Is it dangerous to criticise Lotus Notes?

Rod Boothby posted an article entitled Simple Recipe for Leaving Lotus Notes. The title probably overstated his case, but he pointed out that there are more accessible and attractive tools in the Office 2.0 marketplace, and that "Lotus lock-in" may be overstated. He's also reflecting a sense that Lotus Notes may have reached it's "sell-by" date.

Rod doesn't pick on IBM alone. In the same article, he referred to another post -- Is Microsoft Losing it's Network Effect? -- in which he quoted Nitin Duggal, a Product Manager with Yahoo! search:

People used to have to buy Windows machines because that was what you needed to run MS Office and most other software. But people aren't building applications on the Windows any more; they are building them on the web.

There's definitely that buzz about. He's saying something that worries everyone at Microsoft too. No-one here wants to be a case study in the 2007 edition of The Innovators' Dilemma.

However, what's interesting is the reaction  he got from the Notes community. Much of it was a passionate defence of Notes, and some of that included the aggressive personal attacks that you have to get used to online.  In a long follow-up post called Lotus Notes - The Asbestos of Enterprise IT,  he dealt with many of them.

He wrapped up his individual responses  with two observations. The first dealt with the nastiness of some of the comments:

If I am right that Lotus Notes faces a real threat from a new generation of Enterprise 2.0 collaboration tools, then it is easy to understand why both IBM and people with an extensive personal investment in Lotus Notes / Domino are going to do everything they can to forestall that change; including shooting the messenger.

I have already felt the brunt of some personal and nasty comments.   My guess is there will be more.   That is unfortunate.   I am not in competition with IBM.   I am just an end user who is interested in seeing better technologies within the enterprise.   It would be nice to see a civil debate, instead of name calling.

He concluded his post with a section titled One Big Disappointment, in which he said:

I really enjoy writing this blog.   I do make mistakes and amazingly, kind people help me correct them quickly.  

However, that has not been my experience with Ed Brill

Ed Brill is Business Unit Executive, Worldwide Lotus Messaging Sales, IBM Software Group.

From his post entitled Rod Boothby on Notes, part two -- second verse, worse than the first

Between that and his linkedin profile, we can determine that Mr. Boothby has never been in IT, has no background in Lotus Notes (other than that of an end-user), and that most of his academic and work background is in finance.

As many comments here and on Rod's posting suggest, Mr. Boothby should have quit while he was behind.

First, I think it is interesting that as far as Ed is concerned, 2 1/2 years of using Lotus Notes as an end user counts as "no background in Lotus Notes".   That shows you what respect he has for end users and their opinions.

Second, I find it shocking that a senior IBM executive would use his site to comment on an individual blogger in this way.

Rod made a case that could be argued. Like most arguments, his wasn't watertight, and smart people could (and do) differ. However, the reaction was over the top.

Can we get to an online environment where it's OK to disagree and, instead of attacking people, it's the quality of our arguments that speak for us?

Comments

[cliffreeves]

Ed, I think most people would agree that Notes can and does shine. Most successful products do, and Notes has to be called a successful product.

However, the Notes community, and you are the spokesman for that community, have an overly-aggressive response to every criticism. That makes you look weak in my opinion and actually harms your cause.

You've probably seen this http://www.basicthinking.de/blog/2006/10/10/why-does-lotus-notes-suck/

"Ed Brill, one of this guys at IBM with a long title (Business Unit Executive, Worldwide Lotus Messaging Sales, IBM Software Group) and a longtime Blogger is getting really cheap on Rod, by trying to question his reputation and the whole thoughts behind Rods blogposting"

"That is not the way to speak with your customers (or lets say potential customers) out there, Ed. Why dont you speak about the future developments of such groupware collaboration monoliths = LN? Is there something to focus on “office 2.0″? How will IBM help their customers to get better tools? Man, you dissapointed me so much!! You dont have to behave like a junk car seller."

Ed, folks will criticise each other's products and they'll use extravagant arguments sometimes. You do it all the time with discussions of forklift upgrades and Exchange store strategies. My reaction to that stuff is quiet irritation and to discount the writer. I think most people do the same.

So, when someone crtitcises Notes, I think you might consider getting a little more thoughtful on your blog. Don't feel you have to react to every criticism and especiually don't ever insult someone who criticises Notes.

I believe you should set a better example. Let other people take the cheap shots. Address criticism solely on its merits, and keep to the point.

Take the high road most of the time.

Just a thought.

[Charles Robinson]

In case anyone is still reading this, I want to point out that I am not now nor have I ever been a Notes or Domino consultant, and I am not in any way affiliated with IBM or Lotus. I am a Lotus customer and work in an internal IT department doing Notes development and Domino administration.

I would also like to mention that I am a very vocal critic of Notes and Domino and am working toward updating my skillset so I can do other types of work. I'm by no means one of the blind faithful.

[Dave Madison]

Ed, Cliff is making my point much better than I. While it may be true that there are many in the Notes community that make to effort to understnad the customer's motivation ans then try to focus on solving the cutomer's problem there seem to be just as many that are more interested in shouting down those that dare criticize Notes or those that would consider moving to another platform. It my very well be true that you are a very rational and professional person when speaking to customers that are considering alternatives to Notes. But, that does not come through in the majoity of blog posts and comments from the Notes cursaders when this comes up. The most telling one is the one from Mr. Robinson that feels his career threatened when this comes up. Why would a customer factor that into their decision criteria?

I'm sure Notes does "shine" in a lot of scenarios. Whether is does or not is not often the case when customers are considering alternatives. So, what would help the larger audience would to be acknowledge the issue then engage in a thoughtful debate about how to approach the issue.

[Charles Robinson]

Dave, I'm not speaking for my employer or as a Lotus customer. I'm speaking for me, personally, as one guy making his way through the world creating business applications along the way.

Just so we aren't distracted, Rod's original premise was that it is *easy* to migrate away from Notes, and after his "education" he changed that to a lament about how *difficult* it is. At this point I'm honestly not sure what point Rod is/was trying to make because he's changed his message (figuratively and literally) so many times.

Cliff, taking the high road would have been to respond in private, not make this even more of a public spectacle.

[Dag Kvello]

Cliff is good at cloaking his "needles", presenting them as sound and reasonable "arguments". But he is pretty much supporting Rods flawed arguments/proposition while presenting it as critisism of "The Notes Crusaders" going bananas on Rods blog. Your colours are showing and so are Your fact-filters. Most of us are capable of reading and its easy to see when You filter away information when commenting on the debacle so as to suit Your own agenda.

[cliffreeves]

Dag,

I really haven't said much about Rod's argument except that there are some simple cases in which it's reasonable. I'd also agree it's simplistic and have agreed with the technical points people made.

I think you'd make a better case if you didn't presume to represent me. If you take issue with something I said, then please tackle it directly. I'm happy to debate it, and if I feel I was wrong-thinking or expressed myself poorly, then I'll say so.

So far, you've simply said "this is what Cliff really means," and I can tell you clearly and honestly that you are wrong.

[Dave Madison]

Charles,

Fair enough. I think the point is, the merits of Mr. Boothby's argument could have been intelligently debated with the many and varied ad homimen attacks on his credentials, his intelligence and his motives, as well as Cliffs. I was also nonplussed about the comment regarding the threat to your livelyhood and how debating Mr. Boothby's position was even remotely relevant.