Here you go: http://www.wikimatrix.org/

I agree with your CEO.

Let others rank you.

But if you do decide to do it, remain objective and constructive. It is a turn off when software companies get toxic. I have been a toxic software product developer myself before and regret it

I don't see you guys rolling like that though anyway.

Mike

One difference between our situation and Saturn is that car companies release models once per year, so it's probably reasonably easy to compare one model / maker to another on a datasheet. Software is obviously more fluid, with releases coming multiple times per year per vendor.

But my initial thought was actually that creating this feature list only reduces Clearspace to a list of features, which by themselves don't solve any problems. Plus there are certain companies that will probably have more checkboxes checked on the feature list than Clearspace does, but that don't integrate the features in a compelling or even useful way. The iPod is a great example of this: compared to other MP3 players at the time the initial model was released, it had less features but was no one cared because it was beautifully designed and worked in such a way that everyone was able to figure it out without feeling like they were programming a VCR. The iPhone is another perfect example: feature for feature it would lose out against most advanced PDA type cell phones on the market today, but the features it does have, along with the design and the way it's put together, made it a phone that may just turn the entire cellular industry on it's head over just one weekend.

What about using a complete, neutral, and factual methodology to compare?

QSOS seems to be the right method: http://qsos.org/

It goes far beyond all the *matrix.org stuff (wikimatrix, cmsmatrix) which in fact just simple straight tables, with lines one could hide in order to orient the result.

QSOS consists of a set of tree-organized criteria, that all the family of software compared share. Each criterion is evaluated and discussed for each software. When all the criteria are filled, O3S can generate graphs and tables, at any level of the tree so that you can zoom in and out. Besides you can put weights on each node and/or leaf in order to take into account what criteria or set of critera is really important for your context.

The method is opensource, the tools are opensource, and your data and the process of evaluation can be either proprietary or opensource.

Last thing, QSOS stands for: Qualification and Selection of Opensource Software. So ClearSpace will be badly noted in the section specifically opensource criteria.

http://qsos.org/

Nco

I agree that it's a turn off to read companies bragging about how they are better than the competition. Plus, it's hard for customers to really believe when it comes from a biased source. Lots of products have poorly implemented features that are just there to be able to check off a box on a comparison matrix.

Instead, I think it would be worthwhile to spend that time clarifying Jive's positioning. Collaboration is a broad and vague term. How would your CEO feel about pointing out things that you're not trying to do? For example, some other products focus more on shared calendars, web mail, and PIM types of features. Others seem to be driven by document management. If you can help name and define the categories within collaboration, that would make it easier for customers to figure out if you have what they're looking for. I wouldn't be surprised if the competition isn't so much between products, but between different ideas of how the collaboration market should be defined.

And thanks for pointing out Saturn's "side by side" test drive program. It might not work as well for software products, but I'm glad to see people thinking creatively along these lines.

AJ, your comment about the iPod reminds me of the initial Slashdot review: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

Hosted competitive apps would be interesting to say the least.

I agree with Dave H. and also with David N. on this point. At my job I spend a lot of time focusing on our competition and while I would love to boil down buyer decisions into a mathematical equation justified by a feature matrix and balance sheet, this just simply is not how buyers make decisions.

Simply put, a technology buying decision is 30% features, 30% company reliability, 30% services and 30% gut instinct. But wait, that adds up to 120%, how can this be you say? Remember my earlier point... buying decisions are not mathematically driven, so feature matrixes will create more tension than they are worth.

Instead, focus on your differentiators, things which set Jive apart as a company, a partner and a group of cool people. Find the tangibles and intangibles that set you apart and list these for folks to ponder. Then wow them with your cool software. That way if a specific feature is lacking, they're less focused on a check list and more focused on Jive as a partner.

Sam ,

I think it is great that you are always considering new ways to get a competitive edge.

I think the idea behind it is great and as far as software being to fluid to be reported on seems strange. Is it too much to ask for a quarterly update of this information or even a monthly.

This might be a way to avoid burning bridges.

In other words have the report be more fluid.

Thanks

Christian

Sam and Co.,

Bravo, bravo, bravo! Can I swear in this? Clearspace is the greatest F*&king product I have ever used.

I don't think you have competition if the goal is to get people using the product to make a difference in their companies.

We were a longtime Jive user (Wildfire, Openfire, Superfire?), and of course, love it. I lusted after Clearspace for quite a while, and then just decided to deploy it on a whim and let the chips fall where they may. In 5 days it has become the single most used system in our company. We are about 20 employees BTW, and I have never seen anything get adopted so quickly, with so little training in my entire career.

Simply amazing, and you should be damn proud of yourselves.

Put the matrix up. It shows that you are proud to stand on your merits, and as a customer? i ALWAYS go to the matrix. I assume that it is a little biased of course, but I crave the information. it's why people entertain sales calls. No one knows the product better than you, and the bias is part of the passion. People ask me about my stupid iPhone everyday. The KNOW I am totally evangelistic about it, but they WANT that. They want to know WHY I am so excited about it. Or Clearspace. Or Netsuite, or Spain. Or whatever it is.

So I'll say it here. I LOVE Clearspace and I love Jive. I think it is an awesome feat that a 40 person company can make software as great as you guys do, and i thank you for making my company a better place.

Mike

We usually resolve these types of disputes at my organization with some kind of eating contest. Bologna works well. Also, you could try to eat one of everything in the building vending machine.

This is a great "out of the box" way to ensure the best idea bubbles to the top.

Great idea Andrew. Blackberry pie is messier. Messier = more fun to watch for colleagues. Blackberry pie eating contest! If this happens, y'all must document and post vid.