Google Scoops Microsoft w/ Mesh Applications

Julie188 writes "Google's offline access for Google Apps is a kick in the shin at Ray Ozzie. Google took a page right out of the Ozzie mesh playbook when it announced the offline access (let's call it Google Docs Unplugged). Google delivered desktop apps from the cloud first and then added unplugged functionality. Microsoft wants to do the same, but in reverse, and faces an infinitely bigger challenge: rebuild Microsoft apps so they can become cloud enabled while pulling its giant channel (and embedded software) along in the process. Good luck with that, Microsoft. But then again, just because Google is making faster progress doesn't mean much. There's no guarantee users will like the unplugged versions of cloud apps."

Comments

SharePoint

[Anonymous Coward]

It's technology is called SharePoint. All Office apps are integrated with it and you can work offline, online, collaborate, etc. Oh yea, and it worked longed before Google docs did. This submitter is a typical anti-MS hack and doesn't know what they are talking about. GG Slashdot.

Re:SharePoint

[Per Abrahamsen]

It's technology is called SharePoint. It is actually much closer to Microsoft Office Live, as it doesn't require you to run a server (Microsoft does it for you) or pay a fee (apart from what you already paid for Microsoft Office).

SharePoint seems to be traditional client-server technology, and not related to any recent buzzwords like "cloud computing". For companies with a strong IT department, SharePoint it probably superior. For the rest of us, is is Google Docs or Office Live (or email, sadly).

Re:SharePoint

[value_added]

It's technology is called SharePoint.

No, Sharepoint is marketing brand name, notable for being refreshingly brief.

The technologies, on the other hand, are actually ASP.NET applications, which are served using IIS and use a SQL Server database as data storage backend.

Stuff is integrated with it? I'm shocked. Shocked, I'll tell you.

Re:SharePoint

[Enderandrew]

As someone else pointed out, SharePoint is more akin to storing docs online, sharing them with people, communicating with them, wiki functionality, etc.

And as someone who just implemented a SharePoint system, SharePoint is very expensive and requires some massive hardware. Google Docs is free and requires zero hardware purchase.

Re:SharePoint

[Thinman]

Not really, SharePoint is just a Web Framework with support for office documents, but you are require to have a copy of office in your machine to work with, OTOH google applications run on the server and display on your browser.....

Regards.

Re:SharePoint

[The Spoonman]

Only if implemented by incompetent boobs. Considering that describes a good 90-95% of IT folks, your comments are not surprising. When we migrated our Intranet to Sharepoint last year, pretty much unilaterally our 14,000 users said "FINALLY! An intranet that does what we need!" It's been fantastic, and they just love being able to manipulate the site to provide them just the information and applications they need. We've now begun a project to provide it to our clients, and their reaction has been the same.

Now, to the topic at hand: no, I have no interest in offline Google Apps. Google Apps is a barely usable hack that provides the barest of minimums of features for users. It's good for my grandmother, but even my mother finds it too limiting. Add to that using Firefox/Gears uses 5-10X the resources on machine and it just doesn't cute it. Microsoft's solution is exactly the path I'd go. It gives me the flexibility to use real applications AND still have access to my docs everywhere. But, I'm not a luddite, so...

Re:SharePoint

[lbgator]

While I agree with your post in general, I am rankled by everyone calling Docs a "barely usable hack". Every user has differing needs, and your needs simply aren't met by Docs. That's fine: don't use it.

Google Docs does provide a simple free office suite with good collaboration, sharing, and version control. There are a lot of things it cannot do well or at all (graphs, embedded objects, work quickly, etc) but that is not to say it is worthless. Some people cannot be sure that they will have access to MS Office on every machine they encounter daily, some people may want to seamlessly collaborate with people who don't own office, some people may just choose not to use MS products but still want an easy online Office Suite. There are many scenarios that I can think of where something can go wrong with the MS solution, this is where Google shines. There are many features that Office has that GDocs doesn't. Every user has to choose what it is they are really after. No reason to get upset or fling insults.

Re:SharePoint

[0racle]

First, if you're not an incompetent boob, why couldn't you get anything before SharePoint to do what users need? Second, SharePoint sucks when you have a mixed client network, which is typical of Microsoft products.

Re:SharePoint

[notaprguy]

You're half right. SharePoint is designed more for business use whereas Google apps are designed more for geek's trying to organize a geek party. Office Live offers much of the same of the same functionality as SharePoint in a more simplified version. In terms of making apps available offline...I have this new fangled thing called Office that works reallyh well regardless of whether I'm connected or not. I can even set it up so that when I re-connect that the file is synchronized up to a Web site. Amazing stuff!

devil is in the detail

[nguy]

People have been using mixed on-line/off-line computing for a long time; neither Microsoft nor Google invented this or were the first to figure out that it was useful.

What matters is how exactly it's done. I find Google's offerings a lot more persuasive than Microsoft's. Microsoft's collaborative features are cumbersome and hard to use, and Microsoft's office suite is expensive and heavy-weight. Google Docs is easy to get started with and works for most people; mainly what it needs is better embedded object support (including math) and bug fixing.

Re:devil is in the detail

[Blakey Rat]

I don't really get the argument here. What's the difference between Google Docs' new functionality and Office Live? Other than that Microsoft is working from the desktop and moving to the web, and Google is working from the web and moving to the desktop. Oh, also: Office Live exists right now (albeit in beta), and Google only has a press release.

The article doesn't give a compelling reason for Microsoft being "scooped" in this case-- in fact, I think its author simply just don't know Office Live exists. Or am I missing something?

Re:devil is in the detail

[nguy]

What's the difference between Google Docs' new functionality and Office Live?

Several major ones: (1) Google Docs sharing is actually live; you can see other people's edits being made in real time, (2) all you need with Google Docs is a web browser--nothing to install, (3) Google Docs are data sources and sinks for mashups and other applications (including web forms submissions), (4) user management and sharing is much, much simpler with Google Docs--you can share and work with anybody, (5) Google Docs can integrate with both MS Office and OpenOffice, (6) Google Docs has mobile access.

Oh, also: Office Live exists right now (albeit in beta), and Google only has a press release.

Google Docs has had the limited sharing functionality found in Office Live since before Office Live even existed. The new Gears-based off-line mode is simpler and better and something that Microsoft simply doesn't have at all.

Re:devil is in the detail

[uptownguy]

We're actually comparing Google Docs and Office Live for a client rollout and I put both them both head-to-head yesterday. Clearly, some of your information is outdated.

(1) Google Docs sharing is actually live; you can see other people's edits being made in real time,
 
Same with Office Live. Different way of "seeing" and I prefer Google's but both work. And with a OneNote Notebook shared? Now THAT is nice and I prefer that to both.

(2) all you need with Google Docs is a web browser--nothing to install,

As long as you are editing/viewing someone else's Office Live Document, the same is true.
 
  (3) Google Docs are data sources and sinks for mashups and other applications (including web forms submissions)
 
I honestly have no idea on this one so I'll take your word on it. More to the point, I'd be curious to know about how easy those mashups are to create in Google Docs. I guess I've got more research to do! ;)
 
  (4) user management and sharing is much, much simpler with Google Docs--you can share and work with anybody,

Not true. This was the biggest surprise for me. The ease of use for inviting others is the same. In Office Live, it's as easy as entering someone's email address. Seriously. I expected it to be much more complicated from everything I read. It is not.
 
  (5) Google Docs can integrate with both MS Office and OpenOffice,
 
Or the flip side of this is to say that Google Docs will not open MS Word documents like people expect them to. And Spreadsheets will not open and look like you would think they should look in Excel. With Office Live, the curve is much less steep. Yes, proprietary formats are evil and the cause of this in the first place. Etc. etc. etc. But if you are a business with a few hundred spreadsheets that might or might not open as expected in Google Docs, Office Live becomes hard to ignore.
 
  (6) Google Docs has mobile access.

Nope. Or rather, yes, I guess you can *view* your Google Docs in a mobile view. But there is no way to edit them, at least from the phone I was testing it on. The same is true for Office Live. Both have great mobile viewers ... and make editing online next to impossible.

There's a lot of testing we have yet to do. And we aren't even close to deciding between the two. (Free as in beer vs. works with 100% of your current documents.) But -- as someone who spent most of yesterday comparing the two head-to-head, I really wanted to clear up that 4-5 out of your 6 points were no longer true.

Not likely...

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

But the future's not all doom and gloom just because of Google's progress in bringing unplugged versions of cloud apps to users. Microsoft would be smart to be extremely observant about the end user experience, user feedback and usage patterns of Google Doc users, and then plow that knowledge back into Windows Live and other Microsoft Mesh efforts.

So...all Microsoft has to do to avoid defeat is listen to their customers?

Yeah...just not seeing that happening...

Bingo

[sakdoctor]

Virtual apps, streamed or live on the cloud. Unplugged. Mesh.
The summary was full of buzz words so I had to RTFA...which was also full of buzzwords

What I don't get is why basic office application are not better off on your local machine, or even OO.org on a flashdisk along with your documents, than on google's or microsofts server being analysed every which way.

Re:Bingo

[Cid Highwind]

What I don't get is why basic office application are not better off on your local machine, or even OO.org on a flashdisk along with your documents, than on google's or microsofts server being analysed every which way.

Because no matter how many people work on a "cloud" document, there's only one version of one app to worry about. When Google rolls out a new feature, you can actually use it right away instead of worrying about how it will render on your local copy of OO.o 2.1 versus my 3.0 beta versus Joe's copy of MS Office 07. Add to that the ability to trade docs by sending a url instead of an email attachment (which is almost certain to get trashed a spam filter or overzealous IT "NO ATTACHMENTS!" policy the first time you email a new contact) and it looks pretty compelling. I still wouldn't use it for anything confidential (same goes for gmail), but I can see the appeal for a lot of people.

Flamebait

[Hassman]

Can I flag this story as a flamebait?

plugged vs unplugged

[thrillseeker]

There's no guarantee users will like the unplugged versions of cloud apps.

Having to use a plugged, especially plugged-only and "internet as an afterthought", application is akin to having to drive down to the theater to watch a movie - sure the big screen is nice, but putting up with all the downsides is less and less attractive and the screens are getting smaller and the popcorn is getting more and more stale.

Meanwhile, using an app that easily unplugs is like having my favorite movies available anytime (that is, with an acceptable delay in feedback time) - I can watch on the (upcoming) Mitsubishi Laser TV whatever hi-def I had downloaded to the PS3, listening on the fine audio system, enjoying the whole affair with a group I can choose, and having an ice cold Becks with hot off the stove popcorn. Yeah, it's a little extra work, for now, but it's much more appealing.

not to slam Google but...

[Speare]

But then again, just because Google is making faster progress doesn't mean much.

I enjoy watching Google beat the snot out of the previous 900lb gorilla as much as the next guy, but this was an understatement. All too often, Google has done the interesting 80% of the functionality and leaves the boring 20% of the cleanup, followthrough, polish and finish languishing in "beta" stage for months, years, forever. That's the 80/20 rule: the boring 20% is actually 80% of the sweat and toil to make a solid product/service.

Re:not to slam Google but...

[Hangtime]

Amen brother. Google likes to build the 80% thinking no one uses the 20% and on average this would be correct. If you look at usability most folks don't use the higher end functions out of Excel (one of my pet pivs when Microsoft updated to 2007 and the ribbon). But if you look at all the advanced functionality (Sub-Totals, OFFSET(), VLOOKUP(), Validation, Goal Seek, Solver, Add-Ins, Macros, Data Analysis pack, Consolidate, STANDARDIZE(), Percentile(), etc.), however, the chances of any Excel user using at least one of these function thus one function within the 20% is very high and is a gotcha. Everyone complains about feature bloat in Office, but the beauty of the suite is that it will give you that one function you might need to make your life infinitely easier even if it isn't used by 99.9% of all the other users. Ultimately, this is why Google will have limited success. Its not fun building features for a few thousand or a few hundred users, but this is how you build your userbase by catering to smaller and smaller niches of folks who will gladly pay you money to purchase your software.

You really think MS faces the bigger task?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Microsoft wants to do the same, but in reverse, and faces an infinitely bigger challenge: rebuild Microsoft apps so they can become cloud enabled while pulling its giant channel (and embedded software) along in the process.

You really think MS faces the bigger task? MS has widely accepted desktop and server apps already, and a working framework for companies to build a back end with database, web and other common services. I'd think MS would face the easier challenge here; all they need to do is convince people to swap out (outsource) their core corporate back end processing in favor of similar services hosted by Microsoft.

Google's challenge seems to be to convince companies to outsource their core corporate back end processes using brand new back end applications and desktop apps that just came out of beta. That seems like the tougher hill to climb.

In either case, the challenge isn't new; "cloud computing" seems like just version 10 of the outsourced processing pitch that's been used in the computing industry for at least 40 years - just ask EDS, IBM, Unisys, etc.

Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality

[nguy]

It is in-browser. It uses Google Gears, a small open source extension that makes it easy for people to turn on-line apps into off-line apps. It works on major platforms and browsers, including Windows, Windows Mobile, MacOS, and Linux. Remember The Milk, Zoho Office, and others are already using Google Gears, as is Google Reader.

Google Docs off-line was an obvious use for Google Gears, and the main question is: why did it take so long?

It's a good bet that off-line versions of GMail and Google Calendar are next.

Paragraphs are part of the 20%

[metamatic]

Well, in the case of Google Docs, there's no easy way to make paragraph breaks and linebreaks appear different. That, to me, is pretty much a showstopper.

Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality

[nizo]

Google Gears installs a browser extension that adds a JavaScript API that enables the browser scripts to access the local datastore. The extension requires Firefox or Internet Explorer and works on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.[2] A version for Safari is now available to developers. Currently, Google Reader is the only Google application that is supported, though other web applications such as Remember the Milk have added Google Gears functionality. The transition from online to offline mode and back has to be done manually in Google Reader because of the differences in data being transferred. Other applications, such as Remember the Milk, transition from online to offline mode and back seamlessly.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Gears