Reply to eWeek
Since eWeek hasn't seen fit to publish ANY comments to this article, here's my reply...
I'm sorry, did you just quote DAN LYONS on Notes market share numbers!? From 2005!?! In an article that highlights CompUSA's migration to Exchange? You know that company went bankrupt last year, right?
Oh wait, the article also quotes Sara Radicati. Well she's a fountain of insight. That was the same year she claimed that "blogging will fade away from the corporate world." http://www.informationweek.com/software/messaging/57700155#_
I notice you don't offer any actual business reasons why IBM may or may not be successful in this arena. So I'll do your job for you, and I'll offer one...
"Social networking and collaboration technologies are not successful in top-down implementations. IBM, historically, has targeted awareness of their products only at the top of enterprises. In order to be successful in Web 2.0 and Unified Communications, they are going to have to drum up end-user interest on the scale of the iPhone -- an "oh my god I absolutely have to have that cool thing!" level of excitement.
IBM has never been good at that. They must get good at it, by treating the Lotus product line as a consumer line from a marketing standpoint, even as they continue to engineer it as a business line."
If you'd said that, this might be an article worth reading. Otherwise, you're just drumming out rehashes of what 3rd rate editors and analysts said 3 years ago and were subsequently proved wrong. That's not journalism. That's not even opinion. That's just lazy.
