EPiServer, Escenic, Sitecore och Alfresco – “We get it”

In Alfresco, Coremedia, Escenic, Nyheter, Optimizely/Episerver, Sitecore XP, Vignette by MKSE.com Redaktion Martin Edenström6 Comments

CMSWatch har släppt en ny lista, en reality checklist med 15 frågor om produkten, licenser etc. Den nutidsorienterade listan kallas för "We get it" checklista för CMS-tillverkare och ska trycka på "web2.0 värden" som ofta glöms bort i dagens upphandlings- och förfrågningsunderlag. Kvalificerade frågor blandas med tämligen irrelevanta som är lätta att få "rätt" på. Påstående CMS-tillverkarna besvarar är: Our software comes with an installer program. Installing or uninstalling our software does not require a reboot...

Detta är enbart en förhandsgranskning av hela artikeln. För att läsa och ta del av all data krävs en engångsbetalning eller att du eller ditt företag blir en supporterande medlem till MKSE.com. Betalning sker vid månadsskiftet och det går att läsa innan debitering. Summan bestämmer du själv, det börjar på 19 SEK i månaden. Eller det belopp du anser de tiotusentals artiklarna på MKSE.com är värt (190 SEK, 1900 SEK). Pengen går till molndrift och licenser så MKSE.com får finnas kvar. En-klicksbetalning i mobilen via t ex ApplePay. Via Paypal eller betalkort. Stort tack för din förståelse och stöd!
Är du redan medlem, med utloggad? Dessa tuffa cookies-tider.. Se bara till att vara inloggad på ditt Patreon-konto och klicka Log In-länken här nedan.
To view this content, you must be a member of MKSE.com & artikelförfattaren Martins Patreon at $1 or more
Unlock with Patreon

Kommentarer

  1. Come on!

    These are numbers (1-3 score per topic, 15 topics) the vendors _give themselves_. It has NOTHING to do with the real world.

    So, these vendors find an “acceptable” number, but in the top 40’ies.

    For example. Day gave themselves 44 score first, then people started to blog about the realism. So they have gradually degraded themselves to their current score, where people seem to accept it.

    Also, how will a sales guy in any way be able to evaluate your own software?

    There are also a matter of system classes. Have you seen InfoPark? And CoreMedia? Not talking the quality of these systems, but they are entirely different types of software, so a point score is totally waste of time.

    This is exactly what kills this business. Un-serious voting systems and feature comparisons.

    I strongly suggest people to use serious companies such as Gartner Group, Butler, Forrester, CMSWatch or other independent CMS selection experts who also looks at your needs (one system might fit for some customers not for other).

  2. Come on!

    These are numbers (1-3 score per topic, 15 topics) the vendors _give themselves_. It has NOTHING to do with the real world.

    So, these vendors find an “acceptable” number, but in the top 40’ies.

    For example. Day gave themselves 44 score first, then people started to blog about the realism. So they have gradually degraded themselves to their current score, where people seem to accept it.

    Also, how will a sales guy in any way be able to evaluate your own software?

    There are also a matter of system classes. Have you seen InfoPark? And CoreMedia? Not talking the quality of these systems, but they are entirely different types of software, so a point score is totally waste of time.

    This is exactly what kills this business. Un-serious voting systems and feature comparisons.

    I strongly suggest people to use serious companies such as Gartner Group, Butler, Forrester, CMSWatch or other independent CMS selection experts who also looks at your needs (one system might fit for some customers not for other).

  3. Escenic actually had to increase the score from 32 to 36, after Kas Thomas in CMSWatch commented it. I wrote Escenic’s answers, and naturally think they are quite correct ;-)

    I agree with Lasse above that using only numbers for choosing/judging the CMSs is ridiculous, and as most Escenic customers spend several months choosing the best system for their requirements and strategy, this whole exercise should not be taken too seriously.

    Vignette (who used Facebook for answering), has some good points in the introduction to their answers: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=62817941034

  4. Escenic actually had to increase the score from 32 to 36, after Kas Thomas in CMSWatch commented it. I wrote Escenic’s answers, and naturally think they are quite correct ;-)

    I agree with Lasse above that using only numbers for choosing/judging the CMSs is ridiculous, and as most Escenic customers spend several months choosing the best system for their requirements and strategy, this whole exercise should not be taken too seriously.

    Vignette (who used Facebook for answering), has some good points in the introduction to their answers: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=62817941034

  5. Lasse,

    as the author of Day’s answer I can assure you: we have had the same score ever since we published over post. I have absolutely no idea how you could claim we changed our score over time (have you mixed us up with another vendor?)

    Michael

  6. Lasse,

    as the author of Day’s answer I can assure you: we have had the same score ever since we published over post. I have absolutely no idea how you could claim we changed our score over time (have you mixed us up with another vendor?)

    Michael

Leave a Comment

Denna webbplats använder Akismet för att minska skräppost. Lär dig hur din kommentardata bearbetas.