Duffbert's Random Musings

1 - Good points, Duff. They need to get out there, or their competition will take some market share. People will see this document and look for the IBM one. If they do not see it, they will fill-in the blanks using the MS document as a guide.

2 - IBM marketing?

Love your optimism.

---* bill

3 - Agreed. IBM Marketing needs to respond publicly. Fortunately, IBM has Ed Brill who is quote good at response papers. Let's just hope that the IBM Marketing team can agree this this is a worthwhile endeavor. It needs to be.

4 - I've just read the paper, but, did not say Microsoft that Lotus Domino was dead? Could it be that there are customers that do not support the Exchange's workload? I think this document is very easy to answer with little effort.

5 - A quick look at the case study IBM purchases makes for interesting reading.

Anyway Microsoft FUD in action.

Anybody with half a brain would see that the paper states Microsoft Content management is to blame and the paper states that part of the issue was several version of office. And of course being bullied by vendors. Sounds like a well oiled organisation.

All I can say about the sub 1000 estate is that 1 Designer license were being maintained. So you buy a Ferrari but then refuse to use second gear and feel the need to blame Ferrari for a bad product? Go figure.

How could anybody possibly respond to a paper that has no factual value but simply tenuous information at best.

6 - A number of you aren't getting it, and Eric & Bill(s) aren't the ones.

"This document is very easy to answer"... by who? Those with Notes/Domino expertise. And where are those individuals when this particular MS page is being discussed. Quite often, they're not part of the conversation...

"respond to a paper that has no factual value but simply tenuous information at best"... Again, he who fires the first shots gets to establish a certain baseline level of "truth" that others will accept. In the mind of many who read this, no "response" is necessary. "Exchange is better than Domino, Domino's playing catch-up, and isn't IBM not supporting it any more?"

It's not about accuracy and raw facts. It's about mindshare and perceptions. This MS page plays into existing perceptions about Domino, and as such would be questioned far less than one might think.

7 - Ho hum. Another document from MSFT that can be endlessly picked apart by the Yellowverse.

Has MSFT issued one of these in the last 6 years that hasn't been responded to, Tom? Do you have a reason to think this will be any different?

Of course, the problem will be that while IBM might write a reply, chances are that no one will read it, because to find it, you have to go here { Link } And good luck discovering a link to that page on ibm.com.

8 - @7... picking apart by the Yellowverse, while fun, doesn't often translate to greater understanding in the marketplace, as you well know. And I think you hit on what I was trying to say without grasping it myself...

Information hidden is equal to no information at all...

9 - I really should have commented here last night.

Guys, there's nothing really here to respond to. Seriously. There's some assertions about how Exchange 2010 (beta, mind you) is great and wonderful and will solve world hunger. There are a few jabs at how it's better than Notes. There's a link to an old case study. There's a link to a comment on a blog entry of mine from many moons ago.

In some ways, it's validating that despite MS using bogus market share reports that claim we have as little as 10% (versus Gartner Dataquest or IDC that put it at 35-40%), you have to wonder what they are so afraid of that they have to proactively attack with a beta product.

You also have to wonder who the audience is. Right now, this report has been on microsoft.com for two weeks. I've had 12 referrals to the blog entry from it in that two week period. Yes, I understand that the page is being printed out and passed around and whatever, but we're not likely to reach those readers regardless of where or how we respond.

Last, the point of some of these competitive attacks is to waste the time of the opponent. Distract 'em with a small tactic here to avoid the larger battle there. Not everything either side publishes results in a point-counterpoint. At least not a direct response.

It's not a matter of not being able to respond. I could fire off a response in an hour or so and have it on ibm.com in several places within a week. It doesn't cost me anything to do that. But this tactic isn't new and it hasn't been successful in the last, oh, five years.

I appreciate the "we need help" feeling in the comments here. I'm not invalidating your feeling upon reading this. I'm just asking you to see it in the bigger picture.

10 - Hold on there, Ed.

"But this tactic isn't new and it hasn't been successful in the last, oh, five years."

Really!??!

"Lotus was down 12 percent." { Link }

I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that IBM doesn't want to respond because it won't help to do so -- but to claim MSFT's tactic doesn't work? That's putting your head in the sand.

11 - Nate, I can't comment on specifics of IBM financials but you all have been at this long enough to know that there is more to the Lotus brand number than Notes. Also, did you check out MS Q1 financials? First loss ever for produxcts like Office, and Exchange was part of a group that grew less than average. MS wouldn't givew any guidance on those products for their fiscal Q4, either.

12 - @11 - You response would suggest that while the Lotus brand was down 12 percent, Notes/Domino wasn't. And therefore MSFT's competitive tactic still doesn't work.

Well, if MSFT's Exchange business grew "less than average" and yours didn't grow, then that seems like a damn fine data point to say that the competitive tactic is working.

While I can appreciate that maybe the last quarter saw a tremendous fall off of Connections and Portal sales, I have a hard time believing that those products were so dismal as to pull the entire brand down 12 percent in spite of growth in Notes & Domino.

Frankly, I've been hoping that the fall off would be a wake up call for corporate that the Lotus brand needs some serious attention if it's going to do more than meet unambitious targets. I've never understood why corporate doesn't see MSFT as a bigger threat against the Lotus business, particularly in North America and Western Europe. And it just might help if you guys sweated more over positions like this one from your competition.

13 - @12 & @11 - Ed said, and I heard that too, that MS had a loss. Looking here { Link } seems like client was a huge loss with -19% and the server wasn't very strong with only +4.4% - mind you thats all Server&Tools.

But what I found most telling is the link on the MS site - they say its all one product, bla bla, and if you go here (UC 2007 version): { Link } it again links to { Link } you see:
OCS 2007
Office Communicator 2007
Exchange Office 2007
OCS 2007 Speech Server
Live Communications Server 2005

I have a Exchange 2003 server at the historical society I volunteer at (because Domino isn't available at techsoup.com, ehm..). I have worked with MS Server OS for the last 15+ years. With Exchange off and on since 1999. Domino & Notes since 1993. Learned Novell in between there too...

Anyway, I still can't figure out how to change the quota, size of the Exchange mailbox - actually, I think I found the place where to change the warning threshold a couple days ago, but set it to low, and now I can't find it again.

Also, still can't find a way how to check other peoples mail boxes - all documents I found weren't for Outlook 2007 :-/

It is soooo easy.

Should IBM respond to MS weird claims? I don't know. Apple is whamming on MS every day. MS started to hit back with the "We are cheaper" campaign.

I read an article somewhere comparing Apple (simple and sleek and consistent) to Microsofts (erratic and panicky) marketing campaigns.

Whats IBMs like? I see ads sometime on CNN.... they are blue and quite sleek. Effective?

14 - Does IBM internally believe in Domino the way we developers and admins do? I have seen a number of IBM products that could have been done with just plain old core Domino in skilled hands. I get the feeling that they really don't believe in the product's capabilities. Otherwise why wouldn't they market it and compete with MS?