Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Software Communications IT

Google Apps Premier Edition Launches, Widely Used 266

Tookis writes "Google's online productivity suite (Google Apps) has already replaced Microsoft products at more than 100,000 small to medium enterprises. Additionally, it's been deployed for serious work-related projects at two of the largest companies in the world. Product manager for Google Enterprise Kevin Gough was quick to point out that although the premier edition of Google Apps only just launched, it's already been adopted by companies like GE, Procter & Gamble, Prudential and Loreal. He goes on to describe the role of Apps: to augment, not necessarily replace existing IT solutions. Just the same, he says, the role of Apps can be powerful where traditional services may be too expensive. Says Gough, 'There's a large segment that's under-served by today's productivity tools. Production workers and retail employees for instance. 48% of all employees actually don't even have an email address. That's because the cost of hardware, software and maintenance has made it prohibitively expensive to provide email to employees.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Apps Premier Edition Launches, Widely Used

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23, 2007 @10:57AM (#18122236)
    Looks like client-server was a fad. The terminal is back, only now the mainframe is at another company and the terminal is called browser.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It would be great if the terminal was just a browser, but to all intents and purposes you need a PC, running an OS to get a browser. That surely is a large part of the cost/management/security overhead. If we could have a 'hardware' browser only terminal then we are back to client/server. But wait a minute didn't Sun and to a lesser extend DEC with the VT1000 try this before ?
    • Well, not quite -- AJAX is a client-server technology. Looks like now we've got the best of both worlds.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BuR4N ( 512430 )
      Sadly, not much have happned on the usability front comparing the average form based input page and the 3270 terminal system anon. 1972. Chances are that people is going to be fed up with subpar performacne and cluncky interfaces and head back to the "fat client".
      • by massysett ( 910130 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @01:01PM (#18124228) Homepage
        Sadly, not much have happned on the usability front comparing the average form based input page and the 3270 terminal system anon. 1972. Chances are that people is going to be fed up with subpar performacne and cluncky interfaces and head back to the "fat client".

        Have you tried using Google Calendar? It is by far the MOST usable calendar app I have ever seen. Forget about forms. It's the only calendar app I've ever used that's actually intuitive. I can simply type "Dentist appointment on 2/24 from 10:00am to 11:00am at 1315 New Hampshire Ave" and GCal parses all this info into the appropriate chunks (date, time, location, etc) and stores it.

        Last time I looked, it's the fat client that's stupid here. Outlook or GroupWise makes me jump through hoops on their forms. Tab to date, tab to time, tab to location, click and drag little widgets. It's Outlook and Groupwise that are using 1972-style forms. All they've done is put some pretty pictures on the forms and made them largely mouse-based (which actually makes them HARDER to use than 1972-style dumb terminal forms!)

        Bad user interfaces are unfortunately quite common, but it's not a fat vs thin client thing. Google right now is an interface innovator. I'll take GCal, with its ability to quickly type in an appointment, over Outlook or GroupWise any day.
    • by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:00PM (#18123282) Homepage Journal

      Looks like client-server was a fad. The terminal is back, only now the mainframe is at another company and the terminal is called browser.

      Which seems a terrible shame really - surely there are better ways of running an application over a network than via a browser. After years of using the network transparency of X11 I find this whole move to browser based applications disappointing. Sure, the X protocol doesn't work well over slower connections (it's too chatty), but really wouldn't it be better to just fix those issues (such as with FreeNX) or write a better system so that we can actually have full normal GUIs instead of whatever can be kluged into a browser? Given the prevalence of web based applications I guess the answer is no. My best guess as to why is that, simply, Windows lack of network transparent display and market dominance trained people to have low expectations. Browser based stuff looks good in comparison to what's generally available for Windows so people assume it is a step forward instead of the step sideways that it appears to be to me.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "Browser based stuff looks good in comparison to what's generally available for Windows so people assume it is a step forward instead of the step sideways that it appears to be to me."

        Browser apps look better than most Windows apps? What are you smoking? X applications are hardly the benchmark for GUI quality either.
        • by Coryoth ( 254751 )

          Browser apps look better than most Windows apps?

          With regard to network transparency, yes they do. They "just work" over the network, running on a server, with no set up and no hassle (just as X11 apps automatically do). That's an attractive feature for anyone intertested in thin client apps.
      • by misleb ( 129952 )
        While I agree that something like X would be better as far as usability is concerned, the problem is maintaining application state. The stateless nature of HTTP is both a blessing and a curse. Generally speaking, the web server doesn't have to keep much in memory for the user. And if the user isn't doing anything, the server isn't doing anything. We can assume that that a good chunk of users will be idle at any given time, so not keeping the state in memory is an crucial to supporting large numbers of users
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bigwave111 ( 1046082 )
        A shame for whom? Ease of use to lessen training costs, simplicity without needing specified hardware, and a vast majority of workers whose interfacing with a computer consists of MySpace, Email, and chat. Technologically it could be considered a step sideways, but so was the Wii. It's all about user interactivity.
    • by div_2n ( 525075 )
      The power needed to properly run a GUI and all of its applications gave birth to the fat client. The server power needed to handle a large number of machines running GUIs hasn't been financially attainable for companies of all sizes until recent years. The history and progression of computing technology has been the driving force behind the major swing from thin client to fat.

      But now we are in a new era where there is logical justification for a hybrid scenario where only some applications are on a "thin" b
    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      I have been saying this since the late 90's. Why put a full featured computer out in a plant or in the production floor, with full entertainment capability, when all one really needs is an input terminal. Of course if one uses MS products, then one has to use MS Windows, and one is stuck putting a full featured computer with a licensed copy of windows . It would be much better if one could use MS products to create a server application that would uses a generic browser frontend, on whatever machine was
  • really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by um... Lucas ( 13147 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @10:57AM (#18122242) Journal
    Somehow, I'm having issue believing that number. 100,000? Maybe 100,000 companies have users that are using gmail accounts, but I just don't buy that 100,000 real businesses have switched over already, unless Jim-bob in his basement counts as a business...
    • Re:really? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kestasjk ( 933987 ) * on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:01AM (#18122290) Homepage
      Remember they offer a free trial until April 30th. I wonder if they're counting businesses that are using the free trial.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by geoffspear ( 692508 )
        I seriously doubt any company trying this as a free trial has "completly replaced" MS products with Google Apps.

        In fact, if their product manager is this delusional, I'm seriously reconsidering my optimism about these apps every being improved enough to completely replace MS Office. We can only hope he's replaced with someone good when he's inevitably institutionalized.
        • Re:really? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:20AM (#18122574)
          Any company prepared to trust the bulk of their communication and data to a third party with those terms of service is nuts anyway. Everybody seems to be overlooking the 'we can rip this service out from under you at anytime we feel like it' and the 'we can impose arbitrary restrictions on your use at anytime we choose'.
          • I really shouldn't be saying this in public, but did you know hotmail didn't backup their data properly for the first 5-8 years in business. How about TJX's stolen credit cards. Do you think your IT staff is smarter than google?

          • by guruevi ( 827432 )
            Lol. Microsoft has been doing it and is still doing it for years. People don't stop using Microsoft products do they? Read the EULA on any product or service made by [big software company here]. Read the restrictions on Microsoft's 'open' XML format. As soon as they decide, they can pull the 'open' from under your arse and any software development you did using it, all of a sudden can't use the latest iteration of the 'open' "standard".

            What you're pointing out is just Microsoft-funded FUD, not that I person
            • Re:really? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:27PM (#18123736)

              Lol. Microsoft has been doing it and is still doing it for years. People don't stop using Microsoft products do the
              I knew someone would come up with this. The difference is, and its a massive difference is that Google can deny you access to your data at any time they choose. With MS you still have physical access to your files, free viewers and converters, Open Office.org etc to access the information contained within so while incovenienced you can still carry on your business. Google shutting out your account leaves you with nothing.
          • Re:really? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by kripkenstein ( 913150 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:23PM (#18123648) Homepage

            Everybody seems to be overlooking the 'we can rip this service out from under you at anytime we feel like it' and the 'we can impose arbitrary restrictions on your use at anytime we choose'.
            Actually the same goes for people using MS Office. Microsoft can decide not to patch some flaw that essentially makes MS Office unusable for certain people (due to security reasons, for example). Microsoft can also raise the prices for updates to where it isn't cost-effective for many of their clients. They can 'push' updates that reduce functionality. In theory.

            In practice, both Google and Microsoft won't do such things, because (1) 'ripping the service out from under clients' (as you well put it) just isn't good business, and (2) contracts. A contract with Google will ensure a certain service for some-odd years, just like a contract with Microsoft. No more, and no less.

            However, you are 100% right about both of them - even if it is unlikely that these doomsday scenarios occur, they are possible. Entrusting your IT over to Google (by hosting it on their servers) or to Microsoft (by running their closed-source programs, and in addition being locked-in to them) is somewhat a 'leap of faith'. For those that value their personal autonomy, there are really only two options: in-house development, which is completely impractical for 99% of organizations, or using open-source software (as people reading this know already).

            Yet, the Microsoft and Google solutions will, I predict, continue to draw the vast majority of businesses: Microsoft are already entrenched, and Google are so ridiculously cheap it seems a crime not to use their service.
        • I seriously doubt any company trying this as a free trial has "completly replaced" MS products with Google Apps.

          No, but that does not mean there's not room for significant market share. In a world where half of employees don't have a company email address, you might imagine more than half of employees don't have a company provided productivity suit. That means those employees have no effective and reliable way to communicate electronically. You can't get them the word and they can't tell you what they

          • They're claiming 100,000 "completely replaced" MS products. I take this to mean that these companies were using MS apps before and they're not anymore. I also am almost completely sure this is a load of crap.
            • They're claiming 100,000 "completely replaced" MS products.

              Is it so hard to believe that 100,000 businesses decided to step off the upgrade train? Users who have been riding that train for a while are tired of always ending up in the same place. No one is going to buy Office 2007 for new features, they are going to buy it because they are afraid of not being able to use the new M$ format. Enough people are realizing that M$ is an expensive ride to nowhere and that other companies can do the same thing

              • Yes. It is hard to believe. Especially since I have Google Apps for my own domain and they've never asked me if I was using them to replace Microsoft applications. I'm not, because I've never had any MS applications installed except for IE and the Office Test Drive that came with my Mac and were promptly deleted the first time I turned it on. I've convinced they have 100,000 domains signed up and their product manager is using that to claim that 100,000 companies have completely switched. If so, this m
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by um... Lucas ( 13147 )
            Half of all employees don't have email? I'm thinking if they've made it this far along without it, they probably don't need it...

            Does the checkout girl at the grocery store need email?
            How about the house painter?
            Or the guy that tears tickets in half at the movie theater?

            Is that the target market? I'm sure Microsoft is quaking in their boots about the prospect that they missed out on getting McDonalds to shell out for Exchange licenses for all their employees... :)
            • Microsoft is quaking in their boots about the prospect that they missed out on getting McDonald`s to shell out for Exchange licenses for all their employees... :)

              They should be. [slashdot.org] The M$ solution is too expensive, that's true, but that does not mean there's not a demand. Google filling that demand on the cheap is going to force open standards at last and that will make everything M$ now makes money on into a commodity.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by um... Lucas ( 13147 )
                Very funny that this was brought up before...

                Let's figure the cost of a printed page (offset, NOT laser) at half a cent. Maybe distribution and all that brings it up to a penny (we'll call it 5 cents PER PAGE to be on the absurdly high side). Figure that McDonalds gives each employee 20 pages of documents, that's 1 dollar per employee for all the communications they require to do their jobs.

                Now figure a computer for $300, DSL for $40 per month.

                Say there's 40 employees there that share the single computer. A
      • by IflyRC ( 956454 )
        They're probably counting unique domain names that hit the web site. Of course its being widely used - it was just released and people want to try it out.

        Even if each user just hit it once, it can be spun into being widely used.
    • They're counting the four companies listed above, then counting each of the 99,996 Google fanboi users as companies. ;)
    • by cdrudge ( 68377 )
      What, you mean the marketing guys inflate their numbers? Say it ain't so!
  • bullshit or not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thesupermikey ( 220055 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:04AM (#18122326) Homepage Journal
    Google Apps seems like a really great idea for Universities. We spend SO much money on MS Office and related products. Graduate Students in my department had to share computers (6 to a PC) until this summer. Now we have crippled dell's which can barely run powerpoint, or do any significant work in Photoshop.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana ( 662181 )

      Google Apps seems like a really great idea for Universities. We spend SO much money on MS Office and related products.

      Umm...why didn't you install OpenOffice?

    • Obviously, from you blog, you are not in a very technical department. I have found that in math and computer science dapartments, unix and linux workstations typically outnumber grad students 2 to 1.

      I have to wonder how much in the way of Office your department really needs. Google Apps should be great for your department and probably the general sutdent body. However, I find it disturbing that grad students need to use powerpoint and photoshop regularly. When writing a thesis, all you really need is a web
  • O RLY? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by beavis88 ( 25983 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:04AM (#18122340)
    Production workers and retail employees for instance. 48% of all employees actually don't even have an email address. That's because the cost of hardware, software and maintenance has made it prohibitively expensive to provide email to employees.

    Or maybe, just maybe, 48% of all employees don't need email to get their jobs done. I know, it sounds heretical, but let's be honest, does K-Fed really need email to operate that McDonald's cash register? Nah, I didn't think so either.
    • maybe, 48% of all employees don't need email to get their jobs done. I know, it sounds heretical, but let's be honest, does K-Fed really need email to operate that McDonald's cash register? Nah, I didn't think so either.

      I can't even begin to imagine how much McD spends printing propaganda and instructions for every single employee they have. There's got to be a better way than that. Where there's money, people will find a way.

      • by beavis88 ( 25983 )
        They'd have to print ten times the instructions to get people using a computer and checking email...
  • 100,000 user ids have been sold? Or 100,000 companies each with multiple user ids sold? I am guessing it is the former. These are the low hanging fruits folks. Microsoft has actively pushed bulk and unlimited licensing to most of its big customers. If their company already has unlimited number of MSOffice licenses, you need to provide a pretty powerful reason for them to start paying 50$ per user per year. Right now I dont see the compelling business reason to do so.
  • by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:06AM (#18122370) Homepage Journal

    Why would you want your retail employees to have email? Is it really necessary for the cashier at Wal*Mart to have their own email address when they're probably only going to work there for a few months?

    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:19AM (#18122564) Homepage Journal
      Not all retail workers are short time employees. At my local Publix I see the some of the same people year after year. Then again they offer benefits and tend to treat the employees pretty well from what I hear.
      Email is useful even for a casher. They check it from home and get their schedule, information on company events, and so on.
      They my not use it at the store but they may still use it.
      • But why then do they need a corporate email address? Why not a company website with that information? That would be significantly less work to host than an email address.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Hadlock ( 143607 )
          At my location (not a Publix) the schedule gets emailed out to those who volunteer their email address. I mean, they already type up the schedule in excel on the computer, it's only about 5 more mouse clicks to email it to the "employee schedule" mailing list. The neophytes can still pick up a paper copy, but the instances of "oh I didn't realize I had a shift today" dropped off considerably when people can check their email the night before and double check when their shift is.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Can't wait to see what happens when the 1st security breach happens and companies that THOUGHT they were storing their documents online safely, actually find their documents floating across the internet. Will kind of put a damper on this whole online storage thing. Think hackers aren't gonna sink their teeth into this????

    Bottom line, real companies don't want their confidential documents floating around willy-nilly in the "cloud". And to have 2 systems (one desktop based for confidential, and "cloud" bas
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:07AM (#18122378)
    My one primary concern about data services like this that rely on another company storing your businesses data and communications off-site under their control is what recourse does one have for loss of data? Is Google guaranteeing their storage? If so, how is the guarantee backed up (so to speak)?
  • It's all that money flowing back out from Microsoft's Orifice.
  • by alucinor ( 849600 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:11AM (#18122434) Journal
    MS is in a vice no doubt. Isn't it already now when Ballmer said that "MS would catch up to Google in six months?" heheh.

    And they're stepping up the "veiled threats" against open source software.

    Oh, I give it about 3 to 5 years before MS goes superSCOva.
    • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:22AM (#18122598) Journal
      Microsoft is not going supernova. Not in 5 years not in 10 years.

      Let us take for example the vendor lock and switching costs. You can get decent oil change for your car for 20$. 10$ if you really clip coupons and are willing to let Joe's QuickLube to do it. And most car dealers charge 30$ for the very same service. Still there are millions of car owners who would happily pay 30$ to the dealer willingly.

      Now take a look at how difficult it is to use a competing product instead of Microsoft. The switching costs are high and there is very heavy vendor lock. In 5 years, the marketplace might become more level. Finally the corporations might start demanding true interoperability. MS might lose market share. From 90% share in Office and 80-85% share in browsers and 95% share in computers, it might go down. How low will it go, I cant guess. May be to 50%. May be to 33%. The profitability also might suffer. But after all is said and done, MS will still have decent market share and a decent profit making business. Look around, IBM is still around, isn't it? It was the IBM dinosaur around which nimble Microsoft ran circles around. 10 years from now there will be three dinosaurs, IBM, MSFT and GOOG. And there will be another nimble player.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by alucinor ( 849600 )
        Not supernova, superSCOva. They're gong to turn into a mega-SCO that will last for many many years I'm afraid. There are too many signs that they're not able to compete technologically anymore: if they clone Google's services, then they remove some of their own lock-in ability and undercut their $100 to $400 office licenses, canabilizing themselves. So litigation is going to be their play when they find that not every open source company is going to want to buy licenses from them because some nebulous unide
    • To continue your analogy, the Open Office - on line services vice works so much nicer because it has teeth that mate perfectly, open standards. Half of employees don't have email, so more than half don't have productivity software. What company wants to ignore half of their workforce? A company that only embraces half of the vice will still be doing that because M$ is going to fight ODF until they start losing serious market share, like they did ... today! Once they embrace real standards, they will red

  • Wow! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Fist! Of! Death! ( 1038822 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:14AM (#18122486)
    Does this come standard on Vista? Oh I hope so!
  • Not at P&G (Score:5, Informative)

    by labrite ( 1067690 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:20AM (#18122580)
    I have a few contacts at P&G having worked there before, and a quick survey of them shows noone has even heard of P&G testing this. Companies like P&G and GE have their software go through fairly extensive testing before releasing it in the company. The amount of spreadsheets that would have to be converted would be impossible to fix and it would place the documents out of P&G hands, something they would never allow to happen.
    • Re:Not at P&G (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dave562 ( 969951 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @01:16PM (#18124432) Journal
      The amount of spreadsheets that would have to be converted would be impossible to fix ...

      This is exactly the point I was trying to allude to in an earlier post I made when I mentioned Excel's formula language. In any large enough organization, there is likely enough business intelligence coded into Excel spreadsheets by people who no longer work there that trying to convert all of it onto another platform would be ridiculous.

      I've seen the argument that a spreadsheet is a spreadsheet, and if you're starting from scratch, I think that is true. But a Google spreadsheet is not the same as a 20 page, fully formulated, linked to external datasources (via ODBC, SQL on the backend anyone?) Excel monster. And speaking of which, what do you do if you're using Google apps and you want to link to external data in say, an SQL server? Excel has great built in wizards that will link to just about any data source imaginable. Is Google going to port all of my financial data over there for me so that I can "access it from anywhere?"

  • I'm employed in a company that switched to Google Apps for Domains, and it works great. But it replaces our old e-mail service.

    The calendar part is getting better and better, especially the arrival of syncmycal has improved integration with MS Outlook, but it surely doesn't replace it, yet, because Google Calendar cannot sync with everything, yet.

    We're looking forward to use docs and spreadsheets, but it's still just an add-on to our existing in-house software.
  • by BuR4N ( 512430 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:23AM (#18122614) Journal
    Will probably be a hit among smaller companies that can stand the fact that their data will be stored elsewhere, and possible never be deleted.

    As I see that it would be hard for Enterprises, of any moderate size, to store any remotly sensitive data on googles disks. In their case it would mostly be used as a way to work together, and then one might ask if gotomeeting or any other internet meeting service + openoffice/office/staroffice is a better solution. I guess time will tell...
    • As I see that it would be hard for Enterprises, of any moderate size, to store any remotly sensitive data on googles disks.

      I don't see why this should be the case - large enterprises often trust their data to third parties. I think this is just a perception issue, people think of Google as being a consumer company, and so not have the level of service required by an Enterprise, but I don't see why that should be the case. I don't think you'd hear someone say "As I see that it would be hard for Enterprises,
  • Google's online productivity suite (Google Apps) has already replaced Microsoft products at more than 100,000 small to medium enterprises.

    Uh, replaced? I seriously doubt that 100,000 companies are now exclusively using Google Apps. I seriously doubt that 100,000 companies even deployed Google Apps company-wide. I'd be astounded if that statistic was anything more than someone looking at the weblogs for Google Apps, seeing 100,000 unique .com domains, and concluding they had 100,000 companies using the

  • I am actively advocating Google Apps for Your Domain in my company as a replacement for our aging Groupwise mail and calendar system, rather than going for a far more expensive Exchange based solution.

    However, I wouldn't dream of (or rather I would dream of it, but then daytime reality kicks in) suggesting Google Apps as a replacement for MS Office. Not at this point.

    I could easily imagine that the numbers in the article refers to how many Google Apps for Your Domain clients they have (most of which are fr
    • by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:09PM (#18123412) Homepage Journal

      However, I wouldn't dream of (or rather I would dream of it, but then daytime reality kicks in) suggesting Google Apps as a replacement for MS Office. Not at this point.

      That really depends on your needs. I know of some small offices that have relatively light office application needs and would be just fine replacing MS Office with Google Apps. For any major company it is clearly a no go because Google Apps just doesn't have all the required functionality. Indeed most of MS Office's market won't be able to make the switch. MS Office has a very big market though, and a lot of users simply don't need all the functionality it offers. Those that can get by with Google Apps instead may be a very small percentage of the MS Office market, but they may still be reasonably large numbers in absolute terms.
  • I wish (Score:3, Informative)

    by paulm ( 37073 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:38AM (#18122900)
    I used to be very excited about this idea. I only have windows boxes around for when I need to run office, usually for excel. OpenOffice does a damn good job nowadays, but there are still some things that have issues.

    I was using the google aps for a while and was very happy about the prospect. However, on many occasions, right when I really needed to get at something, google aps were simply broken. I'm sure you've seen gmail get into a confused state where you cannot log in. This usually results in you having to clear your browser cache and delete all cookies, though this doesn't always work. Google makes some change somewhere, and then after a while they figure it out and fix it. But they never tell you when to expect downtime. Google just rolls out new code whenever they feel like it and you wind up suffering.

    Until they start to run their services more like a production IT shop, I can't see how anyone can run a business on it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by danheretic ( 689990 )

      I was using MS Exchange and MS Office on Windows for a while and was very happy about the prospect. However, on many occasions, right when I really needed to get at something, the Exchange server was simply broken, or, Windows on my PC crashed. I'm sure you've seen Windows get into a confused state where you cannot log in. This usually results in you having to boot into safe mode or do a repair install, though this doesn't always work. Microsoft makes some change somewhere, and then after a while they figur

  • I used it first time and you can't even plot a graph. Why would someone use this?
  • by kvsnut ( 68323 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @11:57AM (#18123216)
    I've been using the free version for months for my small business and it has been awesome. We are a growing company and I think the free version will suite our needs for many years. There are some additional features I'd like to see but they keep on adding more so I expect them in the near future.

    We have two locations and this helps bridge the gap between the offices ( I also use Hamachi for remote connectivity)

    So far we use gmail, cal and just starting to use docs and spreadsheets.
  • with Google Spreadsheets is that theres a 500KB size limit on pre existing documents - every spreadsheet I have around here exceeds that limit. From what I can see, Google Spreadsheet is worth using, I jsut cant use it.

    Anyone know if they have removed this size limit in the Google Apps version, because they certainly havent removed it in the free version.
  • by saleenS281 ( 859657 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:46PM (#18124004) Homepage
    it's complete and absolute BS for one reason only: SOX compliance. Anyone running their business off of google apps is just begging to be run out of business by the government. There is absolutely no way, with the way google runs their apps, that you could ever meet security or retention requirements for SOX compliance.
    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @02:42PM (#18125644)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • NPR talked a bit about this last night, and Microsoft Office has a 350M user base, so Google's 100k of converts is just 0.03%. There are always a portion of any company's customers that are dissatisfied and will try something else; Google just cherry picked the easy ones and the rest are not going to come that easy.

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...