WebSphere Journal: New Internal IBM Report Says "Another Flawed Study"

October 26 2004

IBM Response to Study "Comparing Microsoft .NET and IBM WebSphere/J2EE"
I posted the public version of this document in the Lotus Partner Forum last week... now it looks like WebSphere Journal has picked it up...

The latest Middleware Company study is flawed and does not accurately reflect the capability of WebSphere J2EE vs. Microsoft .NET. Like two previous discredited Middleware Company studies, this study was funded by Microsoft. While expert Microsoft programmers were allowed to contribute to the .NET side, neither IBM nor other WebSphere J2EE product experts were invited to contribute to the testing.
Some of the discrepancies in the way this report was conducted are pretty severe, even to my experienced eye.
Link: WebSphere Journal: New Internal IBM Report says "Another flawed study" >

Ed Brill | Highland Park, IL USA Category:  IBM  Add/View Comments [10]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Peter de Haas www.peterdehaas.com | 10/26/2004 1:22:23 PM

    I've read the stuff briefly a few weeks ago. Couldn't comment on the contribution form Websphere expert's side, but it is very comprehansive and detailled.

    Much more thorough that some of the other reports that have passed your weblog in recent months :-)

  1. 2  Julian Robichaux http://www.nsftools.com | 10/26/2004 9:27:10 PM

    Aw man, I just wrote about that too ( { Link } ). And here I was thinking I was going to be original or something.

    - Julian

  1. 3  Chris LeRoy http://www.brainbent.com | 10/26/2004 9:39:54 PM

    After each instance of an M$ *sponsored* study, I feel so unclean.

    Hey Ed, when is IBM going buy some studies that doesn't include the opposition? ;)

  1. 4  Sagar  | 10/27/2004 8:08:23 AM

    This study is definatly incorrect in so many ways. Is IBM going to publish this study officially on its web site?

  1. 5  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 10/27/2004 9:08:36 AM

    The document as posted on that site -is- IBM's response. It may not be on an ibm.com URL, but it is what you would receive if you contacted IBM for a response.

  1. 6  Sagar  | 10/28/2004 10:28:38 AM

    Here is the Microsoft's response to

    Link: { Link }

    Here is the link to popular thread "IBM and Microsoft respond to Websphere vs. .NET Study" on serverside.com

    { Link }

    which includes comments from Tyler Jewell, CEO of The Middleware Company. ...

    <i> taken from Serverside.com - There are a number of factually incorrect areas in this document, not reflective of the quality standard IBM follows in their publications. So, we are not sure if this is an IBM sponsored and reviewed document. If IBM creates an official response, we would eagerly post and provide counter-perspective.</i>

  1. 7  Sagar  | 10/28/2004 10:47:52 AM

    Check the comments from famous J2EE expert Richard Monson-Haefel about analyst firms

    { Link }

    {There are two types of analyst companies in the world: Honest ones that actually do the research and provide unbiased analysis, and the others. The others are analysts for hire. They find the results that they are paid to find. If an analyst company provides their reports for free, it’s a good indication that they may be analysts for hire. The fact that the analysis is free indicates that they are making money form the sponsor, not the public who reads their research. TMC is, without a doubt, an analyst-for-hire company. I would not trust anything they said.}

  1. 8  Axel Janssen  | 10/29/2004 7:42:33 AM

    here's an interesting discussion of brighter, better informed and more experienced people than I am:

    { Link }

  1. 9  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 10/29/2004 12:35:50 PM

    Interesting. That's a pretty surgical dissection.