« Building Teams: Part Art, Part Science | Main | Microsoft Finds Its Voice »

March 04, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ross Mayfield

Hi Mike --

Yes, we expect our value to erode release-to-release, if we don't continue to release ourselves. Which we do in a timeframe measured by days, not years. As first to market and first to feature, we have to keep moving to remain the best-of-breed vendor. Clients benefit from choice.

> "It's easy for people to use "that function will be in the next release" to deflect support for business requirements that may result in tremendous short-term value."

Isn't that the opposite of what Lawrence did in his blog post? I'm sure he could have, and your gut could be right. But I imagine it is based largely on an embedded reaction to prior FUD.

Mike Gotta

Hi Ross -- to clarify my comment - IT organizations need to consider best-of-breed or specialized tools based on business need not future vendor deliverables that might not happen for years. My concern is that "good enough" is sometimes not good enough.

IT organizations need solid architectural reference models when looking at MOSS 2007 and WSS 3.0. It should not be viewed as an all-or-nothing proposition -- for some enterprises, using MOSS 2007 alongside a specialized blog or wiki solution should be a viable deployment based on their business requirements.

But in 2-3 years, whenever the next release of MOSS occurs, I would expect that vendors will need to look at MOSS as a platform upon which they deliver blog/wiki applications. Competing at an infrastructure level will become increasingly more difficult.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter