Gartner : Dissatisfaction With IBM and Microsoft E-Mail and Calendaring Is Real
I must get my hands on this report (yes you need a subscription unfortunately). The small clipping does not indicate positive analysis about Microsoft either but is quite explicit on IBM …
Quantitative data from a recent Gartner survey shows that IBM’s seat share for e-mail and calendaring systems is significantly smaller than we thought, and that both Microsoft and IBM are losing customers to each other.
Source : Gartner.com
Update 24/1/07 : After scanning through the report I can only encourage you to go read it ! I can only say ‘The boss loves Microsoft’ 🙂
That’s fighting talk Peter!
So what will MS do with this? Will it help shape enhancements?
We are finding Outlook calendaring to be quite delinquent at times. I wonder if Gartner are reporting the same concerns we see.
Any specifics?
Simon,
You are completely right. Also Microsoft has work to do to continue its success in the Enterprise eMail space.
Unfortunaly I can not share the contents of this report as it has copyright all over it.
If you do have access to Gartner info I would urge you to read it, the position of IBM in this space is a real eyeopener …
…if you believe Gartner’s report. They’ve been writing the death of Notes for like ten years. Yet IBM just reported Notes/Domino revenue grew 30% in Q4 year to year, and an increase of 1500 customers in 2006. I’ll hold IBM’s quantified results up against a survey conducted on e-rewards.com any day.
Ed,
..Yes, Radicati, Gartner, they must all be wrong 😉
For sure the great results of Lotus in Q4 of last year are not materialised in any way in this report.
We’ve had the revenue / marketshare discussion once before. Also Microsoft is not doing a bad job in revenue growth. The 30% by the way is only mentioned at Lotusphere, so it must be the right thing, on the other hand it is hard to validate other than hearing it from IBM people.
I look at Gartner as an independent source and I do think people like Tom Austin are always quite balanced in their opinion, both in reports and to clients directly.
From my perspective, so what I see happening in the market the report is spot on, it is the truth. I am not saying this bacause I work for MS, but because I what I observe in the enterprise market. This *is* the same market we are talking about ?
It is a pittty the figures in the report can not be shared 🙁 that would make the discussion a lot easier
“The 30% by the way is only mentioned at Lotusphere, so it must be the right thing, on the other hand it is hard to validate other than hearing it from IBM people.” It’s in an SEC filing, too, any issues with that? It’s not like IBM has a “core CAL” equivalent where IBM can allocate revenue amongst several products as they see fit.
*
Ed,
Your right about the financial statement. It is also in the IBM Q4 presentation I saaw this morning. The 30 percent is for the whole Lotus Group of products, whiuch is more than just Lotus Notes and Domino ?
Y/Y growth for Lotus comes down to an avarage of 11% for the full year I believe.
Can’t comment on Microsof’s financial policies, you seem to know things I don’t.
Wrt the could be I have not looked at the sample group. I *can* tell you that it is good for the report (from an IBM perspective) that it doesn’t include Netherlands) 😀
If you say so.
Actually, you might have missed it, but I wrote this in my comments on the Lotusphere opening session: “First, Ken Bisconti specifically called out 30% growth for Notes/Domino in his OGS comments. This is the first time in quite some time I can recall one of our executive explicitly revealing per-product results. I felt this was key, as some skeptics thought maybe that Lotus’s phenomenal Q4 was accomplished through other portfolio products. Now you know that we did it with Notes as much as anything else.”
http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/my-thoughts-on-todays-lotusphere-announcements
@ Ben,
The m,arketshare discussion continuous to intrigue me … it is and will continue to be a very important measure to me.
I do not share your sentiment when it comes to Radicati I’m sorry.
Setting aside market share quibbles—no-one ever seems to agree about that anyway—is anyone thinking about *why* corporate customers seem to feel the need to yo-yo between different email providers? Could it be that neither vendor is delivering in this space for some segments of the market?
Either way, you should know bettern that to mention Radicati when you’re talking about “analysts” Peter ;o)