Remember last Lotusphere how a Friday Nitix acquisition became a Monday Lotus Foundations?

January 15 2009

If you remember that, a sense of deja vu prevails for now -- and watch for more on Monday...

IBM has announced its intent to acquire the strategic messaging service assets of Outblaze, Ltd., a privately held provider of online messaging and collaboration services, based in Hong Kong. Building on IBM Lotus' market leadership in messaging software, the asset acquisition will accelerate the delivery of affordable, Web-based e-mail services in a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model.  ...

The Outblaze messaging service will be part of IBM Lotus' Project "Bluehouse." "Bluehouse" is IBM's online social networking and collaboration service designed for business and currently in open beta (http://bluehouse.lotus.com). "Bluehouse" helps people work together more quickly and easily beyond the boundaries of their organizations. Within the service people can share files, chat, participate in online meetings and network over the Web.
Link: IBM Announces Intent to Acquire Outblaze's E-Mail Service Assets >

Ed Brill | Highland Park, IL USA Category:  Lotus  Add/View Comments [30]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Bob Balaban http://bobzblog.com | 1/15/2009 7:06:49 PM

    Interesting! Will be looking for some explanation as to why Domino is not the BlueHouse messaging solution

  1. 2  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 1/15/2009 8:09:37 PM

    Wrong tool for the job. You can't do carrier grade messaging with thousands of domains on Domino. Five years ago IBM learned you can't do it on Websphere either.

  1. 3  Daniele Vistalli http://www.vistalli.it | 1/15/2009 11:12:14 PM

    @WoVe

    I can't agree. You can do carrier grade messaging with Domino or Websphere ... The real problem is it's not going to be cheap as "carrier" messaging needs to be.

    I think Microsoft is learning the same with their Exchange offering.

    Carrier messaging is a lot different than full-fledged collaboration messaging.

    Take gmail, they built from the ground up full-fledged messaging for carrier grade. It's also cheap because it's by design. But this doesn't mean Domino & Websphere technology is not good enough. It's not (and doesn't want to be) optimized for that use.

  1. 4  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 1/16/2009 5:55:59 AM

    Daniele,

    as for Websphere, IBM has the assets of DoesNotWorkplace Messaging. If that would have been suitable, they would have used it. As for Domino, they have it as well, and choose not to use it.

    A piano does not fly well. You can strap a JATO rocket and then it does fly. Landing continues to be a problem. Not the right tool for the job.

    Outblaze say they host 40 million users with 480,000 unique domains. Think a moment about how you want to architect this with Domino. For growth.

    1&1 (and a number of other service providers) have hosted Exchange for years. For carrier grade messaging Microsoft acquired Hotmail. Now they want to start hosting Exchange themselves. We will see how that works. To me it looks like they bought a huge stockpile of JATOs.

  1. 5  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 1/16/2009 6:19:40 AM

    I can't do carrier grade messaging with thousands of domains on Domino.

    Fixed that for you.

    We're all glad that with your vast experience in operating messaging hosting services, Volker, you can enlighten us as to the proper use of the Domino platform. If you weren't here to tell us what it's good for, we might be tempted to come up with new applications for it. Fortunately, you're around to provide rocket analogies and save us all from our folly.

    Truly, we are blessed by your insight.

  1. 6  Stuart McIntyre http://blog.collaborationmatters.com | 1/16/2009 6:54:29 AM

    @5 Nathan, did you mean to say that out loud?

  1. 7  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 1/16/2009 7:10:40 AM

    @6 - No, Stuart, I meant to type it. :-)

    Does Volker operate a Domino hosted messaging company that I don't know about? Does he actually have some experience in the matter?

    If he actually has experience running a Domino hosting provider, I will gladly retract my sarcastic response. But I'm pretty sure that when he says "you can't do carrier grade messaging..." he is engaging in pure speculation about what you or I or anyone else on the planet could accomplish.

    Now, what he might mean is "IBM doesn't believe they can do carrier grade messaging on Domino." In which case, that's what he should say. But to summarily declare that "you" -- meaning any particular reader of the comment -- can't do something is a statement that he is completely unqualified to make.

  1. 8  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 1/16/2009 7:12:25 AM

    Oh this is tiresome: Stuart, Nathan always means to say stuff out loud.

    I cannot believe we're even arguing about this: Domino is not a fit for that kind of messaging set-up, end of story. And that is no slight on the platform, it's just not what it was designed for. But hey Nathan, if you want to pounce on every comment made by people you don't agree with, go for it.

  1. 9  jimmy bracco http://www.lotus911.com | 1/16/2009 7:19:14 AM

    remember at LoLa when i asked to have the Bluehouse name changed? Now I know why :)

  1. 10  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 1/16/2009 7:31:55 AM

    @8 - I couldn't care less whether it's a slight on the platform. I only care whether it's true.

    You're making a different proposition than Volker did. He made the claim that I [the reader] couldn't operate a carrier grade messaging system on Domino. You're making the claim that Domino is not "fit" for carrier grade messaging. The difference between the two is a vast ocean -- specifically the ocean of what I [the reader] can design on the Domino platform.

    But, y'know, if you feel the need to defend every asinine claim made made by vowe, go for it. The conversation will make for fun background noise during our preparations for Lotusphere.

  1. 11  Daniele Vistalli http://www.vistalli.it | 1/16/2009 8:44:41 AM

    @VoWe

    If I would NEED (= I must) could have domino/websphere do that (carrier grade messaging). I can tell you that I'm going to have a number of options/optimizations to do that. Just by thinking outside of the box. (Just think about what my friends at Link group did with thier Google Like webmail for domino { Link } go test it...)

    But fortunately I don't need to.. because IBM is buying outblaze for me :)

    So the point is... should we need to stretch domino and websphere to do huge things... no problem, just need a bunch of good minds working on the topic.

    But if we want to go for business ... let's just buy outblaze.

    I just don't agree about your argument.. "IBM is buying outblaze because it can't be done with domino/websphere" Simply non-sense.

    IBM is buying Outblaze because business-wise it makes a lot more sense than creating a carrier grade system based on domino/websphere.

    You're mixing technical considerations with (IBM's) business decisions to support your "domine/websphere can't do that" mantra.

  1. 12  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 1/16/2009 9:11:14 AM

    Daniele, if I'd said "you cannot land an Airbus on the Hudson river", then technically I was wrong. Apparently, if you are very gifted, and lucky, you can, saving 155 lifes.

    My point is that it does not make sense if you have a better choice. And on that, I think we agree.

  1. 13  Brett H  | 1/16/2009 12:18:57 PM

    Wow... do you guys actualy use these products before saying they can't do something? The ones who say Domino is not carrier grade must not have been paying too much attention at the back of the class, 'cause for the past couple of versions "DWA Lite" or "iNotes Lite" work spectacularly well and are faster (for me, YMMV)than Gmail AND OWA plus they look and behave just like the full Notes client(for mail). If OutBlaze could host some flavour of that it would be a fantastic coup. Imagine folks using a web mail interface so slick they don't even realize it's Notes!

    C'mon think positive guys!

  1. 14  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 1/16/2009 12:43:06 PM

    @13 Yes, I'm quite familiar with Notes and Domino thanks. I think iNotes is pretty damn good, and the whole point of the discussion here is that yes, Outblaze would be a good fit for the portfolio. There is no contention on any of these points.

    All that said, I still wouldn't use Domino for a massive Gmail-like mail system, in the same way that I wouldn't use Domino to do real-time airline bookings, to provide the backbone for Amazon or Twitter, and so on and so forth.

    Is it really so bad to point out that some architectures and platforms work better at certain things than Domino? (And of course vice versa).

  1. 15  Brett H  | 1/16/2009 1:09:45 PM

    As we really do not know what IBM's final intent is with Outblaze, and since this is all conjecture and "what if's" what really is the problem with some flavor of Domino and iNotes lite being subsumed into their existing systems?

  1. 16  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 1/16/2009 1:58:27 PM

    @15 There is no problem. Why do bring that up?

  1. 17  Brett H  | 1/16/2009 2:16:42 PM

    @8 Ben... "Domino is not a fit for that kind of messaging set-up, end of story."

    Just wondering what would be the issue with using "Lite" as a large scale mail platform under Outblaze?

  1. 18  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 1/16/2009 3:49:02 PM

    What is "under Outblaze", Brett?

  1. 19  Brett H  | 1/16/2009 5:32:00 PM

    The Outblaze "brand". Meaning it will still be branded under Outblaze. But again, I have no idea what IBM's plans are so they could brand it under "Flying Spagetti Monster". I just think it would definitely be a good thing to have a large scale hosted mail solution running on a Domino back-end. If IBM/Outblaze is the company to do it then yay!

  1. 20  Brett H  | 1/16/2009 5:45:48 PM

    There are so many solution overlaps between Outblaze and IBM/Lotus the opportunities are endless. This is a very exciting aquisition, and really could put Notes/Domino into mainstream mindshare. Done right most client-users may not even notice they were running on Lotus solutions...

  1. 21  Vitor Pereira http://www.vitor-pereira.com | 1/16/2009 5:55:18 PM

    Starting to sound like Santa and his Elves

  1. 22  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 1/16/2009 6:04:07 PM

    Brett, IBM is not buying a brand. It would not make much sense since most people never heard of that brand anyway.

    IBM is buying software assets, which they are going to use in an online offering. It isn't going to replace any of the things you mentioned. On Monday you should hear what the brand for that offering will be.

  1. 23  Mark Buensalido http://www.mainline.com | 1/16/2009 6:12:33 PM

    Ed- That is interesting news. As a software BP, how soon can we get out and sell this to our customers?

  1. 24  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 1/16/2009 9:07:02 PM

    @14 - to provide the backbone for Amazon or Twitter

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    Oh dear.... that was the best laugh I've had all day!

  1. 25  Tim Tripcony http://www.timtripcony.com | 1/16/2009 9:56:05 PM

    @24 - timing is, after all, the essence of comedy

  1. 26  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 1/16/2009 9:58:43 PM

    @23 et. al. - I'm not ignoring you, I just can't say anything further until we go live on Monday.

  1. 27  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 1/17/2009 2:29:41 AM

    @24 @25, glad you liked it - I certainly squawked with laughter.

  1. 28  Henning Heinz  | 1/17/2009 5:15:29 AM

    Although I have nothing to do with carriers I would very much like Domino to be more suitable for carrier grade messaging.

    Exchange isn't either but I don't care much about Exchange.

    Isn't Outblaze a LAMP company?

  1. 29  George  | 1/18/2009 3:42:31 AM

    Outblaze has been around for some time, but as a backend mail provider, so the brand itself may not be known, as someone said they would be buying it for the software assets, not the brand.

    The wikipedia entry is a little slim but provides a little more insight in its mail dealings in the past

    { Link }

    I agree with the comments that Domino does not appear to be suited for "light weight" messaging needs like gmail is for instance. They don't look like they were architected for the same purpose.

    Isn't Lotus Foundation a Linux distrib. anyway?