Slashdot Mirror


No Office Suite Google

Simon (S2) writes "Google co-founder Sergey Brin has quashed speculation that the giant ad broker is to introduce a web-based Office suite. "We don't have any plans," he told Web 2.0 conference organizer John Battelle (pictured below). However Brin left the door open a little. Documents would be easier to work with in the future, he promised, but he didn't think a fat client was the way to go. "I don't really think that the thing is to take a previous generation of technology and port them directly," he told Battelle. However distributed thin web applications allowed you to do "new and better things than the Office package and more.""

30 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Why Not? by BoldAC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With all the press they received about it... they should.

    I know that many of us thought it would be the first direct attack against Microsoft,

    1. Re:Why Not? by andersbergh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, although then I suppose Microsoft would provide "MSN Office"!

    2. Re:Why Not? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I were them, the plan's wouldn't be to release ANOTHER competing office suite, but to work within what's already out there. Once OpenDocument takes off, you'll be able to create tiny tools that work with the standard file format... something like a huge suite won't have to exist anymore... Look what Apple's been doing with Pages... It's a whole new way of using documents.. that makes it much easier for those who just want a pretty sheet of paper. When opendocument takes off, you'll be able to use all that wonderful Googlieness without a 100 meg program open to just type a grocery list.

    3. Re:Why Not? by hpavc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, a simple and supported 'save/open this document to/from google' for staroffice/openoffice/msoffice would be insane. A little love for publishing and saving the documents (ala yahoo briefcase).

      Then the industry can think about it.

      Imagine a google 'document mangement, backup, revision control' product for your personal and office documents. Not to mention the sexy search.

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
  2. Damn slashdot submitters! by ElGameR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...conference organizer John Battelle (pictured below)...

    I don't see any picture below...
    I hate it when story submitters just copy and paste from other news articles, not even giving them credit. It occasionally causes phrases that don't make sense, like this one.

    1. Re:Damn slashdot submitters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes there is a picture of John Battelle below.

      W             xxxxxxx     W
      W            xxx     x    W
      W            xxx     x    W
      W            xxx---O-O    W
      W        /\  /\      \    W
      W  _  /\/ /  \|      _\   W
      W | |/ / /    |\    _|    W
      W | | / /\      \____|    W
      W |      /\               W
      W  \      /               W

    2. Re:Damn slashdot submitters! by BushCheney08 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Gotta love this little bit from the end of TFA: Picture credit: John C Dvorak

      Yes folks, this bird was intended for everyone's favorite tech pundit.

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
  3. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by poopdeville · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Slashdot says that because there's a two minute delay before you can post after a story shows up. This is to (try to) stop frist p0sters.

    Getting sort-of-semi-on-topic, shouldn't the headline be "No Google Office Suite"? What is up with the awkward word order?

    And getting really on-topic, the announcement was to be expected. It would be unwise for Google to set up the infrastructure necessary to handle people's word processing. Such a device could be too easily abused, by say, programming macros and using Google's cycles to do general purpose computations on their dime. I'm sure there's a way around that particular issue, but it illustrates the inherent security risks of building web interfaces to massive software suites. Any exposed vulnerability will be exploited for processing power, or worse.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  4. What good? by free+space · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What good is a web based office suite anyway? ( not a rhetorical question...I'm really wondering)
    Allowing people to collaborate on the same document online,is already possible in traditional office suites+groupware. And centralized storage of documents is avaliable via, you know, Yahoo Briefcase.
    so what exactly would a web office suite bring to the table, aside from the coolness factor?

    1. Re:What good? by lixee · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably something a little less buggy than OpenOffice and a lot cheaper than M$ Office.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    2. Re:What good? by neo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It could cost a fraction of what Office costs.

      It would also move software out of pretending to be a product and back to being a service, where software belongs.

  5. No Office Suite, Google? by rebug · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sprinkle in some punctuation and it makes sense.

    --

    there's more than one way to do me.
  6. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by andersbergh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It wouldn't need to have macro support. It could be a "portable" openoffice, where you just need to edit an document or spreadsheet then save it quickly, then download it when you come back home and work on it in openoffice.

    I don't think Google could compete with a web-based office suite although I am sure there will be web-based office applications... (not as replacements though)

  7. Y'know... by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I like Google, I really do. So far today, I've used the search engine, GMail and Froogle, and it's still before lunch on a Sunday.

    But this notion of them as the new Microsoft is just delusional. Journalists have jumped on it because it's a fun story, investors have to explain the ludicrous stock price and Slashbots have because a web-based, subscription-based, proprietary office suite with who-knows-what file formats seems like a fantastic idea if it will involve sticking it to Microsoft.

    Look. This is a company with a great indexing and ranking engine, a great backend and a great sense of design and offering value to customers. That's, uh, great, it really is. Google should be proud. But to say that they can just bang out a Javascript-based office suite because you guys think it would be fun is simply nuts. It's not like they have magic powers over there, no matter what the cafeteria serves.

  8. Writely? by peterprior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could always use Writely :)

    1. Re:Writely? by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Somehow I'm not that motivated to switch from an open-source word processor to one that's closed-source, and forces me to give an e-mail address if I want to use it.

      It also seems weird to me that we're talking about moving on to a whole different paradigm of the office suite, at a time when there still isn't a decent, traditional-style OSS word processor:

      • AbiWord: Frequent goofs with drawing the screen. Annoying, unpredictable bugs in typesetting paragraphs. Output doesn't seem compatible with Apple Preview, but works with Adobe Reader; in output, some formatting is lost, such as italics. Doesn't support X-style cut and paste.
      • Kword: Crashes constantly. I was never able to get decent PDF output.
      • OpenOffice: Slow. Depends on Java, which is not yet available in a free-as-in-speech implementation. Is being developed almost solely by Sun's in-house developers (probably in part because it's infamously hard to compile from source).
  9. Well, they didn't say a flat NO! by AnonymousYellowBelly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Steve Jobs said flash-based players were CRAP right until he unveiled Apple's flash-iPod. So Sergey can keep on shouting: "we ain't doing it!" all the way to hell, but if someone can develop a Web-based solution for working with documents, that is Google. And I do believe that there must be better ways of creating stuff than with de MS Office paradigm.

    So I say, not seeing is believing.

    --
    Disclosure: I'm stupid
  10. Not so difficult to see by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When did Google announce anything before they had a beta you could play with?

    So, until Google & Sun work out what they want to do, and Google has played with it, there won't be an announcement... Announcing vaporware as the next savior of the universe is an MS kind of thing to do.

    I have faith in the team of Sun and Google to work out how to make the most of 'being against MS' and then execute the plan...

  11. The article was a joke... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ...making fun of people who speculate on Google's "next move".

    So let me give them fodder!

    Distributing OpenOffice wouldn't be useful. What would be useful, imho:

    • A simple word processor meant for short-ish documents that would work with gmail such that I could email PDF versions of the documents. Perhaps instead of PDFs, simply a link to the document that is hosted by Google.
    • A google wiki. Something that lets my whole group coordinate on making a knowledge base using simple, intuitive tools.
    • A simple presentation tool, similar to the word processing tool.
    • A photo editor, charting tool, and other basic peripheral applications.

    Now, the trick is to tie them all together such that I don't need to ever exit google.com. For instance, I might want to include a picture from the internet into my presentation. I should be able to, for instance, click on something like "insert photo from internet" and be able to use google images to find the right picture. I should never have to save things to and from my computer (though it would be nice to have that ability if necessary!). I think between Yahoo's new mail interface that demonstrates drag-and-drop, and the impressive Google mapping features, there is a demonstrated availability of the necessary technology to implement at least a basic office suite.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  12. Re:No Office Suite Google by moviepig.com · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...shouldn't the headline be "No Google Office Suite"? What is up with the awkward word order?

    We yearned, yet the Fates took a pass.
    No Office, sweet Google? Alas...

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
  13. Its going to take more than Star Office by olddotter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Star Office is great for those of us that know about it. But it will take more than star office (or open office) to remove MS-Office from the world. I think Google knows that.

    If Google is going to take on MS, it will be with something much smarter and more subtle than a direct head-on frontal assault. So no matter how cool we think that would be, expect something else. Google has been pretty good at "thinking different" so far, and I don't expect that to change.

  14. A web based suite is idiotic by sco08y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure most companies have gotten over the urge to put everything on the web, but for reporters, a web app has to deal with certain limitations:

    1. The network.

    2. Flaky web standards.

    3. Living along side other plugins and browser extensions. (That means Other People's Threads in your process space.)

    4. No standard API for printing, the raison d'etre for an office suite.

    5. Browsers, by design, have virtually no integration with the rest of the OS.

  15. Well, that's disappointing, but by dep01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure, that is a disappointing announcement. I was really looking forward to seeing what Google could do with an online Office app. However, they *ARE* up to something. They're having that secret "invite-only" press conference on, I think, October 26th. Perhaps that's to announce Google's "Calendar app" though. Not sure. I'm waiting excitedly. I'm a big fan of Google (though Google Reader has yet to grow on me at all).

    --
    "hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
  16. The Unofficial Web Applications List by Sundroid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Whether Google plans to plunge into the web-based office suite or not, we don't know, but others have started to create web-based applications like Writely (word processing), Num Sum (spreadsheet), and Writeboard, and most of them use AJAX technology. This site called "The Unofficial Web Applications List" lists dozens of them.

  17. You are overestimating the effort by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google should be proud. But to say that they can just bang out a Javascript-based office suite because you guys think it would be fun is simply nuts. It's not like they have magic powers over there, no matter what the cafeteria serves.

    You would be right, except for the fact that people are already doing it.

    If you don't believe it can be done, check out the actual applications. What many people don't seem to realize when they scoff at the idea of an AJAX based office quite is that Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Konqueror, all have "design mode" APIs that allow a user and JavaScript to manipulate the web page directly. Combine that with some excellent import/export filters for HTMl to popular office formats, and you have a decent office suite framework already at your grasp.

    If you really don't think it can be done, look at those sample apps, and consider that they are done with basically no budget. Now throw the mihgt of Google, it's money, and it's developers at the problem. It is not beyond feasability that they could construct such a suite in a matter of months, especially when you consider that 80% of the functions in MS Office are only used by 20% of the people

    Also consider how well this would integrate with their existing core competancies (indexing and searching). You could store all your documents online ina shareable Google store, and they woudl already all be indexed and searchable. You could use your Google addrfesss book to select other people who would be allwed to access and search the documents. And of course you would use Google Talk to collaberate on them.

    1. Re:You are overestimating the effort by Mantrid+Drone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Creating something like a simple web-based word processor is certainly within the realm of possibility. Unfortunately, the implementation ends up being a Rube Goldberg machine of clunky technologies duct-taped together into a horribly convoluted, difficult to maintain, spaghetti-code mess. I'm very sorry, web fanboys, but HTTP, HTML and JavaScript were not designed to be a GUI application framework and every attempt to shoehorn those technologies into that role just underscores the idiocy of the approach. That is not to say that network-based, zero-install applications are a bad concept--it's just that there are much, much more elegant ways to solve that problem, and that we could be making a lot of meaningful progress in that area if so much time and effort wasn't being wasted creating a million stupid web-app frameworks.

  18. Does it matter? No. by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Creating something like a simple web-based word processor is certainly within the realm of possibility. Unfortunately, the implementation ends up being a Rube Goldberg machine of clunky technologies duct-taped together into a horribly convoluted, difficult to maintain, spaghetti-code mess.

    Unfortunately, you are thinking like a coder and not a businessman.

    If efficiency was the gold standard by which an application was judged, then we'd all be writing assembler all the time. If code readability was the gold standard, then we would all be writing every application in CobolBasic.

    All that matters, in reality, is a) Does this application look good, b) Does it do it's job well, and most importantly, c) Will people use it?

    The consumer does not give a flying f*** if the codebase of an application is reuseable, or if it is cobbeled together with toothpicks and jello, as long as it works and makes their life easier. A web-based office suite would fit that role nicely. It would *just work*, it would do the job it was designed to do. It may not have every bell and whistle, but guess what? The vast majority of people don't care about that.

    Not everyoule would use such an application, but Google would not need everyone to use it to be profitable. Hell, it would be so cheap to create and maintain, they could likely be profitable with a very small number of users in proportion to the number it takes Microsoft to turn a profit on MS Office.

    1. Re:Does it matter? No. by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...since all of the technologies in question are so demonstrably ill-suited for this type of application, it takes a massive amount of effort to implement even a basic set of features while trying to mimic a true desktop app

      What are you smoking? If it takes such an *enormous* effort to do, then how do you explain Writely? it's not like there is a massive software company with tons of resources behind it.

      The truth is, AJAX based apps are *very* easy to write, since almost all of the important work has already been done for you by the browser. All you need to do is use JavaScript as the glue, and your favoirte language as the server-side processing backend for retrieval and storage.

      and it makes it very hard to add new features, because everything from the presentation layer to the communication protocol to the back end infrastructure is a hideous kludge.

      Actually, it makes it easier to add features. You can entirely swap back-ends at will without touching the front-end, an vice-versa. You can add new features to the back end and have them be instantly available to all customers since it is web based. How could it get any easier? I don't understand your reasoning here.

      On top of that, the network bandwidth and server-side hardware requirements for hosting this type of software are staggering,

      Staggering? Hardly. Your standard Dell 2850 would be able to host tens of thousands of clients with this kind of web application. The server is doing *almost nothing*, all it has to do is serve a few requests and retirve and store documents. There is no back-end processing going on here. The front-end is doing the majority of the work, which is the rendering and editing of the document. If you think otherwise then you don't understand how these AJAX office applications work at a fundamental level.

      ...while the typical desktop machine's substantial computing capacity is squandered by using it as a glorified dumb terminal. In other words, very little bang for the buck. Where's the business sense in that?

      The very idea that an office suite should require any kind of processing power at all is just the kind of nonsense Microsoft Office has lead you to believe. I shouldn't need a P4 with 1 GB of ram to write a text document with a few tables in it.

  19. The Power of the OpenDocument Approach by The+Monster · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I've made this point any number of times. Because the OD formats use PKZIPped XML, you can do meaningful work on them with the classic Unix approach of small tools that do one thing well.

    As an example, my employer recently changed its name (again). It's really simple to write a little shell script to unzip filea, s/oldname/newname/g, and zip back up, without ever needing an 'office application' at all.

    Google might want to use its server farm to gather information requested, and construct an *.od* on the fly to download to the user. After all, they already do it with HTML. It can't be all that difficult to do XML instead, and send the output to a compression program.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  20. Online Office Does Exist by Eric+Pierce · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone heard of Think Free Office?

    It's not totally free in the way the gOffice dreamers would like it to be, but I must say I was pretty impressed with the interface (basically an Office 2000 clone but in your browser).

    BTW, it's 100% Java so it works in Linux, Mac or whatever.

    Link here: http://www.thinkfree.com/