The lock-in battle shifts to Sharepoint

Summary: You can put together everything SharePoint does using open source projects, but it takes work.

SharePointThe fight over being locked-in to Microsoft, which once focused on client applications like Office, is now shifting to servers and SharePoint.

On the surface SharePoint is merely a document management system which lets everyone in your company share and find Office documents easily. But critics like our own Matt Asay call it a Trojan Horse, which will bind companies which deploy it to Microsoft forever.

You can put together everything SharePoint does using open source projects, but it takes work. You can combine Alfresco (from the Electronic Content Management (ECM) software company Matt works for), the Liferay portal, JasperSoft for reporting, and Zimbra's e-mail server. Throw in some Jive forums and you're more than done.

But what does that cost, really, compared to just using something from Microsoft which already works with your current Office applications? Exactly.

Once companies start using SharePoint, Asay worries, there is no way for them to ever ditch Microsoft applications and file formats. SharePoint is tied to those formats, and as the share fills the cost of switching away rises exponentially.

The real problem is not, as Mary Jo Foley reports, Microsoft studies showing SharePoint is cheaper than open source alternatives. The problem is that very few companies are using ECM technology already. It's a compelling opportunity, and it's a totally green field.

Even if Alfresco could get together with its buddies to create a viable alternative, and even if that alternative were already in wide channel distribution, it would be the underdog against Microsoft's marketing power.

That's the problem. Until Microsoft entered the market ECM was going nowhere fast. Now it is going somewhere fast, but where it's going is being determined by Microsoft.

This sort of thing will continue to happen until open source projects learn how to collaborate better, how to combine their efforts to solve big problems, and how to expand their channels. That will take time.

Until then Microsoft will retain its enormous market advantage.

Topics: Microsoft, Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

27 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • I don't understand how it's cheaper?

    You have to pay for server products and licensing, you have to pay maintenance on those products, you have to pay for "webparts" that are high cost, you have to pay people to modify the web.config for new webparts, take down sharepoint etc.

    Yet, with DotNetNuke it's free, modules are either free or of small value. In order to installa new module it takes seconds as opposed to requiring an IT professional. It's continually maintained by the Open Source community and has been around for years...

    Wonder who paid for that "research paper"
    ju1ce
    • Microsoft paid for the research paper

      Why? You don't think Big Green would mislead you, do you? <g>
      DanaBlankenhorn
      • It shows...

        Any objective person worth a grain of salt would realize that. Hey I do like some Microsoft products, but saying that Sharepoint is cheaper than DotNetNuke to maintain shows me they have absolutely no idea how to use one or both products.
        ju1ce
      • So who paid you to misrepresent the research paper?

        or are you doing it for free? Here is what you said that prompted ju1ce to respond:
        [i]The real problem is not, as Mary Jo Foley reports, Microsoft studies showing SharePoint is cheaper than open source alternatives.[/i]

        Here is what [url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=675] Mary Jo reported [/url] :
        [i]SharePoint solutions are more profitable for partners than are open-source alternatives, according to the data.[/i]

        How did you get from "Microsoft says 3rd party consulting companies make more money from SharePoint projects" to "SharePoint is cheaper"? If [b]anything[/b] Microsoft plainly quoted the [b]exact opposite[/b] to what you claim they quoted. Microsoft says that SharePoint projects are [b]more[/b] expensive so consultants should familiarize themselves with SharePoint to maximize their profits.

        Unbelievable.
        NonZealot
  • Lock-in?

    Really?

    Let's see, companies (most) are using MS Office already
    chances are all their docs are in some Office format or another
    How does using SharePoint change anything?
    Oh, it doesn't

    I thought so

    A
    andycher
    • How SharePoint creates lock-in

      If you're using the Office suite, you can gradually shift to ODF documents. You can also use ECM tools from a variety of vendors.

      Once you use SharePoint, the costs of switching start rising exponentially. Within a year they become impossible. And you can't just shift off SharePoint at that point -- you can't shift off any Microsoft product. You have to pay what Microsoft demands on into eternity.

      Or so Matt argues.
      DanaBlankenhorn
      • That's the problem..

        People don't seem to understand or care about vendor lock in.

        People will whine and complain that all they have is one cable company that charges stupid prices, one telephone company (not cell phone) that charges them stupid prices, a hydro company, a natural gas company yet..

        When it comes to computers they don't seem to realize they are locking themselves in. It's like Microsoft is pulling the wool over their eyes without them realizing it.

        It's great they don't care today, but when the day comes they are ruled by one company you want to bet the prices start increasing? All of a sudden you'll be billed a "monthly service fee" for bug fixes and a "quarterly fee" for service packs, an of course a "delivery fee" for going over the internet, then let's also not forget probably a "retirement fee" to pay for all the pensions of Microsoft folks, then a "24/7 support fee on top of a call fee", then maybe some other fees for other things other providers do to us to get money out of us.

        They do have to get more profits from us somehow you know.
        ju1ce
  • Lock in happens with anything

    Look, anything in the world of IT is a tar ball and very difficult to get away from. Difficult as in expensive.

    Assume for a minute you are running Linux, Open Office and some opoen source equivilant of Sharepoint. If you decided to switch to something else, say Windows and Office or Mac and another Suite it is going to be just as hard and just as expensive and time consuming to switch everything as it is to go the other way.

    This constant ranting that you are "locked in" to MS is silly because no matter what platform you choose, you are locked into it from a financial and time investment point of view.
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • That would be software lock-in, not vendor lock-in.

      Asides from the fact that the ODF file formats can be read by a huge number of different programs, including Office, this is about choosing your supplier. Many different suppliers can supply FOSS systems, all of which can access each other's data in their open formats. Sharepoint can only be bought from MS and data migration from that is near impossible, you can only use MS's 'open' OOXML or legacy Office file formats and it [u]must[/u] be run on Windows.

      If company X isn't giving me value for money, I can go to Company Y without changing a thing. If Sharepoint isn't giving me value for money I'm stuffed.

      There is no equivalency.
      odubtaig
      • You make a convincing argument that OSX is terrible!!

        [i]If company X isn't giving me value for money, I can go to Company Y without changing a thing. If Sharepoint isn't giving me value for money I'm stuffed.[/i]

        Companies would be extremely foolish to standardize on OSX since it not only locks you into an OS vendor, it [b]also[/b] locks you into a hardware vendor! Double OUCH!!! At least Microsoft let's you pick your own hardware and I say that sarcastically because that is something we [b]should[/b] be able to take for granted! Apple is all about taking away our freedoms.
        NonZealot
        • True. <NT>

          That is all.
          odubtaig
      • Ummm, name them...

        "Many different suppliers can supply FOSS systems."

        Care to name them because I can think of maybe two.
        No_Ax_to_Grind
        • What you're too lazy to google?

          Alright then. I'll do it for you.

          Alfresco Solutions Providers:
          http://www.alfresco.com/partners/solution/
          SugarCRM Partnet Directory:
          http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/partners/partnerfinder.html

          Other (in the UK):
          http://opensource.infoaxon.com/ccm/portal/
          http://www.osml.eu/home

          5 minutes of searching. That's all I can be bothered with right now.
          odubtaig
    • Thanks for restating the generic problem facing computational evolution!

      So you think we have reached the end of history
      in regards to the evolution of computing do ya!
      Computing can not possible avoid the inevitable
      march towards the open recombinant dynamic
      that lies at the heart of all sustainable complex
      intelligent systems. Computing has little choice
      in the long run but to capitulate to the same
      path of flexible recombinant blazed by that
      stalwart of flexible design known as cellular life.
      There is room however to debate the time
      frame and how it might be stretched out by
      boat anchors like MicroSoft
      raycote
      • Say what?

        So you think the "standard" of a single cell is the only life form that evolved?
        No_Ax_to_Grind
      • Wow...

        The last time I saw gibberish like that was in a "V!ag ra" Spam.
        Hallowed are the Ori
      • DNA - the ultimate lock in

        Go ahead, find an open source replacement for DNA.
        MalumRegnat\
  • Lock in? Maybe a little.

    They certainly make it easier to deal with MS Office docs but I've put non-office files in Sharepoint libraries without issue.
    They make it more convenient for MS Office but "Lock-in battle" is just a tiny bit overstated.
    doctorrickb
  • Oh by the way, this is all BullShat

    Guess what? I have a couple add-ins (scripts really) that work with Office to read the file from Sharepoint and convert it to other formats.

    RTF
    ASCII
    HTML
    Plain Text
    XML

    and yes, even ODF.

    Not much "lock in" there now is there?
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • So...

      I can drop an ODT file on a share, have it metatagged, categorised and filed and available as ODF, PDF and HTML in Sharepoint? No? Didn't think so. I won't hold my breath waiting for Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle or Tomcat support either.
      odubtaig