To prove I'm not a complete IBM fan boy.....

I know on several occasions I have mentioned this to anyone that cares to listen to my somewhat accented drivel, but there is a huge gap in the Quickr for organizations with less than a 1000 users. Specifically this issue revolves around extranet pricing.

I have at least 5 potential customers where a Quickr Utility Express server would make sense if available. The use case goes something like this (let's say this organization has 50 employees):
1.        The (potential) customer installs Quickr or a demo and loves it. It is only $73.50 (give or take) per seat and significantly improves the organizations capability for sharing and file management.
2.        For an initial outlay of $3,675 it has radically changed the way they work, and that amount of money is "doable" in todays economy.
3.        They saw one of the major selling points was the ability to use it to share with customers, manufactures, partners, etc content that had previously been emailed or burned to CD can now be shared in a secure and managed fashion. What is not to like? "Get me that!", says Mr Client.
4.        Sticker shock, Quickr is about $30,000 for 100 PVUs for an extranet license. A x 9 price multiple is NOT going to be approved.

Hum? Anyone see the disjoint here? At least on the Domino side we have Domino Utility Express that is reasonably priced for this type of use case. We have nothing on the Quickr side and this where Quickr can really, really make an impact to customers and really drive home the value of the Lotus portfolio.

We could sell the crap out of this.
Darren Duke   |   May 12 2009 03:51:54 AM   |    quickr    |  
  |   Next Document   |   Previous Document

Discussion for this entry is now closed.

Comments (5)

Gravatar Image
1 - Dag Kvello       05/12/2009 8:33:55 AM

We have the same "problem". Several 10-50 employee companies that could really use Quickr to publish project-documentation to their external partners/customers. But the cost is just ridiculous.

Gravatar Image
2 - Patrick Picard       05/12/2009 10:06:24 AM

I agree, as soon you step out your org lines, the licensing just goes crazy.

The same goes for sametime.

We have a sametime server for internal use and it would be nice to expand to partners for meetings without having to resort to unyte and pay as you go....and remain cost effective.

Gravatar Image
3 - Phil Salm       05/12/2009 11:20:32 AM

I completely agree, this is an issue and hope it is addressed. @2 I disagree about the issue with Sametime. Sametime has a concurrent user license for external participants that is reasonably priced.

Gravatar Image
4 - Rob Novak    05/12/2009 3:28:43 PM

I (still - ten years later) believe Quickr is underpriced by the seat, but could use a good extranet server like you say, and more in the $10k range (none of this silly PVU stuff, I have no idea why IBM went to it).

Gravatar Image
5 - Atillâ Öztürk    05/14/2009 4:51:37 AM

The licencing policy of IBM improved since Express came to life. However, you have to look at your competition.

When we speak about Express pricing it is intended to SMB, isn't it? So we instantly have to trake a look at M$, read: Sharepoint.

When we speak about Sharepoint for SMB for example, we mean the Small Business Server package of Microfsoft, which includes a Sharepoint Server in its licence.

Then we got real-world pricing scenarios. The rest depends to IBM.

If they want that Software to become competitive, the pricing and for example the CI - Adaptation into a portal are some aspects they have to improve in Quickr.

My two cents