Whew, sure kicked off a good foodfight today.
Michael Krigsman says I don’t understand enterprise software.
Nick Carr says Michael Krigsman (the guy above) doesn’t understand enterprise software.
Will the guy who understands enterprise software please stand up and collect your 15 page views? Thank you very much.
🙂
Speaking of which, Ross Mayfield wins the award for sexiest headline of the group for “Enterprise Social Software doesn’t get you laid, it gets you promoted.”
Dennis Howlett tells me to check out Majority Desk. That +is+ pretty sexy.
Vinnie Mirchandani notes “I take the afternoon off to watch some football, and I see what in the NFL they call “swarm defense”. Fellow Irregulars – Michael Krigsman, Dan Farber, Dennis Howlett, Anshu Sharma, Sadagopan, Craig Cmehil – have all jumped in defending enterprise technologies. Just shows you us boring enterprise types have little to do even on Sundays -)”
Anshu Sharma gives us five things that turn CIO’s on. Heh, CIO porn! Who knew?
Tomorrow at about 6 a.m. Pacific Time, Microsoft will have some more to add to the Enterprise Foodfight. I’ll have a video up on Scoble Show.
Scobleizer 
“Enterprise Social Software doesn’t get you laid, it gets you promoted.”
…
Which will get you laid. 🙂
LikeLike
“Enterprise Social Software doesn’t get you laid, it gets you promoted.”
…
Which will get you laid. 🙂
LikeLike
Hey Robert-
While you’re on the subject…
Have you checked out the beta of YouPorn (it’s like YouTube, only the content is adult-oriented)?
This is what Web 2.0 is all about…
LikeLike
Hey Robert-
While you’re on the subject…
Have you checked out the beta of YouPorn (it’s like YouTube, only the content is adult-oriented)?
This is what Web 2.0 is all about…
LikeLike
You forgot my fiercest punch of the day – “Nick Carr doesn’t understand Anything”. I think its the most thoughtful piece on this topic. 😉
LikeLike
You forgot my fiercest punch of the day – “Nick Carr doesn’t understand Anything”. I think its the most thoughtful piece on this topic. 😉
LikeLike
I still get the impression that the people making purchasing decisions about enterprise software aren’t the ones using it day-to-day, which is probably a significant part of the usability problem.
LikeLike
I still get the impression that the people making purchasing decisions about enterprise software aren’t the ones using it day-to-day, which is probably a significant part of the usability problem.
LikeLike
I explored the notion of why people who are exposed daily to high interface and interaction values inherent in TV, movies, advertising, magazines and gadgets in the consumer sphere are somehow supposed to be rendered incapable of expecting and appreciating the same within the walls of the enterprise from 9 to 5, with a dozen enterprise examples that aren’t sexy:
What isn’t sexy enterprise software?
LikeLike
I explored the notion of why people who are exposed daily to high interface and interaction values inherent in TV, movies, advertising, magazines and gadgets in the consumer sphere are somehow supposed to be rendered incapable of expecting and appreciating the same within the walls of the enterprise from 9 to 5, with a dozen enterprise examples that aren’t sexy:
What isn’t sexy enterprise software?
LikeLike
Score chart (not that it matters): You are wrong, on all points, it’s not about CPM and blogging, nor is it only about marketing “sexy”.
Carr: Is right that Enterprise should be as friendly as consumer, that should not be a “fantasyland”. Is right, about the entire IT and Software industry as a whole, commodity will out.
Michael: Is right, in the sense that Enterprises have differing goals to meet, but all those requirements, are no excuse for byzantine-like software that comes with killer price tags and support contracts, just to make it work. “Seriousness” and “product cycle time-frames” become cop-outs. Is wrong, in playing Defense Lawyer for all the usual rehashed “legacy support requirements”. Welcome the Armies of Consultants at your service.
Gates: Is wrong, his company has never made consumer sexy work, and Dynamics won’t sex-it-up for the Enterprise either. Is right, in the larger point of making Enterprise software “sexier”, but his comments are (as usual) self-serving read-between-the-lines blabber. And he blames the wrong crowd. It’s not the job of the press or the marketing goons to simply sex it up, it’s the job of the software developers, the sex needs to be baked in.
But these Web 2.0 vs. Enterprise comparisons are so much rot. Web 2.0 is all pretty UI’s with everything else, security and scalability et. al., sacrificed. Enterprise can be functional expensive dead-weight that goes unused as it’s a pain to deal with, millions spent, yet ROI DOA.
Function AND Form, no need for zero sum games.
LikeLike
Score chart (not that it matters): You are wrong, on all points, it’s not about CPM and blogging, nor is it only about marketing “sexy”.
Carr: Is right that Enterprise should be as friendly as consumer, that should not be a “fantasyland”. Is right, about the entire IT and Software industry as a whole, commodity will out.
Michael: Is right, in the sense that Enterprises have differing goals to meet, but all those requirements, are no excuse for byzantine-like software that comes with killer price tags and support contracts, just to make it work. “Seriousness” and “product cycle time-frames” become cop-outs. Is wrong, in playing Defense Lawyer for all the usual rehashed “legacy support requirements”. Welcome the Armies of Consultants at your service.
Gates: Is wrong, his company has never made consumer sexy work, and Dynamics won’t sex-it-up for the Enterprise either. Is right, in the larger point of making Enterprise software “sexier”, but his comments are (as usual) self-serving read-between-the-lines blabber. And he blames the wrong crowd. It’s not the job of the press or the marketing goons to simply sex it up, it’s the job of the software developers, the sex needs to be baked in.
But these Web 2.0 vs. Enterprise comparisons are so much rot. Web 2.0 is all pretty UI’s with everything else, security and scalability et. al., sacrificed. Enterprise can be functional expensive dead-weight that goes unused as it’s a pain to deal with, millions spent, yet ROI DOA.
Function AND Form, no need for zero sum games.
LikeLike
If you make it up to Cambridge give me a shout I’ll buy you some good English dinner. Send me an email if you’re interested.
LikeLike
If you make it up to Cambridge give me a shout I’ll buy you some good English dinner. Send me an email if you’re interested.
LikeLike
@ Christopher Coulter: “Web 2.0 is all pretty UI’s with everything else, security and scalability et. al., sacrificed.”
Not all of them — I know that some of the Web 2.0 applications that include security and scalability and reliability are ones that the general public never sees.
LikeLike
@ Christopher Coulter: “Web 2.0 is all pretty UI’s with everything else, security and scalability et. al., sacrificed.”
Not all of them — I know that some of the Web 2.0 applications that include security and scalability and reliability are ones that the general public never sees.
LikeLike
Hmm
you mean the big packges like SAP and the Oracle one (what eaver they are calling it this year) that you have to spend vast amounts with consultants with to get them to sort of work.
I’ve worked in environments BT where you had to use Oracle for everything even when it wasnt the best solution Thats one of the main reasons why bt.com sucks so bad.
LikeLike
Hmm
you mean the big packges like SAP and the Oracle one (what eaver they are calling it this year) that you have to spend vast amounts with consultants with to get them to sort of work.
I’ve worked in environments BT where you had to use Oracle for everything even when it wasnt the best solution Thats one of the main reasons why bt.com sucks so bad.
LikeLike
Speaking of SAP, here’s a good illustration of the problem. SAP hired frog design to help with their R/3 software. I’ve worked with frog as a client at two very different companies: Blockbuster Online and EXE Technologies (licensing the work frog did for i2). I like frog and think they do good stuff. But the screenshots in those links would not qualify as sexy in my opinion. But then, look at what they have to work with. In my experience, that’s what enterprise software is – giant grid controls and gray forms with hundreds of fields on them because the enterprise software company has to cover every scenario that their customers might hit. A lot of open source software has the same problem.
I would guess that if a software designer is focused on features and options, they’re not going to write sexy software because sexy usually goes with clean and uncluttered and it’s harder to have clean software with lots of options. Enterprise software has to have lots of features or every install becomes a full customization project. Open source software gets complex because everyone can add in their own pet features. On the other hand, consumer software can get by with less features because it makes money on volume. The long tail again…
That said, if anyone has examples of software they would consider sexy that is complex and has many features, I’m sure we’d all be interested in seeing it.
LikeLike
Speaking of SAP, here’s a good illustration of the problem. SAP hired frog design to help with their R/3 software. I’ve worked with frog as a client at two very different companies: Blockbuster Online and EXE Technologies (licensing the work frog did for i2). I like frog and think they do good stuff. But the screenshots in those links would not qualify as sexy in my opinion. But then, look at what they have to work with. In my experience, that’s what enterprise software is – giant grid controls and gray forms with hundreds of fields on them because the enterprise software company has to cover every scenario that their customers might hit. A lot of open source software has the same problem.
I would guess that if a software designer is focused on features and options, they’re not going to write sexy software because sexy usually goes with clean and uncluttered and it’s harder to have clean software with lots of options. Enterprise software has to have lots of features or every install becomes a full customization project. Open source software gets complex because everyone can add in their own pet features. On the other hand, consumer software can get by with less features because it makes money on volume. The long tail again…
That said, if anyone has examples of software they would consider sexy that is complex and has many features, I’m sure we’d all be interested in seeing it.
LikeLike