Au contraire: Exchange's lead over Notes actually 'getting bigger and bigger,' says Gartner
From Computerworld: Au contraire: Exchange's lead over Notes actually 'getting bigger and bigger,' says Gartner
OK... a different view heading into Lotusphere from one of the analysts...
While IBM Corp. argued Thursday that its Lotus Notes collaboration software was turning the tide against the market leader, Microsoft Corp.'s Exchange, a Gartner Inc. analyst said that's not the case.
"I don't believe that in either revenue or user seat share, that IBM is closing the gap [with Microsoft]," Tom Austin, a Gartner analyst, told Computerworld on Thursday. "The gap is getting bigger and bigger."
Austin, a Gartner group vice president and research fellow who conducted that research, said that statistic was for 2007 shipments of Notes versus Exchange only. It is far different than the percentage of workers actually using either software today, the installed base.
For that, "Microsoft Exchange has at least three times the users of Notes with enterprises with 500 or more users," Austin said. IBM may be adding Notes users, but its share of the installed base "is getting smaller," he said.
Now, Austin does go on to say that Notes 8 has helped staunch the flow of moves to Exchange:
"Notes 8 has staunched some of the anxiety IBM inflicted on itself when it was pushing Workplace as a Notes replacement, causing its user base to freak," he said. "They can honestly say that Notes 8 today is almost as good as Outlook."
However, Austin thinks IBM won't be able to start winning large companies back until it starts to "carpetbomb" corporate end users with marketing and free copies of Notes the way Microsoft did when it was building up Outlook in the late 1990s.
"Mere mortals, not IT people, are going to have more and more say, but IBM adamantly refuses to do anything that would piss off IT buyers and senior executives," Austin said.
"Carpetbomb" corporate end users... I know more than a few in the Notes community would wholeheartedly agree to that.
It's frustrating that for something that sounds so straightforward and simple (who runs what software), no one can agree on a counting methodology, analyst percentages differ wildly, and vendors tout the numbers that make them look best. I'm surprised that Enron didn't try to develop a market in trading seat counts... :)