« Privacy & Social Network Sites: A Case Of Conflicting Agendas | Main | Expertise Location: Not Just A Tooling Issue »

January 28, 2010


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


Good sum up, Mike!
I write my diploma thesis about MOSS 2007 as an Enterprise 2.0 tool.
I also think MS will regain some customers with the 2010 release but they have to put more emphasis on constant updates. I mean the Web 2.0 is about parpetual beta, but MS did not get that. Smaller companies like Jive with the focus on Social Software got that point right.

SharePoint is a business tool for so many usecases. I mean take a look at the pillars. Maybe it has gotten too big and you are right they should seperate some parts. Today i read an aricle about that:
IBM has a differne approach. They try to offer a plattform with seperate module-like offerings. The problem here is that they do not itegrate as well as complete suite. Maybe MS should go this way and try to build a web-bases collaboration suite with modules like there unified communication offering with Exchange and Communication Server.


Thank you for the good post, Mike. I agree with most of your points. Too bad we have to wait so long to see how everything turns out.

Herkens, I'd be happy to hear more of your thoughts on MOSS 2007 and Enterprise 2.0 since I'm working on a similar project right now. You'll find me on Twitter..

Eric Sauve, VP NewsGator Technologies


This is interesting analysis.

One thing that I would place more emphasis on is on SharePoint as a platform rather than simply an application, and relatedly the partner community of technology vendors that augment it. In my mind, it is kind of like looking at the iPhone without considering the App Store of third party vendors -

For example, considering Thesis point #1, while SP 2010 may not be a viable solution for external sites right now, partners such as Tomoye (now NewsGator) have a lite-weight, market-proven, web-ready solution ON the SharePoint platform that is deployed externally facing. This means that IT organizations don't have to ditch their vision for externally facing SharePoint, but go for a proven vendor that allows them to meet the point solution requirement as well as maintain their focus on Microsoft as the platform of choice.

And similarly, related to point #4 of your thesis, if we look at SharePoint as a platform and not simply as an application, and we note a rich set of partners that build on top of it, the pressure is less to iterate quicker for application layer features - as this is done by the partners who deploy seamlessly on it. This allows Microsoft to continue to built its integrated plumbing (of which it is unmatched) and have partners travel the distance to out-of-the-box point solutions for social computing, externally facing communities, etc.

If you are a Microsoft SharePoint shop, a point solution on SharePoint is way better than one that is not for so many reasons.... When things stay on SP you more easily allow for information cross-pollination, more seamless authentication, cross-site searching, etc, etc - you also are more able to leverage internal IT expertise and infrastructure.

Anyways - my 2 cents from someone deep into the SharePoint marketplace :)


Thank you Mike for giving such an interesting and dedicated analysis.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter