C O M P E T I T I V... W o r l d w i d e ...

www.idc.com
F.508.935.4015
P.508.872.8200
Global Headquarters: 5 Speen Street Framingham, MA 01701 USA
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
Worldwide Integrated Collaborative Environments 2003
Vendor Anal ysis: How to Keep Moving When Surrounded
by ICE
Mark Levitt
Robert P. Mahowald
IDC OPINION
The worldwide integrated collaborative environment (ICE) market defied expectations
and grew slightly in 2003 to $1.661 billion while continuing to be dominated by the
long-standing top 3 vendors. A very slight crack in the ICE market appeared as
Microsoft, IBM, and Novell represented 96% of overall license and maintenance
revenue in 2003, down slightly from the percentage in the prior year. Whether this
crack will expand as the overall ICE market contracts will depend on whether ICE
vendors do the following:
! Maintain the vision and reality of the dominance of ICE-flavored email inboxes for
collaboration in the face of challenges from spam (which makes email use less
efficient) and alternative tools offering richer or faster collaboration
! Justify the cost of maintenance contracts by providing product updates at least
once a year offering better integrated mobile and portal access, real-time
collaboration, and business process contextual collaboration
! Reduce the cost of maintaining ICE deployments through improved server
consolidation, automated and simplified server and user management, and
outsourcing for appropriate user groups
! Overcome switching costs involved in replacing one ICE product with another by
focusing on cost savings to IT and the functionality benefits for end users in the
long term and the ability of migration tools, services, and promotions to minimize
the cost and effort needed to move users, content, and applications in the short
term
Filing Information: July 2004, IDC #31625, Volume: 1, Tab: Vendors
Collaborative Computing: Competitive Analysis
IN THIS STUDY
This study examines the integrated collaborative environment (ICE) market by looking
at the vendors that provide ICE solutions. A competitive analysis of vendor revenues
and market shares of the leading vendors for 2003 is provided, along with profiles of
the leading vendors identifying the characteristics that vendors will need to be
successful in the future.
Methodology
See the Appendix for a description of the data collection and analysis methodology
employed in this study.
Market Definition
ICEs provide a framework for electronic collaboration, typically within an organization,
based on shared directory and messaging platforms. The core integrated-functionality
areas are email, group calendaring and scheduling, shared folders/databases, and
threaded discussions. Administration and customization are generally performed by
centralized IT staff. Please note that custom application development is no longer a
required element for products to be classified as ICEs. Although this capability
continues to be present in most ICE products, because application servers and Web
services are being used for most custom application development, products lacking
this capability are not automatically excluded from the ICE category.
Representative vendors in this market include IBM (Lotus Domino/Notes), Microsoft
(Exchange/Outlook), Novell (GroupWise), and Oracle (Collaboration Suite).
Standalone email applications are not included here but are covered in the
messaging applications market.
SITUATION OVERVIEW
We present here our 2003 vendor revenue and market share estimates for the largest
ICE vendors worldwide and by region (see Figure 1 and Table 1). Please note that
the total ICE market sizing for 2003 presented here is based on our estimates
published in July 2004 (Worldwide Integrated Collaborative Environments 2004–2008
Forecast Update: Asia/Pacific and Europe Asked for a Bit More ICE in 2003 than
Initial Estimates, IDC #31539, July 2004), which updated our initial estimates
published in May 2004 (Worldwide Integrated Collaborative Environments 2004–2008
Forecast: Keeping Collaboration on ICE, IDC #31244, May 2004).
©2004 IDC
#31625
1
FIGURE 1
Worldwide Integrated Collaborative Environments Revenue
by Vendor and Region, 2003
Microsoft
IBM
Novell
NEC
Oracle
HandySoft
Other
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
($M)
North America
Western Europe
Asia/Pacific
ROW
Note: The "other" category consists of vendors with revenue of less than $10 million.
Source: IDC, June 2004
2
#31625
©2004 IDC
T ABLE 1
Worldwide Integrated Collaborative Environments Revenue by Vendor,
2002 and 2003 ($M)
2002
2003
2003 Share (%)
2002–2003
Growth (%)
Microsoft
725.0
770.0
46.4
6.2
IBM
735.0
709.1
42.7
-3.5
Novell
114.6
116.0
7.0
1.2
18.2
17.1
1.0
-6.0
Oracle
5.0
15.0
0.9
200.0
HandySoft
6.2
14.3
0.9
130.6
29.9
19.6
1.2
-34.4
1,633.9
1,661.1
100.0
1.7
NEC
Other
Total
Notes:
The "other" category consists of vendors with revenue of less than $10 million.
This data does not include revenue for ICE products licensed for service provider standalone email.
Source: IDC, June 2004
FUTURE OUTLOOK
Vendor Profiles
The following profiles of ICE vendors present our analysis of vendor differentiators
and challenges that will influence future success. This analysis is reflected in the IDC
Leadership Grid, which presents our view of the relative market positioning of ICE
vendors. This positioning was developed by plotting the average scores for the two
types of factors on which the vendors are rated on a scale of 1–10, where 1 = very
poor and 10 = excellent (see Figure 2A). The detailed analysis of how the vendors
compare for each of the two types of factors separately is also shown (see Figures 2B
and 2C). For a detailed description of the IDC Leadership Grid methodology, see the
Appendix.
©2004 IDC
#31625
3
FIGURE 2A
IDC Leadership Grid: Worldwide Integrated Collaborative
Environments Market, 2004
High
Niche
Leadership
IBM
Microsoft
Low
Ability to gain share
Novell
Oracle
Teamware
Open Text
HandySoft
NEC
Crisis Potential
Low
Legacy
Market opportunity alignment
High
Source: IDC, 2004
4
#31625
©2004 IDC
FIGURE 2B
IDC Leadership Grid of the Worldwide Integrated Collaborative
Environments Market, 2004: Vendor Ratings for Market
Opportunity Alignment (X-Axis) Attributes
IBM
Microsoft
Novell
NEC
Oracle
HandySoft
Teamware
Open Text
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(Score)
Ability to set industry standards
Market share
Potential for market dominance
Potential for place or show
Product and service breadth
Note: Scores are based on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = very poor and 10 = excellent.
Source: IDC, 2004
©2004 IDC
#31625
5
FIGURE 2C
IDC Leadership Grid of the Worldwide Integrated Collaborative
Environments Market, 2004: Vendor Ratings for Ability to Gain
Share (Y-Axis) Attributes
IBM
Microsoft
Novell
NEC
Oracle
HandySoft
Teamware
Open Text
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(Score)
Third-party applications
Service provider partnerships
Global presence
Mobile and wireless support
Multiplatform support
Integration with other applications and infrastructure
Note: Scores are based on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = very poor and 10 = excellent.
Source: IDC, 2004
6
#31625
©2004 IDC
IBM
Differentiators
! IBM's commitment to support indefinitely both Domino/Notes and the newer
Lotus Workplace products, which offer portal-oriented collaboration based on the
WebSphere platform, will enable the company to reassure customers that they
have the choice of keeping collaboration and application development on ICE or
transitioning to WebSphere sometime over the next several years at their own
pace.
! In Lotus Domino/Notes 6.5, IBM focused on enhancing end-user productivity by
adding integrated instant messaging and presence for real-time collaboration,
allowing easier blocking of spam, and offering a Linux client. These offerings will
help IBM to convince existing Notes customers, especially those running
versions 4.X or 5.X, to upgrade.
! IBM's ability to sell combinations of Lotus and other IBM software products,
including WebSphere (Web application development and portals), Tivoli (system
management and storage), and DB2 (database and content management), along
with its hardware and professional services, will enable IBM to act as a one-stop
shop for complex computing environments in which collaboration adds one key
element — the human element.
Challenges
! IBM will need to continue to tread carefully in pursuing its vision of a portaloriented collaboration, brought to life in the Lotus Workplace products.
Otherwise, a portion of existing Lotus Domino/Notes customers anticipating the
need to make significant changes to their ICE infrastructure could be tempted to
switch to a competing ICE product.
! As long as Windows remains the preferred platform for most ICE customers, IBM
faces an uphill battle to persuade companies to avoid the tendency to standardize
on Microsoft Windows, as well as Outlook, because of the multiproduct integration
and licensing available from Microsoft, whose Windows server and client products
incorporate more collaborative functionality than ever before.
! IBM WebSphere offers customers an alternative platform for developing a wide
range of applications accessible through the Web and intranets without the need
for an IBM Lotus Domino/Notes infrastructure.
Microsoft
Differentiators
! Microsoft's Exchange 2003 Server addresses IT demands for server
consolidation through higher scalability and performance and lower
administrative requirements, as well as improved virus API and basic spam
filtering capabilities. For end users, Microsoft Exchange 2003 and Outlook 2003
deliver faster connections for more satisfying user experiences by leveraging a
new Outlook cache capability and an improved version of MAPI that requires
fewer bytes to exchange data over a dial-up or LAN connection.
©2004 IDC
#31625
7
! Positioning Exchange Server as part of both the Microsoft Office System and the
Windows Server product families will tie Microsoft's ICE product even closer to its
dominant Windows and Office applications businesses. This makes Exchange
and Outlook obvious choices for current and prospective customers looking to
help information workers to create, share, store, and publish information.
! Microsoft Exchange customers have access to real-time collaboration as the
result of Office Live Communication Server licenses being available to all
Exchange 5.5/2000/2003 customers as part of software assurance maintenance
contracts.
Challenges
! Microsoft will need to justify the cost and effort needed for Exchange 5.5, and to
a lesser degree 2000 customers, to upgrade to Exchange 2003, especially for
customers who are not on maintenance contracts and who are not yet committed
to deploying Windows and Office 2003 in the next 12–24 months. Otherwise, a
portion of these customers could choose to skip the upgrade and instead migrate
to a competing ICE product.
! As Microsoft continues to add new functionality to its Exchange, Outlook, and
Windows products, such as team collaboration and antispam protection, the
company will shrink the opportunities for third-party vendors whose add-ons may
be perceived as being less worthy of separate investment, at least for Exchange
customers whose needs can be satisfied by basic capabilities.
Novell
Differentiators
! GroupWise 6.5 will enable Novell to address IT staff requirements for antispam
controls and reduced administrative resources to manage GroupWise users and
servers, as well as attract end users looking for secure, integrated business
instant messaging and support for a wide variety of smart handheld computers
running both Palm OS and Windows Mobile for Pocket PC and RIM and Synch
ML wireless devices.
! Novell's acquisition of SUSE LINUX and its commitment to supporting Linux on
the server and the desktop will lend GroupWise credibility as a powerful ICE
offering for Linux environments. By offering GroupWise clients for Linux and Mac
OS, Novell will be able to support end users who are often left out in the cold
unless they embrace Windows.
! Novell's NetMail standalone email product, with calendaring/scheduling, will give
the vendor a complementary product with which it can address the needs of
deskless workers at customers that may have otherwise chosen a competing ICE
product or standalone email product for all of their users, not just for deskless
workers.
8
#31625
©2004 IDC
Challenges
! Despite a nicely stable third-place market share and more aggressive marketing,
including bold print advertising, Novell will continue to struggle to shake the
common perception that the ICE market is a two-horse race that does not include
Novell.
! In remaining focused on the midmarket, Novell will continue to keep itself out of
the running for supplying larger organizations and service providers requiring
high scalability, reliability, and performance.
! For most of Novell and its customers, GroupWise will remain a solid product that
lives in the shadow of Novell's resource, identity, and access management
products. GroupWise will even need to compete with Novell's SUSE LINUX
Openexchange server and Evolution client that can deliver collaboration with
GroupWise or its competition.
Oracle
Differentiators
! Oracle's redefining of ICE by including in its Collaboration Suite not only email
and group calendaring/scheduling but also universal search, file management,
Web conferencing, and instant messaging on top of a shared Oracle platform will
help to differentiate it from the competition and attract the attention of prospective
customers. The only exception to this approach of being more inclusive than the
competition is that the company does not have its own custom application
development environment, wisely letting the Oracle Application server provide
that capability.
! Oracle will be able to leverage its database, portal, and business application
customer base to sell its ICE offering as a natural extension to an Oracle
infrastructure that can be managed by the same administrators who manage the
rest of the Oracle infrastructure. For firms committed to this Oracle infrastructure,
the Collaboration Suite will look like a very natural fit.
! Reliance on Oracle's relational database platform enables customers to achieve
high levels of scalability (up to 10,000 concurrent users on a single server,
according to Oracle) to help consolidate the number of existing email/ICE servers
needed and to leverage existing Oracle database administration (DBA) staff
expertise in managing corporate email and collaboration along with other
mission-critical business applications running on Oracle databases.
Challenges
! Oracle will need to continue to prove itself as a viable competitor in the ICE
market in light of its past entries into the high-end email market (with minimal
success) and its recent entry into a mature ICE market heavily dominated by very
established competitors also pursuing scalability and email server consolidation
in the most recent versions of their ICE products.
©2004 IDC
#31625
9
! Oracle must work hard to ensure that the first generation of each new
collaborative capability added to its Collaboration Suite, such as Web
conferencing and instant messaging, remains as good as or better than the bestof-breed competitors that have had years of market experience and customer
feedback to refine their offerings.
Other ICE Vendors
Other notable vendors with products that meet all or most of the requirements for
ICEs include the following:
! HandySoft BizFlow Groupware features Korean-language email, bulletin boards,
schedule management, approval workflow, registration of shared resources,
contact/business card management, log and statistics, and electronic meetings. It
is written in Java and based on a relational Java database and electronic forms.
An English-language version of the BizFlow Workflow product is the only
HandySoft product that is actively marketed in North America
(corona.handysoft.co.kr).
! Hitachi Groupmax features Japanese- and Korean-language email, bulletin
boards, address books, document management, workflow, agents, electronic
forms, and calendaring/scheduling management. It uses Sendmail as the SMTP
email server. It is sold in Japan as well as in Korea through its partner, Samsung
(www.hitachi.co.jp).
! Korea Information Engineering Services (KIES) HiExpress intranet groupware
features Korean-language document approval workflow and delivery and
integration with HanSoft's Hangul word processor. Client access is through Web
browsers (www.kies.co.kr).
! NEC StarOffice features Japanese-language email, document management,
directory, and portal capabilities (www.nec.co.jp).
! Open Text FirstClass features unified messaging and collaboration (email, voice
messaging, fax, online workspaces, and instant messaging) for educational
institutions, businesses, and service providers. It is available on Windows, Mac
OS, Linux, and Unix and supports PDA and voice access. FirstClass
complements the company's flagship product, Livelink for enterprise collaboration
and content management (www.opentext.com).
! Teamware Office features Windows and Linux support, and its corporate
affiliation with Fujitsu and 3i helps it establish a market presence in Japan and
Western Europe (www.teamware.com).
10
#31625
©2004 IDC
ESSENTIAL GUIDANCE
! Maintain the vision and reality of the dominance of ICE-flavored email
inboxes for collaboration. The future of ICE and corporate email (which is
dominated by ICE solutions) is facing challenges on two fronts: First, the surge in
spam has made email use less efficient than before because of the time and
effort required of most ICE users to find and act on the legitimate important
information often buried in a sea of spam in their inboxes. ICE solutions should
embrace third-party antispam solutions and some native antispam technologies
to make spam more manageable. Second, during the past five years or so, ICE
users and their solutions providers have identified the limitations of ICE and
email, and have been looking at alternative tools for more structured or real-time
collaboration. ICE solutions should take the high ground and embrace these
other collaborative tools by offering integrated access and shared content
(especially email) to these tools. This will help ensure that the ICE inbox remains
the primary starting and jumping off point for other forms of collaboration.
! Justify the cost of maintenance contracts by providing product updates at
least once a year. Nearly all of the ICE products have been around for many
years and have become stable, proven, and reliable infrastructure in the minds of
end users and IT staff. This situation can lead to ICE customers increasingly
wondering aloud why they need to write significant checks every year or two to
ICE vendors. To ensure that ICE customers are running the latest and greatest
versions of ICE products, ICE vendors should continue to look for ways to refresh
their products with features that make it worth the cost and time needed to roll
out a new version. There are several areas on which ICE vendors should focus
their attention: First, ICE products should offer more integrated mobile and portal
access to satisfy existing users and extend the reach of ICE to new users whose
primary user interface is not the ICE inbox. Second, ICE products should
embrace real-time and structured collaboration. Third, ICE products should
provide templates and integration to make ICE a key element of contextual
collaboration within other business processes and applications.
! Reduce the cost of maintaining ICE deployments. Whether customers are
considering switching to a different ICE product or just want to reduce the costs
of their current ICE infrastructure, ICE vendors should be responsive by providing
ways to reduce the time and other resources needed to keep ICE up and
running. There are several areas that ICE vendors should focus on: First, ICE
vendors should continue to enable customers to reduce the number of servers
needed to support end users. Second, ICE vendors should make it easier to
manage ICE servers and clients through automated and simplified server and
user management — often through tools that can manage more than just ICE.
Third, ICE vendors should continue to educate customers on the value of
outsourcing a full set or subset of ICE functionality for appropriate user groups
that are either located at remote work sites or whose collaborative needs may be
limited.
©2004 IDC
#31625
11
! Overcome switching costs by focusing on cost savings and functionality
benefits in the long term and the ability of migration tools, services, and
promotions to minimize the switching costs in the short term. Too often ICE
vendors market their products as better alternatives to what companies are
currently using, while ignoring the huge investments already made in the existing
ICE infrastructure, end-user and administrative expertise, and home-ground and
third party applications and add-on products. Too often vendors focus solely on
total cost of ownership (TCO) for two or more products through side-by-side
comparisons, without considering the return on investment (ROI), which looks at
the payback to be had by deploying a new ICE product to replace an existing
one. With very few opportunities to deploy ICE in an ICE-less environment, there
needs to be greater attention paid to the costs and benefits over time of replacing
one form of ICE with another.
This Essential Guidance section, except for the last bullet, remains unchanged from
what we published in May 2004.
LE ARN MORE
Related Research
! Worldwide Integrated Collaborative Environments 2004–2008 Forecast Update:
Asia/Pacific and Europe Asked for a Bit More ICE in 2003 than Initial Estimates
(IDC #31539, July 2004)
! Worldwide Integrated Collaborative Environments 2004–2008 Forecast: Keeping
Collaboration on ICE (IDC #31244, May 2004)
! Worldwide Conferencing Applications 2004–2008 Forecast: A First Look at FY03
Performance (IDC #31128, April 2004)
! Worldwide Messaging Applications 2004–2008 Forecast: An Early Look at FY03
Performance (IDC #31030, March 2004)
! Worldwide Team Collaborative Applications 2004–2008 Forecast: Shifting Teams
to Larger Leagues in 2003 in Preparation for Next Season (IDC #31005, March
2004)
! Going Mobile: Hopes, Realities, and Solutions from IDC's 2003 Wireless and
Mobile Enterprise Survey (IDC #30861, February 2004)
! IDC's Software Taxonomy, 2004 (IDC #30838, February 2004)
! An Assessment of the Market Demand and Opportunity for Collaborative
Software as a Service (IDC # 30177 , November 2003)
! Microsoft Office System 2003: A System Is Born? (IDC # 30319, October 2003)
! Worldwide Email Usage Forecast, 2003–2007: Spam and Instant Messaging
Take a Bite Out of Email (IDC # 30195, October 2003)
12
#31625
©2004 IDC
! Out of the Inbox and into the Fire: Three Scenarios for the Future of
Collaboration (IDC # 29889, July 2003)
! Worldwide Integrated Collaborative Environments Forecast and Analysis, 2003–
2007: Raising the Melting Point of ICE (IDC #29673, June 2003)
Appendix A: Methodology
The IDC Software Research Group (SRG) market sizing and forecasts are presented
in terms of "packaged software revenue." Packaged software is defined as programs
or codesets of any type commercially available through sale, lease, or rental, or as a
service. Packaged software revenue typically includes fees for initial and continued
right-to-use packaged software licenses. These fees may include, as part of the
license contract, access to product support and/or other services that are inseparable
from the right-to-use license fee structure, or this support may be priced separately as
software maintenance. Upgrades may be included in the continuing right of use or
may be priced separately.
Packaged software revenue excludes service revenue derived from training,
consulting, and system integration that is separate (or unbundled) from the right-touse license but includes the implicit value of software included in a service that offers
software functionality by a different pricing scheme (e.g., the implicit or stated value of
software included in an application service provider's [ASP's] or other hosted software
arrangement). It is the total packaged software revenue that is further allocated to
markets, geographic areas, and operating environments.
IDC's industry analysts have been measuring and forecasting IT markets for more
than 30 years. IDC's software industry analysts have been delivering analysis and
prognostications for packaged software markets for more than 25 years.
The market forecast and analysis methodology incorporates information from five
different but interrelated sources, as follows:
! Reported and observed trends and financial activity. This study incorporates
reported and observed trends and financial activity in 2003 as of the end of April
2004, including reported revenue data for public companies trading on North
American stock exchanges (CY 1Q03–4Q03 in nearly all cases).
! IDC's Software Census interviews. IDC interviews all significant market
participants to determine product revenue, revenue demographics, pricing, and
other relevant information.
! Product briefings, press releases, and other publicly available information.
IDC's software analysts around the world meet with hundreds of software
vendors each year. These briefings provide an opportunity to review current and
future business and product strategies, revenue, shipments, customer bases,
target markets, and other key product and competitive information.
©2004 IDC
#31625
13
! Vendor financial statements and related filings. Although many software
vendors are privately held and choose to limit financial disclosures, information
from publicly held companies provides a significant benchmark for assessing
informal market estimates from private companies. IDC also builds detailed
information related to private companies through in-depth analyst relationships
and maintains an extensive library of financial and corporate information focused
on the IT industry. We further maintain detailed revenue by product area models
on more than 1,000 worldwide vendors.
! IDC demand-side research. This includes thousands of interviews with
business users of software solutions annually and provides a powerful fifth
perspective for assessing competitive performance and market dynamics. IDC's
user strategy databases offer a compelling and consistent time-series view of
industry trends and developments. Direct conversations with technology buyers
provide an invaluable complement to the broader survey-based results.
Ultimately, the data presented in this study represent IDC's best estimates based on
the above data sources as well as reported and observed activity by vendors and
further modeling of data that we believe to be true to fill in any information gaps.
In addition, please note the following:
! The information contained in this study was derived from the IDC Software
Market Forecaster database as of June 2004.
! All numbers in this document may not be exact due to rounding.
For more information on IDC's software definitions and methodology, see IDC's
Software Taxonomy, 2004 (IDC #30838, February 2004).
Appendix B: Methodology for the IDC
Leadership Grid
The IDC Leadership Grid is a tool that graphically depicts the leadership potential of
various vendors by assessing two major competitive factors with specific inputs:
! Market opportunity alignment. This term defines a vendor's ability to meet
current market demands. Factors evaluated include:
14
#
Ability to set industry standards
#
Market share (revenue, customers, and users)
#
Potential for market dominance (ranking first)
#
Potential for place or show (ranking second or third)
#
Product and service breadth (across and beyond collaborative applications)
#31625
©2004 IDC
! Ability to gain share. This term defines a vendor's ability to gain market share in
the future. Factors evaluated include:
#
Third-party applications (document management, workflow, unified
messaging, antivirus, antispam, email archiving, CRM, SFA, and HR)
#
Service provider partnerships (hosted, managed, and professional services)
#
Global presence (sales and support offices, customers, and resellers)
#
Mobile and wireless support (handheld and telephone device access)
#
Multiplatform support
environments)
#
Integration with other applications and infrastructure
(server,
desktop,
and
handheld
operating
IDC selects the vendors to rate based on current market share, mindshare (name
recognition and familiarity among customers, prospects, and industry observers), and
customers (number and diversity). Other companies for which information is not
available or whose market presence and opportunity are limited are not selected due
to the limited value and accuracy of any ratings that would be done for them.
For each vendor, IDC rates each input on a scale of 1–10, where 1 = very poor and
10 = excellent. The average scores for the market opportunity alignment and ability to
gain share inputs for each vendor are then plotted on the x-axis and the y-axis,
respectively, of the IDC Leadership Grid.
Vendor placement in the four quadrants of the IDC Leadership Grid should be
understood as follows:
! Upper-right quadrant. This is most desirable for vendors that are pursuing
maximum revenue and the broadest market reach. It reflects very successful
past performance and points to a promising future.
! Upper-left quadrant. This is desirable for vendors focused on becoming leaders
in specific target markets. It reflects poorly on moderately successful past
performance and points to a promising future.
! Lower-right quadrant. This is somewhat less desirable for vendors. Although it
reflects very successful past performance, it points to a less promising future
unless changes are made.
! Lower-left quadrant. This is least desirable for vendors. It reflects poorly to
moderately successful past performance (possibly due to recent market
entrance) and points to a less promising or an uncertain future.
©2004 IDC
#31625
15
Copyright Notice
This IDC research document was published as part of an IDC continuous intelligence
service, providing written research, analyst interactions, telebriefings, and
conferences. Visit www.idc.com to learn more about IDC subscription and consulting
services. To view a list of IDC offices worldwide, visit www.idc.com/offices. Please
contact the IDC Hotline at 800.343.4952, ext. 7988 (or +1.508.988.7988) or
[email protected] for information on applying the price of this document toward the
purchase of an IDC service or for information on additional copies or Web rights.
Copyright 2004 IDC. Reproduction is forbidden unless authorized. All rights reserved.
Published Under Services: Collaborative Computing; Integrated Collaborative
Environments
16
#31625
©2004 IDC