I would like to generate some feedback on why more customers are not using / own Lotus Quickr. This is an open-ended thread - post whatever you want. Just be constructive. No pure complaints please - you need to suggest ideas on how to fix it.
Like the partner poll, I will reserve my thoughts on this until Monday. This feedback is not just for me or the Lotus bubble, but will be used for the DomDoc Redbook and the feedback will go directly to the Lotus Quickr team. No promises they do anything about it, but I have an opportunity to deliver the message directly.
John D. HeadCONSULTANT | RAINMAKER | COLLABORATION & INTEGRATION EXPERT
I originally reviewed Dom.doc alongside Quickplace. I forget which quickplace version, but we rolled out on Domino Document Manager 6.x
We wanted a document management system to handle all our existing and future word/excel documents. DDM had the desktop enabler, it handled revision history well and review cycles were easy to hard code to ensure all checked-in documents followed a fixed review cycle. We could even use tags within the Word documents to allow us to show the current DDM version on the cover page of the document, very helpful when printed.
In all, quickplace just couldn't do any of that very well. We wanted an intelligent file server, not an intranet site.
Its because the Quickr Entry level product, the product that is free with a Notes license, has no compelling use case. It has no folders, no tagging, no ability to categorize documents whatsoever; just a flat bucket of files. A shared network folder has more functional features in this realm than Quickr Entry. Its not something that people will trial, love, then create demand for more, leading to a Quickr Standard license.
I was at a Lotus Summit in Toronto last fall where the guest speaker was talking about Quickr (full standard version) and made a statement about how much people love folders. In the Q&A I called him on this statement and asked if people love folders so much, then what's to love about Quickr Entry?
My suggestion is that they provide this minimum functionality in the entry product. Once trialed, it will create demand for the wider set of functionality available in Quickr Standard and adds more substantial value to the Notes license.
Vote here for Quickr Entry folders
{ Link }
For us it's easy - we'd love to have it, but we can't afford it. We've been on a budget lockdown for a couple of years and Quickr for us is a "want" instead of a "need." We know of a few places where Quickr would be useful to us (we originally looked at it when exploring ways to replace a very old/lo-fi document management system we use) but we can't justify the cost right now. I'm in the middle of writing a Notes app to do the job instead.
I should add that I don't think we knew there was a free version (I didn't, anyway), but it doesn't sound like it would have helped us with what we wanted. Technology might be an issue for us too; I don't think we have any spare servers right now, if it needs its own.
First, we only have 50 users and are using the Domino Express License.
I tried to install Quickr when it was first released and there where to many issues with the install. I understand the requirements for scalability, but it should have linked easily to the Domino Directory, I had to edit an XML document in a text editor, and the web site setup clashed with the internet site setup in domino 7/8. The wiki did help later on, but the install scenarios didn't match our situation.
Our primary requirement is to store and search for older files and Domino has a lot of that functionality with attachments in nsf files.
Also, the entry version lacks functionality. A teamroom nsf could do the same job.
Lotus WorkPro can actually File|Save/File|Open to attachments in an NSF and to the end user is looks like a regular file system - I would have preferred that functionality in Symphony.
Or, it would be nice if the connectors could read/write nsfs directly.
One of our customers installed Quickr for 100 users. Installer completely destroyed Domino server. had to get IBM to rescue me. For SMBs would be great to have Quickr svcs on same box as Domino. (I hope that IBM has now fixed the documentation and installer to warn/prevent user from installing on an existing Domino Box.)
Otherwise, I like the idea and will not hesitate to recommend Quickr to clients, but with the caveat above.
If it was included on Foundations, plus Sametime IM, you'd have an SBS/Sharepoint "killer in a box" on your hands.
Currently we're evaluating an OSS called Alfresco and Alfresco Share to try to fill some of this need in this space. The cifs features plus publishing documents to pdf into share spaces automagically for consumption is very nice. If this works out, we would be hard pressed to pony up for the cost of Quickr.
Eric, just because you had a bad install doesn't mean it doesn't work or install on an existing Domino server. We do that ALL the time.
where is that poll?
It's kinda funny -- the first time I installed Quickr, it was with a very simple objective in mind: store the installer and VM images that our Lotus consultants need to work with in a central place.
The problem was that Quickr didn't like 2GB attachments much.
Without DAOS, the 64GB limit on an NSF becomes a real barrier if you're trying to manage stuff like VHDs of Connections installs.
Our Sales folks use it for their materials. That's about all the standard file sharing our entire company does.
That being said, we have customers using it, and many of them like it a lot.
Nathan - Quickr 8.2 will support DAOS. I believe that was announced at Lotusphere. If not, its a feature we are using as a constant for our DomDoc migration recommendations for Quickr 8.2
I remember several customers that primarily used Notes clients didn't like that QuickPlace was browser-based only. So, if you couldn't get to QuickPlace stuff from within Notes, it made more sense to stick with Teamroom or DocLib or a custom Notes application.
Also, I remember customers raising issues with the fact that calendar events entered into a QuickPlace didn't automatically sync with invitee calendars. It made no sense to them to enter a calendar event in QuickPlace only to have to manually sync it in your mail file each time it changed.
If these issues have been addressed in the latest versions of Quickr, please let me know.
Michael, Quickr has indeed addressed the access within Notes. This is accomplished via "Connectors" (today connectors exist for Notes, Windows Explorer, Sametime, Office and Symphony).
Calendar sync has also been addressed (to a point, there is/was an issue with the chair person not syncing). You should take another look at it.
We are missing the connectors for Linux (GNOME, KDE). We would love to have the Active X controls also available for Linux users with Firefox. Having all that available for Linux would also help the MacOS X users. We need true (not half baked) multi-platform support. There is also no Solaris Quickr around.
1.First thing is QuickR is just accessible from Web or as plugin using http protocol. So if we have restrictions on http and allow only pass thru this is not for us.
2.And QuickR UI is not easy to customize, because it uses that Haiku format a bit tough.
3.QuickR does not offer the level of event handling domino.doc does.
4. For access controlled folders you have to create rooms which is confusing.
5. You cannot categorize documents/binders and add meta data to documents.
6. Users like to see folder kind of structure(windows explorer) on the web for library, missing again from quickr UI
7. I dont really know what is the reason for abandoning Domino.Doc if you are just promoting domino databases again to store files.