Google Scoops Microsoft w/ Mesh Applications 152
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."
SharePoint (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, let's see it then! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well, let's see it then! (Score:1)
Re:Well, let's see it then! (Score:2)
That's funny. From the grandparent AC post above, he made it sound like the MS apps run in the cloud. Taken together with what you're saying here, if the MS one is set up at your office, that would imply that you also had to set up a rack of servers in which to run the cloud, into which the apps are deployed?
Somehow, methinks not.
No, I'm sure I know what the AC was referring to. MS has long been ahead of Google in terms of integrating the Internet with their Office suite. For instance, whenever I cut'n'paste a link from the Firefox URL bar into an Outlook email, you would expect the URL to paste into the email, right? NO! Because MS is so awesome and Outlook is Internet-aware, instead it pastes a cryptic little graphical question mark in a box. (I can't be certain—no one can be—but I think it assumes that I want the little URL bar icon next to the URL as well as the URL itself, and helpfully inserts the entire mess as a useless graphic.)
Of course, this is useful to no one, and causes me several attempts of doing the exact same thing before it works nearly every time. (Question: why does doing the exact same thing 2 or 3 times eventually result in different behavior? That's what I like to call an MS Puzzler(TM)!) But every time I leave the experience a happy user, because look at how awesome it is that Outlook knows about the INtar-wEBz!
Re:Well, let's see it then! (Score:2)
I can't reproduce this using Firefox 2.0.0.13 and Outlook 2003.
But in any case, why blame Outlook? Firefox is the one creating the clipboard items, Outlook is just attempting to render them in a sensible fashion. It doesn't sound to be like the pasting application is at fault here.
Re:Well, let's see it then! (Score:2)
Re:Well, let's see it then! (Score:2)
Fixed it for you:
But in any case, why blame Firefox? Outlook is the one interpreting the clipboard items in a fucked up manner. Firefox is just copying them in a sensible fashion. It doesn't sound to be like the copying application is at fault here.
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).
Re:SharePoint (Score:4, Insightful)
Office Live IS sharepoint (Score:2)
Re:SharePoint (Score:1, Flamebait)
It does nothing exceptionally well and is universally hated by all who are forced to use it.
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...
Re:SharePoint (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 MS Office on every machine they encounter daily, some people may want to seamlessly collaborate with people who don't own office, some people may just choose not to use MS products but still want an easy online Office Suite. There are many scenarios that I can think of where something can go wrong with the MS solution, this is where Google shines. There are many features that Office has that GDocs doesn't. Every user has to choose what it is they are really after. No reason to get upset or fling insults.
Re:SharePoint (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
Prolly had a lot to do with my not working here at the time.
Second, SharePoint sucks when you have a mixed client network, which is typical of Microsoft products.
Yes, Microsoft should go out of their way to make sure their software works well with obscure OSes like OSX and Linux. Perhaps it's the client you're using. I'm currently using an Ubuntu Gutsy box to access our intranet and while I've got some limited functionality because it's a down level client, I can still do pretty much everything. About the only thing that doesn't work is the Citrix webpart. It just takes a little longer to get to everything else. But, anyone who uses Linux is used to things taking longer...
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
And that last comment is just plain trolling.
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
So how did you change your password on the domain before sharepoint? It'd be the same now.
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
1. Samba project tools: smbpasswd
2. Web based password change functionality. Commonly known as IISADMPWD, its a set of asp pages that are included with IIS (can optionally be installed on iis6/win2003). Part of every windows server install.
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
I've got several sharepoint installs at client sites who use Firefox, and it works fine for them.
The only difference I'm aware of is the wiki editor. On IE you get a nicer WYSIWYG rich text editor and you can optionally write wiki markup (much like html markup), on Firefox you have to use the wiki markup editor.
We've got plenty of PDFs in ours, and they work just fine.
Search engine works good for us, but we dont use it real heavily.
Also note that both Alfresco and Sharepoint are free. So they're both the same, zero cash, assuming you've got a windows server to run it on.
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
How dare you claim Google Docs Airplane [blogtown.co.nz] isn't useful!
On a more serious note, Google Gears doesn't work with Firefox 3. If you navigate to any page that tries to use it Firefox crashes. Oddly I figured this out because every page on nintendo.com tries to use it (guh?)
Re:SharePoint (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 for sharing, search and collaboration. Java 1.6 is damned fast now and and NetBeans and the Eclipse IDE have shown that Java can really shine on the desktop. Maybe with the newly released Java Micro-Kernel (Update N/Consumer JRE) they will move toward this direction. Update N is a few megabytes download and downloads the rest of the Java libs as needed.
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.
Re:SharePoint (Score:1)
Your very wiki link says the following:
The term 'SharePoint' is commonly used to refer to one of the following two products:
* Windows SharePoint Services (WSS)
* Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS) http://www.microsoft.com/sharepoint/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
Thank you for pointing this out. On a related note, Firefox and OpenOffice are not products either! They are merely marking names, notable for being refreshingly brief.
The technologies, on the other hand, are actually c++ applications, which are able to run on a variety of platforms.
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.
Re:SharePoint (Score:5, Informative)
Regards.
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
+5 Insightful? Give me a flippin' break...
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
Re:SharePoint (Score:2)
Re:No luck required (Score:3, Informative)
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?
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.
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:1)
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:2)
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:1)
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:2)
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.
Re:devil is in the detail (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 application instances. Office Live doesn't have anything like that.
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!
Very easy. Many on-line services accept Google Docs as sources and/or sinks, you can create mashups with Google Gadgets by simply selecting a range and a gadget in the spreadsheet (and then publish the Gadget), and you can design an input form right in Docs.
The ease of use for inviting others is the same.
I can't even sign up from Linux, the sign-up process is buggy, and there doesn't seem to be anything like Google Apps.
(Free as in beer vs. works with 100% of your current documents.)
It's a myth that MS Office works with 100% of MS Office documents; there are serious version incompatibilities, font problems, and macro problems.
In fact, I find the limits Google Docs imposes on formatting to be an advantage because it keeps people from wasting their time and my time by adding tricky features to documents.
Re:devil is in the detail (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 up their sleeves and trying it out for themselves... Not trying to knock you, personally. I just think from reading what Office Live "can't do" it's clear that there are some misinformed people. I was trying to clear up some of that misinformation. We aren't football fans backing "our" team. We're professionals fascinated by technology. Right?
stop making things up (Score:2)
You mean like you just did? After all, you didn't say you tried it, you just talked to someone who claimed it worked.
Unlike you, I did try it out before posting. Just like everybody else is saying, it doesn't work. The only document types that I can create are notes, lists, task lists, contact lists, and event lists. There's no way to create PowerPoint, no Word, no Excel.
If I upload a document and try to open it, it says:
Is that clear enough for you? Or how much clearer do you need Microsoft to spell it out for you?
Now, why don't you go and try it out yourself, instead of making unfounded accusations against other people and proving yourself to be an idiot.
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:2)
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:2)
stop lying (Score:2)
Office Live does not let you edit MS Office files with the browser. If you open an MS Office file in Office Live, it tells you that you need to use "the application" to do so, namely Microsoft Office.
If you have MS Office installed, it may embed the Office editor into the browser window, but that has all the same disadvantages of using MS Office in an external window.
Those are the facts. Now stop lying.
Re:devil is in the detail (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 point, but I take issue with your insinuation that Microsoft disabled it out of some 'evil' anti-competition policy when it's much, much more likely that it's disabled for a much more mundane reason. For instance, some compatibility issue that came up during testing.
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 application instances. Office Live doesn't have anything like that.
Yeah, you have to hit "refresh changes." But it's not far off, and frankly I think Google (and you) vastly overestimate how important this feature is.
Very easy. Many on-line services accept Google Docs as sources and/or sinks,
Really? I've never come across one... care to show us some examples?
It's a myth that MS Office works with 100% of MS Office documents; there are serious version incompatibilities, font problems, and macro problems.
In my decades of using Office, I've never seen it. I'm not saying that the compatibility headaches don't exist for some documents, but comparing an import from Office-to-Office (which I've seen done hundreds of times and never with any problem) to Office-to-Google Docs, the difference is night and day. You're saying that because 0.01% of Office documents have problems it's ok that 25% of Google Docs imports have problems-- that math doesn't add up.
In fact, I find the limits Google Docs imposes on formatting to be an advantage because it keeps people from wasting their time and my time by adding tricky features to documents.
Ah yes, the "fewer features are better" view. Seriously?
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 many third party Google Docs gadgets; they're a right click away in Google Spreadsheets.
Ah yes, the "fewer features are better" view. Seriously?
Within this context, it's not a view, it's a fact. Seriously.
Re:stop making things up (Score:2, Interesting)
Now you're picking nits. Using the offline feature in Google Docs is going to require a plug-in also... GASP!
Really? I've never come across one...
Well, evidently, you're living under a rock.
Maybe, but you still haven't provided any examples, so I'm more inclined to think they simply don't exist. That's not to say Google isn't trying, but there's no point in saying there are all these third-party sites that can use data in Google Docs if there ain't.
care to show us some examples?
Go read the Google Docs API documentation, or just try out one of the many third party Google Docs gadgets; they're a right click away in Google Spreadsheets.
And yet you can't actually link to a single one. Or are you saying the API documentation has a list of third-party sites that can import Google Docs?
Ah yes, the "fewer features are better" view. Seriously?
Within this context, it's not a view, it's a fact. Seriously.
If your co-workers waste your time with "fancy features" or whatever the hell you're complaining about, how is that Microsoft's fault? Take it up with your co-workers. More features in a product is always better; that's why Office sells so many copies in the first place. Seriously.
Re:stop making things up (Score:2)
I'm sure to a Microsoft fanboy and shill like you, having to buy and install Microsoft Office makes no difference; you probably get it free from Microsoft for all the misinformation you spread for them.
To the rest of the world, the difference between "all you need is a browser" and "buy and install Microsoft Office", however, is $360 and a lot of work. I don't own a copy of Microsoft Office at all; it would cost more than my entire computer.
As for Google Gears, you don't need it for editing or sharing Google Docs and most people never install it. If you do want to install it, it's free, it's tiny, it's open source, and enables off-line capabilities in a lot of other web applications.
that's why Office sells so many copies in the first place. Seriously.
Office sells so many copies because Microsoft established a near monopoly through bundling, tying, and other dirty tricks.
Re:stop making things up (Score:2)
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:2)
I have no idea what functionality in a web based app gets blocked due to the browser running on an unsupported platform!
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:2)
MS Office doesn't work with 100% of MS Office documents, and there have been times when OpenOffice will open certain older documents better than the current version of MS Office.
Still, it is hard to ignore that most of your current documents will work with the MS product...
Here's another big consideration: You know and I know that one is built around a proprietary format -- even OOXML is still very much a proprietary format -- and the other is built around an open standard. That means one is likely better compatible with the documents you have right now, and the other, once you're over that initial hurdle, is likely better compatible with any other software, from now on, forever.
Speaking from experience, it's just absurdly easier to write a brand-new parser for ODT than for DOCX.
Re:devil is in the detail (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.
Re:devil is in the detail (Score:1, Informative)
For shared academic editing, I think the best choices are a Wiki with a jsMath plugin and PDF generation, or LaTeX with version control.
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 ran on Microsoft systems.
Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (Score:1)
Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (Score:2)
Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (Score:4, Informative)
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Gears [wikipedia.org]
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.
Not likely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah...just not seeing that happening...
Apples and Oranges. (Score:1, Flamebait)
I don't know who's going to win either Office battle, but I don't think one player will win both. Cloud apps and "traditional" (offline) apps are just different animals, as are GOOG and MSFT different companies. Clearly thier battles are heating up, but I don't see a clear victor here - just more bits being twiddled.
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:Bingo (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 still sounds kinda neat
Re:Bingo (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.
Browsers do NOT "render" properly (Score:2)
How do you think the browser version of a word processor will "render" on a Mac with Safari vs. Vista with IE 7 vs. XP with IE 6 vs. Linux with Firefox 2 or Firefox 3?? Is that enough problems already?
You want it to "render" properly, you use a medium to do that. It is NOT some word processing document. Some example of things that *should* "render" properly would be PDF, or PostScript.
Regardless, I do agree with the GP. You are much better off with regular word processor like OpenOffice than something like Google or Microsoft online offerings. But hey, that's just me.
Re:Speaking of which - does it support ODT? (Score:2)
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:not to slam Google but... (Score:2)
Paragraphs are part of the 20% (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:not to slam Google but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not to slam Google but... (Score:2)
Re:not to slam Google but... (Score:2)
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:not to slam Google but... (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 comment within the thread.
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.
I would say endnotes and footnotes fall into that 20% category. I certainly don't use them and neither do my colleagues. Of course within academia I would think they would be vitally important. Of course, then you start looking at the rest of the missing functionality and saying what else do I need to add and you end up where the Office Suite is today. While everyone will never use every piece of functionality within Word, everyone probably belongs to at least one 1% population that is using Word in a different way today. In fact, its the closest thing we have in the software world to being all things to all people.
Just checked gmail.com (Score:1)
Re:not to slam Google but... (Score:1)
-fragbait
Google Docs and Linux Usage (Score:1)
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:You really think MS faces the bigger task? (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 price where its at, they need to keep moving product. In order to move to a different meshed network, or online/offline model, there is a very real possibility that Microsoft will end up cannabalizing its own products. Not only that, but there is the very real possibility that such a product, in the face of a competitor with equal or better name recognition, will fail.
For the last 5-7 years, Microsoft stock has not exactly prospered, even if you normalize the data against the larger market. The growth hasn't been there. So any misstep by MS in Ray Ozzie's new world could conceivably be quickly and severely punished by the market.
Microsoft faces a far greater challenge, how to undo the existing, traditional, established model of delivery, upon which their stock price is dependent, while moving to a new, untested, difficult to assess, impossible to value model.
Google, on the other hand, has neatly sidestepped the issue by giving software away, creating an entire universe where its okay to use live customers as beta testers (nay, they actually leave billable products as beta for years and years), and they have the quick ability to make/undo changes to code, even on the new apps that allow for offline content, since your endusers are likely to realize that downloading the latest version is a Good Thing To Do.
If Microsoft were go come out with a eighth-baked product like Google Spreadsheets and actually sell it to business customers, they'd be crucified (see Windows ME and Vista, in fact). Google does it and the world cheers, and a good chunk of the geeks download it, play with it, and help make it better. For free.
Bill
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 IT department controls it, and someone else updates it. Google is the champion of this paradigm.
CaaS takes the current computing paradigm, in which you buy a computer, buy or download an OS or software, and maintain it yourself (or have an IT department do it if your business is big enough) and makes it subscription based. Somewhat realistically, it insists on this being a pay service, which as the internet ad bonanza begins to fade, seems sensible. Problems include: what happens if you don't keep up your subscription, unreliability of network software delivery, large companies like MSFT having knowledge of what's on your computer. Advantages: your software stays current, you can buy additional software and services from a trusted vendor, you know what your patch level is. Old software -- MSFT, Adobe, even Apple -- are the champions of this paradigm.
http://www.chrisblanc.org/blog/information-technology/2008/03/24/computing-as-a-service/ [chrisblanc.org]
Basically, while mesh computing sounds cool, it's a regression to a cheap form of thin client interaction. It adds nothing other than someone else maintaining your software for you, which Microsoft will do for their software, as will some Linux distros, automatically. Ignore the hype and the trends, look for the enduring technologies... that's the engineer's way.
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.
Re:Anybody know what file format it's saved in? (Score:2, Informative)
http://docs.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=49008&topic=8613 [google.com]
You can save it locally in Word, OpenOffice, RTF, PDF, HTML or zip
Re:Anybody know what file format it's saved in? (Score:2)
Why would I want to use something that forced me to export it whenever I want to have it show up in local filesystem searches?
Re:Anybody know what file format it's saved in? (Score:2)
How am I supposed to do this when the latest up to date is sitting on a remote server(s) somewhere and uses a format I can't get to.
Sure if ALL my files were stored there I could do the search on the server.... but Google doesn't have Photoshop, CSSEdit, Illustrator, Flash, Omni-Outliner, etc. and why should I take the extra steps to sync all my files to some Google storage area, then tag them all there so that a remote search would pull up all the files?
So again the question is more utilitarian than esoteric in nature... how do I perform batch operations? How do i search? How do I script it?
Seems like moving to Docs would cut out a lot of standard file level utility that has been available for a long time... maybe 'cloud computing' should only be for the apps themselves and not the files/data.
I would much prefer that I could store my data locally and open it in the Docs application, then save it locally when I'm done. At which point you have to wonder what the great benefit is over a desktop app that has webservices?
Re:Anybody know what file format it's saved in? (Score:2)
Not a good comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Google's mesh applications? (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:2)
XBAP/Click Once (Score:2)
Certainly that's more heavyweight than a pure JS/DOM implementation, but since Google Gears requires a plugin anyway...then again, the Google implementations will (likely) always support more platforms since Microsoft wouldn't want to risk market share by implementing for Mac/Linux if they don't have to.
Re: -2 Offtopic (Score:1, Troll)
Re: -1 Redundant (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
One man's lack of features is another man's bliss at simplicity.