Slashdot Mirror
Google Apps to Become Paid Service
FredDC writes "Business Week reports Google Apps is becoming a paid service soon for companies who wish to use it for their domain. Disney and Pixar are reportedly thinking about switching to Google Apps instead of using Microsoft Office. Could this be the end of a monopoly? Or the start of a new one?"
WTF? Why is Pixar considering Google Apps? Isn't Apple's .mac service up to scratch?
Anyway, I've been using Apps for my personal domain for quite a while. It's pretty great for a freebie - just point your mx records at google, create an admin account and google takes care of everything else. Setup catch all accounts, gmail accounts for different users, calender, gtalk, etc are all there.
But I won't continue to use it if it costs anything. Like I said, its great for a freebie.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Wait, does this mean a Google product is out of beta? Stop the presses!!!
Sony ha
Yes, Microsoft is the great evil, but they used to be "cool," kind of the way Google is now.
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
Buying Microsoft Office = expensive.
Using Google Apps = US$ X per year.
Downloading Open Office = free, except for the bandwidth (which you need to connect to Google Apps anyway).
If I was in charge of a small company, I know what that company would use... and what solution would be the best to preserve it from our friends at the SPA.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
It wouldn't bother me one bit if the monopoly shifted from Microsoft to Google. They both have proven track records, both opposite.
I'm sorry but it's been a long while since I have felt comfortable with Google's 'do no evil' mantra. They are a billion dollar company with shareholders to report to. I wouldn't be suprised if in 5-10 years we see the same sort of slashback here we see now for MS applied to Google. I particularly don't like the way the toolbar trawls my PC for information to report back to the Googel servers. It was at that point I stopped seeing them as saviours and more like the circling vultures they may well turn out to be.
All your email belong to us.
I cant wait to see their corporate solutions. I also cant wait to see what proprietary bull Microsoft will pull to try and lesson the Google competition.
I cant imagine a real company allowing its data to be housed outside its control. But if google sells a server in a box that houses all the apps needed to meet most of the documents needed, it could make sense. IT takes care of maintaining this big server. And all the other people use stripped down pc with no USB dongle, no print screen, no copy-paste that runs a simple browser to create the documents and with a full audit trail for all printed copies, it makes sense. Really. Companies are paranoid about security. Currently any document in the intranet server can be saved to usb thumb drive, cut/paste into emails, or forwarded via emails ... If Google or any company can promise a full information lock-down to the management, they will get a sympathetic ear.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
The use of Google Apps will not create a monopoly. Rather, it will precede a shift to real open formats (i.e., not Microsoft's XML implementations) which are application agnostic. Interfaces, rather than applications, are what must be open to truly benefit consumers.
Disney and Pixar have close ties to Apple, who has close ties to Google. When GE has decided to drop Microsoft Office for Google Apps, then that'll be newsworthy.
Also, the moment Microsoft sees that their market dominance of Office is dwindling, they'll lower the price. Corporations are still willing to shell out big bucks for Office over free alternatives simply due to the corporate-friendly nature of Office.
I use NeoOffice on my Mac (a nice OpenOffice port that doesn't run in X11), and while it's good for personal use, it stinks for business use. Office is still king.
I'll be happy to speak about our Contnent Managment, Office and software as a service solutions. Give me a call toll free or visit my website for more info.
Can a day go by where google doesn't make frontpage for doing something millions of other companies already do (and are frankly better at)
thanks
Google is doing what Microsoft has dreamed about forever - turn computer platforms into monthly revenue generators. This has been the source of erotic dreams for Microsoft executives forever. I don't care how cool a web application is, there is just something fundamentally wrong with having my productivity depend on someone else's servers.
In some measure, this is already the case - how many people at work haven't searched online for solutions to problems encountered at work. This being one form of online dependence. This is a far cry from depending on an outside server. Think about the exposure to DoS attacks that this makes your company? Corporate war is just around the corner. Get a botnet to bring down your competitor's internet and their entire workforce productivity drops to zero.
Additionally, just wait until some security hole opens up and a lawyer's documents are hacked into because they are being edited online.
This is just a bad, bad idea on its face.
Simply because a tiger hasn't eaten your face yet doesn't mean it won't in the future. We should be as suspicious of google as we are of any other big software company. Just because they have a catchy bumper sticker slogan doesn't inoculate them to the temptations of corporate culture.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
That's what you get for not RTFA (parent's parent).
Let's pretend $MegaCorp dumps MS Office and implements Google apps. What the fuck am I supposed to use to write my documents, spreadsheets and now presentations if I'm in a car, plane, train, backwards country -- wherever I can't jack into the Net? Notepad?
This won't even put a dent in the M$ office suite installed base, because locally installed apps still work when the network is down and/or having problems.
Later,
-Slashdot Junky
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
I thought the internet is not that reliable. Even Google has been "offline" at times. For Yahoo, it's even worse at least from Canada. How would a serious business decide to go online for serious business? Are folks at those companies really competent? I am beginning to doubt!
First of all this is *not* a flamebait, this just a few thoughts that I've had. I think we need to be cautious about Google. Sure I love using the search engine, I already use their apps on my domain, email, calendar, chat, I use their Analytics software to track my traffic and check out where it's coming from.
.0000001 US cents, stupid Aussie $)
I am not saying they are a monopoly, because they are far from it at the moment. What I am saying though is that they are quite similar to how Microsoft started. There was a time when you could buy a computer with out Windows loaded.. you still can, it's called a Mac.. or you have to build it yourself, then the computer store people eye you off, thinking you are a pirate because you avoided buying Windows..
I remember a time when there were multiple Office Suites, you could buy several different packages, anyone remember WordPerfect? Anyone used it recently? No.. didn't think so. Lotus also had a product called Word Pro, there are heaps of old word processors around.. Microsoft was once a small player (long time ago I know). They were considered inovative and cutting edge at one point (it was a very small and short point..). They are still cutting edge, just the blade seems to be pointing the wrong way.. towards their customers.
As long as Google can stick it's motto "do no harm" it may be alright, we just need to know who they intend to do no harm to.. it may be that they are referring to themselves and to their stockholders..
Like I said, I'm a fan of Google, I think they have done very well for themselves. I was once a bit of a fan of Microsoft too (long time ago, now I'm happy that they pay my bills), now I just want to see an even playing field where companies (including Microsoft) are forced to compete on the merits of their products, not by strong arming their customers into buying "the next big thing". So far Google haven't used any of these tactics.
Just my 2cents worth (that's about
- paul
http://www.paulpichugin.com.au/
Pmp @ DeviantArt
I have read many times that its the lack of MS Exchange on *nix desktops that is the major stumbling block for a lot of businesses that have considered switching. If so, its fine by me if Google can offer an alternative to Exchange functionality for business users. Its much more likely that any google solution will be *nix compatible than anything MS will offer in the future.
Now, if there was only some way Google could wrest control over the games industry from Microsoft and let game developers develop for alternative platforms a bit easier. My gaming habits are the only thing keeping me from leaving XP completely. I am not likely to stop gaming, I can't/won't play consoles, and the future looks pretty MS monopolistic to me unless something changes. I think there are a lot of people like me out there too.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Like others here, I currently use this free service. It'd seem that based on the fine print, current users of the Beta should not be affected by the non-free service:
*Organizations accepted by Google during the Google Apps for Your Domain beta period are eligible for free service for their approved beta users even beyond the end of the beta period, as described in the Terms of Service.
Where in the article did it say that google is going to start charging for the service? I'm confused.
Seriously, for all the Web-based e-mail/office applications, I'm surprised at how little effort or thought is put towards migrating legacy data. SugarCRM and Gmail at least have some import capabilities (Outlook contacts in CSV format) but what about all of your old mail, calendar items, to-do/task lists, Excel macros, and Access databases? Every time one of my colleagues suggests yet-another-Web-based AJAX office suite, I shake my head and wonder how they expect existing organizations and individuals to switch without some sort of well-planned migration strategy?
Look, I'm not expecting some nifty migration wizard to automagically convert my existing data to $shinyWebbyOfficeSuite (I've been through enough Novell to Microsoft migrations to know that never works) but I'd like to see one of these would-be Office alternatives make a concerted effort to bring me on board besides marketing and hype.
body massage!
Where are the pedants decrying the spelling of the word "innstead"? Shame on you all!
Hang on a second... I think I just poured mockery on myself.More like... nerdular nerdence!
I think virtually any office environment would be insane fools to replace Microsoft Office with Google's apps. I'm really stunned that nobody on /. has pointed out the glaringly obvious problems:
1. The Internet
If for any reason the company loses it's internet access (this NEVER happens) that company has NO access to any of their internal data yet they still have to pay for that non-existant access. One fiber cut or lightning strike can knock out internet access for days for many companies. If they were running Google apps they'd basically have to completely close up shop for that period.
2. Performance
These are web apps, so they're inherently slow. Google Docs and spreadsheets slows to a crawl with very large documents. Gmail in an account with thousands of emails is painful.
3. Data integrity
Google encourages users in the software to store all their documents on Google's servers, not locally. Is google willing to guarentee those documents availability? Are they doing regular backups? I happen to know that they don't. My gmail account has spontaneously lost mail, for example.
4. Security
Security on Google apps is feeble and basic, you might as well publish all your internal information to the web.
5. Features
Google apps only have a tiny fraction of the features of MS Office, or even OpenOffice. Unless you're only doing very basic tasks, Google's apps lack features you are currently using.
I want to expand on this last point. The feature-set of the google apps is INCREDIBLY sparse compared to MS Office. Gmail is nice for webmail, but it's SLOW and has only a crude filtering mechanism (no folders = retarded) nowhere NEAR as sophisticated as Outlook, or any of a dozen proper email applications. Many of Google's own employees complained quite loudly when the company switched from Exchange to Gmail due to the lack of features, particularly in regards to Google Calendaring, which sucks. Their spreadsheet app apparently has no graph or reporting capabilites. None.
The whole ASP concept is basically snake oil. Vendor lock-in at it's absolute worst.
A replacement for Outlook and Exchange, maybe. But "Google Apps for Your Domain", the service in question, isn't an office suite.
It is:
It is *NOT* a replacement for Word, Excel, or PowerPoint. That is 'Google Docs & Spreadsheet' (minus the presentation software, which is rumored to be coming soon.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
There may be people claiming that Google Apps is only good enough for a freebie but you have to look at it from a consumer's point of view. I have had a lot of experience with trying to convert friends and employees to Linux, Open Office, etc... The conversation goes something like this: "Hey, you should try Ubuntu. It's very user-friendly and is a good replacement for Windows, I'll even help you set it up." "Oh, cool. How much?" "It's free, they'll even send you the CDs for you." "It's free?! What's the catch?" People that are not familiar with OSS and related goodies simply cannot get it through their head that just because it is free does not mean it is inferior. If Google Apps is charged a price significantly lower than Microsoft Office and has around the same productivity I am inclined to believe businesses will be even more interested in it.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I, for one, welcome our new application service overlords.
At the risk of sounding like an Microsoft shill (I'm not, btw), both companies (Pixar and Disney) deal in fantasy worlds, which sounds like the only place this would work. Maybe in a c'upla years, who knows, but replacing desktop apps with webapps just isn't gonna work in today's world.
From reading the posts on google these days, it is a sharp contrast to the posts a year ago.
the google "fart" sniffers have left, and only those left with nausea of the smell remains.
But in all seriousness, I don't think many companies can uphold shareholder interests/value without dipping a little lower on the evil scale. MS, google, yahoo and a few other guppies are both essentially battleling for the same market space. Without resorting to integration, and monopolistic behavior, they would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
As google approaches 10k employees, it is equivalent to maybe the MS 1994 days.
I wonder if there is any correlation of company size vs popular opinion. Since MS also recieved praises before it was labled as the bastion of evil.
It is amusing to see the resemblances and how history is forgotten and repeated.
I dont see them killing off MSO, nor becoming anything other then a 'fad'.
The professional world in general isnt ready for 3rd party hosting of their daily bread and butter apps, yet. Someday perhaps, but after being stung from the last attempt at a return to the concept of ASPs, not many will step up to the plate again for a while.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They aren't trying to replace Office (though if they include the Google Docs and Spreadsheet and PPT thing I'd be happy) - they are trying to replace corporate mail systems. Harvard
.mac (which needs to allow something.edu before its going anywhere and it'd be nice to have a Windows/*nix port of Backup). Personally I think the best solution for Harvard at least is to shut up and spend money and buy additional space, and redesign the webmail client (just keep pine around).
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516036 has been looking into it and I'd be thrilled if they do use a GMail like interface because the current FAS webmail system is a piece of tripe. (I logged into it once and then went back to SSH and pine - some departments don't even have a webmail interface because the damn thing is so bad).
The added storage space and some savings you'd get from moving to Google Apps is nice but a lot of students (well in Physics,astronomy anyway) still need to be able to SSH in and start a remote X session, which I don't see happening soon, so they are still going to have to spend money on their own servers. As the article points out Google isn't without competition - Windows has Live @edu (run away) and there is
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Does anybody know what the implications of Sarbanes-Oxley are for doing this? After all, Disney is a public company, and SOX has a number of regulations regarding how public companies are permitted to store their data. Are hosted apps ok?
This is only going to become a paid service for those who want to host it themselves. If you are going to continue to use Google's server's then the price remains free.
Where do you get that information? It wasn't in the article.
When I signed up for Google Apps for Your Domain a few months ago, they said that they would eventually start charging for new user accounts, but user accounts that already exist will remain free when they transition to a paid service.
Does that mean Google is going to drop the "Beta" testing? Who charges for beta apps?
Microsoft holds a monopoly on Office software (arguably not OS software any more), and that monopoly is rapidly being undone by web-based companies that provide software their customers prefer - as Microsoft has been worried about since the mid-90s.
Remind me again why we needed the DOJ to persecute Microsoft for decades?
First the corporations will outsource to Google by using the Google services. IT folks at the corporations will lose their jobs.
Then Google, faced with increasing ad competition and in an attempt to maximize profits, will outsource its IT services to contracting companies in places like India and other developing nations. So IT folks at Google will lose their jobs.
In the end, those who thought "Google is cool" will be revaluating their earlier assessments as they trade their job shifts with Kevin Federline at the local fast food burger joint.
This could be quite nice. It could potentially meant that, if all documents are in a web-based tool, my underlying platform becomes less relevant. I could use my company-issued POS, or I could use my MacBook. Who cares, so long as I have a browser?
OTOH, I'd have to rely on internet access. I couldn't work on my documents in a plane.
ck Microsoft? With the help of Google? Who would have thought? That's why Gates is getting a little jumpy...
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
I can't find anywhere that it says the service is to become a paid service. The article talks about everything but that. Now I suspect that some or all of it MAY become non-free, in fact the sign-up makes that pretty clear. It also says that people who sign up during the beta will continue to get the service for free.
Only thing in this article about paying anything though is that Microsoft has a competing product for $39/mo and that Google employees get "paid massages", maybe whoever wrote the summary was thinking of paid messages or something.
My problem isn't about relying on someone else's servers, it's that something seems fundamentally wrong about being drained of money indefinitely. Maybe it's psychological rather than economic, but I'd rather buy something and own it.
Dude, it's time to upgrade your Banyan VINES and Yggdrasil servers!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This can't create a new monopoly (as it currently exists) since you can save your documents to your own machine in ODF, MS, or PDF format. The monopoly is in the lack of interoperability of file formats - not in applications. That's the whole point of the ODF standard - to allow different applications to operate on a file. Google Apps goes even one further since there are even more formats available. Now, if Google prevented you from saving your documents then that would be a different matter.
Graham
Microsoft: Takes so long to start you wonder if it's going to California and back.
Google: It really is going to California and back.
Microsoft: Releases buggy software without version numbers, like "XP", "Vista", and "Millenium Edition"
Google: Releases buggy software without version numbers, all called "Beta".
Microsoft: Builds software with a crappy user interface, which they designed themselves.
Google: Builds software with a crappy user interface, because that's what your browser comes with.
Microsoft: Buys small companies for technology they haven't figured out how to build themselves, like Frontpage and Hotmail.
Google: Buys small companies in technologies they've already mastered, purely for marketshare, like Youtube and Blogger.
Microsoft: Releases devices in garish colors, like poop brown.
Google: Releases devices in garish colors, like piss yellow.
Microsoft: Has none of my personal data, because I choose not to give it to them.
Google: Has all of my personal data, because that's how you use their service.
Come on people, we've seen this game before. Disney/Pixar are conveniently "evaluating" Google Apps so that Microsoft will be pressured to lower their prices on MS Office.
This is the same thing that happened with Linux in the late 1990's. Companies would leak and/or hint that they were doing a serious evaluation of Linux, and Microsoft would suddenly swoop in with deep discounts. In the end, though, Linux actually did take a chunk of that market away from Microsoft, which is why Microsoft now goes to such great lengths to publish a bunch of lies about TCO.
I think the MS Office alternatives are now where Linux was in the late 1990's -- some serious evaluations, some early adopters, but the big migrations are probably still a few years away.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
"Simply because a tiger hasn't eaten your face yet doesn't mean it won't in the future"
Anyone have a recipe for tiger repellant I can spray on?
"Soon, it's expected to add word-processing and spreadsheet services to the suite"
how is this not Office territory?
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
I am often amazed by the accuracy of the Apple and Google rumors. I guess it was about a year go that it was reported that Google was going to be creating a web based competition for Office and Google denied it. Now it is coming true and this is pretty much the case for most Apple rumors.
I wonder who is driving the market in these cases. Given the expense of development time I would like to think that the corporation are having information leaks, but could it be possible that WEB 2.0 is helping shape the business that we talk about so much. Could Apple be secretly keeping tabs on all of these post from site to site and trying to get information on which rumors are the most popular.
I hate to think of the time it would take to initiate this CIA style department of a corporations, and I find it highly unlikely, but after today I think I am going to start keeping a chart of all the rumors that come out for the main stream development firms and charting how many of them come true.
Momento Mori
It has been known since day 1 when google apps for your domain became available that it would eventually become a paid service. The company that I work for with over 100 users has migrated to corporate hosted gmail, google calendar, google docs, and a jotspot wiki. Our sales people use an on demand CRM system and our consultants use an on demand project management/billing/invoicing system. We are total on demand. The only in-house servers that we have are strictly for internal development and testing of our Web Services code by our programmers. Even our code repository is ASP hosted.
Have you used Google apps? It has nothing on office, OpenOffice for that matter.
If for any reason the company loses it's internet access (this NEVER happens) that company has NO access to any of their internal data yet they still have to pay for that non-existant access. One fiber cut or lightning strike can knock out internet access for days for many companies. If they were running Google apps they'd basically have to completely close up shop for that period.
I'm a programmer at a big, famous (Fortune-100) company. I can't remember the last time we've lost internet access here -- not for years, at least. If we did, we'd basically have to close up shop, anyway. We're developing client-server software, and the servers are in a different city. Plus, I don't think we even have local copies of the documentation for the libraries we're using. I guess if we used Google for everything, we'd have to close up shop if we lost internet access, but we would anyway.
These are web apps, so they're inherently slow. Google Docs and spreadsheets slows to a crawl with very large documents. Gmail in an account with thousands of emails is painful.
I don't see why they're *inherently* slow. Google.com can search billions of webpages in a small fraction of a second. That's far, far better than our local Exchange server. I no longer try to use Outlook's search feature, because it's far too slow on my computer (P4, 2.13GHz, 2GB RAM), and with only a few hundred messages.
Google encourages users in the software to store all their documents on Google's servers, not locally. Is google willing to guarentee those documents availability? Are they doing regular backups? I happen to know that they don't. My gmail account has spontaneously lost mail, for example.
Maybe they will. They never guaranteed your GMail (which, truth be told, is still in Beta). Just because you lost some email doesn't mean they don't do backups. (Do you think PageRank is not backed up?)
Security on Google apps is feeble and basic, you might as well publish all your internal information to the web.
I don't even know what that means. Is an SSL connection now considered as public as a web server?
Google apps only have a tiny fraction of the features of MS Office, or even OpenOffice. Unless you're only doing very basic tasks, Google's apps lack features you are currently using.
That's true, but it doesn't matter. In fact, that's good reason to believe it'll work.
Virtually every technology product that has ever succeeded, has beaten some older product with more features. In case you forgot, that's the history of computing in a nutshell. Mainframes, minis, micros, killer PCs. Cheap and easy wins this game. Do you think MS-DOS was popular because it had more features than the Xerox Alto?
If I had a nickle for every time somebody on slashdot said "it has fewer features, it'll never sell" or "the iPod has fewer features, why does it sell so well?", I'd be a rich man.
Google Apps are not going to replace Office any time soon.
1) A web based interface does not stack up to a native gui app.
2) Google Apps are not full featured.
3) Security. Shopping list on google servers - sure, why not.
My personal financial information - not a chance.
Corporate Data - You are kidding me, right?
4) Availability - no internet connection. no Google Apps.
What happens if you are unhappy with Google's offerings, and want to move to another platform? How do you get your users emails and calender events out if your email solution does not support IMAP or give you access to the raw data in a proprietary format?
We are not even considering Exchange as we have 500GB of emails for 200 employees with the largest mailboxes being well over 10GB, but whatever we use, we want the option to move to something else if we need to. Is that an option with Gmail?
Google's word processor and spreadsheet app have an interface which have a striking similar UI to that of Microsoft Office 2007's (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2007 #User_interface)
s heets, docs and spreadsheets went public in October 2006, but Microsoft publicly showed Office 12 as early as September 2005 (see http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2005/09/13/4 64879.aspx)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Docs_&_Spread
Why hasn't anyone called out Google on this? Had Microsoft done it, Slashdot would have been up in arms!
And no, I'm not new here.
http://brandonbloom.name
We have always been at war with Microsoft.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
That's supposed to be a keyboard for office workers? Where's the 'Boss' key?
Those key bindings date at least back to Apple Lisa (1981), and probably Xerox PARC before that. It is no surprise that they can be found in many different environments today.
They were big ugly boxes prices out of ordinary peoples reach, something intended for office use only. Office equipment tend to be very uncool.
My first encounter with Microsoft was their BASIC that were in a lot of the home computers back then. It was always disappointing when a new home computer came with Microsoft BASIC, the non-Microsoft dialects (like in the BBC micro) were much more exciting. So even then, Microsoft was not cool, they were bland.
MS-DOS came to be around the time of my first encounter with Unix. Unsurprisingly, MS-DOS had the non-coolness of a mud hut standing next to a stone castle.
The MS Flight Simulator was kind of cool, I'll grant them that.
If the company internet connection is down now, I lose all external email contacts. I may still be able to use internal email when physically at work.
With Google (or another outside provider), I'll still be able to keep my external email contacts when working at home, even during a DoS attack on the company.
I don't know about you, but in my job the external contacts are more important than the internal contacts, and it will be easier to use alternative communication channels for the internal contacts (like calling or even walking down the hallway).
Seems like a win to me.
And about the "monthly revenue generator": The fee is for running your mail system for you, freeing your internal people to do stuff that may be more related to your line of business. Dedicated data centers have done this kind of stuff for at least four decades, if this has really been Microsoft's "wet dream" they chose the wrong line of business.
Hotmail? I had a hotmail account before MS bought Hotmail and it worked fine!
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Zimbra: 6 million Paid Mailboxes.
I guess most of them are not private mailboxes.
So there's definitly are market for this.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
is not a bad thing. If you are using a remote e-mail solution like Google's, you really DON'T want your e-mail passwords floating around the Net (you know, there are 20-30 hops between my machine and the nearest google server... lots of room for people to get my passwords, if they want to).
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Microsoft: Has none of my personal data, because I choose not to give it to them.
...
there is nothing to lock you into goolge apps aside from contractual argreements. the web raises no technical barrier to change, hence it's not going to be an Ms style monopoly.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Come back in five years, but don't be so sure you'll be the one laughing.
Back in 2002, five years ago, Google had only been profitable for a couple of years, and was starting to make it into the top-five most visited web sites in some countries. Its non-www-search offerings were in their infancy: it had just acquired Deja News (in 2001), and was starting up Google News around 2002.
Today, www.google.com is the most visited site on the web. GMail is one of the best-known e-mail services in the world -- not bad for a service that was only born about three years ago. Large numbers of people don't know the difference between Google Groups and Usenet. Novel services like Google Earth are grabbing the attention of the Internet-using public. Google's profits are going up and up, and their novel business model is proving very effective.
Say what you will about Google, their obviously-overvalued stock, and their increasingly dubious "corporate ethics" (what happened to not being evil?). They are without doubt the biggest business success story in IT in the past five years. If anyone's going to topple Microsoft's power base -- whose applications really aren't that great in many cases, remember -- it's going to be a heavy-hitter like Google.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
While MS has been banged around enough on slashdot, for the most part MS has really been more of a positive influence than otherwise for most users. I'd much prefer more diversity in computer offerings (and in computer education - in my university "computer literacy" means "microsoft literacy"), I'd like more open drivers, more standardization - ah, you all know the problems. But for most users MS has been a Good Thing (with some qualifications).
But there is another thought that sometimes wanders through my brain - is it not possible that MS has been pricing things low in large part because of the steering provided by Bill Gates? I've read a few things that have suggested that Gates does indeed push the company in the direction of keeping prices down. In which case, when Gates leaves the company, or if (by some marvelous melange of machinations) someone managed to buy a controlling interest. Might not new management decide that the prices are too low? That the DRM is not strict enough? That their XML should become completely proprietary again? With their monopoly, many businesses (and lots of consumers) could easily find themselves paying monthly subscription fees that might make their current fee structure look paltry. And, as has been said here so many times, many businesses would have little choice but to pay extortionate fees - and MS would be supported by the hordes of MS only developers who'd probably figure that they could hike their fees proportionately.
Clearly Google could do the same - but Google is operating in a very different market, with lots more competition (though with the product discussed here, they're clearly taking on MS in a key business area).