Google Scoops Microsoft w/ Mesh Applications

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

[Anonymous Coward]

It's technology is called SharePoint. All Office apps are integrated with it and you can work offline, online, collaborate, etc. Oh yea, and it worked longed before Google docs did. This submitter is a typical anti-MS hack and doesn't know what they are talking about. GG Slashdot.

devil is in the detail

[nguy]

People have been using mixed on-line/off-line computing for a long time; neither Microsoft nor Google invented this or were the first to figure out that it was useful.

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.

Not likely...

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

But the future's not all doom and gloom just because of Google's progress in bringing unplugged versions of cloud apps to users. Microsoft would be smart to be extremely observant about the end user experience, user feedback and usage patterns of Google Doc users, and then plow that knowledge back into Windows Live and other Microsoft Mesh efforts.

So...all Microsoft has to do to avoid defeat is listen to their customers?

Yeah...just not seeing that happening...

Flamebait

[Hassman]

Can I flag this story as a flamebait?

plugged vs unplugged

[thrillseeker]

There's no guarantee users will like the unplugged versions of cloud apps.

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.

Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality

[GuldKalle]

I haven't read TFA, but my guess is that it's using google gears [slashdot.org] to provide offline capability. Available for win+mac+Linux on Firefox and IE6+

not to slam Google but...

[Speare]

But then again, just because Google is making faster progress doesn't mean much.

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.

Hmmm...

[rodrigoandrade]

I think Google Apps main appeal is the fact they're online, can be accessed anywhere, etc. Feature-wise they're clearly inferior to MS Office.

Without the online component (or "offline feature") it'll just be another freeware piece of crap.

You really think MS faces the bigger task?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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.

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:devil is in the detail

[Blakey Rat]

I don't really get the argument here. What's the difference between Google Docs' new functionality and Office Live? Other than that Microsoft is working from the desktop and moving to the web, and Google is working from the web and moving to the desktop. Oh, also: Office Live exists right now (albeit in beta), and Google only has a press release.

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?

Well, let's see it then!

[uuxququex]

Could you point me to a URL, so that I may try it out for myself? Or is it, in traditional Redmond fashion, a lot of talk and no substance at all?

Re:devil is in the detail

[nguy]

What's the difference between Google Docs' new functionality and Office Live?

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:Bingo

[Cid Highwind]

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.

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.

Re:SharePoint

[value_added]

It's technology is called SharePoint.

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:not to slam Google but...

[Hangtime]

Amen brother. Google likes to build the 80% thinking no one uses the 20% and on average this would be correct. If you look at usability most folks don't use the higher end functions out of Excel (one of my pet pivs when Microsoft updated to 2007 and the ribbon). But if you look at all the advanced functionality (Sub-Totals, OFFSET(), VLOOKUP(), Validation, Goal Seek, Solver, Add-Ins, Macros, Data Analysis pack, Consolidate, STANDARDIZE(), Percentile(), etc.), however, the chances of any Excel user using at least one of these function thus one function within the 20% is very high and is a gotcha. Everyone complains about feature bloat in Office, but the beauty of the suite is that it will give you that one function you might need to make your life infinitely easier even if it isn't used by 99.9% of all the other users. Ultimately, this is why Google will have limited success. Its not fun building features for a few thousand or a few hundred users, but this is how you build your userbase by catering to smaller and smaller niches of folks who will gladly pay you money to purchase your software.

Good luck

[dodgedodge]

"Good luck with that"?? Doesn't M$ currently have like 90% of the office market? I think its Google that needs luck.

Re:SharePoint

[notaprguy]

You're half right. SharePoint is designed more for business use whereas Google apps are designed more for geek's trying to organize a geek party. Office Live offers much of the same of the same functionality as SharePoint in a more simplified version. In terms of making apps available offline...I have this new fangled thing called Office that works reallyh well regardless of whether I'm connected or not. I can even set it up so that when I re-connect that the file is synchronized up to a Web site. Amazing stuff!

Not a good comparison

[notaprguy]

Making Google apps available offline is not particularly interesting. Wow...local storage...you mean like a decent Mac or Windows application offers? Syncrhonizing files up to a Web site is fairly trivial. In terms of offering the ability to synchronize files from a local store up to "cloud storage" Microsoft acquired Groove 3-4 years ago which was doing that years before. Not news. I'm no expert with inside information but if I know Microsoft I'd guess that they're thinking about making "mesh" into a platform for applications by anybody, not just Microsoft. That's what Microsoft is (usually) pretty good at. Providing a capability that would allow appliations and data to "roam" with the user as they move from device to device would be neat. Then I can use high fidelity applications on a Mac or PC when I have access to one or I can access degared versions of the apps (AJAX, Silverlight, Flash blah blah blah) when I don't have access to local applications.

Re:SharePoint

[TheNarrator]

Yeah I'm a Linux user and I'd much rather use OpenOffice than Google Apps. Even AbiWord and Gnumeric are better. Google has to realize that browser based javascript is just not going to do it for full-blown office apps. Microsoft specifically broke the environment it so it wouldn't be able to do that. It's freakin' single threaded!

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.