Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Apps to Become Paid Service

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Feb 07, 2007 06:43 PM
from the google-is-coming dept.
Businesses Google The Internet IT
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?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google Apps to Become Paid Service 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • 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.
    • Why is Pixar considering Google Apps?

      Maybe because Microsoft Office won't be a Universal binary until later this year?

    • Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Space cowboy (13680) * on Wednesday February 07 2007, @06:50PM (#17928110) Journal
      .mac isn't an application suite - it's basically a shared disk (the 'iDisk'), a webmail interface (although 'Mail' is much better), and a place to put your website. Oh, you can sync your address book through it as well... It has peripheral advantages, if you use other mac apps ... the "casting" abilities of the iApps, for example, where I can publish/subscribe to various document-formats (eg: iPhoto does 'photocasts'); it's only really being used as a network-shared disk in this instance though.

      It's actually one of the few things I think must have slipped under Steve's radar - I don't think .Mac is worth the money.

      Simon.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Space cowboy (13680) *
          I thought the apps included the 'docs and spreadsheets' module ? It'd be a bit weird to omit them ... of course it doesn't run on Safari just yet, and I can't be bothered to install Firefox just to find out...

          Simon

            • Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps? (Score:4, Informative)

              by Space cowboy (13680) * on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:46PM (#17928656) Journal
              1) "You don't have to install FF to find out, just read the linked article (I know, I know, I'm obviously new)."

              I did read the article, I picked up on:

              Google Inc. (GOOG ) is finally about to take a big leap onto Microsoft's turf. Since last August, the search leader has offered a test version of an online office productivity software suite, called Google Apps for Your Domain, ...
              ... and sort of expected "office productivity suite" to include word-processing and spreadsheets, since they do *have* those. But you're right in as much as they don't do these *yet* ... farther on in the paragraph there is:

              Soon, it's expected to add word-processing and spreadsheet services to the suite, which includes an online calendar, chat service, and Web page builder


              2) "Install Firefox. It works with more websites than Safari"

              I just don't like Firefox - I've never had a great experience with it, and I have no need of google apps, so I'm happy as I am, thanks.

              Simon

      • Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Aladrin (926209) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:28PM (#17928502)

        That statement was pulled out of their asses. The Google Apps page has always said it would be free for beta, and then after beta, new signups will be charged. I know, because the company I work for has made the switch. We were looking for new email hosting at the time anyhow, and that came up as a recommendation. After weighing the alternatives, and treating GMail as if it was costing the same as the others (so as not to give it unfair advantage in our minds, as it has to be GOOD for our company) we still chose GMail.

        There has been a few snags. No IMAP, POP3 implementation sucks, SMTP and POP3 both require use of secure ports, no folders (tags instead, useless to a pop3 client), and some (minor, temporary) hassles now and then with adding email lists, names to email lists, new accounts, and setting forwards.

        If I had my vote again, I might choose to have the company pay for a managed email solution... But were on it, and weve worked out most of the kinks. And I love GMails interface. Ive given up on Thunderbird and just use the web interface now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by rm69990 (885744)
        Ummm...Google Apps for your domain doesn't include an office suite yet either. Google Docs has yet to be integrated into GAFYD.

  • Gamma (Score:5, Funny)

    by Skadet (528657) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @06:46PM (#17928034) Homepage
    Wait, does this mean a Google product is out of beta? Stop the presses!!!

  • Let's see... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Noryungi (70322) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @06:48PM (#17928080) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re:Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by anomalous cohort (704239) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @06:58PM (#17928222) Homepage Journal

      Contrary to the title, it's not MS-Office that google is going after, it is Exchange.

      Every Exchange admin I have ever spoken with claims that it is a nightmare to set up and maintain. There is a trend now to outsource that functionality. Google is targeting that market.

      • Exchange a big obstacle to Linux Adoption (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Phrogman (80473) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:19PM (#17928412) Homepage
        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Red Flayer (890720)

          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.

          What, is Google forbidding them from developing for other platforms now? Is that the only thing keeping developers back?

          I'd think it would have something to do with MS's OS marketshare, but maybe that's me.

          And, of course, by reducing users' dependence on MS Office, this would qualify as something that helps reduce MS domination of the

  • Start of a new one (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Colourspace (563895) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @06:49PM (#17928100)
    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.

  • Google server in a box? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @06:51PM (#17928118) Journal
    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.

    • Re:Google server in a box? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @08:17PM (#17928966)
      I cant imagine a real company allowing its data to be housed outside its control.

      Guess what: a lot of real companies can't imagine trusting their most important data to only their in-house IT guys. Otherwise there wouldn't be successful companies that handle the outsourcing of hosted apps, backups, e-commerce, and so on. And there are. There are also plenty of companies that thought they had it all under control internally, and totally blew it.

  • Leads to open formats (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vijayiyer (728590) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @06:55PM (#17928184)
    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.
  • 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

  • Uh oh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Excelcia (906188) <kfitzner@excelcia.org> on Wednesday February 07 2007, @06:58PM (#17928220) Homepage
    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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheVoice900 (467327)
        I don't know which world you live in but here real companies have ongoing costs ("being drained of money indefinitely") all the time. It's just part of the cost of doing business. Think about maintenance contracts for hardware, offsite backups, yearly software licenses. The company I work at already has their groupware and email administered by a third party as we're small (around 35 people) and have no dedicated IT staff, but by outsourcing these services we don't really need them.

  • Tinfoil hat time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TinBromide (921574) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @06:59PM (#17928226)
    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.

    • Re:Tinfoil hat time (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ezratrumpet (937206) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:11PM (#17928330) Journal
      Should we be suspicious of every large business that started out small? At what point does a small, presumably non-corporate business become "big" and full of the "temptations of corporate culture"?

      Google's shareholders have virtually no voice in the operation of the company, remember? How can a company be answerable to people that never had a real voice in the company in the first place?

      Cautious? Sure. Suspicious? I'm not sure.

      • Re:Tinfoil hat time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EvanED (569694) <evaned&gmail,com> on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:27PM (#17928488)
        Should we be suspicious of every large business that started out small?

        Yes. (Then again, I tend to be very cynical about companies in general.)

        At what point does a small, presumably non-corporate business become "big" and full of the "temptations of corporate culture"?

        Hard to say, but if you can influence back door sessions of state legislatures I think that's a good indication you've crossed the boundary.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kalriath (849904)

        Google's shareholders have virtually no voice in the operation of the company, remember? How can a company be answerable to people that never had a real voice in the company in the first place?

        Not answerable per-se, but any company with shareholders (in most countries, including the US) is legally obliged to ensure that it acts in the best interests of the company as a whole and the shareholders in particular. It's not the shareholders they answer to (though the larger ones certainly do have a voice) it's the law.

        • Re:Tinfoil hat time (Score:4, Insightful)

          by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday February 07 2007, @09:47PM (#17929686) Homepage Journal

          Not answerable per-se, but any company with shareholders (in most countries, including the US) is legally obliged to ensure that it acts in the best interests of the company as a whole and the shareholders in particular.

          Not true.

          The officers of a corporation *are* legally required to operate the company in accordance with the articles of incorporation that define what the company's goals are. In most cases, a key goal in the articles is to increase shareholder value. But companies can (and are) formed with very different goals in mind. I could start a company whose primary goal is to waste its investors' cash as rapidly as possible while avoiding acquiring any tangible assets (the "Brewster's Millions" goal), and I would then be legally at risk if I were to invest shareholders' money in anything that might return a profit. Of course, it would probably be hard to find investors.

          In Google's case, I'm not sure exactly what the articles of incorporation say, but I suspect they contain at least some of the things found in Google's IPO Letter [google.com]. If that's true, then Google's execs do not, in fact, have the same obligation to focus on improving shareholder value that most company's do. Even if it's not in the articles of incorporation, the fact that Google made clear to potential investors that its primary goal is "to develop services that significantly improve the lives of as many people as possible" and that Google's leadership intends to focus on the long term even at the expense of the short term, means that shareholders can't claim that they expected Google to act outside of those parameters.

          Working against all that, of course, is the fact that those who are in control at Google are also shareholders and see significant personal financial gain from increased stock price.

  • And when I'm not connected? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ReallyEvilCanine (991886) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:10PM (#17928320) Homepage
    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?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cwgmpls (853876)
      You are referring to the 5% of the company, mostly high-level execs, that Disney expects to be productive while out of the office. Those people can still get MS Office. But Google Office can take care of 95% of Disney employees who don't need productivity while away from a desk, at a fraction of the cost and maintenance that MS Office requires.

  • Locally installed apps still... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Slashdot Junky (265039) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:12PM (#17928338)
    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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by amRadioHed (463061)

        Hell, even in smaller companies, My Document is quite commonly on a network drive, for backup purposes.
        Which sucks, btw, because Windows doesn't know what to do when your mounted network drives aren't available. Over two minutes of hanging while Windows tries to figure out that your file server isn't available? That's real reasonable when it takes the ping command no more than a few seconds to figure out the same.

  • No, because of a little thing called legacy data (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gravyface (592485) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:28PM (#17928496)
    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.

  • What, no spelling Nazis? (Score:5, Funny)

    by hereschenes (813329) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:30PM (#17928516)

    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.

  • A replacement for Outlook and Exchange, maybe. But "Google Apps for Your Domain", the service in question, isn't an office suite.

    It is:

    1. Domain registration
    2. Website hosting
    3. Email hosting (with POP and webmail)
    4. Calendar hosting (with CalDav and web-based calendaring)
    5. Chat (Jabber-based, can tie-in with Google Talk)


    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.)

  • How about 'neither' (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:52PM (#17928724) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • google apps at universities (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gsn (989808) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:54PM (#17928750)
    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
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516036 [thecrimson.com] 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 .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).

  • Sarbanes-Oxley implications? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FleaPlus (6935) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @07:57PM (#17928784) Homepage Journal
    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?

  • Pick Your Platform (Score:3, Informative)

    by iCharles (242580) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @08:56PM (#17929236) Homepage
    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.

  • Gist of Article Missed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cmacb (547347) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @09:16PM (#17929422) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Google Apps is not going to replace Office (Score:4, Interesting)

    by corecaptain (135407) on Thursday February 08 2007, @12:19AM (#17930874)
    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.
       

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by whiteknight31 (744465)
      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.

      • Source? (Score:4, Informative)

        by spiritraveller (641174) on Wednesday February 07 2007, @08:11PM (#17928916)
        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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.