|
Inaccurate, Inconsistent Reporting on Lotus Products Take a look at this so-called "product roundup, datelined July 19th. In the former, the claim is made that the minimum license cost for 10 users of ND 6.51 is $6,224, including a $276/user price. I have no idea where they get that from. Possibly by including the Lotus Document Management license cost in the numbers even though the heading would imply that they're just talking about vanilla Notes and Domino, and even though some of the other products in the roundup don't include anything comparable to Lotus Document Management, and even though ten users is well below the threshold where a full-blown document management system is normally considered. In any case, ten users easily qualifies for Lotus' Express pricing, which has been available for what?... about a year now?... at a price of (I believe) $119 per user, originally, and now $133 per user -- with no server license fees, making the cost of the 10 user deployment just $1330. And the 1000 user deployment cost for Notes and Domino 6.51 is $133,000, not the quoted $300,000. Now take a look at this listing of "collaboration software vendors", also in ComputerWorld, and also datelined June 19th. Note that the only Lotus product listed is "Lotus Domino Express", whereas the other article never mentioned "Express" in connection with the ten user deployment price. The two pieces do have different by-lines, but IMHO that certainly doesn't excuse it. Also, why just list one Lotus product in the collaboration space when some other companies with far less penetration in the collaboration market -- e.g., collaboration niche vendors like InQuest Technologies -- had more than one product called out by name. What about Lotus' Team Workplace, and Web Conferencing products? For that matter, the only Microsoft product listed was Sharepoint, when in fact a Microsoft collaboration solution even close to being comparable with Notes and Domino would have to include at least Exchange, and really many more Microsoft products.
Sigh
|