred" -->

    NAG NAG NAG

    </obligatory>

    I'm excited to see it, and I don't care how many times Mr Picciano says "portal" if the article helps Lotus explain how/why they are leading.

    Bottom line: I think this is great press, Ed!

  1. 7  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 11/17/2008 5:05:54 PM

    "In a year with no new major Notes release to show off, "

    ---- hunh?

    "built on top of Lotus Expeditor and Eclipse, which provides the interface for Web-based services, mashups, and applications such as Sametime and Quickr."

    ---- May I humbly suggest "Lotus Notes Applications"?

    "Connections 2.0 and Lotus Mashups, an IT tool for combining widgets into applications."

    ---- Hmm. Into applications that do what? Look up packages and delta airlines flights?

    "XPages, a feature of Domino Designer that ships with 8.5 and will radically change the way Notes applications are built and will usher those apps into the Web 2.0 era. In addition, XPages will help developers convert existing applications to the Web 2.0 model."

    ---- well, Domino apps yes, but not Notes apps, they don't run in XPages.

    "He says he will tie everything together for the Lotus customer base in January."

    --- Ok, this last bit is really the key piece of potentially good news. He's at least TALKING about a desire to tie all these disparate pieces together into something more unified. As long as someone can make sure he realizes that the glue to bind it all together is called The Lotus Domino Server, we'll be in good shape. If they try to do it all with some monstrosity grown out of the embers of J2EE, its not going to be a good sign at all.

    That's my take. The article talks about a litany of products and gadgets, with once again no focus on the core. Without the core, there are no gadgets. Nobody cares about widgets on Notes. Widgets are now widely available OS level trinkets and toys.

  1. 8  Rob Novak http://www.LotusRockStar.com | 11/17/2008 5:14:05 PM

    Reading the article, it wasn't a quote.

  1. 9  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 11/17/2008 8:46:58 PM

    @7 - Gee Andrew... looking for the cloud in the silver lining?

  1. 10  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 11/17/2008 9:04:44 PM

    @7 - in fact, going and reading the article leads me to believe that if you're finding objections, it's because you're going out of your way to look for them. What would be the quote that would make you happy? "Notes is the king of development platforms and anything we've done in opposition to that in the last 10 years was a gross error?"

  1. 11  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 11/17/2008 9:59:10 PM

    @10 -- What's your point, Nathan? With all of IBM's bungee cord executives du jour, by the time you figure them out they leave. At least this time I'm not sad to see the last one go.

    We're all left reading tea leaves to try to figure out what the direction of the new guy in charge will be.

    I can't decide yet if I like P or not. I'm not happy with the major direction being taken be several of the teams. I won't go into that on someone else's blog. I am waiting to see if the wrong directions take by R will be fixed or continued.

  1. 12  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 11/18/2008 1:28:48 AM

    @5 and beyond -- I guess what I'm saying Andrew, is if you don't like the messages, then perhaps you should reconsider your participation in Lotusphere. There were many other people who wanted to speak at the conference without constantly questioning the strategy and the conference organization itself in public. Now you're saying that if the strategy isn't one you agree with, then you're looking for a new product to work on, and you are also criticizing the last Lotus general manager.

    I won't even justify these with a response, but I will say that the fact that you are saying these things here or on your own blog really makes me think twice about whether your sessions really would represent "best practices" for the Lotus marketplace.

  1. 13  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 11/18/2008 3:52:15 AM

    @1 - journalists don't always write down quotes verbatim, and often sum up a few quotes into one. There's a fair chance that Mr Picciano never uttered the words "Notes 8 portal client".

  1. 14  Luke  | 11/18/2008 4:13:14 AM

    Unfortunately I'm not allowed to do the maths of number of seats converted, but 2 of the major companies I'm working for are going under a Notes-to-Exchange conversion process, the first has already done it (the applications are in-scope but not yet touched, so they'll probably stay here as they are for quite some time) and the second is goin' through the analysis phase.

    I already suggested the local IBM reps to react immediately, as the major suppliers behind those moves are the usual ones (Accenture is one of them), pushing for the urge of migration to MS without a proper analysis of budget vs. benefits.

    I strongly believe this is a sign of times and the result of the poor market push of IBM behind the Notes products in the previous years. Ed is a fantastic guy who should have a stronger voice in the IBM politics game. But I believe the initial claim of seat conversions is going to be true. Unfortunately.

  1. 15  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 11/18/2008 6:22:01 AM

    @11 - My point is that you're actively looking for something to complain about. I just don't understand how you can interpret Mr. Picciano's comments in that article as somehow going in the wrong direction. Sure, he speaks about the full Lotus portfolio, as I would hope the general manager of an entire division would. And one of the products he talks about with a positive message is Notes. This is not a Zollar-era interview where Notes is referred to as "legacy" and the message is all about customer migration. He's actively pointing out new capabilities in the evolution of the product, including composite applications and Xpages.

    If you're calling this an ambiguous message, what would you prefer? "We've cancelled all the products in the portfolio that are not directly related to or built on Domino and will be retasking all those developers?" Are you that much of a zealot that anything short of abandoning the rest of the portfolio means Notes isn't getting a fair shake?

    If you still feel like you're reading tea leaves, maybe it's because you haven't bothered to raise your head and look at the book next to them on the table.

  1. 16  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 11/18/2008 6:27:15 AM

    @12 - Equating questions about the products' future strategy to grousing about session choices based on not being selected is pretty weak Ed. I would assume that should the day come when the quality of presenting, the information presented, or the value of the material I present isn't providing value to attendees then won't get chosen to present. As far as I know, those decisions are still made on the relative merits of content and presentation skills. That said, I agree that there are many good presenters with good topics who could also do a very good job.

    As far as criticizing product strategy -- my income is every bit as tied to the success of the platform as yours. It may be more tied to it than yours. After investing more than 17 years in the platform, I believe I can claim some level of understanding of its architecture and direction. My critical statements are geared to pushing decisions that will keep it the most secure, most flexible, and most deployable platform on the market. I will always be strongly against anything which erodes those core strengths -- be it a strategic direction, or an executive on the wrong path.

    Should the time come when Notes cannot hold its market position because of poor choices, I will loose as much or more as you, Ed. Has the political nature of the product strategy come to the point where being openly critical of some of those choices constitutes a threat to the market sufficient to justify your implication in @12?

    Lets keep in mind that I am on record as being perhaps the single most strident (non-IBM) advocate for the Eclipse framework from the day it was introduced -- and gave the very first non-IBM presentation in public that even explained what it might eventually be capable of. I've also been one of the earliest and most vocal advocates for XPages as well. Are my opinions on these things only valid when they agree with the strategy?

  1. 17  Roberto Boccadoro  | 11/18/2008 6:44:57 AM

    @Andrew

    we've been discussing it for years, but I have to say this again : you can't ask IBM to get rid of everything save Domino. And you know me too well, I AM a Domino advocate since almost 15 years now. The fact your income comes mostly from Domino I know, you are big in the SMB market, but you seem to keep forgetting that IBM has a much wider market than the one you play into. I also acknowledge that you, and others for that matter, may have been "burned" by some decision taken by IBM in the past and you still bear the scars (but we're not the only ones, I hope you agree); this doesn't mean you have to complain everytime you hear the word "portal" or anything "not Domino". Mistakes have been and will always be made, this is a fact; trying to go past them and adjust the strategy is what we're doing now. This does not mean at all that we will get rid of Portal or other products you may not like.

    Read again Nathatan @15, maybe is time to raise your head from the table and look at the horizon, you may discover that actually there is one.

  1. 18  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 11/18/2008 6:56:50 AM

    @17 - I absolutely do not think IBM should get rid of everything save Domino. I was quoted in the press as far back as 2005 saying that "Workplace will live or die on its own merits, but the work done on [what is now the eclipse expediter platform] will benefit Notes regardless." I've even said that I'd be in full favor of them going after the stuff I think has the least merit (anything with a j2ee back-end).

    My one condition for supporting those directions is that they don't strip, ignore, or harm the core products to do that. When I think that's happening, I say so -- and I give as strong a technical or business justification for it as I can. Out of respect to Ed, I'm not going to go into a litany of those choices here, but I think my stance on their is fairly well known.

  1. 19  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 11/18/2008 7:22:15 AM

    In an attempt to get back to topic, rather than a discussion of the merit of my own opinions:

    @Nathan: I'm not being critical of the strategy that Bob P is being quoted on or of Bob P; though I am critical of the term Notes Portal Client. I am critical of the article. I think it leaves out a big part of the message -- but that may as much be the article's author as anything else. In fact, I distinctly said that I'm positive about Bob P's statements about bringing these products back together. I've only cautioned that we need to see what exactly "tie it all together" means. There's a good way and a not good way that can happen. Which way it will go is not referenced in the article.

  1. 20  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 11/18/2008 7:41:18 AM

    @19 - It doesn't strike me as reasonable to drop lines like "perhaps its time for me to find a new product to work with" when you're criticizing John Fontana instead of Bob Picciano.

    Didn't you recently remind some people of rule number one when you find yourself in a hole?

  1. 21  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 11/18/2008 7:51:30 AM

    @20 -- That I did, Nathan. I guess I'm blind to the hole this time. Either there isn't one, or I'm too busy digging. Which one is a matter of perspective.

  1. 22  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 11/18/2008 8:03:28 AM

    @12 - Ed, I really hope that wasn't intended to be the threat it came across as. If speaking only positively of both IBM and Lotusphere were requirements for having a session chosen, the available speaker list would be quite a bit smaller. And if it was a prerequisite, I wouldn't be comfortable agreeing to speak myself (not that I would be any great loss as a speaker) because I know there's no way in heck I could possibly be that well-behaved for more than a few months at a time. Almost every speaker who is also a blogger (blogger-speaker?) has criticized something about Lotusphere in the past. Most of us have also been critical of IBM at one point or another, sometimes for big issues and sometimes for minor details. I don't see that changing, and to be blunt (when am I not?) if it did, this community would be much poorer for the change.

    In any case, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I want to make sure you know how that comment sounded in case it wasn't your intent. And I wanted to let you know that if it was your intent, that makes me very sad.

  1. 23  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 11/18/2008 8:10:50 AM

    @22 and prior - my comment was not trying to silence criticism of IBM and Lotus overall... but specifically to call out with regard to Lotusphere. The quotes from the article in question were with regard to what Picciano plans to say/show at Lotusphere. That combined with other recent blog postings and comments from Andrew makes it sound, honestly, like he's itching for a fight at Lotusphere (e.g. planning to take pictures of attendance at Portal sessions etc.). I wasn't threatening but I was suggesting that should the criticism *of Lotusphere and all that comes with it* go much further, I would be quite uncomfortable with the critic also being on a stage at said event.

    Y'all are passionate and vocal that's what blogging and community are all about. But for me, some topics (like Lotusphere as a conference itself) are somewhat more sacred, perhaps because this is an event that is 99% successful and one where I've personally invested much of my energy over the years.

  1. 24  Rock http://www.lotusgeek.com | 11/18/2008 8:12:28 AM

    OK, OK, I'm late to this party, but here's how I see it as a "newbie" to this conversation.

    First, let's be honest - it is somewhat a fluff piece. Sure, there's some great corporate sabre-rattling ("we're going to defend our country, come what may!"), some buzzword-bingo turn of phrases, but overall there's not much here that we haven't already heard. While I think Andrew is being Andrew, I still see where he's coming from - even if he comes from there like a pissed-off bull.

    And I also see the underlying point I think he was trying to make - that it's beginning to feel like the "two lane highway" again. Of course this is inevitable, because we have two competing "camps", both within and outside of IBM, at least where Lotus is concerned. We have the "Domino is the one that brung us to this dance, we're dancin' with the one that brung us, dammit!" crowd, and there's the "oh yeah? Domino is and old, fugly gutter tramp, we're kickin' her to the curb and dancin' with this hot sexy Eclipse momma!" crowd. And, at least so far, these two camps still can't meet in the middle, and dance with Domino and Eclipse/Portal's cute, younger cousin, Notes 8.x.

    OK, so maybe I took that analogy too far - but the fact remains that the "old school" Domino folks felt like their support of Domino through the "dark days" of the two-lane Workplace highway was vindicated when IBM threw all these extra resources at updating Domino, and Domino sales shot up. They felt like IBM would keep Domino at the head of the class.

    But, alas, things never stay the same.

    IBM is once again trying to bring Domino out of the "old school" by bridging it into the "new school" technologies - namely Eclipse. And I have to tell you, I definitely understand why - the "promise" of what Domino-on-Eclipse (and the various clients, such as Designer and Admin) has to offer is pretty amazing. And right now there are definitely some growing pains - DDE isn't quite there yet, among other issues - and this worries old-school Domino folks. They have quite a few concerns:

    ** will we still be able to build "classic Notes" apps, using just formulas and LotusScript?

    ** will Domino still be the core of the product?

    ** will Domino continue to be 100% backwards compatible?

    ** and so on...

    There's another concern as well - Portal continues to be this cycle's "sexy" product, just as Workplace was last cycle, and Websphere was before that. And every time the pendulum swings towards "updating" Domino, Domino people get very defensive because it feels like the newer technology is more important. (Hell, old-school Domino people were worried when Portal was moved under the Lotus brand!) And right now, as Andrew's assertions can attest, people are worried that there's no overreaching, unifying strategy - just a collection of old-school products that are being moved off of Domino, independently, without the aforementioned clear strategy. And since Quickr, and Sametime, have been moved off of Domino, the fear is that Domino is next.

    So, most of this was stream-of-consciousness. I hope it makes sense, and that I didn't ramble too long (Ed, you need to get this updated to have comment-preview!).

    Oh, two more things. First, I want to say that I think Ed was out-of-bounds on the snide Lotusphere veiled threat to Andrew. Ed, know this is classic Lotus passive-agressiveness, and is really not a way to win an argument on merit. You two can duke it out offline, and threaten each other all you want - doing it here wasn't appropriate, especially when neither one of us is a track manager anymore, and we are both only influencers. Second, Andew you could have been a little less abrasive. Yes, I know you think it is your "nature", but some discussions call for tact, some call for flamewars, and this was a "tact" discussion. Third, I think people like Ed and other vocal members of this community are needed. They are the "the Emperor has no clothes!" crowd, and any great effort needs its naysayers to keep them honest. Remember, the naysayers have been right the last two cycles (Webpshere-over-Domino, and Workplace-over-Domino), so IBM might want to give them a listen.

    OK, I'm done. Thanks for reading this novella, if you chose to ;)

    --Rock

  1. 25  Rock http://www.lotusgeek.com | 11/18/2008 8:16:27 AM

    Ooops - this sentence in the last paragraph, "Third, I think people like Ed and other vocal members of this community are needed.", please substitute Andrew for Ed.

    Thanks.

  1. 26  Charles Robinson http://www.cubert.net | 11/18/2008 8:39:54 AM

    I have many of the same issues with the article and what I can see of Lotus' direction in the last decade that Andrew does. If Mr. Picciano is being misquoted or inaccurate conclusions were drawn IBM should request a correction to the article. Until that happens I'm going to have to assume that Mr. Picciano believes Notes is a client for Portal (yes, with a capital P) and XPages have some bearing on Notes client application development.

    I picked these out even before the comments started here, and I had no intention of responding. Then I read this:

    "... if you don't like the messages, then perhaps you should reconsider your participation in Lotusphere."

    That's not a thinly veiled threat, it's pretty blunt and I find it highly offensive.

  1. 27  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 11/18/2008 9:04:45 AM

    @24 Rock, this statement is false "And since Quickr, and Sametime, have been moved off of Domino, the fear is that Domino is next."

    Quickr has not been moved off Domino. There are two versions - and the Domino version continues to be the most popular. Also, Sametime has not moved off Domino. The created a version that adds features using the Websphere and DB2 servers - but the core server is still Domino.

    If folks want to rant on about Portal, so be it. But the facts have to be accurate. I was in Nashville for the Portal conference in October and saw a thriving community and customer group. A great set of products with some great stories of solving business problems.

    We should be focusing on what is great in Domino 8.5 instead of worrying about what *might* happen with Portal.

  1. 28  Rock http://www.lotusgeek.com | 11/18/2008 10:03:38 AM

    @John - you KNOW, for a fact, that IBM is moving Quickr and ST off of Domino. You KNOW it, and you want to sit here and say it isn't true? Give me a break.

    And Portal and Domino are becoming more and more intertwined, most likely for the good. The problem is - and you know this as well - the POLITICS of what's going on, not the technology. And, based on previous efforts by IBM at this, I think people have a right to be critical and suspicious. It is IBM's JOB to listen and inform us, it is NOT the customer's job to make IBM feel good about it.

    Let's not forget who serves whom.

  1. 29  Rock http://www.lotusgeek.com | 11/18/2008 10:04:19 AM

    OK, not IS moving - is exploring moving, very seriously. I stand by the rest of my statement.

  1. 30  Rock http://www.lotusgeek.com | 11/18/2008 10:05:57 AM

    One more thing - I'll wager that Quickr will definitely be off of Domino soon (i.e. within the next 1.5 years or so), and Sametime will most likely be within 2 years.

  1. 31  Rock http://www.lotusgeek.com | 11/18/2008 10:06:39 AM

    And apologies for the quickie posts - my ADD is pretty bad this AM, and I haven't taken my meds yet. ;)

  1. 32  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 11/18/2008 11:23:39 AM

    @30 - How would you define the parameters of that wager? That there will be no new versions of the Quickr server that run on a Domino server after May of 2010? And no new version of Sametime that runs on a Domino server after December 2010?

    What kind of odds are you offering?

    I'm not saying this to defend any positions vis a vis Portal or Domino. I just think there might be money to be won here.

  1. 33  Rock http://www.lotusgeek.com | 11/18/2008 11:55:46 AM

    @32 - we'll talk about it ;)

  1. 34  John Stack  | 11/18/2008 1:03:10 PM

    Wow guys, like Mike Meyers "Linda Rickman" says: let's talk amongst ourselves, not fight amongst ourselves. Spending this many moderately angry ergs on a press release doesn't look very good in the face of the customer. (Advance Warning (shield your eyes) Joke: Ed, but are you revoking Lotusphere passes at will? It almost sounded that way. From working at Lotus and one of their largest partner, I find that the dialog and even disagreement was one of the most useful things I get down there. Glad to see your blood pressure went down a bit as I read on. Bloggers, remember Scoble..always.)

    This news release makes me wonder about a few things and some things I would like to get out of Lotusphere:

    Overlay statement: These days, I can't get out of a single meeting without talking about budget and consolidation.

    What kind of budget allocations are customers going to make - while considering they have costs associated with balancing deploying Eclipse, new application requirements, and shrinking budgets?

    Are there any increased server costs as the result of running 8 or 8.5 (increased memory requirements usually requires racks to change, etc)

    Customers do get confused about having too many platforms to content with, how or what do we say? I mean, if they don't have Websphere in use now (some have SAP), I read that they have to start thinking about deploying it.

    Will Lotus publicly state (possibly at this Lotusphere) that everything is going to Websphere, Java and DB/2? I took the press release to imply that this was the eventual direction. Maybe not. Two of my customers have been waiting for news just so that they can finish their horizon planning process.

    I'm kind with everyone here about Portal. Its an interface for portlets, web parts, whatever, an interface assembler. Am I missing something here? Of course, the whole permission thing is another layer of admin but is there any other values in this I'm missing?

    Where do you see the principle lines of battle forming up?

  1. 35  Richard Schwartz http://www.poweroftheschwartz.com | 11/18/2008 8:03:32 PM

    I note that the article text says exactly this: "Notes 8 portal client". The "N" is capitalized, the "p" is not.

    Now, from that alone I believe it was not a reference specifically to the existing "Portal" product. I think it is more like a generic reference to what we already know: that the Eclipse framework allows Notes 8 to behave as a portal in its own right.

    OTOH, the defensiveness of Ed's reaction suggests to me that there could actually be more to it than that.

  1. 36  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 11/18/2008 10:06:49 PM

    The defensiveness of my reaction was not about what Picciano said or how it was represented in the article, it was about Andrew's response.

    As for what Bob Picciano said, he read the comments here and based on that, has asked our PR team to reach back to John Fontana. Charles @26 got this right -- Bob described Notes as a "collaborative portal" not a "Portal" with a capital P. We have used this concept ever since the introduction of "Hannover".

    Last, Rock, @28 there's no plan to do away with Quickr on Domino. There are MORE installs of Quickr on Domino than Quickr on J2EE today. There will continue to be development on the Quickr Domino version. I do not know why you insist otherwise.

  1. 37  Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 11/19/2008 4:37:04 AM

    @24 - gotta agree: "Andrew is being Andrew"

    Something to consider, Ed, when your wondering where to eat on Saturday night, eh ?

    ---* Bill

  1. 38  Roland Reddekop  | 11/19/2008 7:44:21 AM

    This is truly a tempest in a teapot accelerated by emotions and little substance other than overloading the connotations of a single word. I totally read Picciano's (large 'P') reference to portal (small 'p') as Notes 8's ability to aggregate multiple applications together in windows (small 'w'). To me it was confirmation that IBM sees Notes as a central strategic platform for integrating disparate systems. Once we have our Portal (large 'P') server up and running next year, I'll be happy to throw a portlet into a Notes composite app...why develop twice? The platform is powerful and going in the right direction of expansion rather than statically clinging to only one application type, which, by the way, it still does quite well. I am always impressed by how IBM tends to engineer their products over time to be flexible enough to fit into just about any environment. Adaptation is the key to survival.

  1. 39  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 11/21/2008 12:14:32 AM

    @36 just to further my comment here, Lotus followed up with John Fontana and he agreed that the use of the term "portal" here was a reference to Picciano's "collaborative portal" notion and that it wasn't meant to confuse. Bob read the comments here and wanted me to reiterate this point:

    "What I said was that the notes client has been transformed into a "collaborative portal"; That it's not just about an email or calendar application; That we've changed the game on the markeplace and opened up new possibilities while we're also providing new possibilities for development such as XPages. "

    Hopefully that clears up the point.

  1. 40  Richard Schwartz http://www.poweroftheschwartz.com | 11/21/2008 8:17:00 PM

    Thanks for that follow-up, Ed.