In the last couple of months, I've spent a fair bit of time digging into the market and opportunity around the Notes/Domino application development tools, and specifically XPages. What I've learned is that there is a ton of passion and energy around XPages: book sellouts, workshop sellouts, customer case studies (though we need many, many more examples), forums, OpenNTF contributions, etc. In one of our recent internal tracking studies, 65% of existing customers indicated awareness of XPages.
But we have a long way to go. Google "Xpages" and you get 225K hits. "Ruby on Rails" gets 10 million (not that I'm trying to make a direct comparison, just a magnitude one). There are gaps in functionality and documentation. Most importantly, we have to drive from 65% awareness to 100%, and build adoption from early stage to mainstream.
I view XPages as a major vector to grow the market around the Notes/Domino family in 2011 and beyond. Others include LotusLive Notes, the next release of Notes/Domino and its incorporation of IBM Project "Vulcan" concepts. For the near term, though, the opportunity to increase adoption of the Domino server technology through XPages seems like a good "white space" to pursue.
One question I'm grappling with is whether the opportunity is more important initially to pursue that expansion through corporate in-house developers or through ISVs. Obviously I want to do both, but in terms of resource allocation and focus, I think I need to choose one. My instincts say that the answer is to focus on ISVs, and through them, grow the market.
While I was in Germany the week before last, I had a great conversation with Mr. Stefan Sucker, the CEO of Bremen-based IBM business partner We4IT. I had never met Mr. Sucker before, and we had a great conversation about We4IT's Business Solutions products. It turns out that We4IT had invested in turning their products such as We4IT VacationManagement into XPages applications, and at CeBIT last week, they even announced mobile tools to bring the application data to mobile devices (also accomplished via XPages).
I asked Mr. Sucker whether he thought there was an opportunity to sell their solutions beyond existing Notes/Domino customers. He indicated that they had had some interest, especially since the apps don't necessarily need or rely on a customer adopting any other aspect of Notes/Domino. I think this is increasingly common with ISV solutions built on Domino, e.g. IdeaJam and the other Elguji products.
To me, the next natural-but-provocative question after that is whether we all would see more opportunity if there were a different way to sell Domino into non-Lotus customers, e.g. an additional server product/license in market that perhaps was branded solely IBM rather than Lotus. I believe the answer there is yes.
In short, I'm thinking about ways to expand the market for XPages applications. I think the answer is to put more short-term emphasis on making ISVs successful, which in turn will increase demand for the skills and expertise in the overall market, which in turn will lead to more interest from corporate developers adopting the ISV solutions. This is not to say I wouldn't continue to invest in efforts to help increase corporate adoption of Xpages, I just think that the ISV route has more opportunities. In Korea and China, for example, Domino is frequently a platform for office automation (OA) solutions. If we could move a few of those ISVs to XPages (and maybe some of them have moved already), would that be more impactful than a few more internal app case studies added to the pages of ibm.com?
I'm still learning this market space. It's clear we have opportunity. I want to make smart decisions. In a choice -- and I want to make it clear, if I am going to go about this I have to choose to prioritize one or the other, I don't think my team and I can successfully run both paths simultaneously -- should we run after ISVs or corporate developers?
Post a Comment
- 2
David Leedy http://notesin9.com | 3/7/2011 9:05:07 AM
That's a tough one. I guess I'd be interested in what that really meant. If you focused on ISV's instead of corporate developers - what does that mean for the corporate developer? What will be delayed that's of interest to them? XPiNC features I assume? What other things?
ISV's might bring new people to the Domino server. New Licenses, etc.. But corporate developers who are using XPages might be key for KEEPING Notes and Domino in their company. The feature set of XPages is probably the best tool that a corporate dev has in defending Notes/Domino.
I guess I don't know the difference of needs between an ISV like Elguji and the Corporate Developer. If you expounded on that a little the discussion might have more value.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a corporate developer. :-)
- 3
Mike McP | 3/7/2011 9:18:39 AM
As a corporate developer, I'd focus on ISVs. But I'm with David...I'm not sure what 'focus' means in IBM terms.
Most of the blogsphere is excited about xpages due to the portability and sellability of the products they can develop. They're now able to build advanced apps that highlight their cutting edge skills. It's partly about 'look what I can do', where they can show they run with the big boys now, which is totally cool.
Corporate developers have different priorities. We likely have hundreds/thousands of existing core apps to support. Corporate developers have a finely honed skill-set, and we're very quick at what we do, and users are familiar with the end result. Keeping in mind that speed and cost are two of the most important aspects of the businesses they support, and you end up with developers who are aware of Xpages, but not focusing on it. It's more of a niche tool at this point for them.
Corporate developers are still going to need support and growth from IBM, which is where I'm concerned with the 'focus' part. This is your major revenue source, so tread cautiously.
- 4
Russell Maher http://rgmconsulting.com | 3/7/2011 9:22:11 AM
I think your instincts to focus on ISVs are right on target.
"Corporate" Business people are looking to use better tools sooner. "Corporate" Technical people are looking to reduce their costs and internal footprint. All of this points to something "cloudy".
By empowering "cloudy" ISVs, the impact would be more visibility to business people who need the solutions which should allow the technical people to act on opportunities as they can to say something like "...hey you know, that is IBM technology we could/already own and we can make our own compelling solutions. Let's talk about how we can improve the business..."
- 5
Paul Withers http://hermes.intec.co.uk/intec/blog.nsf | 3/7/2011 9:23:46 AM
At Intec we've done a number of webinars to Lotus customers on the power of XPages. Through these and from speaking at LUGs I'm aware many customers are not yet on 8.5, but the message about the power of XPages is starting to get through. Bearing in mind Ruby on Rails has been around since 2003, I think the comparison you quote on Google hits is quite good.
In terms of marketing to non-Domino customers, I don't think it's just a branding issue. XPages markets Domino firmly as a web collaboration tool. Admittedly I'm predominantly a developer, but the platform licensing needs to be clearly and competitively defined to allow an XPages application to be well-priced and so easy to sell. Such applications are more likely to be externally-focussed than a traditional Notes Client application and Domino licensing needs to adapt to this change of focus.
- 6
Chris Miller http://www.IdoNotes.com | 3/7/2011 9:27:15 AM
We are getting interest from customers in enabling apps with XPages (I hesitate to use move since no one moves them, just adds a layer). It is more about making them more web accessible to reduce what is needed on the desktop.
Mobile is a great bonus feature when they find out just what can be done there.
Also, in terms of the number of results when searching, a while ago, working with David Leedy, we created a XPages search engine that only searches against specific XPages resource sites. This should give developers and ISV's a quickr response and a better resource
{ Link }
- 7
Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 3/7/2011 9:27:36 AM
ISV. Inhouse does not have a mandate to re-engineer. Licensing and directory independence are key.
- 8
Michael Kobrowski | 3/7/2011 9:49:43 AM
ISV-cloud enabled 75% Inhouse 25%
- 9
Richard Moy http://www.dominointerface.com | 3/7/2011 10:29:13 AM
As an ISV we have been struggling with the same question on how we market Domino solutions regardless whether it is developed with XPages or some other Web technology. End users of ISV solutions do not care whether the solution was developed in XPages unless you are a Domino shop. They only see and care about the end results. XPages makes it easier for developers who are not familiar with Dojo and other Web technologies to develop applications. That focus is great for Domino developers who are new to more standard Web technologies. However, what Domino offers which is better than anything out there is the ability to integrate, its security, and its flexibility, I think the focus on ISVs and Domino as a Web application server was the correct choice. For Domino to turn around its downward slide whether true or perceived, it is critical to be able to sell Domino solutions to non-Domino shops and ISVs are the key to making that happen. With so many Web technologies out there, the struggle is how to market and create strategies that helps ISVs. I will be interested to see what is IBM direction and how it would fit and balance with Websphere.
- 10
Carl Tyler http://www.epilio.com | 3/7/2011 10:31:51 AM
ISVs, and I'll still stand by what I said 2 1/2 years ago about on how to help XPages { Link }
- 11
Kerr Rainey | 3/7/2011 10:34:39 AM
Ed, last time I looked there was a restriction in the standard licence against running SaaS on Domino. Is that still the case? In the modern world most ISVs are going to want to offer their application as a service and this restriction just adds complexity to the process. I know I can negotiate a deal with IBM, but restrictions like this do not help small ISVs coming to market.
Hopefully if you want to encourage ISVs to use xPages you can address this issue.
- 13
Tim Tripcony http://xmage.gbs.com | 3/7/2011 10:55:34 AM
To piggy-back on the post Carl linked to, anything IBM can do to ensure that as many partners are equipped to build custom components as possible should provide some organic growth within the customer market as well.
The Extension Library on OpenNTF adds all sorts of fantastic capabilities to the XPage runtime, but it is perceived as being unsupported, even though fixes and enhancements are being developed on a daily basis and released on almost a weekly basis... which I would consider to be superior support. However, the perception remains.
Besides, there should be industry- and use-specific libraries that are officially supported by ISV's, but I personally know only 3 people outside of IBM who have written any custom components, and two of them work within 10 feet of my desk. In line with the sentiments expressed in Carl's post, if a potential customer can easily find a library of drag-and-drop components that specifically meets their needs, then Domino will be seen as the vibrant development environment it is... one that they can extend themselves, if desired, but if all their developers are drag-and-drop folks, then they get what they need in an externally supported bundle simply by purchasing the platform and one (or more) add-on products, without having to reinvent those wheels. And, of course, the availability of such component libraries would allow existing customers to supercharge their existing investment in the platform, again without having to ask their in-house developers to shoulder the burden of creating the same functionality.
But these libraries don't exist. My own foray into custom component development has been supported by documentation on the Domino Designer wiki, superior hand-holding from various members of the engineering team, and frequent mashing of the F3 and F4 keys. Anything IBM can do to increase the value and availability of each of these to the larger ISV market would not go amiss.
- 14
Rob Bontekoe http://www.appligate.nl | 3/7/2011 11:12:59 AM
Recently we see more and more corporate Domino developers at our XPages courses... invest in them.
They are the similar guys who made a big success of Lotus Notes 3.0, 18 years ago. They also understand you can quickly build applications with Domino and so XPages.
Their understanding of XPages will drive the business of ISVs.
Therefore to my opinion Lotus should support 50% ISVs and (at least) 50% Corporate developers.
- 15
Julian Buss/YouAtNotes http://www.youatnotes.com | 3/7/2011 11:18:13 AM
I vote for ISVs, too. Not only because we are an ISV, but because indeed I think that there IS potential for selling XPages based Web Apps to non-Domino customers.
But as of todays, there are showstoppers. Volker named them: Licence (relatively easy to solve) and directory (the hard one).
In more detail: when I want to offer a web app as SAAS, I need to offer authentification via Facebook et al, but I need to offer authentication based on the corporate directory of the customer. That's mission critical, since no custom wants to have their users in two directories (in their own and in the SAAS provider's directory).
I strongly believe that the XPages development environment is a very good one, even compared to the Ruby on Rails, PHP and ASP folks. Domino still brings A LOT ready-to-use functionality right out of the box: No-SQL storage, authentication, security, fulltext-search and so on. All this stuff is "just there", without setup, without the need to install any additional stuff.
All those ready-to-use features together with the XPages development environment enables me to produces top Web Apps very fast.
I don't have exact numbers, but I have a hard time believing that for example a .NET/ASP developer is faster than an experienced XPages developer.
And from various XPages workshops at customers I *know* that developers who already know Java, JavaScript, CSS and so are very fast on the XPages track, and they actually LIKE it.
Therefore I come to the conclusion that XPages has the potential to reach new developers if ISVs has the opportunity to sell SAAS style XPages apps.
But one final word: if you think about an appropriate license for that: make. it. easy. for. the. ISVs. and their. customers. Easy. Easy. Easy. Not IBM style.
- 16
Michael Kobrowski | 3/7/2011 11:49:30 AM
After reading some more posts I changed my mind, it should be 110% ISV and 110% Corporate Developers.... ;-)
- 17
Rob Novak http://www.LotusRockStar.com | 3/7/2011 12:12:20 PM
Ed, where in the spectrum do you see systems integrators (Lotus partners who are primarily services-based)? Would you lob them in with corporate developers or ISVs in terms of "focus?"
Enablement to me means a functional support model, tools, and training.
- 19
Jeremy Hodge http://www.hodgebloge.com | 3/7/2011 12:31:29 PM
Ok, so disclaimer, I'm an ISV, and a services business partner ... but if you look at this from the angle of where is the growth space, or the whitespace as Ed put it, then ISV makes sense, and the rest of the "what about..."'s will only benefit. First the corporate developer market for this is pretty well saturated or at least mature. There is not a lot of whitespace to pursue in the corporate developer market. So much of this is area is tied to the "platform" of choice and there are so many other factors, that focusing there will lead to less results, fewer bangs for the buck so to speak.
But focus on the ISV, and foster cool exciting new uses of the technology, then that mind share benefits the corp. developer. Its like they say, there is a little bit corvette in every chevy sold. Add to that the fact that ISVs are going to develop products to help the corporate developer (ie components, etc) and some are likely to contribute to OpenNTF... More and more Apps mean more and more people running domino servers, which means more opportunity to introduce the "Corporate" Notes ... service providers and integrators will have more platforms to service, more products to resell and integrate, etc etc etc.
To me it seems the rest of the ecosystem is stable and mature .. what's missing is the ISVs and their apps....
- 20
John Vaughan | 3/7/2011 12:46:33 PM
So, I'm a corporate developer and have been for over ten years at the same company. I don't know too much about what exactly you mean by ISV vs corp dev. It sounds like you are talking more about licensing and market strategy than "how do we develop XPages as a product." Is that right?
As a developer I guess it is hard for me to separate the development environment from the business strategy.
I blogged a really long time ago (four years? can't remember) about the possibility for Notes to get pulled out of its corporate "shell" - the client and the start page and the emphasis on email and so forth, so that we could develop solutions that weren't tied to all of that. At the time Jeff Eisen commented and said they were thinking about going down that path. But we haven't seen really any movement in that direction that I know of.
What corporate developers need is lots and lots of easily configurable business ready applications. Ala nifty fifty or what is available Sharepoint or Portal. Clearly IBM isn't interested in that path for Notes.
Even as a "corporate" dev, at heart I just like monkeying around with code. I like infinite possibilities. I like nimble, smart design environments. Notes would be more interesting to me, and I think to the world of developers at large, if it were a lot more lightweight. I keep beating the "nsf is flexible" drum because to me that is what makes it great. That is what allows us over and over again to develop complex applications in less time than in other platforms. It isn't the client per se.
If you can deliver Notes in a form like that, with an XPages-only design environment that runs on Mac (leave the rich text artifacts behind) that is lightweight and runs fast and shows the flexibility of the engine within the design environment, then you've got something.
I'm thinking out loud a little bit here, but based on things I've been thinking about for a long time.
All that to say, ISV, if I understand correctly - yes. The corporate guys will sit up and take notice if there is something out there along those lines - something that an ISV or whatever kind of third party development, product oriented shop, finds useful in terms of creating powerful solutions that may or may not plug into a corporate environment. That is where visibility will rise. I think this is what you were attempting or shooting toward when you gave Designer away for free.
Dunno if that makes any sense but it's the best I got.
- 21
Brett H | 3/7/2011 1:23:54 PM
I am a corporate developer, and I can see the sense in the ISV path, BUT honestly I don't see enough exposure in that direction. ISV's carry a tiny fraction of the mind-share that corporations and corporate users already have of Notes applications. Personally I don't think trying to grow XPages awareness/adoption through ISV's will be as fruitful or as fast as a major concerted push of XPages into the corporate arena (all those existing Notes shops!). Perhaps re-branding it into "IBM XPages" first would help assuage any negative connotations Lotus Notes has in the corporate space, and give it more of a chance to grow in it's native environment (the large corporation).
Just my "in-the-trenches" opinion.
Cheers on ANY front for trying to grow XPages awareness.
- 22
Richard Moy http://www.dominointerface.com | 3/7/2011 1:33:46 PM
@18,
Ed, a SaaS model license that ISVs can host on IBM servers or IBM Business Partner like Prominic.NET would help since the users will not know or care, but will recognize the capabilities that I mentioned above as critical to their operation. This negates some of comments from Google or Microsoft, plus offer features that I know neither Google or Microsoft can provide.
The major problem that I see is whether IBM has the logistics to easily meter this type of model which can change month to month and need to apply for both small and large volumes. The current process for LotusLive for small volume is still a major struggle to implement. It would be nice if IBM Business Partners were able to control how many license they are using for each of their clients and have a way to automatically report to IBM what they need to bill. This also would apply to LotusLive solutions. If IBM can supply tools for doing that, whether on IBM servers or authorized hosting partners, the SaaS Domino Web application model I believe would take off. By distributing this infrastructure not just on IBM hosted servers, but also for IBM Business Partners hosted environments, you have a greater number of distribution points and coverage and have a leg up on Google and Microsoft. Just a thought.
- 23
Richard Moy http://www.dominointerface.com | 3/7/2011 1:35:24 PM
Ed,
I missed some wording in my previous comment
since the users will not know or care "what platform they are on"
- 24
Richard Schwartz http://www.poweroftheschwartz.com | 3/7/2011 1:57:00 PM
Full disclosure: I'm an ISV and OEM partner, but we don't do applications per se, so I've really got no skin in the xPages game myself. I am a former services partner, and I had a two year flirtation with SaaS, though it was before we called it by that acronym.
If you look back at history, Ed, I think it was a combination of the service partners and the corporate developers that drove the adoption -- and explosion -- of Notes and Domino in the mid 90's. Now I'll grant that the conditions in IT today are strikingly different, but I would caution against over-estimating the opportunity of the cloud and SaaS solutions. Clearly there are success stories here, and you may get some more IBM partners to buy into it, and you can provide a better licensing model for them... but you're still banking a lot of your success on their sales success instead of on your own. So how many do you have to get, and how many have to be successful at selling to large enterprises in order for the numbers to start being meaningful?
Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but just by force of the current numbers I think that if you want to drive a really meaningful increase in adoption, you have to put priority on the service partners and corporate developers. And note that a meaningful increase in adoption implies a strong defense of the base, otherwise new adoption is only an offset to defection. This is, of course, a pet peeve of mine (and of many others) that some at IBM seem to define adoption goals only in terms of new business brought in, instead of as net new and old customer adoption. I don't think you fall into that category, Ed, but I do feel I have to mention it.
Now, Volker is correct that corporate developers don't have a mandate to re-engineer, but they do have a mandate to deliver multiple new capabilities with the most cost-effective technology. Service partners live or die by that, as well. There are mandates for mobile and (still) for web access, and if XPages happens to give them a better user experience for the Notes client while solving those problems, the customer isn't going to turn it down.
Sure, there's growth space with xPages and ISVs, but IMHO you also have to look at what you're starting from. Would getting ten times as many ISVs working with xPages as you have now do the trick? Would getting ten times as many ISVs working with xPages get you as much as doubling the number of corporate developers and service partners working with xPages?
- 25
Neil Wainwright http://www.nexonia.com | 3/7/2011 2:07:32 PM
ISVs for sure because XPages probably still has a steep learning curve and ISVs will really push for features that corporate devs can use too. The only other caveat is to go for "fast and easy". @Formulas, LotusScript and the power of NSF got everyone going fast many years ago...things are more difficult to build now. That's a step backward. Making XPages easier to use than @Formulas should be a battle cry. Very tough to do, but the creativity and attention to detail in engineering to make it happen will be well worth it.
So I guess that's it...my vote is not on your list but it's to make XPages easier than @Formulas. It's already more powerful I'm sure, but easier/faster will win the day. :)
- 26
Per Henrik Lausten http://per.lausten.dk/blog/ | 3/7/2011 2:08:51 PM
I was at an XPages workshop today with 3 others from the Danish NotesNet.dk group of independent consultants - and we discussed the need for a Domino license that allows small shops to create hosted XPages solutions for customers. This would of course require a license that allows anonymous access to web apps ;-)
We also discussed how such solutions could be sold to non-IBM customers as well because of the strength of XPages (again: this would requier a flexible license model).
- 27
Chuck Savino http://www.csavino.com | 3/7/2011 3:01:40 PM
If you can't answer that question by now, the answer is there is no market for XPages.
- 29
ARSnet | 3/7/2011 3:26:21 PM
Ed, I tell to you at end of the edcom LCTY 2011 in Munich that we need a YELLOW Box (or VM) with a Domino Service for IBM XPages Apps and a DA or openAuth for Login. Make it easy to install, configurate and administrate and then, in the modern world, the ISVs produce solution or Apps for an IBM XPages Shop and all are lucky (IBM, ISV, corporate developers or last but not least: domino and non-Domino customers)
- 30
ChrisC http://www.bssuk.net | 3/7/2011 3:30:22 PM
As a consultant and ISV I vote vote ISV...Issue at the moment in terms of growing the market in "whitespace" is the license model. With many competing technologies (that are inferior) the cost is far lower. It means fewer wins (and longer sales cycles as clients weigh up all sorts of "free" or low cost solutions - I have experienced this directly - and WON!! eventually!). However this pain puts partners / ISVs off developing for the platofrm.
As previously mentioned I agree that the user does not care what it is written on (to a degree depending on who the user is)- but the ISV does - its all about cost and capabilities. XPages and Domino are proven in the later. Bring into line anonymous licenses on Express for example and make developing for the platform really attractive. ISVs and hosting companies (dont forget them!) will start to push.
The other factor is from an ISV perspective is the "technology platform". Now the end user does not care about platform but the IT function does. Many applications like "office automation" are often targetted at "yellowspace". If the ISVs believe that this is shrinking then they are less likely to develop for that platform. Maybe IBM "rebranding" will help - moving into more "bluespace" than "yellowspace". Perhaps a closer tie with some of the other pillars (websphere) could help here.
I guess yellowspace is not really a place for IBM sales people like to play. But in simple terms even selling XPages applications into yellow space must open up some licensing opportunities?
Bottom line for ISVs is that XPages / Domino is great for low cost / quick development. The other factors of license cost and the "yellow market" issue are what is holding back real drive from ISVs in my opinion.
But in the right evironment ISVs drive revenue - things just need to be attractive to get them interested.
- 31
George Paglia | 3/7/2011 3:49:05 PM
Ed,
I agree with the others above - I'm a corporate developer and there is not push to perform major updates on the existing Notes or Domino apps, nor is there any push to create new apps. It's more purchase or rip and replace (ie, CRM, Sharepoint, Google docs, etc). Focus on the ISV's, there's no pot of gold here.
George
- 32
Mike Robinson http://www.invcs.com | 3/7/2011 3:51:17 PM
Hmm, if it's ISVs that's great- but there's got to be a conduit for the ISVs to channel their apps and solutions to the market place, for this to really blow up in a significant way. Is that also part of the consideration?
- 34
Richard Moy http://www.dominointerface.com | 3/7/2011 4:50:53 PM
@32
Realistically, how many companies will buy enterprise solutions or even SMB solutions from an Appstore. I believe that it is important to showcase ISV and custom solutions running on the IBM XSP Server (Domino) in real world context beyond the Yellow or Blue bubble. It has to feature SMB solutions if you are to grab market share. If not, SMB will think of it as just an enterprise solution and not appropriate for their market.
- 35
Bob Balaban http://www.bobzblog.com | 3/7/2011 5:13:07 PM
Ed, your wording implies to me (could be wrong) that you are focused on xpages on Domino, for web apps. Is uptake of xpc happening at a decent rate? My impression is, no.
IMHO, focusing on web apps in general is the way to go for the product as a whole, it allows those who want to host to not have to sell the product to consumers of the apps.
My reading is that some ISVs are still building products for Notes deployment, most are web only these days.
Between ISVs and corp devs? Have you defined any significant differences in between the 2 in how you'd market, support, or build the software? I can't think of any.
- 37
Jim Knight http://lavatech.com | 3/7/2011 6:24:48 PM
I don't know what the end answer is - whether it's xpages or not. I think notes/domino is the solution in a company with notes/domino mail who want to extend to the web. But simplicity and ease of use and easy ability to add plugins are very compelling in ruby on rails. Check out the 254 (pagination) and 255 (versioning) on railscasts.com and try not to be compelled with the relative ease with which he provides amazing features. Simple probably beats complex and right now xpages looks complex (at least to novices who are peeking at it as a possible solution for customers).
Furthermore the community is shrinking because of market share reduction. Googling for answers reveals less in Domino technologies than open source because of the sheer volume of developers.
- 38
Nathan T. Freeman http://ntf.gbs.com | 3/7/2011 7:31:40 PM
@25 - XPages is harder than @Formulas!? I couldn't disagree more. The kinda of obtuse hacks required to get simple logic working in @formula make it one of the most complex ways to express an application I can think of.
You can't define your own functions, so you constantly duplicate code all over the place, making it unmaintainable. You have to explicitly type cast things that make no sense ( @TextToNumber(@Text(variable))? ) and at the same time everything is an array. Until version 6, you didn't have loops and could only have one main expression in any code block. Plus there's no debugger or even console output, so there's no telling what's going on with your code in any given microsecond.
@Formula gained what traction it did because it let people that wrote 1-2-3 Worksheets express client/server business logic in an era when you had to go to IT with a bag of gold doubloons and a 500 page spec to get them to write a green-screen implementation of Hello World. That isn't reality any more. Now cloud based services let you slap down a credit card and import your contact list to create accounts, then drag & drop a Salesforce.com link on to a Google Maps page to design your application. You're thinking in a different millennium.
Ed, I'll make you a deal: you service ISVs, and I'll service corporate developers. We'll meet in the middle ;-)
- 39
Erik Brooks | 3/7/2011 9:48:09 PM
ISVs have way more "realizable" growth available. With good licensing options they will service the HELL out of SMB, pushing more Domino licenses than you can shake a stick at. Or pushing more apps to LL, but either way you win.
@38 - I was just thinking, "Let Group service the corporate devs." :-)
- 40
John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 3/7/2011 10:05:30 PM
I think you can serve both by 90% of what you do. I think the licensing stuff you know you need to work out (OAuth, Anon, SaaS, etc) will effect the ISV first, but will trickle down to the corporate dev.
For me, if you can spend 2011 improving the core doc out of the box, adding creative news ways to license, and add in some functionality via OpenNTF - that would be a good headway. A reliable debugger that does not break every version is also a major feature required by both sides.
And for those that don't see an uptick in XPages growth, you need to clean your eyes of the overnight crust. I don't have a single customer that isn't doing or looking to do XPages development in 2011. I can't hire enough people to do all the work. Even those migrating away from Notes mail are using XPages as a way to modernize their applications.
- 41
Steve Castledine http://www.stevecastledine.com | 3/8/2011 4:54:55 AM
I have the thought that ISV's are incentivised by profit, obviously, and are more likely to make their own efforts to keep up with latest and greatest and react to market demand, push new things etc and therefore are automatically "seekers" of information.
The demand comes from the customer and often do not seek an ISV, or updates from IBM (or often welcome direct selling type approaches so education through that route can be limited only to the already converted) and let things carry on as normal "cus it ain't broke". So targeting the customer aids both product retention/renewal and creates the eventual demand for the ISV.
The 35% gap maybe comes from the "untouched by an ISV" customers and then there is probably a bigger percentage that any survey has not even reached for the same reasons.
Personal opinion only and all that jazz.
- 42
Fredrik Norling http://everythinglotus.blogspot.com/ | 3/8/2011 6:40:57 AM
As many of the other people have mentioned the licencing model needs to change because today the customer needs to own the licenses of Domino when the service is delivered as Saas.
If I have understood it correctly.
Otherwise the cost will be to high and the business is almost all the time lost.
The licensing model is the same for customers and Saas vendors and that needs to change, why do a Saas vendor need to start at the enterprise license and not at the express license. It should depend on number of users on the system, perhaps some kind of
reporting of number of users like the report needed when running domino server on wmware.
- 43
Mike McP | 3/8/2011 8:17:22 AM
One thing mentioned was the "nifty fifty". This is a great way to expose corporate customers to xPages. Though there's little value in re-architecting existing successful apps, and arguable benefits to investing in the xpages skillsets, I've had great internal successes with the xpgages-based templates IBM has been offering.
The idea that a Corporation can update their infrastructure by leveraging existing Domino servers automatically is powerful stuff, and it gives them the proof that the xpages investment is worthy. That's a tough sell currently, as most have admitted.
I'm going to throw out a challenge. Xpages is RAD, right? Let's shoot for a new app from IBM on openNTF utilizing OneUI each week. What would you need internally to pull that off? Maybe a team of two dedicated developers...sounds like advertising money well spent.
Regarding the book sellout. I probably haven't paid for personal MS software in 5 years. I go to a free conference they host, get the new OS and Office NFRs, and I'm good. The Xpages book...is that a profit center, or an advertising/market share tool? I think it might be beneficial to answer that question, and possibly start moving that book to your corporate customers for free...possibly as an eBook only.
- 44
Frank Paolino http://www.maysoft.com | 3/8/2011 8:35:38 AM
@33 "But yes clearly we would need to do SOMETHING to elevate visibility of these solutions."
The problem with getting ISVs on board is, even if they create something awesome, if they don't have a (cost-effective) way to get it to the customers, then why bother?
And then if customers don't know about these great apps, they think "Domino is not keeping up with Google apps, etc.".
But encouraging ISVs to develop apps that they may never sell because many are small and don't have market reach (but they may create awesome apps) is not going to work, either, as most will think it through and decide it is not worth the up-front investment for an uncertain ROI.
I have done some work trying to make ISV apps more visible to the rest of the world, and it is starting to pay off for some vendors. But for most, the chasm between what is in their labs as products and reaching the potential buyers is very large. Most of these "products" started out as consulting projects for one customer and were then generalized to handle a variety of customers. But the marketing skills necessary to sell consulting services are very different than getting a product out to the world.
So there are two problems here, customer can't (readily) find good apps and ISVs can't (readily) find good customers. When those two points are connected, then ISVs will start investing in more app development.
- 46
Steve Medure | 3/8/2011 9:29:18 AM
@45, And that has been the major issue with the "acceptance" factor in many organizations. IBM has never really fully embraced Xpages by providing solid documentation on a feature that was just dumped into the 8.x release and everyone was left guessing. There has been more information published, wiki'd, pod casted, etc. by "independents" than what IBM has ever done. IBM needs to fully document the products that are released. When IBM just dumps features into a new release with out documentation, those supporting feel a little left out in the cold. So at this point I think IBM should be focusing on documenting existing features in Xpages to gain acceptance and market share. Maybe if IBM embraces it's own products, the market will follow. If I search designer help for Xpages I'm given about 10 entries in the search results. If I search the web there are 143,000 results. To me it seems like the market is already there, IBM just needs to lift it up and support it better.
- 47
Jed Johnson http://www.randomcomputing.com | 3/9/2011 2:44:25 AM
Ed,
You are spot on. We're an ISV and long time Domino shop since 1992 in Australia. We have been re-developing our apps in Xpages for more than a year. We've already sold our apps to 'white-space' into a clients that are very MS Exchange/Outlook?sharepoint focused and extremely hostile to Notes/Domino. So we're proof that Xpage technology makes sense and can can in that market.
To distance ourselves from Domino and Notes we OEM (now ASL) the licencing and its only with the combination of Xpage technology and ASL licening do we strike sales in Exchange shops. They still don't like that we have our <app name> server in their computer room using Domino...only because some of the tech heads find out what we use - even when the Domino licences in ASL terms are ours not theirs!
So we would very much encourage you to go further and rebrand Domino when using Xpages as it will make it so much easier for us to sell into white space and increase business for both us and IBM.
- 48
Sean J | 3/9/2011 5:06:41 AM
Disclaimer: Currently in-house developer.
In my 15 years Notes experience, both in-house and as a contractor, in various markets and from SME's to global corporations, I've only seen one app that had been developed by an ISV. In all cases the Notes/Domino apps had been developed in-house, either with in-house developers, contractors, or a mixture there-of.
I've seen companies that used Notes simply because it was the most secure email solution, fully embrace Notes as a development platform as the result of a single in-house developed app.
I've seen companies considering switching to Outlook decide to stay with Notes as result of the the value of a single in-house developed app.
Ed where you should focus depends upon what you're trying to achieve.
If customer retention is most important, then focus on in-house developers.
If attracting new customers is most important, then focus on ISVs who can add value to the Notes ecosystem (in the same way that iOS app developers add value to the iPod/iPhone/iPad ecosystem and hence drive sales for Apple).
However having worked for a telco that used Notes for 5 years I've witnessed the extremes of customer churn. To succeed the company invested in both recruitment and retention of customers.
For ISVs I'd suggest offering a new Domino Server, and Domino Designer package that they can build web applications upon and install into non-Notes shops. Sell this as a new RAD web-development platform from IBM, call it "IBM XPages" and don't mention Lotus.
(Of course this would be fully compatible with and using the existing Notes/Domino 8.5 technology. Just be careful not to repeat the Workbench debacle)
Maybe even look to create an open-source "Open XPages" as an Eclipse plug-in that gives the basic functionality as a taster?
Just my $0.02 worth.
- 49
Sean Cull http://www.seancull.co.uk | 3/9/2011 4:26:38 PM
Ed,
I am trying to sell XPages into a MS shop. What would really help me is access to presentations from #LS11 about LDAP integration with AD.
Releasing these types of materials is a no cost ( or low cost ) boost that you can give both ISVs and corporate developers.
If IBM really want people to contribute to Wikis they need to release all that they have in order to respond in kind.
- 50
Bill Brown | 3/10/2011 2:43:12 PM
How should the Lotus community feel when we see things like this on an official IBM web site:
Lotus
The Lotus zone is not currently accepting proposals for new articles or tutorials. If you have an article idea, please consider contributing to the appropriate Lotus wiki. You may want to also check the "Requested articles" category in the wiki for ideas and additional information.
{ Link }
- 51
Sean Cull http://www.seancull.co.uk | 3/10/2011 6:16:11 PM
for anyone interested in the LDAP integration in @49 I have sussed it and written it up here => { Link }
- 52
Brendan Mulvaney http://www.secure-eserver.com | 3/11/2011 4:46:27 AM
As an irregular Notes developer and as an adviser to small businesses looking for holistic solutions - I viewed the xpages addition as the last great chance for IBM / Lotus to get behind the developers who have invested so heavily in promoting Notes / Domino. I was at your well attended Ilug presentation in Belfast and left the event (rightly or wrongly) with a belief that "Xpages is the future" for Notes web developers. Look back at the number of sessions @ ILUG / idosphere / Lotusphere with Xpages as the subject matter and its the only game in town for those of use who appreciate the power of nsf and have been delivering solutions based on Notes for all these years. So to find that no cost effective licensing mechanism is in place for xpages apps for small developers like me and my contacts is frankly scary. Trying to develop solutions to compete with MS technologies is not going to succeed if we dont have resources (which are getting bettter by the week) and the necessary delivery mechanisms to sell public facing xpages apps (at a realistic price for licensing). The investment in time to master the technologies in not insubstantial to me and other developers in the same boat. So in conclusion Ed - the community (as witnessed by these responses) looks to you to take the Sword to the licensing Gordian knot - look what MS are doing with WebSitespark - free licenses for os/database and designer tools in return for one simple website.
Easy to speak for me, choose ISVs. Joking :)
It depends on the market, actually. But I see a growing trend towards oursourcing and packaged products instead of inhouse development...
In old style development (domino-forms-formulas-lotusscript), it was absolutely easier to develop applications. XPages are not that easy. So inhouse developers should be 'more' developers. Before, many companies were able to develop new applications with system analysts, specialist who are not programmer-based, etc. Many companies don't want to deal with it (I certainly speak for SME-level).
On the other hand, packaged products are still not enough. It seems a good idea to push ISVs further to develop solutions on XPages. Adding cloud ability and RDBMS connection may also provide more transition from rival technologies, hopefully.
Therefore, my humble opinion: Lotus should support 75% ISVs and 25% Corporate developers.