Slashdot Mirror


Google Rebuilds Docs Platform

mikemuch writes "In addition to offering faster, desktop-like performance, better imported document fidelity, and more features found in standard Office apps, Google's new infrastructure for its web-based office suite will enable the company to more easily update the apps. A side effect (or benefit, depending on where you sit) is that the new platform will ditch Gears in favor of HTML 5. For a while starting May 3 there will be no offline capability whatsoever. Collaboration is a big focus, with a new chat sidebar and real-time co-editing. The new Docs and spreadsheet apps will be opt-in previews, but a new drawing app is launching fully. Both go live later today on the Google Docs site."

33 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Slashvertisement? by teknopurge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone else think the submission sounds like an ad copy?

    1. Re:Slashvertisement? by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nah, not really.

      it's something used by tons of people, and switching to HTML 5 here is a good deal *and* significant for cross platform use.

    2. Re:Slashvertisement? by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 3, Funny

      Indeed. If I were a small company like Google, I'd be really hoping that Slashdot could provide some much-needed publicity.

      --
      R.Mo
  2. Sounds like an ad by Timosch · · Score: 2

    "faster, desktop-like performance..." - Google will love this...

  3. HTML5 Features by WankersRevenge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's funny that people are so fixated over the video tag discussion that a lot of the other outstanding features of HTML5 are being overlooked. There's offline storage, javascript threads, and even in browser form validation. The awesome thing is that a bunch of these features are already implemented in various browsers. It's just a matter of including a simple javascript sniffer to determine if a client supports it or not. You can dig into the features over here.

    1. Re:HTML5 Features by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good points. It makes no sense to take features which have proved useful on the desktop and make them available in the browser environment. Also, someone needs to stand up and tell people to stop developing these browser based applications.

      If you want to edit a document, you should install a native application on every PC you want to access it on. You should have to sort out all the details of network storage and collaboration yourself. If you don't have the time or expertise to set that up, you don't deserve to be editing documents. If you accept the convenience offered by such online companies, don't be surprised when many horrible things happen to you!

    2. Re:HTML5 Features by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously, who cares?

      Because the native desktop is managed by a typical user who is not really dumb, but has no inclination to manage the machine correctly. They usually lack the security implications of their actions. They have a nebulous understanding of how the computer works. They don't get the difference between their local computer, their files in their machine, the web site they visit. They don't even know the difference between the OS and the browser and the applications.

      The situation is so bad, the shills are actually touting the advantages of the closed software, saying that is the only way to get secure applications without viruses and worms. The shift to cloud essentially forces the user to learn a new security paradigm.

      Yes, it is buggy and inefficient. But that is now. As technology improves, the simple browser will serve the 95% of the needs of 95% of the population.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:HTML5 Features by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am just pissed off that no one seems to want xhtml2. It is generally better than html5 in most ways, though it could use a few minor features from html5.

    4. Re:HTML5 Features by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a world where 99% of everything is broken, strictness isn't really a virtue...

    5. Re:HTML5 Features by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the contrary, in a world where 99% of everything is broken, strictness really is a virtue. Strictness allows people to realize what isn't broken in an endless morass of crippled partial implementations. Eventually, things can be fixed. Computers and the internet do not have to be something for which everyone has resigned to being broken.

      "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. "

    6. Re:HTML5 Features by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you accept the convenience offered by such online companies, don't be surprised when many horrible things happen to you!

      What convenience? The convenience to have to use their inferior-to-my-desktop-app editor, in a browser I wouldn't normally use, with security settings I wouldn't normally use, continigent on my network connection staying up?

      That sounds much better than downloading a file, running the app I decided I wanted to use and learned the quirks of, and being able to put my computer to sleep, move it to a coffee shop and resume. Oh, and allowing my OS to protect my computer like I told it to.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:HTML5 Features by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm willing to bet that within a couple of years, Office will be just as "online" and "in the cloud" as Google docs is.

      You could just substitute research for "betting" and observe what MS is actually doing with their next release: building a limited online version of Office, but selling the usual feature-complete local tools which take advantage of the speed, reliability, connectivity and UI of a native app.

      It would be great to just give users a laptop and a web browser without having to install Office.

      Why not spend the time installing Office, rather than a browser, so they can actually get work done? Seriously, a reason to use Google Docs over Office is that it's harder to install Office than a web browser?

      I find Office much easier to deploy than Firefox, because Microsoft actually thinks about enterprise deployment in their installer. I find Office easier to use than Google Docs, because it provides a familiar native UI.

    8. Re:HTML5 Features by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you understand how much money [Microsoft] Office is to license?

      Almost nothing, relative to the cost of the employee sitting at the workstation. Productivity is far more important than base licence cost.

      Do you have any idea how many exploits are in the Office suite alone?

      Almost none, relevant to a well configured Office install. And none recent are as bad as the one big risk that is having your plaintext on an anonymous server accessible to various foreign corporations and governments.

      Well, at least Google's never been penetrated and experienced information leakages, and they're responsible with full disclosure of vulnerabilities, right?

    9. Re:HTML5 Features by dave562 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could just substitute research for "betting" and observe what MS is actually doing with their next release: building a limited online version of Office, but selling the usual feature-complete local tools which take advantage of the speed, reliability, connectivity and UI of a native app.

      I could research, but having been in IT for over a decade at this point, I will continue to "bet" until applications are actually in production. Until then, it's all vapourware as far as I'm concerned. In this case my bet is based on Microsoft's claims that they are going to offer Office online. We'll see how it works. A couple of months ago, I read a few reviews where everyone was bemoaning how much it sucks and how far it has to go.

      Seriously, a reason to use Google Docs over Office is that it's harder to install Office than a web browser?

      If you want to get technical, it IS harder to install Office than a browser. The browser (IE) comes pre-installed. Office requires an installer. Even if you are pushing it out via GPO, or Systems Center, you still have to have a mechanism to get the application configured on the end user's device. If you move it onto the web, all you have to do is provision it once and maybe authorize the user's account in Active Directory or whatever.

      I find Office much easier to deploy than Firefox...

      As for Firefox versus Office, they're pretty much the same. You configure your installer package and associate it with whatever OU you want to deploy it. The rest is automatic.

    10. Re:HTML5 Features by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Informative

      You built a new PC, you installed Firefox, you entered username/password for the mailserver, you logged into GMail.

      I built a new PC, I installed Outlook, I entered a username/password for the SSL IMAP mailserver.

      Just kidding, I didn't even have to enter username/password as I could migrate my Windows account profile with a couple of clicks.

  4. press release, not advertisement by Layth · · Score: 3, Informative

    A news website, with a summary that sounds like a press release.. nothing wrong here.
    Not a marketing guy, but as I understand it a press release is different than normal advertising copy - it's news (in this case, news for nerds)

  5. Re:Still sounds shittier than OpenOffice.org. by dingen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Web apps just can't compete with real apps

    This will be a funny quote in a few years.

    --
    Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  6. Two more days left to test it today! by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 5, Informative

    If "real-time collaboration" and "side chat bar" sounds familiar, it's Etherpad:

    Etherpad.com

    Google bought the company few months ago in order to improve their Google Wave and Google Docs offerings, and I'm happy to see these efforts come to fruition. Google left the Etherpad.com service up for some more time. The end of that grace period is April 14-th (2 days from now), so you have 2 days to go and check what the new Google Docs will probably feel like. Make sure to check out the timeline replay feature, downright eerie and good fit for Google's pattern of Ubiquitous Tracking of Everything, I think.

  7. There is nothing evil about The Cloud! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait a minute. I'm a manager, and I've been reading a lot of case studies and watching a lot of webcasts about The Cloud. Based on all of this glorious marketing literature, I, as a manager, have absolutely no reason to doubt the safety of any data put in The Cloud.

    The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud. I don't know about you, but that sounds damn secure to me! Some Clouds even use SSL and HTTP. That's rock solid in my book.

    And don't forget that you have to use Web Services to access The Cloud. Nothing is more secure than SOA and Web Services, with the exception of perhaps SaaS. But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.

    My main concern isn't with the security of The Cloud, but rather with getting my Indian team to learn all about it so we can deploy some first-generation The Cloud applications and Web Services to provide the ultimate platform upon which we can layer our business intelligence and reporting, because there are still a few verticals that we need to leverage before we can move to The Cloud 2.0.

  8. Re:Still sounds shittier than OpenOffice.org. by Joe+Random · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure Google is using something similar to their Google Web Toolkit to write the applications in Java and have the code compiled into JavaScript.

    The thing to take away from this (and everyone should already be aware of this if they're making claims as to the usefulness of a JavaScript) is that JavaScript is Turing complete. So it clearly can be used to develop an Office-like suite of tools.

    The only real concerns are:

    • Is the language easy enough to develop in?
    • Do programs written in the language run quickly enough on the target systems?

    Since the Google toolkit is converting Java to JavaScript, the answer to #1 seems obvious. And while it's not quite as clear-cut, recent (and ongoing) improvements in browser JavaScript interpretation speed seem to indicate that #2 is likely true, too.

  9. JavaScript by Vahokif · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't get why we're still using JavaScript for everything. What we need is a bytecode-based platform like Java or .NET but completely open and managed by W3C, totally integrated in the browser instead of a plugin and with a minimal standard library that only does math, DOM, etc. It would sure as hell beat crazy hacks like compiling other languages to JavaScript.

    1. Re:JavaScript by dingen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why?

      There are loads of Javascript frameworks out there to basically give developers any functionality they might require. Speed isn't the issue anymore since Javascript engines have become multithreaded bytecode interpreters and as of late even offering hardware acceleration.

      What's wrong with Javascript?

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    2. Re:JavaScript by Vahokif · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's the point of using an interpreted language when you could compile to, download and execute bytecode much more efficiently?

    3. Re:JavaScript by Joe+Random · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's the point of using an interpreted language when you could compile to, download and execute bytecode much more efficiently?

      Please define "much more efficiently". Sure, it's more efficient from the computer's standpoint to run native code, but that's only part of the equation. From the user's standpoint, running something like this as a web service rather than a stand-alone executable means not having to install, never having to upgrade, and automatically having their documents available from any other computer that has an Internet connection. Yes, it may be slightly slower, but that slowdown may be well within tolerable limits, and there are added benefits. Whether those benefits outweigh the costs is up to the individual to determine for their particular circumstances, and what's "much more efficient" in a technical sense may not be more efficient from the user's point of view.

    4. Re:JavaScript by Vahokif · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What are you talking about? It'd still be in the browser, just bytecode instead of JavaScript.

    5. Re:JavaScript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


      What's the point of using an interpreted language when you could compile to, download and execute bytecode much more efficiently?

      Because while Javascript sucks, is bandwidth-intense and slow, it is the only Turing-complete, client-side, barely-cross-platform Web programming environment that Microsoft has implemented and which Microsoft is still forced to keep around on all default installations of Windows/Explorer.

      You are perfectly right that bytecode environments are much better choices technically, but they are worth nothing to Google as long as Microsoft keeps them out of their default browser installs.

      [ Note that on platforms that Google is able to influence in their entirety they are using bytecode solutions aggressively - see Android. ]

      Microsoft adopted (and extend) Javascript because it wanted to kill Netscape so badly. Once they achieved that they couldn't kill Javascript anymore because 1) half of the web ran on it 2) they were lying low after the bloody [and illegal] battle with Netscape raised the interest of various [civil] law enforcement agencies 3) Microsoft thought they made Javascript incompatible enough and did not really realize how it still enabled Google's cloud apps - until it was too late.

      Microsoft tried to hold out with a sucky Javascript engine as long as it could, but they eventually had to give in.

      It's kind of ironic that this small domino started 10 years ago by Microsoft caused the increasingly apparent demise of Microsoft Office.

      It will take another 10+ years for the process to be complete (the 100+ billion business that Microsoft has become has a lot of inertia) but it will happen - the world generally strives to optimize out the overhead of that 100+ billion dollars tax that Microsoft has become by today.

    6. Re:JavaScript by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well I used to think that. There's one problem I encountered, which is that gzipped, optimized JavaScript is mindblowingly concise compared to most other forms of compiled code. You can fit a staggering amount of functionality in only a kilobyte of this stuff.

      This may sound absurd, but try it for yourself. Write a piece of JavaScript to do something generic and non-platform dependent like calculate MD5. Run it through the Closure Compiler which is the same tool that Google uses to optimize and check its JavaScript. It will tell you the gzipped size. For a simple MD5 impl I got off the web, it boils down to 1.4kb gzipped. Now try compiling and gzipping a C implementation and a Java .class file. In both cases the result was about 5kb - that's a pretty big blowup! JavaScript has the advantage of having a basically overhead-free yet semantically very rich format: source code. Other languages compile down to quite complicated header formats that are full of version identifiers and symbol names.

      Given that modern browsers like Chrome convert your JavaScript to native code anyway, it may well make sense to slash your code size by using JavaScript and take the better loading times along with a hit on runtime performance.

    7. Re:JavaScript by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would sure as hell beat crazy hacks like compiling other languages to JavaScript.

      Yes, it would have made much more sense to come up with a decent IDE for web javascript development than to do wacky hacks like that. But since they work, they'll stay with us for quite some time. In the mean time, various agencies have proven that JavaScript does not have to be slow. With some additional help, it can surely be even faster.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. No offline capabilities.... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought off-line storage was a big part of HTML5? Hell we're even using it now with our iPhone apps. There are a lot of things I like about google docs. It's great because we have a Joint Venture with a company in San Francisco where we're based out of St. Louis. We can edit in real time using Skype for voice and then see what people are editing in a text document or spreadsheet.

    But Microsoft Office and iWork are both on my MacBook Pro. Why? Because sometimes I'm on an airplane and need to finish up that presentation for tomorrow or write a report, etc.. Or I'm riding in a car doing the same through the backwoods where the cell towers don't go. Until I can, Google Docs will not be replacing Office or iWork as my everyday office tools.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:No offline capabilities.... by Brandee07 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reason there's no Offline capability in the new GoogleDocs is cause it's not ready yet. They say, in so many words, that they plan to have the HTML5 Offline Mode up and running soon. Until then, use the Old Version + Gears.

      This may not have been a good idea, but it is very Google-esque to roll out a new product with features missing.

  11. The emperor has no clothes: the apps are poor by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recently took part in a collaborative project, resulting in a published book, which was done by means of Google Docs.

    I was underwhelmed. I used only the "document" (word processing) tool. There were scores of little clunky things about the user interface, many puzzles and problems involving document exchange and permissions, and the "feature-completeness" of the application was maybe late 1980s.

    But what really got me was that the basic editing operations were unreliable. I would insert a 12-point subheading above a 10-point text paragraph and the whole paragraph would change to 12-point text, stuff like that. Two sections might both show normal single-spaced line spacing within the editor, yet the final PDF output would render one of them as single-spaced and the other as double-spaced.

    After a while I thought perhaps it was an incompatibility with Safari, although Google does not suggest any such thing, and switched to Firefox. There were still continual problems of this kind, popping up randomly; perhaps not as often and perhaps not exactly the same as under Safari.

    If this were running locally under Windows or Mac OS, people would roll on the floor laughing at it. Apple's TextEdit or Microsoft's WordPad would blow it out of the water. If this is the best Web 2.0 can do, local PCs are safe.

    The thing is, the press writes about them as if Google Docs were a full-featured, commercial-quality applications... as good a substitute for Word as, say, OpenOffice. It isn't. Under some conditions I guess the collaborative features make it better than nothing (the book got finished).

    No doubt the marketers will spin it out endlessly by with continuous frank acknowledgement that whatever is the actual Google Docs you can get now IS a joke, it is the NEXT one that will be desktop-application quality--just as the next version of Windows will be secure and easy to use. We will see. But the current Google Docs, if considered as a serious alternative to a locally-hosted application, is a joke.

    1. Re:The emperor has no clothes: the apps are poor by FooHentai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullsh. He's talking about basic text formatting options that are buggy or in some cases, broken. He's dead right about that. Issues abound in Gmail, too... like how signature text and body text are treated differently when composing an email, and often that can bug out and leave you unable to edit the body text because GMail things it's all one big signature. Dumb.

      Mind you, similar criticism can be applied to Word, too, it's less buggy than GDocs, but still has problems. Adding a page break then wondering why your new Heading 1 line is also changing the spacing on the previous page... or why you can't seem to move beyond the end of a table at the end of your document to start a new line. Stuff like that.

      GDocs has some way to go in terms of usability, even for basic corporate documentation.

    2. Re:The emperor has no clothes: the apps are poor by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you'll find the point of the rewrite was to solve all these issues. Read the article - Docs no longer relies on your browser to do things like correctly positioning bullet points. It does it all itself.

      Full disclosure. I am a Googler and we've been using this new version of Docs internally for a while. It is a significant improvement. The old Docs was basically a wrapper around your browsers HTML editing feature that auto-saved every few seconds. The new Docs is a real word processor that understands things like page breaks natively. It is fully consistent in every browser and features the real-time collaboration you saw in Wave. I enjoy using it a lot more.