COMMENT: HENNING HEINZ

DEC 21, 2008 - 15:38:14

» Do you think your employer would have kept it if it would have been Open Sourced? I have heard many points about companies moving away from Domino but none was that they do it because it is closed source (and most move to a closed source alternative too).

I think there is a huge difference of what IBM defines as market success. IBM is very good in selling specialized / high price software to small markets.

I consider the loss of market awareness a direct consequence of IBM's decision to not fund the Notes and Domino core parts for years. I would be more worried if this would have had no consequences at all. And of course I think this is reversible. Good products still sell. «

COMMENT: FERDY

DEC 21, 2008 - 04:10:25 PM

» Henning,

"Do you think your employer would have kept it if it would have been Open Sourced? I have heard many points about companies moving away from Domino but none was that they do it because it is closed source (and most move to a closed source alternative too)."

No, not at all. I am not so naive to think that any CIO would care. I think it is the combination of marketing, open sourcing and developer evangelism (as used by Microsoft, meaning spoiling developers) are all needed. CIOs are willing to switch for any reason:

- thinking Microsoft is an "industry-standard"

- it feels like a safe choice

- their users want it

- they dont understand the decision or related facts

This is why I think another marketing approach is even more important as open sourcing the product. I have explained the difference between Microsoft and IBM marketing before:

http://ferdychristant.com/blog//archive/DOMM-7HHQCB

Despite a "good news" blog like Ed Brill's, I have a feeling that things are different in the real world. It feels like Domino is vaporizing, including the market for developers and admins. «

COMMENT: DARREN DUKE

DEC 21, 2008 - 05:05:03 PM

» At first this piqued my interest and for a few minutes I was all for this. Then reality hit home. Isn't open sourcing Domino tantamount to admitting that Domino is indeed a "legacy" product? MS would have a field day with that announcement. This could be spun as "see, it is doing so bad, they have to give it away for free".

I think from a sales perspective this is a difficult sell to IBM as they are making money off the platform. Now, admittedly the SMB penetration has been abysmal and all IBM want to know about are the 5,000 seat conversion from Exchange, but they could take a similar approach as RIM did with BES. A few years ago gave away a 10 seat version of BES for free. How many SMBs are now using BES on Domino because of this? We've done at least 30 of these at STS. Do you think these organizations are going to Palm, WM or iPhone anytime soon?

Now take this a slightly different way. Release Domino, Notes and the full collaboration and app features of Notes/Domino WITH NO RESTRICTIONS ON USE (and with no support) for up to 10 users (or pick your number, 5, 20, n, whatever) FOR FREE. Add in a CAL key to get away from the honor system of Domino and make it easy for organizations to see the light.

The trick here is that all change is at the macro and micro level (economics anyone?). If the cost of entry is NO COST AND NO RISK then SMB (more the "S") will be far more likely to try the platform.

You could even go the track MS takes, and even have IBM offer to pay for a half day of services for a partner to install and configure it. Do you know how many calls with get from software our distributors offering the latest MS pitch for "MS paid services".

With a combination of a no cost, no risk and covered install watch this puppy grow.

Now, I know the IBMer are thinking that a 60 day trial is the same free. IT IS NOT.

Bottom line. We all know and follow the (yellow) light, but if everyone else doesn't even know about alternatives does this matter? Do the above and the press will get the message out...just look at the Symphony press coverage to date.

Open source? I don't think so. Open marketing? Hell, yes. «

COMMENT: ED BRILL

DEC 21, 2008 - 05:36:05 PM

» I've left some comments on the IdeaJam entry for this. Hearts in the right places, minds not necessarily. Mr. Heinz has it right -- IBM is making money and the revenue has been growing for this product for four years. It would be nigh impossible to have a serious conversation about giving that up.

Darren is also right, there are many opportunities to do things different on the marketing side. I like some of his suggestions. I'm not all enterprise, all-the-time -- far from it. But big deals are what get big attention, so it is absolutely part of the equation.

I do not mean to stifle discussion on Ian Tree's idea but rather am hopeful that it can be steered in the right direction to have some useful ideas come out

--Ed «

COMMENT: HENNING HEINZ

DEC 21, 2008 - 17:36:29

» Good points. I'll be following the discussion with interest. «

COMMENT: DARREN DUKE

DEC 21, 2008 - 05:50:01 PM

» @Ed, "But big deals are what get big attention, so it is absolutely part of the equation"

Not sure I totally agree with this statement. As with my reference to Symphony getting lots of positive press with very little in the way of IBM advertising dollars. I've not heard any "big" Symphony deals in said press, but write about it they do. This is because IBM changed the paradigm - free software with paid support. Again, I'm not saying open source Domino (I think that is a bad idea for what it is worth). What I'm saying is to change the paradigm so that the press (and MS) cannot do anything but be forced to respond.

Maybe the phrase should be "big deals generate the big license sales" ;)

When I was at school, 1 x 5,000 = 100 x 50. No? Now, I understand the cost per sale and that impacts the smaller deals, but lets catch these fish when they are small and no one else (even MS) wants to talk to them. «

COMMENT: DAVID VASTA

DEC 21, 2008 - 06:44:47 PM

» All good points and I have read the post and thought about it a bit. I am a huge Linux/Open Source person, but something about Domino being open does not make sense to me.

I think the CORE Domino Server should stay closed. I think IBMs push to Eclipse is late, but in the right direct. I would like to see some more OPEN applications/templeate from IBM that do more than store docs so that we all could get more out of the product, and a way to centralize the DBs, Mail and other Lotus products without having to re-invent the wheel.

I don't think Domino being OPEN is what we need. I think IBM needs to collectively really think about how to market what they have and not send out 23 sales people for a sales call. «

COMMENT: HENNING HEINZ

DEC 21, 2008 - 19:16:32

» No small shop I am aware of is going to use IBM Lotus just because it is free. Many companies tend to have IT partners and they use what those partners recommend. There is a small market for appliances (in Germany for example the Collax Business server) but even those are often maintained by a partner and be it only to have a fall back for disaster recovery. Taking the mail and calendaring part aside I think there is not much room left for Lotus Notes in the micro SMB space. When IBM promised to make Apache available for Domino some years ago I hoped one could more easily merge Domino with popular LAMP applications but unfortunately that never took off. Maybe it was better to keep Domino away from head-to-head competition with the LAMP stack anyway.

OpenNTF is a great idea too but many applications fall behind their LAMP competitors. I always hoped that IBM would engage more in this space because LAMP stuff is often done by students while Domino stuff often is after work activity. Interesting times ahead. At least I am now ennobled by being called Mr. Heinz «

COMMENT: DAVID VASTA

DEC 21, 2008 - 10:00:30 PM

» I agree, the OpenNTF Project is a great idea, but there is a lack of enthusiasm from everyone. I don't think it's the volunteers fault.

I would have hoped that IBM would have had more support for an OpenNTF or any Open Template Project that could further someones small company with free tools. «

COMMENT: JOHN ROWLAND

DEC 22, 2008 - 01:01:30 AM

» @Darren:

I concur. A stampede of little deals will make more noise than the big deals we never hear about. I rarely read trade press about Big Corp X buying Notes Domino but as you point out, the interest in Symphony by little guys is stirring up some dust. «

COMMENT: STEVE MCDONAGH

DEC 22, 2008 - 01:34:01 AM

» All

I agree oddly with both sides, the idea is fair enuff but as Ed and others have mentioned it is totally unworkable. I cannot see there being a community big enough or fired up enough to take on such a project. The yellow and black folk are good but we are relatively few in number.

I have blogged http://dominoyesmaybe.blogspot.com/2008/12/lotus-notes-client-outside-organisation.html on another thought I had last week that is sort of related. In precis one of the reasons Lotus product lags a little is, i think, because Lotus is an @work product. There is very nearly zero penetration in the home market. @Work users are usually @home users to but they have to use an entirely different product for their home life PIM.

Recently i have been installing a lot of Symphony for home users, it's a pukka FREE alternate to M$ Works or Office, but lacks that PIM app that would kill M$ on a lot of home users PCs.

In the battle for Hearts and Minds of the public we need to build a momentum of acceptance (sounds like a bond movie??) packaging a free smtp/pop version of the mail template with symphony would go a LONG way to making users sit up and take notice of Lotus and it's product suite! «

COMMENT: ED MALONEY

DEC 22, 2008 - 11:03:20 AM

» I don't think that Open Sourcing Domino will result in a significant increase in product adoption. If IBM weren't supporting the product I would support the call to open it up, but they are doing a very good (not great, IMHO) job lately. What IBM should consider is adding a Community Edition of Domino like they have with Websphere. This will allow the curious to play with it and determine if it is the right product for their requirements. «

COMMENT: PIERRE LALONDE

DEC 22, 2008 - 12:38:51

» I’ll go with Darren. IBM should catch the Startups. When you start your own company (what I did) you simply don't have money for all those software. I think this is where "The IBM Lotus Foundations" could be a free and complete solution.

"IBM products will help new companies gets into business faster and for free (software)".

After this new company has reached a numbers of employees or maybe after a couple of years, IBM will help you getting to the next step (bigger solution to address your needs).

What do you guys think of this? «

COMMENT: HENNING HEINZ

DEC 22, 2008 - 13:04:20

» I do not think that overall pricing is not attractive. A 10 people starter pack cost less than 2000$ for the first year, significantly lower the following years. Express licenses scale from a single license to several hundreds. I think this is a fair price. There are parts that I think are improvable like Domino Designer being priced at 800$ and that anonymous HTTP access cost about 2000$ because you need an extra Utility license (that also includes unlimited authenticated access). For any SMB solution to fly you also need more out-of-the-box functionality and if possible the option to install companion products on the same server. I think that Foundations is a product that fits well into this space. I am just not sure if IBM will get enough partners to push it into the market. Of course I am not against giving something away for free but again I think this will not have enough impact to bring substantial growth. «

COMMENT: LUKE

DEC 22, 2008 - 01:15:47 PM

» I share Heinz thoughts about open-sourcing Domino.

I don't think at all it has to do something with the loss of customers using it. I believe Microsoft had a much better strategy at conquering market, not even within developers (I mean, how many Visual Basic developers were out there since the day it was born? or even how many .asp developers of websites?). The problem is Domino was good at doing what it did, and it was a huge lot of things, but his user interface had not grown up to what customers expected for a long time. By the time it did (Notes 8), customer already chose to migrate to Outlook 2007, comparing a new interface (2007) to a Notes 6.0 interface.

Talking about that, every migration I've been into (yes, including the infamous Philips one) had a HUGE lot of problems. of every sort. I don't recall a bloody migration like this one for instance in my first 20 years of work. But , still, no user complained. Or, no one ever listened to the complaints. If it had been the reverse (migration from Outlook to Notes with a load of problems) , we're still talkin' trash to this day.

So, to get back on topic, I don't think open-source is the right-way. Just to express my thoughts, I think Windows is an under-par OS, and there are open-source alternatives (Ubuntu - RedHat) or closed source (OS X) alternatives much better than Windows. Does that mean more market share? Or a growing market? I don't think so.

The same goes for technologies. Is .net the best way to develop Web 2.0 application tied to business models? Are there any open-source alternatives to this? Let's talk about Ruby on Rails. Why doesn't this tecnology has a lot of applications in companies? Why Notes with his strong ties to SAP (and the recent announcement of business partnership) hasn't made it in companies that are heavily relied upon SAP? What has Microsoft to do with it? And why are companies trashing their money into upgrading to Office 2007 without even considering an open-source alternative?

I believe sometimes there are logics and politics way behind our clean thoughts. And they are always to pick a player not because it's the best of the bunch.

Please don't take my criticism personally , but let me share some of the letdowns I'm following these years. And I strongly believe you are a super talented guy. Thanks for sharing. «

COMMENT: JEFF CROSSETT

DEC 22, 2008 - 01:57:41 PM

» Open Sourcing would only reveal how bad the code base of Domino really is. Although it is noble to be backwards compatible, you have to draw lines, and Lotus/IBM never did.

Ed's mentality is pretty typical at IBM; nobody gets any bonuses for alot of small sales, just a few big ones will do the trick. The fundamental shift from heavy SMB focus that Lotus had, to the fortune-200-only mentality of IBM is the single biggest reason for low adoption.

Face it, Notes is a cash cow for IBM and all they are doing is surfing the success of Domino past. Has there been any fundamental changes to the product? Some could argue a few, but for the most part they are just spewing out incremental features, and will continue to do so until the next big acquisition.

At this point in time there are not alot a better options so IBM is safe. But soon I think an open source alternative will coalesce and change the landscape for the better. «

COMMENT: LUKE

DEC 22, 2008 - 02:19:46 PM

» Jeff,

why are people switching from Notes towards Sharepoint while simply adding a computed formula to the later is as difficult as hell? So I suppose people are not switching because of functionality. In case of Microsoft , most often the very first reason is UI. Companies are now using Sharepoint merchandising it as the new latest great product because they are finally able to share an Excel file to compile holidays for employees. Go figure :-(

And, answering directly to you, I believe you are not aware 8.5 is almost out there, and XPages are a great new feature.

And, no , I'm not an IBM employee nor on IBM paybook. «

COMMENT: JEFF CROSSETT

DEC 22, 2008 - 02:45:54 PM

» Like I said Luke, incremental features versus fundamental change from a product that boasts backward compatibility to a fault.

As for Sharepoint, creating the functionality of a computed field is pretty easy, but more to the point, the out of the box functionality of Sharepoint makes Domino look primitive. Almost every pro-Domino critic of Sharepoint I have come across has never used Sharepoint beyond the "install and play" phase, and therefore underestimates Sharepoint to their own peril. Your attempt to paint Sharepoint customers as dim-witted Excel worksheet sharers is pretty typical.

I have written extensively on how Domino and Sharepoint compare, since I work with both on a day to day basis, and I have very intimate memories of my time with Lotus and then IBM. They both have their good, and their bad, but people need to start paying attention to what works and what does not. «

COMMENT: LUKE

DEC 22, 2008 - 02:54:59 PM

» Jeff, I assure my assertion wrt Sharepoint it's not a tentative of painting a product like it is not or should not be.

It's the reality of how Sharepoint is actually used:

- 90% to replace Domino TeamRooms

- 10% to share Office files.

And, wrt computed fields that perform a simple DBLookup function, just to expand, it's still a pain in the foot. «

COMMENT: HENNING HEINZ

DEC 22, 2008 - 17:26:37

» At least what has been shared on http://dominoorexchange.pbwiki.com , see http://vowe.net/archives/009604.html for details does not confirm that Domino is dominating anything in the Fortune lists. It is still a big player of course. «

COMMENT: DARREN DUKE

DEC 22, 2008 - 06:17:28 PM

» A couple of rather large assertions here....

1) We (as resellers, BPs, IBMer, etc) may think Domino is currently priced "fair" for small business. They (the small business) do not. And a $5,000 Lotus Foundations server, or express licensing is NOT going to stop this perception. How many independent Notes developers and admins use gmail and google apps? Common, hold up your hands. Is it skill set (?) or price that is the issue here? Beat google at their own game, give it away (at a reasonable level) for free. Why not?

2) From a dev side 8.5 is not going to make any real difference over the next 2-4 years. Not to pour water on 8.5, but how may customers do you having that are waiting on 8.5 and X-Pages? Most customers are still on 7.x or even 6.x. There are few that are developing applications on the platform anyway, let alone web applications. Like someone mentioned Sharepoint is selling itself as an Excel calendar sharing app. WTF!

3) In the SMB space you need 3 (yes three) servers to run Domino, Sametime, Quickr and BES (with BPS, or 4 for full BES). Are you kidding me! Oh, and then there are the extra W2003 Licenses that IBM nicely sold for MS. People, did you just see how stupid the preceding statement was? ESXi is nice and free, but really, one should never have to resort to virtualization for this. XPages is nice, but give me a Domino instance that can run all of the Domino products on a single "physical" box. Crap, they have even resorted to VMware Server on Foundations to get around this. «

COMMENT: STARROW

DEC 28, 2008 - 04:17:05 AM

» There are many things IBM can do, some of them obvious, to make Domino more attactive.

UI, compare Notes R5/6/7 to the same time counterpart or industrial standards, it's ugly. It seems IBM always gives emphasis to backward compatibility, performance. But it just doesn't pay attention to the most obvious factor to users and developers. Maybe it hasn't even tried. At last, it noticed the importance of UI and pushed R8. Although the Eclipse-based standard version looks like a mordern software, it needs much more CPU power and memory. The basic version looks better, so why they hadn't done it.

Price, IBM targets the product line to rich companies. There's no Community version.

Backward compatibility. It's a wonder a app made with R1 can still runs in the latest version server. But how many customers consider it as a great feature. When compatibily conflicts with performance, better design, IBM always choose the former.(take new tabbed table in R6 for example)

In a word, IBM tends to insists on its own philosophy, regardless of whether it's welcome outward. «

COMMENT: ED BRILL

DEC 30, 2008 - 01:26:29 AM

» There's no community version, but there is an Express version which is priced on a per-user basis and is pretty inexpensive. «

COMMENT: JEFF CROSSETT

DEC 30, 2008 - 01:51:28 PM

» Inexpensive compared to what? Compared to other options available to them, or compared to the full license?

BTW: This hit Slashdot today and the comments there are pretty similar to these.

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/29/1752205 «

COMMENT: LUKE

DEC 31, 2008 - 11.05.37

» Talking about open-sourcing, there are lot more articles nowadays on the web like these: http://dotnetaddict.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/ruby_vs_aspnet_1.htm .

So, if Domino is bad and needs to go open-source, why are people picking .net as substitute , which is another closed-source platform, always behind and trying to recope (add-ins for MVC, a bad add-in for Ajax in 3.5) with what's cool at the moment? Why not go for a full open-source approach? «

COMMENT: MICHAEL

JAN 13, 2009 - 07:57:24 PM

» Make it the killer platform it was going to be: bring back Garnet (Apache) and let the WebSphere people fend for themselves. R6 should have been a J2EE server and that move still stings. Bring it back and watch the numbers grow. It's the 'swiss army knife' of application servers. It needs its big blade back. «