Slashdot Log In
Google Scoops Microsoft w/ Mesh Applications
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Apr 02, 2008 07:59 AM
from the glimpse-of-the-future dept.
from the glimpse-of-the-future dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
SharePoint (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SharePoint (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Parent
Re:SharePoint (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:SharePoint (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org].
Stuff is integrated with it? I'm shocked. Shocked, I'll tell you.
Parent
Re:SharePoint (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:SharePoint (Score:5, Informative)
Regards.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SharePoint (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:SharePoint (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they were smart they would switch to a SWT (e.g Eclipse IDE) rich client platform installed via java web start that contained strong web services integration with google fo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah. So sorry, Slashdot, but all the rational companies aren't buying the "DUNT BE TEH EVEL!!11" schtick. We'll stick with a company with a proven track record of being committed to the needs of businesses, thank you very much.
That's funny... Every technology conference I've been to in recent times has had speakers recommending businesses begin evaluating Google Docs as a replacement for Office - most say that it's more than sufficient for most purposes, and getting better everyday.
So sorry, AC, but all the rational IT practitioners are listening to industry chatter, and aren't buying the rantings of an unidentifiable slashdot user wearing a tinfoil hat
devil is in the detail (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:5, Informative)
(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
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Office Live doesn't let people create or edit Word, PowerPoint, or Excel files from the browser. And it doesn't work with Firefox on Linux at all (not because of Linux, but because Microsoft has disabled it).
Same with Office Live. Different way of "seeing" and I prefer Google's but both work.
In Google Docs, when one user selects and changes a cell in a spreadsheet, all other users see that in real time in their own app
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that is 100% not true. Since I did that yesterday. I shared a document with someone else. She edited it. Directly from her browser. I honestly didn't expect it to work because of what I'd read here on Slashdot. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, just share what I found out yesterday for myself.
Sometimes I'm shocked how much people pass off second-hand or third-hand information instead of rolling
Re: (Score:2)
Office Live doesn't let people create or edit Word, PowerPoint, or Excel files from the browser.
100% wrong. I don't know how new the feature is, but Office Live has let you do this for some time. Please don't spread FUD.
And it doesn't work with Firefox on Linux at all (not because of Linux, but because Microsoft has disabled it).
Well, that's a poin
stop making things up (Score:3)
I have Office Live up on my screen. It does not support browser-based editing.
Perhaps you're confusing some kind of MS Office ActiveX embedding with browser-based editing. Or maybe you're simply lying.
Really? I've never come across one...
Well, evidently, you're living under a rock.
care to show us some examples?
Go read the Google Docs API documentation, or just try out one of the man
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i would use gdocs more often if i could do endnotes / footnotes with it.
lack of these is a deal-killer for me, and i imagine many in the academic world. the idea of chipping away at a paper in different offices and around the world is quite appealing to me, especially if i can collaborate on it.
Is this "in the browser" functionality (Score:2)
If it is an application, on the other hand, it would be nice to know what platforms are supported. It would be ironic if the "kick in the teeth" for Microsoft only r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (Score:4, Informative)
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Gears [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Not likely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah...just not seeing that happening...
Bingo (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
what if we took documents of data.. and apon saving them taged a light weight reader/editor to the file.. that way if someone has the app to read the document it would just skim over the bin part but if not the data file is also executable that will open the data of the document within it's slef..
that way it doens't mater if they have the app or not jsut send them the document and they will surely be able to view/edit it..
i know this is a bad idea.. but
Re: (Score:2)
Leverage! (Score:2)
I think the same applies here, except google is doing the mirroring and it's one less hassle at the cost of them knowing that I have a spreadsheet that holds library dependencies for my slackware packages. I can deal with that.
Re:Bingo (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
plugged vs unplugged (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Paragraphs are part of the 20% (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:not to slam Google but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Which explains why everybody and their dog wants to work at Google. Would that all software projects were run this way. Usually, 80% is more than good enough and the last 20% usually isn't worth the effort, except to PHBs and PHBeancounters. And to the goobers posting to comment sections.
Rule of thumb: The first 80% of a project takes 80% of the total effort. The remaining 20% of the project takes 80% of the total effort, again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course this is if everyone is using the same program for the same purpose. Its called gold plating. However, when it comes to the Office Suite everyone has a a different way of using the program. Take for example this co
You really think MS faces the bigger task? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now Microsoft is making their money as a box mover. They create physical products, and then sell them to people. This is currently the way that they have become one of the largest corporations on earth. This entire model is predicated on a very traditional method of utilizing the channel (distributors, resellers, direct sales, etc.)
This one nasty fact has created a huge boondogle for Microsoft. In order to keep their share pr
Writely (Score:2, Informative)
SaaS is a trend, not an enduring technology (Score:2, Interesting)
SaaS relies on you buying the OS or installing a free one, ditto for browser, and then using your applications online. Problems include: portability of your data, privacy, control of your data and its removal, the unreliablity of internet connections, and the unreliablity of browsers. Advantages: it's free, no
Good luck (Score:2, Insightful)
Anybody know what file format it's saved in? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can I share it by emailing it or do I have to share it via Google?
Can I re-process it into a PDF?
Can I run it through a batch script?
Is it a format that I can search through locally and what meta-data does it expose to the host OS for use in filtering, organization, etc.
Not a good comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One man's lack of features is another man's bliss at simplicity.