More On Fatwire

Last week Oracle did their "official" presentation on the FatWire acquisition. I was on-site with a client and had to miss all the fun, but it's available online. Billy has some pretty good posts on the presentation and the Q&A. He even took screen captures of the text responses... Jeez, no wonder they were so careful about their wording!

Existing Site Studio customers have the flexibility to decide if they want to move to the WebCenter Sites offering, maintain their Site Studio deployments, or integrate both solutions.

Billy thinks that means everybody will have to (eventually) upgrade from Site Studio to FatWire... because every software company sings the same refrain eventually:

  1. we've got nifty features in product ABC
  2. we will not be adding these features to product XYZ
  3. if you're on product XYZ, you can live without the features, add them yourself, or migrate

I think it's a little more complicated than that... Sure, FatWire may be the preferred front end for general web sites, but it's still going to need back-end content management. So it's not going to be a rip-and-replace kind of thing. If people have already paid the upgrade price from Site Studio 10gr3 to 10gr4, it should be relatively easy to "surface" existing WebContent in FatWire. Not to mention PDFs, executables, images, videos, etc., that probably need back-end content management. So where should FatWire end, and UCM begin?

That always boils dow to the same question: where is the line between structured and unstructured content?

Oracle is pretty tight-lipped about this kind of stuff, so don't expect a firm answer until the first version of WebCenter Sites hits the shelf...

Recent comments