4 reasons why Sharepoint is dying four reasons tell you why Sharepoint is about to die

tag: SharePoint

4 reasons why Sharepoint is dying four reasons tell you why Sharepoint is about to die I'm afraid I have to talk about it, Sharepoint is about to die. It used to be a great platform with amazing features. Now, it is ready for an inevitable ending. Here I will tell you the reason, and it is very uncomfortable to tell you that you cannot change anything. It's time to pack and move on. This is because the last breath is coming, and it is almost impossible to have a good experience. 1. The app model starts with the app model. For some obvious reason, it has never been implemented. Recently, I saw a video from Scott hanselman. He thinks that everyone who knows about web development is also a Sharepoint developer, because Sharepoint is currently only a data provider (by using odata, rest, and all other fancy buzzwords that are available for data. But tell me, if you need a data warehouse, why do you want to start SharePoint development? I mean, if sap says "Of course, we have rest APIs now", will you stop what you are doing and rush to sap? Of course you won't! And no PHP or HTML developer wants to develop on SharePoint. Using SharePoint makes no sense to them; they already have a better framework and platform to store data. Microsoft's services, such as Azure, are even better than SharePoint as pure data warehouses. Microsoft seems to think that because you can send JavaScript requests to SharePoint now, every JavaScript developer is now a Sharepoint developer. That is to say, because word supports writing, therefore, everyone who learns to write is a word user. If you want to attract someone, you need to provide them something better than they currently have. As the backend, Sharepoint is not the same for everyone or even existing SharePoint users. The app model has failed, and it has spent a lot of SharePoint development. 2. Jeff teper left. I believe you have heard of this news, but Jeff teper, my superhero in Redmond, has been transferred. I'm sure this is just a coincidence, just a few months after I publicly announced my admiration for his new attitude. However, another reason is that Jeff was dismissed (or promoted, which is almost the same for American enterprises ). Jeff created Sharepoint. From the very beginning, he was there, knowing that the day was over and that he was always guarding Sharepoint. No one knows SharePoint better than him. He carefully planned everything, including the recent online promotion. I think Jeff is too focused on SharePoint, not on fashion. Think about it. If a person has achieved great success in his industry, he cannot be dismissed or promoted. If the recent deployment in Sharepoint is what Microsoft wants us to think is successful, why is the promoter not there? Some of Jeff's words make me think that he is not as convinced as the public as Office 365. I may be too sensitive, but I suspect that Jeff leaves because he thinks there will be no same future in Sharepoint. 3. The lack of innovative SharePoint 2013 is boring, really. Of course, there are a lot of flowers here, but after you see through the surface, you will find that it has no innovation to make it continue for another decade. There is still nothing in SharePoint 2013 that I cannot do in SharePoint 2007. All the things that are hailed as innovation are just moving some furniture and saying that you have a new house. 4. Too slow, but too fast and contradictory. Microsoft version policies are really too slow and fast. Microsoft has decided to release the new version of SharePoint in the same release cycle, meaning that a new major version will appear every three years. All of us are looking forward to SharePoint 2016. It is not fast enough for Microsoft to keep up with the times and keep up with the latest and greatest. Not fast enough to cater to fashionable young people. When you get these new light canvas shoes, they are out of date and now everyone is wearing snow boots. When you have your parents buy real tecnicas, everyone is wearing sneakers. On the other hand, your parents (who pay the bill) think that the trend you are trying to grasp changes too quickly. They don't have time to catch up. You may think they are very old-fashioned, but they do pay the bill and want to make sure they get some value from the purchased shoes. Similarly, organizations do not care about what is the latest and greatest. Like your parents, they invest in the newest and greatest things a few years ago and expect you to bring benefits. For you, the pace of innovation may be too slow, because you cannot always have the latest and greatest things. For organizations that pay their bills, the pace of change is too fast and they have not yet gained reasonable value. It is too slow for Microsoft to adapt to new technological changes, but it is too fast for its customers to invest in long-term solutions. 5. What can we do? Unfortunately, we can do almost nothing now, and even a community cannot do anything. We were forced, or at least strongly encouraged, to move out of the tried and real development methods. We lost the person who made SharePoint everything. We did not get major innovation, but instead, we have achieved mediocre data services. The only thing we can do as a community is to stop listening to dummies. Stop listening to the promises of how good infopath will be in the future, how bad it is to use managed code, and how everything will happen on the cloud. Hope malong comes from Jeff teper a few months ago: "We will listen to, learn, and adapt to the trend of customers, partners, and the next version market. However, if you ask us today, we certainly hope that our conventional approach (cloud first is the best, server upgrade) will be consistent during that period." Maybe "listen" should be the most important, even though Jeff is now gone. Maybe we, as a community, can tell Microsoft that we want the power of SharePoint, rather than another competitor that supports MySQL, Amazon RDS, or SQL azure. Or this is my personal opinion... What do you think? Original article address