OSS vs. Network - Different situation

[dwill]

I've seen a lot of comparison on these forums about converting from Exchange/Outlook to Zimbra/Outlook. I have been experimenting with the OSS version and am impressed by what you are providing for free.

We are currently using the standard postfix/spamassasin/clamav for our mail server and outlook for our clients. We also run squirrelmail for remote use.

With OSS Zimbra we can still use the outlook client same as we do now.

Zimbra Network Edition offers solutions that we desire:

1. Server Based Mail stores
2. More robust outlook support
3. Synced "webmail"
4. OTA for mobile devices

HOWEVER, to get access to these "network edition" features, I would have to now pay $28.00 per user/ per year for the same basic functionality I already get for free. I have no problem with paying for Zimbra Mobile features. I would love to see enhanced Outlook functionality available as seperate add-on for the OSS edition.

I know there must be thousands of others in this same situation. I think you stand to lose a lot of potential revenue if you require annual licensing for the basic functionality portion of your package.

I love Zimbra so far, but I have to check out all of the other possibilities and 3rd party apps that can provide Sync and Mobile support before paying annual fees like this.

Several posts from January - February hinted and various Zimbra Internal sync betas for OSS but I can't seem to find anything recent.

Keep up the good work, I hope you can become the Exchange killer Mail Suite, but somehow without the MS-Like License Subscription requirements.

[dkarp]

Zimbra Network Edition offers solutions that we desire:

1. Server Based Mail stores
2. More robust outlook support
3. Synced "webmail"
4. OTA for mobile devices

Actually, the OSS version also has a server-based mail store, and you get the same very impressive webmail interface in the OSS version as well. Almost every sync-capable mobile device has an IMAP client, so you can use the OSS server's IMAP interface to sync your mobile device. And if you're happy with the way you're using Outlook to connect to the OSS server (via IMAP), the Network version will not improve that experience.

You can download and install a trial version of the Network Edition to determine if the extra enterprise features -- Outlook plugin, hot backup, HSM, native OTA sync, etc. -- are worth the cost to you. If not, the OSS version is an extremely modern and feature-rich mailstore and web interface.

[dwill]

I agree, The OSS is awesome - for standard mail functionality. But outlook integration for calendaring and syncing (i.e. connector) would be a big seller as a stand-alone add-on don't you think?

I know I would buy it. The problem is, out of two hundred users, I only have about 25 or so that require the "Network Edition" functionality. Not wanting to run multiple mail servers means that I must now pay for NE subscriptions for 200 users vs. 25.

These same 25 users will also have there Q's and treo's which require Zimbra Mobile, which again, requires NE.

Once again, I think what you offer is great! I just think you could get a lot more interest (and revenue) by making these advanced features available for the OSS edition.

P.S.
Grandma's chopped liver recipe:
http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/re...s/views/232792

[phoenix]

II know I would buy it. The problem is, out of two hundred users, I only have about 25 or so that require the "Network Edition" functionality. Not wanting to run multiple mail servers means that I must now pay for NE subscriptions for 200 users vs. 25.

Surely the cost/benefit analysis would lean towards running two mails server one for NE and 25 users and one for OSS versions rather than 200 licences on NE?

[dwill]

The BEST solution is to run zimbra OSS, and pay for the enhanced functionality only for the users that need it.

[phoenix]

Well, that may be the best solution for you but it doesn't exist at present.

[dwill]

* Run on sentence alert

That was the intended purpose. *To focus on how many other companies are currently operating on OS / Free mail servers now, but would be more than willing to pay for enhanced features without having to pay for replacing basics services they already provide their users for free.

The framework is already built around the same open source mail apps thousands of people are using for free.

The Web UI is great - but not necassary for 175 desk-jockey outlook loving users.

Administratively, I only want one mail server. for 200 people there is no need for more than that.

[dkarp]

You've got a point, and it's worth letting your sales rep know. When it comes to making a point about business rather than technical issues, it's always best to talk directly to the business/sales guys. They very rarely read the Developers forum...

[marcmac]

There's something you're missing in your equation - we sell enhanced functionality, sure - but we're also selling support. (And our support is great.)

So, if we charge you for 10 network users, on a 200 user system, how do we support you? Answer only 1 question in 20? Answer them all? Charge you for support for 200 users? That's going to cost you the same as network functionality for all 200 users, for a very good reason - support costs a fortune for us to provide!

[dwill]

You can sell the 'enhancements' by user count.
One fee support not included
One fee for support included
or
keep support totally seperate / based on time / calls whatever

honestly, I can't remember the last time I called anyone for support. There are too many places on the net to find assistance to need to pay for support. I think the need for support is also dependant on experience / familiarity / comfort level in dealing with the software.

I probably won't need your support, I may have a question or two, and hopefully the questions could be answered in these forums like the hundreds of others before me have been.

Just sell me the enhanced functionality that works on the open edition!!!
If I am stumped then I'll pay for the per call support.

It's only a matter of time before some other solution offers this, at which point it will be hard for me to justify annual license fees for my basic users.

Have you done market analysis? I'm guessing you would reel in a lot more people willing to pay for enhanced functionality on the open source edition vs. people willing to pay for the network edition.

At first glance Zimbra looks great! Wow, Zimbra says I can OTA sync and connect to outlook, Awesome ...

But wait.. I need the network edition to do that, oh that means I need to also buy RHEL,

and now all of a sudden I am paying annual fees for all of my users.

Don't get me wrong - you guys have developed a great feature set and provided a fresh interface and functionality to what is probably the mainstay of opensource mail apps.

but you provide it in such a way that FORCES an all or nothing licensing model.

The way you offer the enhanced functionality defeats the whole purpose of open source. I'll pay for your enhancements to OS mail services, but not for the basic services themselves, which I already have for free..

I just know there are many many many, people in the same *Nix situation I am in. This situation may not be as relevant to the windows/exchange converts.

I just have a gut feeling that you are going to lose a lot of potential Linux customers because of this.