Disclaimer: I don’t have access to Jeff’s original words, only his words as reported by the Memeburn article, so there might be some differences in the interpretation.
The article mixes contexts like flammable fuels.
“Hardly anybody likes it” (yet, still 70% of companies see that at lest 50% of their employees use SharePoint at least once a week)
“The problem is that SharePoint is a victim of its own success” (I’ve never understood how this comment can be applied generally to anything. Don’t we want success?)
“It’s too big and complex” (the implication here is that IT Pros are scared of managing SharePoint, and once it is installed it is unusable…)
These points lead to the summary datapoint that drives the fear: “As a result, many people are using versions of SharePoint that are at least four years old.”
ACK! The Horror! The platform is dead because not everyone updated within the first six months! AUGH! Can you hear the anguished cries of IT Pros who don’t understand it when SharePoint upgrades don’t roll onto server boxes as smoothly as the most recent version of Microsoft Office? Or that, given the fact that the release cycle was 3 1/2 years in between SP2010 and SP2013, having a version that is 4+ years old at this point is actually the normal state of things?
A second line of reasoning in the article is that SharePoint “is too big and complex” and that IT shops would be better off using an entire range of point solutions to provide specific features instead of one large platform, such as SharePoint.
Really? What happens when you want to upgrade all 32 of the point applications that you had to install in order to match what SharePoint provided you? Certainly, all of them will upgrade at the same time so you’ll never have to worry about mismatched versions, right?
I’ll be the first to stand up and tell a business group that if you only want to do 4 things, then you should use stand alone tools, and SharePoint is not for you. However, for most medium-to-large enterprise that I’ve worked with, the amount of integration and services that are needed to meet business requirements just simply cannot be managed more efficiently with point solutions. If the organization does not work with SharePoint, they are probably working with another relatively large collaboration platform, from a large vendor. Point solutions are best for small companies, but not for medium-large.
The third point in the Memeburn article is that Microsoft should kill the on-premise version of SharePoint because Microsoft wants to move everyone to the cloud. And Microsoft will be the first to tell you that they believe that every employee can work just fine in the cloud. We have to remember, though, that enterprises are called large organizations because they have a lot of moving parts. It will take time. No need to rush.
And then the icing on the cake that just caused me to shake my head. “The installed base is so large that Microsoft will of course keep supporting it, but upgrades will be slower coming, and users shouldn’t expect the latest or greatest functionality.”
This statement is the most important of all of Jeffrey Mann’s quotes in the Memeburn article, and it is being treated as a consolation point. Users need to have this last quote etched in their minds, and instead of getting all sensational about “Should Microsoft Kill SharePoint???”, the article should focus on the meat of the news – that is, that your investment in SharePoint on-premise is going to be supported going forward, so don’t do anything crazy, but you should be moving to the cloud as your systems and enterprise software packages and tools allow. Moving to the cloud needs to be important.
But, please don’t shoot the horse while it is still attached to the plow.
While scanning a few blogs today – something that I haven’t taken the time to do frequently enough, it seems, I ran across Veronique Palmer’s blog entry which was a recap of her visit to SPC12 last week. (http://veroniquepalmer.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/thoughts-on-sharepoint-2013-after-the-conference)
I had the good fortune to run into Veronique at lunch one of the days and it was good to see her again. She has a huge source of energy running through her, and anyone who strays too close to her can’t help but feel the energy that she brings to SharePoint and, I can only imagine, the passion that she brings to her clients.
First, there was a lot of confusion and frustration about how Microsoft and SharePoint decided to release information about SharePoint 2013 (SP13) during this release cycle. Veronique was not the only one who complained about the seemingly targeted approach to the release of product information.
It seemed that the SharePoint team was following the lead from the Windows 8 team and keeping things as quiet as possible to avoid competitive product offerings as well as to maximize the “Wow” effect on the day of launch.
It might also have been the opinion of the SharePoint marketing team that with SharePoint 2010 doing so well in the marketplace, that the need for pre-launch buzz generated from conversations in the ecosystem about the product was minimal.
The potential downside of this is a reduction in the number of end-to-end product reviews that SharePoint could have received from partners and developers about the product, when each different type of developer or user was shown only the pieces of the product that were most necessary for them.
Another potential problem, which Veronique pointed out, was that time was “lost” in allowing consultants to be up to speed with the product at the time of launch. This had an impact on partners, as well, as many partners and consultants had a difficult time predicting the launch date, and many products had their timing set for post-January 2013, instead of being able to be ready for a November 2012 release date.
I can only imagine that Microsoft decided that it was, in fact, getting a good amount of feedback, and that these negatives were manageable.
The next set of points that Veronique makes in her blog entry apply to all users of SharePoint who are considering a SharePoint deployment.
It’s important to consider the following when considering/planning a SharePoint deployment:
- Do the research and go into your project with your eyes open about the possible alternatives.
- Make sure that you are listening to multiple sources for your information. Microsoft, consultants, partners, blogs, analysts, and other community sources for SharePoint are useful in rounding out your strategy.
- Understand that different SharePoint versions have different user interfaces and have different user expectations. Your training and procedures may have to regularly go through modifications as you move from version to version, so plan accordingly.
- Don’t cause yourself to feel too much pressure to move to a specific SharePoint version just because it is newer. By understanding the features of each SharePoint version, combined with the capabilities and experience of your teams, your developers/consultants, and partner solutions, combined with the lifetime of your expected deployment and when you might be ready for an upgrade, you will be able to select the right version for your current deployment and plan ahead for future releases.
- It should be understood that your users are going to resist change. Build this into your operations and training plans.
Thanks, Veronique, for getting the conversation started, and for giving me the impetus to write a blog entry again… (I really need to do this more often.)
One of my favorite weeks of the year is coming up – the Microsoft WorldWide Partner Conference. One of the best meet-ups of the week has always been the SharePint event. This year should be no exception.
This year, the Microsoft SharePoint Marketing Group has worked with Pingar and 3 other software companies, Axceler, Rackspace, and Idera, to host a meet-up for partners that work within the SharePoint ecosystem during the week of WPC12.
You know what they say… SharePoint by Day, SharePINT by Night!
This year SharePint will be on Tuesday, July 10, from 6-8PM at the Madison Avenue Pub, in Toronto.
WPC is a huge event, and while there are some important sessions for SharePoint partners, the real significant effort at WPC should be about meeting with other partners and working to grow your company’s network and connections. I think this is why the WPC Connect portion of WPC has grown to be (at certain times of the week) the busiest part of the conference. While it can be hard to find open time to meet with specific partners, at least SharePoint partners understand where they can meet their SharePoint peers and enjoy some good conversation.
If you haven’t already registered for WPC12, please do so at http://digitalwpc.com.
I’ll be meeting with partners at WPC Connect, attending a couple of the sessions, and hoping to meet everyone at SharePint! If I haven’t already reached out to meet you, please reach out to me and let’s meet at WPC12!
I’m certainly looking forward to an amazing week in Toronto.
The SHARE 2012 Conference is coming up (April 23-26, Atlanta), and Pingar is a sponsor. I’m looking forward to it because of the focus on business solutions and applications that SHARE has as its primary focus.
It is well past time, in my opinion, for a SharePoint conference that is focused strictly on business-oriented solutions. The speakers and sessions have been selected by a committee of users, and have been curated by The Eventful Group, who has many years of solid conference experience.
As much as I love my SharePoint infrastructure and development friends, I think that the surface area for business solutions on SharePoint is very large and should be recognized as a significant and valuable contribution to SharePoint customer implementations.
I’ll be watching the keynotes and sessions to see how many SharePoint business “Roles” are introduced or discussed. I’m not enough of an expert to enumerate the roles that I think should exist for SharePoint business solutions, because I have a feeling that there are many more than I can describe right now. Excluding all developer, IT Pro, and infrastructure roles, I could probably describe 3 or 4 business user roles that need to exist for a “best practices” SharePoint implementation. However, I fear that there really should be 8 or more roles identified and explained. Perhaps, after SHARE 2012, I will be able to put more description behind these roles.
I notice that the folks at Bamboo have proposed a sample schedule for attending SHARE 2012. Niice!
There are so many incredible speakers, however, it would be hard to list all of the sessions that I would like to attend.
I’d just like to add that the Pingar booth/kiosk in the exhibitors area will be a great place to talk about business user roles in SharePoint, as well as how business users can benefit from rich information about documents. Yes, the magic that Pingar provides to SharePoint.
I hope to see you there!
SQL Server 2012 now requires processor core-based licensing for SQL Server 2012 enterprise edition, and core-based licensing is one of two types of licensing available for SQL Server 2012 standard edition.
For about 6-7 years now, ever since Oracle started charging for processor core, Microsoft enjoyed an easier licensing conversation because they licensed per processor, and not per core. I used to sell Microsoft technology, and had to answer licensing questions often about how their products were licensed, and was glad that Microsoft was only charging per processor, and not per core. It felt, at the time, that Microsoft wasn’t trying to penalize people for using the latest and greatest CPUs (which then were arriving with 2 cores, or 4 – of course, now, there are many more cores).
How times change. Apparently, Microsoft isn’t concerned about competitive licensing scenarios with Oracle any longer. I think that is probably a good thing for Microsoft. It probably also means that Microsoft’s internal models probably identify that they have been leaving money from customers on the table, and that moving to a per-core license will be able to extract a little bit more from customers than the per-server licensing model. All’s fair in product licensing?
Redmond.mag quotes Wes Miller, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, as saying that a single Enterprise core for SQL Server 2012 will have a list price of $6,874 per core. These are only sold in two-core packs. A server can be partially licensed or fully licensed. A fully licensed server requires a minimum purchase of 4 cores. Of course, volume licensing customers and customers with an Enterprise Agreement and Software Assurance will have significant discounts off of the list price.
I do like the flexibility of the licensing model to allow customers to move licensed cores from on-premise to hosted cloud providers and back again.
I was pleased to see the analysis on thelowercasew.com:
The actual cost for EE is roughly the same as if you licensed 2 sockets of SQL 2008 R2 Enterprise Edition as long as it had 4 cores per CPU. The cost goes up as soon as you start using 6 core processors and above. The prevalence of 4 core processors means this likely won’t change much for many organizations.
Compared to SQL 2008 R2 Datacenter, however, there is a large cost difference. Datacenter costs $54,990 per processor or over $100,000 to license a 2 CPU system. You can now essentially get the benefits of Datacenter Edition (unlimited virtualization rights, etc.) for half the cost you would pay in SQL 2008 R2.
Even with this new licensing model there are still huge cost savings to be had by licensing all cores of a server and virtualizing your SQL 2012 workloads. It’s hard to argue with unlimited virtualization rights especially for those lightly loaded SQL workloads.
I wonder if this model will also fall through on the upcoming next version of SharePoint Server licensing that will be out sometime this year or early next year. My guess is that this will also apply to the next version of SharePoint Server. (I have no insider knowledge of this, this is just a guess.)
I miss PR. I was good at it. Hell, there was a time when both Fast Company and PR News declared me one of the best. Not because I liked working a billion hours a week, which is what it would have taken to rise to the top of my profession, but because I have some weird instinctual ability to know how people want a story told to them.