Discussions

News: IBM announces new software strategy to kill Microsoft

Bookmark and Share Get thread feed

  1. IBM announces new software strategy to kill Microsoft (25 messages)

    • Posted by: Dion Almaer
    • Posted on: May 13 2004 12:11 EDT
    "IBM has announced a new software strategy, with accompanying products, designed to circumvent Microsoft's lock on operating systems and productivity applications.

    Updates to IBM's client, administration and portal software will allow everything from desktop PCs to smartphones to access the same data - including Microsoft Office data - using standards-based middleware instead of a Microsoft client.

    The strategy is similar to the "thin client" approach earlier championed by Oracle, Sun and others, which advocated the use of easily-manageable terminals as an alternative to bulky, powerful, complex Windows PCs.


    Unlike that idea, IBM's Lotus Workplace-centred strategy is designed to work alongside "rich clients" such as Windows and Microsoft Office, while extending access to the thin clients already in wide use - namely, handheld computers, smartphones and even older Windows machines. "IBM is combining the low total cost of ownership and immediate deployment qualities of web applications with the rich functionality of traditional PC software," IBM said in a statement."

    Read IBM prepares to blow open Microsoft's monopoly.

    Also check out the press release: IBM Outlines New Software Model To Build, Deploy and Manage Applications and Data Across Variety of Client Environments
    Reply to this

    Threaded Messages (25)

  2. Lotus eSuite...[ Go to top ]

    Does anybody remember Lotus eSuite? :-)

    http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-204932.html
    Reply to this Reply to original

  3. Using workflow to implement traditional applications...[ Go to top ]

    I love this move, and have always advocated this approach. I am a huge fan of webapps because of security and control.

    I would like to see a plethora of applications constructed via webapps. In particular, word processing spreadsheets, etc., as well as mroe complex ERP systems. This is pretty far off, and noone has the killer stack for this...yet.

    That said, thin web clients for the workforce means huge savings on licensing and hardware costs in the short, medium, and longer terms.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  4. Lotus eSuite... Remembered[ Go to top ]

    Somewhere in the middle of good implementation and bad advertising is right where eSuite fell. I supported eSuite for a while and thought it was a really good idea until IBM decided to discontinue it. Hopefully IBM will keep the muscle up on this one.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  5. sounds great ! but not that easy[ Go to top ]

    Lot of companies have given it a shot before. Lets see this new approach.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  6. Lotus eSuite...[ Go to top ]

    * YAWN *
    Reply to this Reply to original

  7. Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    But this cracks me up. The actual press release is secondary to some fairly emotive interpretation of it. I was sure I was reading /. there for a minute.

    What really amuses me though is I see this valiant bid by IBM to break the desktop monopoly and kill Microsoft as an attempt by IBM to flog the abomination that is Websphere and invoke plagues of IBM 'consultants' on unsuspecting businesses in order to create large scale vendor lock in. (OK they admit this themselves, apart from the 'close customer collaboration' bit)

    That aside though I can see the attraction from the corporate side and it will be interesting to see IBM's plans fleshed out and how they intend to mix the thin/rich client requirements. However, and I'm open to correction here, my understanding is that XAML will essentially allow rich UI's and data to be served to clients on demand and also for processing to be performed on the server so its not like MS are standing still on this one.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  8. Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    create large scale vendor lock in.
    Err, actually IBM is more on open side these days especially compared with Microsoft. Sure, you can use WebSphere/MQ/DB2 and run on AIX/zOS, but you can also mix and match - look at the ebay J2EE architecture, I don't have the details but I recall that was a strong point of the IBM architecture for ebay. Here are a few examples for you though: WebSphere Commerce Suite runs against Oracle on a Sun Solaris box, or running IBM Content Manager against an Oracle database. And of course they have been supporting Linux way before most of the other big guns, i.e. HP, Sun etc.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  9. Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    Err, actually IBM is more on open side these days especially compared with Microsoft. Sure, you can use WebSphere/MQ/DB2 and run on AIX/zOS, but you can also mix and match .... And of course they have been supporting Linux way before most of the other big guns, i.e. HP, Sun etc.
    IBM is using open source in a very pragmatic way. They compete with microsoft and SUN/HP with Linux and open source but I can't imagine them open sourcing websphere/MQ/DB2. They are pro-linux because it is a tactical advantage, not pro-open.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  10. Wishful Thinking[ Go to top ]

    The day everyone is connected all the time at every corner of the planet will such thin client solutions will take the first step towards such wishful thinking( of blowing away rich apps). And then it would still fail !!!!!

    The reason is modern day PCs are big powerful entertainment machines. Why should we leave oodles of processing power and memory just for Games. We surely can use it for lots of great rich apps (which as it happens today can be installed/updated over the net).

    The world will have use both for thin and rich clients and no one will blow anyone apart.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  11. Wishful Thinking[ Go to top ]

    Why should we leave oodles of processing power and memory just for Games. We surely can use it for lots of great rich apps
    I am sure Microsoft is happy to sell you a fat client. You probably have to buy more memory to run it, but memory is cheap.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  12. Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    ... as an attempt by IBM to flog the abomination that is Websphere and invoke plagues of IBM 'consultants' on unsuspecting businesses in order to create large scale vendor lock in.
    Anybody remember Websphere 3.5?
    I'd rather choose to be locked in to MS software than to work with such a horrid product again. IBM sucks!

    Regards,
    Stefan
    Reply to this Reply to original

  13. Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    i agree. And its soooo difficult to get thru the red books and other colored books of IBM. You got to pay ibm some consulting fees before u can start using their complex not so well documented products. IBM cannot be treated as a tool against microsoft. given its history - IBM is as bad as microsoft too. I guess they may use this "anti - MSFT" wave for their profit. Well most likely we will be locked in IBM.
    Anyway -- lets wait n watch
    Reply to this Reply to original

  14. Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    i agree. And its soooo difficult to get thru the red books and other colored books of IBM. You got to pay ibm some consulting fees before u can start using their complex not so well documented products. IBM cannot be treated as a tool against microsoft. given its history - IBM is as bad as microsoft too. I guess they may use this "anti - MSFT" wave for their profit. Well most likely we will be locked in IBM. Anyway -- lets wait n watch
    We never had that problem. And the redbooks are pretty good. I have spent days searching for the tiniest bit of important info to help me do .Net.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  15. re: Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    I could not disagree with you more.

    As a J2EE developer who almost solely uses WebSphere 5, my experience with IBM's enterprise products has been quite positive.
    WebSphere server is very feature rich.
    IMHO, the only other J2EE app server in its league is BEA's WebLogic.

    If you can afford it, WebSphere Studio Application Developer 5.x is also an exceptional product.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  16. re: Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    "IMHO, the only other J2EE app server in its league is BEA's WebLogic."

    Don't flatter yourself and don't insult the common sense. IBM has never produced good-enough software for anything.

    You know, its really a great feeling to see the likes of IBM, Oracle, HP, CA and a few others with billions of dollars, still can't produce decent software.

    Wonderful, good software is still the product of common sense, hard work, intelligence and passion.

    I think BEA should buy Borland and become the premier "whatever" technology provider.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  17. exceptional product[ Go to top ]

    You are right "an exceptional product". That is why we are going to use just XDoclet.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  18. Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    ... as an attempt by IBM to flog the abomination that is Websphere and invoke plagues of IBM 'consultants' on unsuspecting businesses in order to create large scale vendor lock in.
    Anybody remember Websphere 3.5?I'd rather choose to be locked in to MS software than to work with such a horrid product again. IBM sucks!Regards,Stefan
    Yes. And compared to IIS/ASP - any pain was worth it.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  19. Colour me cynical[ Go to top ]

    I've been around a few of the earlier AppServers and my bid for the worst was iPlanet.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  20. not thin-client but Eclipse core with SWT[ Go to top ]

    This topic was recently discussed on slashdot. In my view
    the term "thin-client" is dead wrong here.
    Read http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107020&cid=9107072
    IBM's strategy for rich client desktop apps is to build on
    the Eclipse core (which primarily means desktop Java apps
    which use their native-speed widget set called SWT). Of
    course, serverside functionality can also be invoked in
    many ways (SOAP, EJB client, etc) also the plugin code
    itself can be pushed out from a webserver. But still a
    JVM must be running on the client to execute the plugin,
    so I would not call this "thin-client"
    Reply to this Reply to original

  21. nice attitude[ Go to top ]

    Now this is a nice attitude. Let’s not do anything because we failed in the past.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  22. nice attitude[ Go to top ]

    I have to agree, it's the attitude that's more impressive. Let's hope it hots up, a few punches, a kick, one below the belt. :-)

    -John-
    Reply to this Reply to original

  23. Websphere is good product[ Go to top ]

    I also have to disagree with some of the posters. I currently work with IBM Webshere 5 and it is a great product in my opinion. I have also worked with versions 3.5, 4.0 and Commerce Suite running on 3.5 when you were forced to use Visual Age. They advanced quite a bit in the past few years.

    I would like to add that I have also worked with other AppServers such as Cold Fusion, JRun, Orion, Weblogic, JBoss, and currently with SAP NetWeaver, so I've had experience with other products too.

    I had a chance to work with all three major versions of Websphere and here is the evolution in my opinion:

    Websphere 3.5 w/ Visual Age = Horrible
    Websphere 4 w/ JBuilder = Good
    Websphere 5 w/ Eclipse = Excelent

    Websphere is not bug free, but then no AppServer is. The thing I like the most about working with IBM is that when we do find a problem, it is fixed fast.

    Of course, you can claim that with JBoss, you can fix the problem yourself much faster. IBM's response is fast enough and in my case, I don't have the time to be fixing Application Server bugs, I'd rather spend my time working on billing projects.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  24. Re : Websphere is good product[ Go to top ]

    I think so.

    We use WebSphere 4, WebSphere Portal 4 and WebSphere Studio Application Developer.
    I think that WebSphere is a best AppServer. WebSphere Studio has many future for develop application. It was a good choice.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  25. Re : Websphere is good product[ Go to top ]

    I think so.We use WebSphere 4, WebSphere Portal 4 and WebSphere Studio Application Developer. I think that WebSphere is a best AppServer. WebSphere Studio has many future for develop application. It was a good choice.
    While I'm usin WAS/WPS too...I must admin that migration of your code from WPS4 to WPS 5 is real pain.
    Reply to this Reply to original

  26. Lock-in vs. really lock-in[ Go to top ]

    Hey cool idea, instead of getting vendor lock-in on the desktop, IBM is going to promise vendor lock-in in the enterprise. Smart move and lot's of consultant hours in there. And because it is all based on "open standards" - controlled by guess who - you will be able to replace it with every other non available version of the standard.

    Suddenly, M.S. seems a lot more philantropic to me :-)
    Reply to this Reply to original