Slashdot Mirror
Google Apps Slow to Replace Competition
ericatcw brings us a Computerworld article about how businesses are still hesitant to switch to Google Apps as an alternative to Microsoft Office. While a Google spokesman claims "millions of active users", only "several thousand organizations" have paid for the Premier service, which was launched earlier this year. From Computerworld:
"'If we deploy it correctly, Google Docs can replace some [of] our Office apps -- but not all of them,' said Les Sease, IT director of Prudential Carolina Real Estate in North Charleston, South Carolina. Sease would like to switch everyone over completely to Google Apps. But first he would like to see better synchronization between Google Apps and mobile devices, shared online file storage similar to that of Apple Inc.'s .Mac, as well as a simple desktop publishing tool similar to Microsoft Publisher."
Google Apps could disappear at any time. If you're gonna switch to something, switch to Open Office. Even if everyone in the project is suddenly killed by ninjas, you still have the original offline installer that can keep you going for quite some time.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
A UI based in JavaScript or even pure HTML is horridly inefficient. Browsers' rendering engines are designed to quickly translate markup/scripting, not render screen elements most efficiently. The browser is another hoop code must jump through before its result is presented to the user. I can't even use the JS-based GMail on my 200 mhz Pentium because its fancy AJAX slows Firefox to a halt (Thunderbird runs just fine). GMail is even less responsive on my Xeon system compared to normal applications.
On an aside, I'm tired of sites relying more and more on AJAX and CSS to generate/render pages, as web-based applications must. Slashdot renders noticeably more slowly with its new CSS-based layout than its old primarily HTML-based layout.
This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
Our company is in the middle of switching to the Email/Calendar apps for domains. We anticipate it's going to be an order of magnitude cheaper than the labor costs of maintaining our own exim-based system, with much better quality of service to boot. It's also a fraction the cost of equivalent hosted solutions. So far we haven't found any missing features in the front or the backend; our company relies heavily on email, both internal and outgoing; if it can meet our needs, it can meet almost anyone's. Plus, the user interface of Gmail is just brilliant, and I anticipate the conversations feature, alone, will be a huge boost to productivity for our company. (This company sends about 10x as much email as any place I've ever worked.)
The online Doc/Spreadsheet/Presentation apps, though, I have absolutely no interest in. The features simply aren't there; neither is the responsiveness. OpenOffice will work just fine for us; I plan to push for a switch to that over the next year.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
I find the Collaboration, and historic persistence of spreadsheets very attractive.
...
I would point out that Google Docs could become legally binding as there is a mechanism to certify their content and date, and perhaps if Google adds identity verification like amazon's realid or so, on-line documents could replace paper docs - in business filings, contracts, perhaps even court filings.
I would advise Google to look for paper-intensive markets and provide the full cycle of services of the paper-world. Proof of service, by snail-mail if necessary, shredding, archiving, redlining. I would advise "templates" for document-intensive transactions such as buying/selling a house, car, small business, in which filing the document with the state agencies is part of the process.
The strength of the web is integrated services, not speed for a solo user. Google Docs should target a very specific niche - Wordperfect is still a favorite for lawyers (IIRC), Google should target collaboration-intensive markets, like education, conventions etc
I must say one problem seems to be an inability to link documents. One spreadsheet can't refer to another - can a powerpoint include a live graph linked to an online spreadsheet?
AIK
Don't get me wrong; I like the idea behind Google Apps, and with some work I think they could be a contender for MS Office and OO. However, they still need a lot of work. The "Word Processor" is nothing more than a basic html editor; its functionality is roughly on par with WordPad. The Presentation and Spreadsheet apps seem a bit farther along, but they still have a ways to go.
What I do like about it:
So it's got potential, IMO, and with some work it very well could be a contender. But it's not there yet. Google needs to stop, look harder at the functionality of the office suites already out there, and focus on enhancements to bring it up to date. Then in a year or two, they'll be in a better spot to compete with OO or MS Office.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
Disruptive innovations often start out underperforming the market leaders' products. This has happened time and time again in history. The classic example is Sony's transistor radios. When they first came out in the 1960s, they had poor sound volume, poor reception, and poor sound quality. But they did just fine for the teenagers who bought them in droves, because they teenagers didn't care about sound quality back then -- they cared about mobility!!! They wanted to listen to their rebel music away from their parents' reach, because their parents disapproved of the music.
It's exactly the same with Google Apps and Free Open Source Software and the OLPC XO. They all underperform Microsoft apps, but they appeal to a different crowd. No analysis of Google Apps or FOSS or the OLPC XO is on the right track without looking at one key question: who are the best customers of these technologies? If they are the same group as the market leader, then they will fail for exactly the same reason that Walt Mossberg doesn't like Ubuntu: he says that he reviews products for mainstream consumers, and FOSS is just now starting to get to feature parity with Microsoft products.
And yet, boatloads of people are starting to buy FOSS-powered products. Sure, they are much smaller boarts than the boatloads of people buying Microsoft products, but the point is that people are PAYING for FOSS goods and services.
The best example is Google search. Google "rents" Linux to us all 1/10th of a second at a time. Google sells advertising, and so they commoditize the compliment: web traffic. Google is more concerned with keeping the Internet Free and Open than they are concerned with what platform you use to browse the Internet, at least until Microsoft locks down the browser and blocks out Google, which they are trying to do with "LiveSearch" (an effort that is failing).
,
Bottom line: if you want to understand why FOSS and Google will beat Microsoft, look at the customers who are using their products. They are not Microsoft's customers. At least not yet. But tomorrow they will be.
Oh, and BTW, when was the last time you bought an RCA product? What about a Sony product? Yet when Sony was young, it was mocked as "cheap Japanese crap." Think of that next time someone mocks Google Apps.
But, the upside is, everybody can work at it from any location, no more reason to give (expensive) laptops with sensitive data that can be 'lost' or 'stolen' when they can use their own home computer/laptop and use https to work on documents.
Yes, the internet-thingy going down is a downside but I noticed that wherever I work, if the Internet goes down, the company grinds to a halt, even for people that aren't really involved on the internet for business (why does the cleaning crew or even hr need internet access anyway?)
And hardly anybody in a company uses all the functionality that MS Office, OpenOffice or iWork has to offer. For those people, you can stick to buying them the Office suite but for a lot (maybe 90%) just typing in a document or setting up a spreadsheet is as far as their business-related computer work goes.
And as for the 'cheap' part: $50/user/year for a full (or somewhat full) functional office package that is accessible anywhere with collaboration and central storage is fairly cheap. Just the licensing costs for Office are higher even for educational and then you haven't even started setting up ShitPoint, Dead Office Collaborator or a simple file storage for each department.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com