I just realized that equation could actually be true. Let me explain:
TUAW covered (rather re-re-covered) a story about DWA/iNotes ultralite for the iPhone. In the article, they mentioned that there are 140 million people using Notes.
Earlier today, I referenced another TUAW article that talked about sales figures for some of the iPhone applications. In this case, they showed that two products from a company called tap tap tap produced revenues of $52,815 in 24 days.
The current iPhone applications that run either parts, or all, of Lotus Notes mail, calendar and contacts functionality range in price from $2.99 to well over $100 plus monthly fees. And all of those apps have some goofy element of them. Either they don’t work with the iPhone’s built in calendar, mail and/or contacts applications; or they require PCs and servers to act as conduits; or they flat-out don’t always work.
So that led me to a crazy idea: why doesn’t IBM/Lotus build their own native iPhone application that integrates Lotus Notes email, calendar and contacts into the iPhone’s application set? I know, crazy isn’t it? In my idea, this would be a true application, not just a website you have to authenticate to, navigate through, etc. via your browser.
Let’s do some unrealistic math. Let’s assume all of the 140 million users bought an iPhone and paid $9.99 for the Notes application. Boom! $1,398,600,000. But that’s a big assumption.
How about some more conservative math. Let’s assume 1% of the 140 million users (1.4 million) get an iPhone and pay a fee for the application. Let’s look at some pricing models:
1.4 million X $9.99 (a low-cost price-point for the software) = $13,986,000
1.4 million X $29.99 (a fair average) = $41,986,000
1.4 million X $99 (the equivalent of GOOD’s license cost) = $138,600,000
Now, to be fair. That’s not instant revenue because you’ve got to tell businesses that the iPhone is now a device that can be supported and that they should ditch their Blackberry for it. Still, those are some big numbers and I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I don’t think it would cost them anywhere near any of those numbers to develop the software.
I could be all wrong, but I enjoy doing math. By the way, these calculations were brought to you by my iPhone.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
These really are staggering numbers showing how a well designed application could lead to a lot of money fast. Very interesting read!
September 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“why doesn’t IBM/Lotus build their own native iPhone application that integrates Lotus Notes email, calendar and contacts into the iPhone’s application set?”
Because the iPhone API does NOT allow you to integrate into the iPhone’s native applications for calendar, contacts or calendar. It would be impossible to do it.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Ummm… but Microsoft has done that for Exchange!
October 12th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Uh no, Microsoft didn’t do that. Apple licensed Exchange ActiveSync. To date, they have chosen NOT to license Traveler’s protocol from Lotus.
I would have to think that they will do so at some point. I am sure they would like to have a strategy for the other 40% or so of the enterprise messaging market to really give RIM a run for their money.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:49 am
@Mike – You’re right – and that’s the detail of the arrangement that’s really sad (to me). I would think that Apple and IBM/Lotus could come to some common ground that would allow them to provide integrated support for the iPhone.
And yes, I’d LOVE to see RIM get a run for their money! Its great timing, too. Other similar software like GOOD have been acquired by Motorola and are reducing the number of devices they support. Other competitors have odd bits about how their “support” of the iPhone works as well.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:52 am
[...] And its clear that Lotus has listened (perhaps not to me, but a bunch of us). That’s great! It sends a great message about the brand’s commitment to some outstanding devices; it positions them in a great way (hey, anyone who can ride Apple’s ad/press-tailwave should do so!); and I still believe that it will translate to $. [...]