« Fire bad students and bad teachers - Give incentives to both | Main | News Readers for New York Times, Forbes, and Seattle P-I »

February 22, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf9da53ef00d8347af59769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Google Apps takes on Microsoft Outlook and Office:

» Google Apps Premier Edition from SaaS Blogs
This is just a mini-post to aggregate the plethora of commentary surrounding the announcement of Google Apps Premier Edition.  Phrases like in direct competition with Microsoft Office abound, but overall its apparent that there... [Read More]

» So, what does it mean for Zoho? from Zoho Blogs
Now that Google has announced its gameplan for an online Office suite targeting businesses, what does it mean for Zoho? As a TechCrunch commenter remarked looks like poor old Zoho just got thrown a curveball. Well, it is not like we were ... [Read More]

Comments

CJ

You lost all credibility when you said that Gmail "doesn't compare to Microsoft Outlook. Even Microsoft's online version of Outlook called Outlook Web Access is far better than Gmail." Both of those statements are simply not true.

You talk about the missing features in Docs & Spreadsheets, but when it comes time to elaborate, you say "They are too numerous to list here". The few examples you do give, "formatting cells, editing formulas, and quick features and icons we have come to expect in Office" are, again, simply not true.

It's pretty obvious that you work for Microsoft.

TanNg

Why bother compare Google Apps to MS Office. Google Apps should be compared to Wordpad, Outlook Express, ....

Google Apps = easy sharing of very simple documents.

Andrew Watson

Don,
You might add to your contrast between Google and Microsoft the support for OpenID...
Andrew

Steve Morsa

Ho hum...more undeserved front page "news" media attention for another boring, uninspired, and minimally useful Google offering that will likely never even cover their bandwidth, storage, "customer service" (an area "algorithms-only please" Google's notoriously poor at providing) and other operational costs...

...and any company--of any size--foolish enough to entrust important content, information, data, and communications to them may someday pay dearly for their pennywise, pound foolish decision.

Just wait until the news reports start coming out when businesses' entire records get wiped out...and the govt and legal eagles start grabbing--quickly and with great ease--these same records for all kinds of purposes...

I know I'll never use it.

If this "offering" was from any company other than Google, does anyone really believe that anybody but the tech blogs would be reporting on it?

And the effect "Apps" will have on the existing office suite marketplace?

Virtually nil...nada...zilch.

Google Apps? D.O.A. R.I.P.

Mark Zanzig

Don,

while I guess that you are wearing your Microsoft hat while writing this post (opposed to a more neutral fashion for other topics), I have to agree 100% with you this time.

1- Corporates are VERY concerned about security, especially for email, communications, and data storage. The vision of Google having access to ALL emails (with attachments) and documents is simply a nightmare for any IT department. They will simply not greenlight any move into this direction. IMO most companies would rather lay off people or get otherwise more efficient than giving away the keys to their business.

2- EVEN IF a few companies actually decide to switch to that Google online package, users will probably NOT become more efficient. Functions are not where they used to be, collaboration may be more difficult, results may look different, offline use is apparently impossible. There is a chance that normal users (not Tech-savvy users) will not like this. Ah, this reminds me of a former company where I was forced to use Lotus Notes for email and calendar stuff. We all were suddenly incredibly inefficient, exactly something we did not need at that time.

3- The business case looks surprisingly bad. OK, a company may save $80,000 on an IT administrator working for, let's say, 200 users. That's $400 per year per user. A saving of $350 per user per year for switching to Google. Not bad. But wait! the same 200 users cost the company $10,000,000 in salaries (again, just an assumption). These guys work 200 x 220d x 8 hrs x 60 min = 21,120,000 minutes. IF they are delayed by 10 minutes per day, e.g. by having to work around bugs or by trying to figure out how to do things, the company loses 200 x 220 x 10 = 440,000 minutes or roughly 2% of the work force. This amounts to $200,000. Seems that the IT admin is cheaper or at least equally expensive.

So, given the neutral business case AND the security risks AND the barking users, I'd immediately decide for MS Office. There will be a lot of companies around the world who will do the math and come to the same conclusions.

(Also, there is a certain stability with a business relationship to MS. Google is less known, and the price MIGHT go up once a company has switched to their package and all the users have been trained on it.)

Stephane Rodriguez


Ah ah!

Mr Dodge is so out of touch, it's almost sad.

Watch Google ship many major releases before MS Office ship one.

Watch Google swallow MS Office market share as people realize that simpler, more integrated, web-only, secure, thiner, almost free products disrupt the old bloated crap that is being forced upon us with MS Office. Especially when you know that Office 2007 has many new incompatible file formats. Ah ah ah again.

rolf mistelbacher

google's gmail should be compared with windows live hotmail. gmail is much much better than live hotmail. outloook web access is more for the business user, and not compareable with gmail (which is fun to use for private mailing)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter