Ed Brill

I understand the thought behind it, but the reality is why do you have to make licensing such a PITA for BPs and customers?

Basic server or standard server is understandable, enterprise is too.

But mail only or apps only seems kind of silly, if you want to encourage customers to expand their horizons.

Unlss you mean to sell this as the Domino which is run under Sametime, Quickr, etc. then perhaps I can see that understanding.

1) PVU pricing is confusing as hell. For instance, I had no idea that a quad-core Xeon processor was 50, rather than 100 PVUs. Particularly confusing since "Any single core CPU" is 100 PVUs. I understand why you guys do this, but it's still confusing.

2) Utility server basically competes with the LAMP stack in the web space. It should be DRAMATICALLY cheaper. Particularly if you want Xpages to take off. Right now, if I want to build an extranet solution on Xpages and sell it as a package to a customer of 1200 people, they're likely to pay 5000 for the hardware, and maybe 10000 for my software on top of it, and then owe Lotus another 21000 in Domino licensing fees. This stuff needs to scale better. MUCH better.

As long as you invited the discussion, I'll add in my $.02

1. I agree with Keith. Same experience.

2. Over the years, I've many SMBs that I convinced to use Domino for web apps (e.g. forums that require authentication) turned off by complexity of licensing. So, what was a compelling case for why a non-notes shop should consider Domino got killed by complexity of licensing. Too bad, Domino was the hands-down winner for technology in every case.

My understanding is that Domino Utility server exists for two reasons:

1. To give existing Domino customers an affordable way to extend Domino-based applications to users outside their organizations.

2. To give BPs a way to promote Domino apps at a competitive price within shops that do not use Notes and Domino for messaging and calendar and therefore do not already have CALs.

When you talk about changes, the first thing that comes to my mind is that I hope whatever changes IBM contemplates will somehow continue to support both of these purposes! I don't know how many customers take advantage of Utility Server, but back in my BP days, I worked on one product that used Utility Server licenses for customers that were not Domino shops, and I also had consulting customers with Utility Server licenses for their extranet.

One point of confusion was dual-licensing of a single server so the customer can use the same physical server for extranet and messaging. I understand that this is a valid way to handle licensing, but I think a lot of people probably assume it is not.

Utility server is fundamental to me.

Let's take a customer, they're small and don't want to go for portal or bigger stuff. Still they want to build an extranet.

What do you use ?

Oh, they use domino for mail and have good domino skill / partners.

In this scenario Domino Utility Server Express is killer. Unlimited users (their customer / partners) can be put into the domino directory, you get the security and the directory for a small price.

Then you can add the low cost WAS CE (free) or Websphere Express if you need, or even WebSphere sMash.

For mi utility server (the express edition) must be explained as the "opportunity" for low-end (non portal) collaborative extranet. And if you grow (let's say Lotus Workplace Web Content Management / portal) you still have a powerful platform whatever the number of users..

That's my point, since a long time.

Two more points:

1. Very important: Thank you, Ed, for seeking our opinion. It adds to customer (and my) loyalty.

2. As far as complexity of pricing models, as a BP I stopped setting Notes & Domino when the Passport terms and models got crazy. Every sale became a paperwork nightmare for me and for the customer. As Nathan pointed out Domino's a killer app but its current pricing and positioning blows it out of the water for most entry level apps. As a result, while existing Domino shops may be happy to buy it, I believe that many new ones will ignore Domino and choose something else. That's too bad, because, I really believe that in most cases Domino was the best solution for their needs.

We need a low-cost Domino Server for non-mail web apps that competes effectively with alternatives.

I hope this feedback helps.

Eric

@5 Interesting point... we are not looking at Utility Server Express for any changes right now. It's a big difference from Utility Server in price and scope.

@All I can't fix PVU pricing in this context alone. It's a Passport Advantage thing IBM software-wide. But we can align Domino Utility Server more with PVU pricing than when it was first introduced.

Ed, many partners I talk to (I work at a distributor) doesn't even know about the utility server express scenario/license/cost.

If you look at numbers of Utility server in Italy (where I work) I can tell they're going to be "very" small and probably also very discounted (I can't see anybody buying it full price).

Hope I'm wrong

I don't have an opinion about Domino Utility Server. I deployed the Enterprise servers everywhere because I couldn't make any sense of the licensing.

@2 - A quad-core CPU is 200 PVU, but I can see why you would think it's 50 { Link } . 50 is the per core unit, not the total for the CPU.

As late as yesterday, I got a call from someone who wanted a webiste built. It need security/authentication, etc. Perfect fit for a Domino-based website. I am guessing Domino Utility Server (or Utility Server Express) would be the choice. No mailfiles needed, except for some outgoing system mail.

All access will be through web browsers, except for maintenance by the customer.

There has to be an inexpensive solution that can be used by shops that already use Notes/Domino internally, or when Domino makes the best sense for a particular web application.

The changes I want to see is simplified licensing, and a price where Domino can compete with other servers.

Domino Utility Server should support clustering and failover as part of its pricing, and should cover all non-employee access at a very low cost. IBM should see it as a loss-leader.

Why? No company chooses to use a Domino Utility Server to talk to its customers if the are not either already using or seriously considering using Notes & Domino internally. The skillset required virtually ensures that the company will have on staff admin and developers -- thus, it cements in place the use of Notes and Domino. There will almost certainly be Notes client licenses involved somewhere as well as designer licenses.

Personally, I think FREE would still make IBM a metric buttload of money by cementing Domino as a viable external web development tool.

@11 Actually, some of the largest Utility Server customers are those that have Domino web applications internally and see it as a better price-performer than managing individual CALs for those internal users. Some have no Notes client access at all.

The Domino Utility Server is used by many of our customers for two different scenarios:

1) For unlimited application licensing -- As originally intended, this is for customers who do not have messaging CALs for extranet users or other non-mail users (e.g. consultants) and need to host the server for hundreds or thousands of users. For SMB customers, they use Domino Utility Express which is available at a fantastic price point!

2) For extended software entitlements -- The entitlement to use unlimited of Domino Document Manager (aka Domino.Doc or DDM) and, more rarely, Lotus Workflow, is a very common driver of the Utility server. Given the license costs of DDM, the break-even point is quite reasonable. It also encouraged the use of DDM in their extranet. This does not apply often to SMB customers due to the cost of the full Utility Server licenses.

Overall, the licensing is often confusing. The PVU licensing scheme is complex and requires hardware knowledge beyond that which is easily available. Making licenses that are both reasonable and profitable is unquestionably a challenging task!

Domino Utility gave entitlement both to Domino.Doc an Lotus Workflow, both products have not been announced for Domino 8.

Probably Domino Utility 8 should include Quikr Standard and Sametime Standard Edition entitlements, but on a per server basis (PVU model makes it quite expensive for a 4CPU server).

Is there an EOL announcement for Lotus workflow coming soon ?

On the other hand Domino Utility Express is the right solution for non Lotus Messaging shops in the SMB market who wants Lotus Web enabled collaborative applications.

I have supported a department in a globally recognized company for over eleven years and I can tell you flat out that Domino would have been removed from that department long ago had there not been a server-based license available for their 65,000+ employees around the world. However, since this option exists, it has allowed many web solutions to be delivered via Domino. The Notes client is barely used within the department to support these web apps.

The cost is a little hard to swallow though each year even at value pricing.

Thinking about it from the IBM point of view...the offering is needed for at least a couple of reasons. First, many applications are sold on an "all you can eat" pricing plan and Domino needs that option or else some organizations will simply turn away when they realize their only choice is to license every user no matter how cheap. Second, there are many places where the MS product line is a fact of life and that will not change so there needs to be a purchase option that makes it easier for an internal sponsor to get Domino in or expanded without having to explain something up the chain to the effect of "this is still a good deal even though we are paying for messaging we will not use".

I partially agree with Andrew in that the offering should be looked at more like a loss leader although from the IBM viewpoint that may be challenging.

Now if there is some whiteboard somewhere at IBM that shows how to increase revenue by adding new functions over time then it would be less challenging to radically drop the price now in order to get more people to consider the platform again. Despite what can only be described as very positive results for Notes/Domino over the last few years, the general impression where I am at is that Domino has been dead for years and people generally scoff at the fact that our department is still using it. Fortunately for me I have been able to clearly communicate the value proposition of Domino (because of the Utility server) to the people who actually make the purchasing decisions so Domino has survived despite the CONSTANT pressure from corporate IT to replace it.

"What do you see as the value of Domino Utility Server today?"

It's crucial for web app-centric companies. My company (definitely an "S" in the SMB market) wouldn't be using Domino without it.

"What changes would you like to see?"

1. The lamest restriction of Utility Server Express vs. Utility Server is that you can't use multiple directories. You've already ruled out messaging since you're using Utility Server, so it's just another database for managing logins. Why the big deal?

2. Per @2 above, PVU is a mess. Why does it cost more to license a dual-cpu Pentium III 0.8ghz box (yes, I typed that right) than it does to license a dual-core Pentium IV 2.8ghz box? Can you make a wild guess as to which will be handling more Domino load? I guess you could argue that it helps IBM to sell more hardware, but I doubt that's the case in the SMB market.

@2 - I believe that the threshold for Utility Server Express is 5000 users, so instead of $21000 you're looking at something in the $2000-$6000 range.

LAMP is a definite contender with Domino, especially in SMB. There are some definite areas where Domino shines, though.

First, Domino is much better in the international arena due to Unicode problems in PHP/Python. But open source will catch up eventually.

Second to that is the database, which if Mr. "64K limit" doesn't disappear soon may be a problem.

We have sold and support a number of sites that utilise Domino Utility Servers. We really have two use case scenarios:

1) Lotus Notes/Domino shops that want to extend their Domino applications to external users.

- Rather than license external uses individually they want to have unlimited external users.

- The main problem we have here is the price difference between Domino Utility Express and Domino Utility Server. Clients that are on Express are fine and it is a very competitive solution. As soon as you need more than 400 PVU's however you are buggered as you need to upgrade to the full Domino Utility Server license which is dramatically more expensive. I understand that it includes extra things but in most cases this isn't needed. Typical outcome is that a special bid is put in place to remain competitive. I don't think there should be such a high price difference or alternatively there shouldn't be the limit on allowed PVU's.

2) Non-IBM shops that want to use Domino as a web application server.

- This is a great way to introduce Domino/IBM software. Often we are selling one of our solutions built on Domino.

- The main catch we have here is that the Domino Utility Server licenses external users. If their internal users want to use it as well then they need Domino CAL's or Notes Collaboration licenses. I think that a Domino Utility Server should mean unlimited users for both internal and external, not just external.

Utility servers work very well for ISV's selling solutions on top of Domino. I would imagine the likes of the guys at Genius Enterprise Project and many other ISV's love utility servers so they can sell their products to non-IBM sites. However I think there are some clear issues with the licensing model for utility servers.

Good to see it is being looked at.

Companion product (LEI, SAP Connector) could be given a "utility" price too cause as of today they have each the same price as Domino Utility itself.

I totally agree with @2, the PUV Licensing is just a total mess, Ed its no use saying that its IBM global policy the scheme is just plain wrong. Customer are so confused by it.

As far as the Domino Utility server, I have several customers who are using it to run some of our applications which they would not have done if it meant rolling out Notes clients, so it has good customer value but the pricing for the full version is too high, the Express version is a good price but the pricing difference between then is way to large.

-In this scenario Domino Utility Server Express is killer.

Isnt Express still limited to 1000PVU that would be unless i am mistaken

One Modern X86 Box = 8cores at 50p =400 = 2½ server (again unless i am mistaken)

Thats 3 servers pr org

@20 Domino Utility Express is limited to 400 PVU per organisation. After that you need to upgrade to the standard Domino Utility Express.

The 1000 comes from the maximum no of employees working for the organisation. If they have more than 1000 employees then they are not allowed to license Domino utility Express.

Reference - { Link }

Actually my comment before @17 may be wrong regarding using utility for Internal users. I always thought this was the case and that internal users need normal Domino CALS or Notes clients but the above reference doesn't seem to suggest that at all. Seems you can have unlimited internal and external users.

@2 and @11: Totally agree!

Living in a small country where most business is in the SMALL size (I'm not talking about less than 1000 employees but rather less than 200 employees) we are talking competition of LAMP stack etc. I'm sure the right salesman could convince most (even companies of 1-5 people) companies to choose Domino Utility Server if you look at the ROI etc. But lets face it... there aren't that much great salespeople out there anymore in the Domino space.

That's why we (I'm mostly developer) have to convince customers that the Domino platform is the greatest-most-easily-maintainable-and-most-secure platform to base business on (in most cases).

Small businesses won't listen when we talk about initial investments in the Domino Utility Server class category.

Maybe IBM should split Domino Utility Server up into:

- Domino Utility Server Enterprise ($$$-payable and support)

- Domino Utility Server Professional ($-payable and support)

- Domino Utility Server Entry (non-payable, no support, no billing, no clustering)

All should be able to use multiple directories/catalogs.

Domino Utility is obviously aimed at the Web App server market. Something that Domino has been slipping with for a long time. 8.5 is the first release in a long time that has any chance of pulling that back. At the moment the cost of Utility is way too high, given the competition in the Web App server market, a lot of which is free. They are also very good. Any TCO / ROI advantage Domino has, is being lost rapidly, if it has any left at all.

Has there been any thought about offering a Domino Utility Express-C in a similar vein to DB2 Express-C? Although a free(as in beer) offering at the very bottom end might take away from Utility Express sales, there would be a huge potential for companies to try out Domino as a web app platform, with an opportunity to expand in to licensed products if Domino is working for them. This would also give BPs and ISVs the ability to sell solutions based on Domino into none Domino markets much more easily, with the Domino part being almost transparent.

Clearly how Utility Express-C was offered would impact positioning of Utility Express and Utility servers, but The use gulf in pricing between those is a difficult for customers to swallow as it is. Perhaps a line-up of

- Free Express-C with optional paid for support.

- More expensive Utility Express with higher PVU limit.

- Less expensive full Utility version.

@21 - Ack! 1000 users? Guess I was wrong.

There definitely needs to be better scalability of license.

*Especially* when you consider clustering. With that, Nathan's example @2 of $21000 to Lotus becomes $42000.

@15) writes "Despite what can only be described as very positive results for Notes/Domino over the last few years, the general impression where I am at is that Domino has been dead for years and people generally scoff at the fact that our department is still using it"

I've seen this all too often in major corporations.

I think with Domino 8.5 an X-Pages etc, it looks to me like IBM is trying to reposition Domino as a great web application development platform.

With this in mind as others have said IBM needs to re think its Utility server pricing.

I really think a free version of Domino Express (no clustering etc) should be available to compete with LAMP etc, as mentioned IBM has already done this with DB2, and I dont think it would hurt Domino sales.

Once you get an application in through the door on the Domino platform, your foots in and more sales will follow.

At the same time I would look at the price of the full utility server as it is pretty steep, a customer I was talking to wanted to do a Domino extranet application, and wanted clustering etc, and by the time we had priced up two utility servers it was more than the budget for the whole project...

@21 Domino Utility Express is limited to 400 PVU per organisation. After that you need to upgrade to the standard Domino Utility Express.

Thank you , i thought it was 1000 pvu limit not400

@24 - It's not 1000 users. It's > 1000 EMPLOYEES in your organization. There's no limit on the number of users. If you are a 15-person company, you're eligible for Express licensing. If you're a 1500-person company, you're not. The number of authenticated users in the directory makes no difference.

@9 - Charles, that's incorrect. If you go here https://www-112.ibm.com/software/howtobuy/buyingtools/paexpress/Express?P0=E1&part_number=D55JDLL,D55J9LL,D55MRLL,D55MTLL,D55JBLL,D55JGLL&catalogLocale=en_US&locale=en_US&country=USA&PT=html and select the Utility server, then click Add to Cart, on the next screen you'll see "Calculate this part quantity based on PVUs required." If you click that link, you'll be guided through a selection process in which you can indicate the type and number of processors you have. You can specifically select quad-core Xeon processors, and they're 50 PVUs each.

Like I said, it's seriously confusing. :-/

Just to clarify the Express vs. Full versions of the license, I checked pricing on a dual Xeon quad-core PowerEdge system from Dell. If I have 999 employees, I pay about $2200 for Utility server Express. If I have 1001 employees, I pay about $21000 for Utility server.

Frankly, that's outrageous.

I would be very interested to know what kind of revenue hit Lotus would take if you just eliminated the pricing differential altogether. Clearly there's no associated difference in COST OF SALE. It's exactly the same software deployed in both scenarios. And I have a hard time believing that the 1001 employee shop is going to generate a greater support burden than the 999 employee shop.

All that really happens in that case is that for organizations of >1000, the simple question is: could we build this solution on a LAMP stack for less additional money than the differential between the licensing costs? If you were looking to cluster your solution, then the question a budget planner asks is "could we build on LAMP instead for less than an additional $42000?"

The believe the answer is frequently: yes.

But where it's really a killer is ISVs. Any sale of a Domino-based extranet solution is crushed by the licensing burden in that size organization. The ISV spends all it's sales energy pushing the IBM license instead of its own, and $42000 worth of effort gives them $0 return (or whatever tiny fraction of a margin they can eek out as a BP might be.)

Heck, if I sell a $5000 piece of software I wrote on the Domino platform that's used in an extranet application on Utility server, I bet the IBM DISTRIBUTOR makes more money on that sale than I do. And all they did was type an address and quantity into a screen.

It's a slap in the face to ISVs and business partners.

@28, Erm, not for me it didn't.

I drilled down x86/IBM/BladeCenter/Intel/Xeon or Pentium/Quad-core or Dual-core and the only box I can fill in was under the Label "Processor core quantity". I.e. how may cores do you have.

So 1 x quad core would require you to put 4 in that box.

Now obviously it's confused at least one person, so it's probably confused more which is not a good thing.

@29, Again using the link you provided. 8 Cores / 400 PVU for a dual quad Xeon box would cost you $10,600 for Utility Express but a whopping $84,800 for the full version. Ouch!

Nearly $75K is quite a hike.

It's also nice to note that the line price in GBP for our example 8 core / 400 PVU example is £7,260.00 ($13,798.26) for Utility Express and £58,000.00 ($110,212) for the full version. But I understand that the air freight charges probably account for the additional cost.

@30 - Interesting. I read that as "how many processors are there?" not as "how many processor CORES are there?"

If you are correct, then this is beyond outrageous and into the realm of the truly stupid. Both because of the price and the complexity of calculating that price.

@30 - Follow up: why do I need to be an expert in multi-core CPU architectures to buy Lotus software? I wouldn't typically even KNOW how many cores I had in a leased server.

@33 - It's definitely # of cores, not processors.

Though with my last conversation with IBM Sales they had to get THREE people on the phone as I tried to tell them that I really, truly, had a dev server with JUST ONE CORE. We use it to help exaggerate poorly-designed algorithms. Apparently that threw a "red flag" in their DB.

Also, about the LAMP thing - keep in mind that LAMP (and .Net) developers are a dime a dozen compared with Domino devs.

If the only Domino web server offerings are up in the stratosphere, there's no way it can compete on price/value.

-@30 - Follow up: why do I need to be an expert in multi-core CPU architectures to buy Lotus software? I wouldn't typically even KNOW how many cores I had in a leased server.

Just to add the to fun of it.

What if the host is running VMWARE when how is it licensed :)

@34 - Good point. PVU is just ridiculous. It's MORE ridiculous when you put it in the market against offerings that DON'T use it (e.g. LAMP).

Going back to my example from earlier, consider this: A company runs Domino Utility Server Express. They want a faster web experience, and the old box is aging anyway, so why not upgrade?

So they upgrade from a dual 1-core box to a dual 2-core box. BOOM - out of compliance. Even with 25 users.

CPU or seat-based pricing is fundamentally flawed, and has been for several years. Even at the enterprise level, I've discounted myriad large-scale vendors for certain solutions because their licensing model precluded using them.

For example, a big name in web content management was going to cost in excess of 500,000GBP for a simple set-up on Websphere, simply because the client wanted (a) a mirrored DEV environment and (b) wanted to use WAS clustering.

There are too many extremely capable wep apps out there for Domino to compete against. Opaque licensing won't help...

@All - Please note: PVU pricing doesn't matter if the unit price is reasonably low. It's the $212/unit price that makes it insane. At $25/unit, it's not that big a deal.

And Ed, this is all relevant to the Xpages story because effective use of Xpages will mandate that customers refactor their apps. If you're going to refactor anyway, then jumping ship to a new platform looks a lot more attractive. Especially when you consider the amount of training you're going to have to put your devs through to get them using Xpages effectively.

@36, I think sub capacity licensing allows you to have licences only for cpus assigned to the particular VMs running Domino.

Just to complicate things a bit more, companies with greater than 1000 employees can actually purchase the Express options as well ... "Company" is actually defined as "Passport Advantage Purchase Unit" ... so if a department less than 999 employees within a company of 10,000 want to purchase domino express, they can, as long as the department is the Passport advantage purchasing unit ... the purchase will not count against the entire organizations volume count for volume licensing, etc, which usually is fine, because of the price difference between the express/non express versions.

The things that HAVE to change with the utility express is the PVU limit and the ability to cluster. Just because I am a "small business" with less than 1000 employees doesn't make my domino application any less mission-critical to me than a company with 10,000 employees (in fact in small businesses where down time = lost profits, and a small business is more susceptible to catastrophic failure due to an interruption in cash flow, i could make a very convincing argument that in fact, its MORE critical to me than the 10,000 employee company).

And you can't effectively cluster on 400 PVUs ... a Dual Processor Quad Core system eats all my PVUs! Domino has great scalability built into it, and setting up clustering is mind-numbingly easy, and stripping that out doesn't make sense. Your licensing for Domino Express already gives unlimited servers, I think it would behoove IBM to find a way to do something in the same vein. (Maybe not unlimited, but something still effective).

@41 - Why not unlimited? The marginal cost to IBM is 0. With 8.5, Domino will again have the technology to be a leading contender in this space. Why not come up with a pricing plan that reflects this leadership?

They don't have to make it free. Just make it so the cost of the license is at least similar to the cost of the hardware it runs on.

@Ed, I want to be crystal clear about this. As a BP, I have deliberately decided NOT to write pieces of software on the Domino platform because of the licensing. Just two weeks ago we had an interesting conversation at lunch about something a customer needed, and how easily we could build just the right solution for them. Then one person said "how would that work with licensing?" And the whole idea got scrapped, because the customer would be paying huge amounts of money for the platform.

@41, To clarify, you are allowed to cluster Domino Utility Server Express. See { Link }

It's just that the 400 PVU limit makes that difficult to actually do. Any new purchase these days is going to have at least 4 cores, eating half your allowance. However, remember that you can have warm standbys running for fail over, and that doesn't count toward the 400PVU limit. Just don't load balance.

just re-brand it to Lotus Domino Foundations :-)

Afaik, at least the Utility Express server already allows clustering.

I am not sure what to do with the Utility Server itself. I doubt that dropping the price 50% will double its sales. Customers I am aware of never thought that user authentication is a billable feature (clustering or partitioning is for example). Most companies I am aware of have outsourced their Internet activities.

@Nathan - Yeah, PVU licensing is really confusing. ;-)

I don't know how things are today but 3 or 4 years ago we had an application on Domino that we wanted to open up to other companies across the globe and the Utility Server license was going to cost somewhere in the $20,000 range.

This application is has now been running on a LAMP install even though we already had the app built in Domino. The cost to keep it on Domino was enough to justify developing it again with a different solution.

I just skimmed through the responses but it appears everyone has missed THE key issue. At least Ed hasn't responded to it.

The key issue regarding Utility Server isn't the CPU stuff. That is annoying across the board, a separate issue and not really germane to the discussion. It is the fact that IBM has YET to make a clear public statement about DDM & Workflow for ND8. Yes they are "supported for the next 5 years" but only on a 7.x environment. Yes, I've been banging this gong for months and it annoys me too.

You cannot have a legitimate discussion about Utility Server until the fundamental question regarding ND 8 support for DDM & Workflow is answered. Everything else is like spitting into the wind.

Ed, if you get us an answer on that then and only then can we have a legitimate discussion about Utility Server.

@48 - People still use DDM and Lotus Workflow? Wow.

@49, Nathan, don't you know, it's THE key issue. Never mind any of your piffling little concerns. Get with the program!

Afaik I new version of DDM is coming in 2008. I do not know if it supports D8 but I expect it to do so. Workflow is a different area. I think it moved to IBM India a long time ago (like SmartSuite).

@48 - Wow, as a Domino Utility Server Express user, am I entitled to DDM and Workflow? *shrug*

(I don't really care, but seriously though - am I entitled? I have no idea.)

I like the idea of a free or near-free "entry level" version. That would be one heck of a press release for 8.5, following on the "Microsoft-free" heels. You could always raise prices later, offer a "step-up" solution, etc.

@43 - You are correct ... I had a brief brain fart and was thinking of the straight up Domino Express ... thats the one you can't do clustering on ... but my reasons are still true :)

@42 - Not sure really ... just found myself in IBMs shoes for a bit, got a chilly "i don't want to give profits away!" feeling for a minute there ...

@41, That's interesting. I was told (several years ago) that if the larger organization was an IBM customer, then it was against the rules for a department of less than 1000 to establish themselves as a separate purchasing unit within Passport Advantage in order to get Express offerings. For Domino Utility Server, where you are licensing unlimited users, if this were allowed then there would be no reason for anyone to ever buy the full Domino Utility Server since they could simply have a division or department buy it on their behalf.

Interesting seeing how everyone works around licensing.

Usually clients just buy the enterprise server bgecause of clustering, keeps my life easier, although can be expensive in some cases to clients.

@48 and @49, yes some people still use DDM although I am migrating them to Quickr using content integrator.

@50 - OUCH ... what a stinging wit you have. I can tell you work long and hard on it. Sorry you aren't hip to what's going on. Perhaps if you read Ed's original entry and actually knew the product we are discussing, that would probably help you actually bring something to the table.

The PVU pricing is an issue across the board. Also, per Ed's response in #7, Express or the PVU pricing aren't what we're discussing here.

This is about Utility Server of which DDM & Workflow are the main components that make it different from other offerings and the reason why people most buy it.

When you have a suite of products that contains 2 products which aren't even supported in ND8, there can be no other issue regarding the viability of the suite. If DDM & Workflow aren't going to be updated for ND8, the product has to then contain something else as a suitable replacement or be withdrawn from the market. It is that simple.

@52 - Yup, a great bunch of tools. Here is the list of entitlements for each product: { Link }

Licensing IS confusing as hell. I suggest we go back to R1 days and just say it's $60,000 per box.

@57 - Tim, it seems like a pretty legitimate reaction from Kerr.

"This is about Utility Server of which DDM & Workflow are the main components that make it different from other offerings and the reason why people most buy it."

The main component that makes Utility Server different from Express is that it's your only option if you have more than 1000 employees.

I can't argue with your contention that DDM & Workflow are WHY people buy it. I honestly have no way of knowing what purchasers motivations are given that bundling.

Most people reading here are clearly thinking of Domino Utility server as the way you get an unlimited-web-client licensing option for Domino. So perhaps the super-simple solution is to create a new part number that doesn't have DDM and Workflow, and price it at something that's competitive to other web application platforms on the market, including LAMP. Get the PVU unit pricing down to something that's not much more than the Express version, and it's a winning solution again!

Add more templates and databases samples so anyone can see how powerfull is Domino to develop applicacions !!

On my experience, there is a lot of SMB that have no idea of how powerful and fast is Domino to develop applications....Yes, I know they can use template from OpenNTF, but that is not enought.... You should ship the product with a lot of free templates to do typical task on a business..... Ie, a repository for CV, a expense & travel database, a simple database for vacations, for storage of corporate passwords, a simple CRM, etc.....

If you want to enforce domino utility for applications, give people some samples of powerful applications that can developed under domino...

@57, "Perhaps if you read Ed's original entry and actually knew the product we are discussing, that would probably help you actually bring something to the table."

That would be Ed's original entry that makes no mention of DDM or Workflow? That simply asks what do we value in Domino Utility Server? From my point of view the single most important feature of Utility server is the one thing that you can't get any other way, viz, unlimited authenticated users. I can get DDM and Workflow without a Utility server. I can't get authenticated users any other way without buying CALs for them. Of the customers I know with an interest in Utility server, none of them could give a fig about DDM or Workflow. They want it to extend custom apps to the internet/extranet without having to pay CALs for everyone that happens to signs up. Everyone I know running DDM don't run it off Utility server. So your assertion that if DDM and Workflow are the be all and end all of the Utility server discussion is tosh of the highest order. I'm sure it's an important factor for you and others, but don't kid yourself that it's THE key issue for everyone.

But thanks for the compliment of the quality of my wit, I can tell it's the considered opinion of true connoisseur of the art.

@62 - Since U.S. includes licenses for DDM and Workflow, I can see that being an argument of added value (for some), just as "Limited DB2 entitlement" and "Limited Tivoli" add value (again, to some).

@57 & @60 - You're definitely on to something...

U.S. includes everything in U.S.E. and also:

- Legal use for > 1000 employees

- DDM

- Workflow

It definitely sounds like the need is for a just-above-Express version for unlimited employees, but minus the DDM and Workflow.

But the price does need to be competitive, even against LAMP. Domino's got some lost ground to regain from the "Work the Web" days.

@63, Of course DDM and Workflow are a factor, alongside WAS, DB2 and Tivoli entitlements. Are they the only issue? Are the the most important issues?

The other important factor you get with full Utility is deployment on more than 400 PVU. With the trend to multiple cores and the cost of hardware falling, you can use that all up without even batting an eyelid. Depending on what it's being used for that could hit long before the 1000 employee limit is an issue.

@Erik (63)

What is a competitive price against a product that has 0$ license cost?

Or take Jaxer that currently is XPages but with SQL instead of nsf. 0$ for the server, Free or 99$ for the Eclipse IDE (although they are a start-up that need to burn their money fast for getting the next round of VC).

The competitive price then much depends on how heavily a customer is invested in Domino and how much internal know-how is available. How do you put this on a price list?

@65 - So price against the marginal cost of development for things like identity and security federation. Jaxer and the LAMP stack are great toolkits, but there are SOME advantages to the Domino platform still.

The key, IMO, is that the license cost not outpace the hardware cost. If you're spending more on the Domino platform than you are on the server it runs on, you're much more likely to reevaluate your decision.

Since PVU isn't going away anytime soon, the next best thing is to get the DUS unit cost down to the $20 range.

As many have pointed out the cost is insane once you jump from 1000 to 1001 (and you need to get techline involved just to cover your arse).

I think a CE (community edition) version is a good idea. JBoss makes plenty of money giving stuff away from free (and have switched more that their fair share of WebSphere customers to their platform too). Just don't cripple it if you do a CE. LAMP (and .net for that matter) is slowly eating away the application side, mainly due to licensing costs.

Most (net new) Domino installs come from mail implementations. Lets change that up some, and start to make customers look at apps again too. You don't drum up new business by charging $20,000 in licensing (unless your into Portal).

@55 that's what I would have assumed, but it's right on the website in a licensing FAQ of something. When I get a minute I'll look up the URL and post it.

@64 - I forgot to mention that, and that's a great point. Utility Server Express lets you cluster, but with what? 400 PVU in today's architectures do get gobbled up quick. What's your failover server?

Nathan's right - if software licensing is larger than the hardware, that invokes sticker-shock.

@65 - The Domino platform still has a lot going for it, as Nathan pointed out. It doesn't need to be free, but it's not $20,000 better than LAMP, either.

Ed asked us "What do [we] see as the value of Domino Utility Server today?" Let's help spell that out to him.

Off the top of my head, the key values are:

- The database (yes, it's still got some advantages over SQL)

- identity control

- unicode/multibyte compatibility

- security

- design inheiritence/deployment

- DOLS

- And in 8.5, xPages.

DOLS is a seriously kickin' technology. Nobody does replication like Notes/Domino. Though DOLS in 8.5 currently doesn't support xPages.

Thank you all for the comments...still digesting but I will try to post a follow-up comment or new posting with a recap. Very good input all around, even with the sarcasm being lost occasionally :)

Just want to clarify that Lotus Workflow 7 is supported on Notes/Domino 8.0.x. See technote 21293563

{ Link }

Lotus Workflow version 7 will also be supported for use with Notes/Domino 8.5.

I would like to see a full Quickr entitlement included with a Domino Utility Server license. This would replace or enhance the Domino.Doc (Domino Document Manager....or whatever you want to call it) entitlement currently included with Utility Server.

Since Domino.Doc will eventually be replaced/absorbed by Quickr, the licensing entitlement should be updated accordingly.

This would also assist existing Domino Utility Server accounts from looking at hosted SharePoint, GoogleApps, etc. for external file repository, file-sharing solutions.

I've asked about this entitlement through our local IBM reps, but they didn't have a clear answer as to whether a Quickr entitlement will be available or when.

@72 I'm not sure the tie between Domino Utility and Quickr makes sense... frankly, I'm not sure that the tie between Domino Utility and Domino.Doc ever made sense, and part of my motivation in this posting was to see whether (as Daniel Lieber indicates) customers have been buying Utility to get Domino.Doc or vice versa or none of the above.

L'histoire se répète, every four months?

{ Link }

@74 well, yes, we've had this conversation once before. But not when I had anyone listening :)

We are looking at Utility server right now for a large project for an existing customer (an Exchange customer), but we are struggling with justifying the additional cost it will add to the project vs. LAMP. IBM could really help their cause here by bringing the price more palatable.

Hmm I really think this:

{ Link }

says it all.

Domino is a great product, just way too expense to do real life Internet development

Jesper

Any product's pricing that needs more than one person , reading information from more than one web page, is a broken model. I've worked with Domino for years, but have *way beyond* lost patience with trying to cost models for potential customers.