Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Sharepoint! which nobody has ????

Joel, from "How Microsoft Lost the API War":
"Sharepoint! which nobody has..."

Just 24 Million Client licenses.......sounds like nobody to me.

Ray Schraff
Friday, June 18, 2004


Here. A biscuit for Ray.

A Pterodactylus Ate My Baby
Friday, June 18, 2004

Philo in camoflage?

Jason
Friday, June 18, 2004

24 Million in Joel's world is nobody. What percentage of desktops have it? 1%? I'd call that nobody.

MilesArcher
Friday, June 18, 2004

What percentage of desktops have Exchange Server installed?

mb
Friday, June 18, 2004

How many people here use Sharepoint?

anonomyous coward
Friday, June 18, 2004


I'll agree that SharePoint isn't a household word, but Joel is exaggerating a bit to say that nobody is using it.

One of my clients has over 500 licenses for it, another has around 200. Considering that it's targeted at businesses, it's not entirely surprising that the average Window user isn't using it. It's not aimed at them.

But I'll agree in general terms that SharePoint is still a niche product.

Mark Hoffman
Friday, June 18, 2004

with SharePoint being distributed for free with every single win2k3 server (and probably every server after), i think the numbers will rise exponentially as the NT/2K machines are upgraded...

code monkey
Friday, June 18, 2004

Microsoft tends to deploy these enterprise things quietly while it learns how to perfect them then, suddenly, everyone is using it.

I don't know how many people here witnessed the arrival of an insignificant little product called Microsoft SQL Server. In the early 90's the choices in that space were basically Sybase and Oracle, and then this little Microsoft offering started to pop up from time to time ....


Friday, June 18, 2004

There are two pieces.

"Windows Sharepoint Service", which you get for free with W2K3, is the infrastructure piece.

"Sharepoint Portal Server", which is quite expensive, is the web app that's built on top of said free service.

When people say "Sharepoint", they invariably mean the latter, not the former.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Friday, June 18, 2004

In my experience, when people say "SharePoint" they mean the former, think they mean the latter, and are pleasantly surprised to find they already own the former.

For the record, Windows SharePoint Services are part of Windows Server 2003, and provide the infrastructure for SharePoint (it's not installed by default). But this "infrastructure" is a huge chunk of the capabilities that SharePoint offers - workspaces, lists, document libraries, web parts, etc.

SharePoint Portal Server adds personalization capabilities, area pages (which provide navigation and structural capabilities) and the enterprise search engine.

Philo

Philo
Friday, June 18, 2004

BTW, those 24 million client licenses would be for Portal Server - we have no way of knowing who is using Windows SharePoint Services.

FYI -
microsoft.public.sharepoint.windowsservices - 11,000 posts
microsoft.public.sharepoint.portalserver.development - 34,000 posts (most in the last 18 months)

I would generally call those "busy groups" in usenet terms...

Philo

Philo
Friday, June 18, 2004

I came across SharePoint a few years ago, when one academic in a government environment wanted to use it, but the project was controlled by a light weight web studio using "open" technology, and they killed it.

In the end, their implementation was appalling and had to be re-worked. It couldn't be used without end-user training, had lots of technical problems and was generally a foolish approach to the problem.

My experience.


Saturday, June 19, 2004

Actually there are three or four products called Sharepoint. I believe the old one is called Sharepoint Team Services. There's also and older Sharepoint Portal Server.

Now there's the two Philo mentioned, Windows Sharepoint Services and Sharepoint Portal Server, which does a lot more but also may be missing some features of WSS.

Yes, I use it. Which is why I both rant and sometimes praise it.

mb
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Ah yes, my old nemesis - SharePoint v1.

SharePoint Team Services/SPS 2001 or v1
Windows SharePoint Services/SPS 2003 or v2

v1 had a lot of issues, most of which have been addressed by v2. Everyone who's tried v2 after v1 has agreed there's no comparison.
If you hear someone say "yeah we tried SharePoint a few years ago and had a lot of problems with it" they're talking about v1; quite a bit has changed. :)

Philo

Philo
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Gee, my experience is a little different.

Office Server Extensions in O2K was the first version of STS.  This was a nearly impossible sell in organizations for a couple of reasons.  It wasn't very complete, required non-trivial ASP background to implement much-needed additional functionality, and since it wasn't advertised on the Super Bowl approval to deploy it was met with "duh, what you talkin 'bout" from most "decision makers."  It was frustrating to market it internally to people who saw the web as a static publication medium, the alternative being seen as chaos.

STS 1.0 came along in Office XP and was a radical improvement over OSE.  Still a very difficult sell, for most of the reasons above.  One new wrinkle was the poor decision to name it "SharePoint" anything.  This meant anybody who saw himself as "in the knew" thought it referred to the nasty, expensive QEII product called SharePoint Portal Server.  It also caused the vultures (local reps) from other-than-MS companies to crank up their propaganda machines against it at high levels in the organization.  By now it became clear enough to legacy interests in IT that it might impinge on their "file shares and email are good enough for collaboration, we hate the web anyway, stop trying to make my earn my pay" monopoly on automation tools.  These types feared and opposed anything that might make them learn something new or worse yet support it.  After all, when they got hired in fresh out of high school they knew all they needed to about box jockeying, right?  "Don't rock the boat, I'm on my Nextel on a smoke break."  There was also the unfortunate label "intranet."  Everyone KNOWS that an intranet is only intended to serve HR organizations in disseminating an endless series of rules, forms, and the like to the Human Capital (or is that Cattle?) resources of the organization.

Then along comes the latest incarnation, WSS.  Some long-awaited improvements, yes. But searching was gutted out of the product.  Want searching?  You have to buy into the bloated SPS.  The new product has also been taken hostage by the .Net overlords.  Oh, and it can only be hosted in Win Server 2003, further raising obstacles to deployment along with most of the reasons earlier editions were opposed within organizations.  Not a few hopeful CRM vendors can get into the act too with their "this is the Devil's workshop" line of reasoning - mistakenly (?) seeing a threat of sorts.

It is no wonder most people seem barely to have heard of it, and no coinicidence that deployment isn't very wide.

Funny, within Microsoft it (STS 1.0) seems to have been almost too successful.  Could it have been the right tool for the right job at the time?

Bob Riemersma
Saturday, June 19, 2004

I'm a SharePoint 2003 (or v2 if you like) consultant and I'd go with Joel, in relative terms, no one is using it. It came out 8 months ago, and is quite a complicated product. For Microsoft, under 50 million users is probably pretty low. :-)

I'm sure that will change as any MS software based businesses start to pick it up as the most cost effect way to build intranets and the like. (especially if you just use the WSS version)

I'd bet SharePoint will become pretty big within it's market space, right now a lot of my time is just explaining what SharePoint "is", and getting first phase projects off the ground. Once there's a significant number of successful implementations out there,  it'll gain momentum, more users, etc...

Giles Gregg
Saturday, June 19, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home