Google's Crazy Lack of Focus: Is It Really Serious About Enterprise? 226
curtwoodward writes "Driverless cars. Balloon-based wireless networks. Face-mounted computers. Gigabit broadband networks. In recent months, Google has been unveiling a series of transformative side projects that paint a picture of the search pioneer expanding far beyond an online advertising company. At the same time, Google has been trying to convince enterprise software buyers that it's finally, really, truly serious about competing with Microsoft for their business. Which version of Google's future should you believe?"
Re:All of them. (Score:5, Interesting)
For a company that knows nearly everything? (Score:1, Interesting)
Good someone's spending money on innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: Not an MBA, never attended even a Biz 101. Just your average geek
I think we are talking about two distinct things here:
1. A company which makes a lot of money selling ads on the 'standard' web and the mobile web
2. A company that is trying to carve a space in the 'enterprise' space ( Google apps, docs etc )
3. A company that is spending a lot of money on innovation - most of which looks to help the general public ( Specifically mean their attempts at networking ) and some which look like sci-fi projects ( Google glass)
#1 - It's how they earn their $$ and I ( like most of you ) use their search engine and email offerings. A lot of us use their mobile operating system as well - and we take for granted that it keeps our contacts and calendars and other stuff in sync. ( side note: not many , especially the Apple fanbois - appreciate how good google email/calendar/contacts sync is )
#2 My previous and current employer use Google Apps. My previous company migrated from Domino/Notes (gasp!) to Google Apps and my current company moved from Exchange/Sharepoint/Outlook to Google Apps. As an end user it made my life much better. However, I am sure the CIO who took the decision for the move had evaluated other factors as well ( Cost of migration, cost of maintaing , integration with exisiting directory services etc )
#3 - Now let's assume they make a ton of money with #1 and #2 ( in reality they're making money primarily with #1, but bear with me) and they spend their money on Gigabit Ethernet and self driving cars. What's so wrong with that? How does spending money on Gigabit ethernet make their Google Apps or Google Search team any smarter/dumber? Answer: It doesn't.
I do not work for Google and Google doesn't need my defence.
I just think this article and post is pointless. This is a question a shareholder may ask. As an end user I"m happy with their offerings for personal and professional work and even they work on a new variant of the NCC-1701* - It wouldn't matter to me or to my CIO as long as what they offer us is better than the competition. As of now, they are.
* = If you do not know what NCC-1701 (and it's variants are) Google it (pun intended) before you reply
Re:All of them. (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. Take for example my startpage iGoogle, which is now going to be abandoned. And they have the nerve to shut it down with only 1.5 years prior warning. Bastards.
Re:payouts come later (Score:3, Interesting)
How is that modded insightful?
I don't think anyone with a hint of awareness thought that Android sounded like a crazy project when they announced it. I think everyone who had a clue recognized it as a bold move into a new market that would make a big difference. And, lo and behold, it was.
Also, quite frankly, I find it amusing when people describe Android as "owning the market for mobile operating systems" because it's a narrowly defined definition of "owning the market".
Are they owning marketshare for the larger mobile market? Yes.
Smartphones (no, not feature phones disguised as smartphones - I'm talking actual smartphones)? That's debatable and hard to accurately measure (since so many Android manufacturers sell "smartphones" that are really feature phones running a smartphone OS). Entirely likely this one is pretty much a draw.
Tablets? Not at all. Getting crushed.
Are they owning the market dollars for the mobile market? Nope. That's iOS's crown. And, for many, this is what "owning the market" might mean which makes your claim incorrect.
The mobile market is actually quite complex with various facets and layers and "owning the market" is a claim that no operating system (well, neither Android nor iOS - the others don't matter any more) can make. You have to be much more specific in what you're talking about before you can say anything is being owned. Otherwise it's simply too vague a claim to be taken seriously.
But, back to the original point - I think the only people who thought Google was crazy for creating Android were blog writers looking to generate page views and controversy. Anyone with a clue saw it as anything but crazy.
Re:Google has a problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All of them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah - for your PERSONAL stuff that takes you 20 minutes to migrate or backup.
You've clearly never managed an enterprise software product. The entire point of enterprise software is that it affords deep integration into your workflows and internal processes and systems throughout the company.
"We're closing this down in 6 months" is barely enough time to plan a migration, much less actually PERFORM the migration. And that's the point: if Google wants BUSINESSES to trust that Google isn't going to pull the rug out from under them, then Google needs to start taking migrations and end-of-life's seriously.
It's fine if they want to be a consumer advertising company, and don't want the enterprise business. But the entire article is based on the premise that Google wants this "Enterprise" business.
No, they really don't. 95+% of their revenues are generated by advertising. They make virtually NO money from any source that is not advertising. Go look at their financial statements.
Re:Google is just like Microsoft. (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait, it's true that Google doesn't give away all of their source code, but like Sun, they build almost everything around open standards. They are geeks that care about doing technology right, and hope to make some money. Microsoft wants to make money at all costs, and harm competitors, and if the technology is good, well, that's lucky.
Google mail supported IMAP and POP from the outset, when you had to pay for those features in Hotmail.
Google chat uses standard XMPP, while Microsoft cried about AOL blocking them - but at the same time tried actively to prevent 3rd party MSN clients from working.
Google releases open source languages and operating systems, while everyone is afraid Mono will die when Microsoft suddenly decides to sue.
Google supports not only MS Office formats, but OpenOffice formats on all their online office software. Microsoft grudgingly added worse-than-nothing half-assed OpenOffice file format support after bribing their way into standardizing their own format.
Google typically buys other companies with an eye to expanding their offerings (Writely, Google Earth, etc.) Microsoft often buys other companies with an eye to shutting them down to remove a competitor (Banyan Vines, FoxPro).
Microsoft often promises to support things, only to cancel them. Not consumer services that are easy to migrate away from by pulling your data out, but hardware support, etc. (Windows NT for PPC, Alpha, Windows Mobile for some processors, etc.)
Google offers open API support for most of their services, while Microsoft often attempts to make things incompatible (DR-DOS + Windows).
Most importantly, Microsoft has a history of lying, cheating, and sometimes breaking the law to get their way. They figure it's cheaper to pay fines, or that the legal system is too slow and inept for it to matter. (Purposely trying to Kill Netscape, making incompatible Java, etc.)
Microsoft also seems to go out of their way to not only make their stuff work well together (which is to be expected), but to also make it not work with anything else. There is no SQL server for Unix, Office for Mac is an exception, and not even that compatible. SharePoint only properly works on IE, .NET is supposedly cross-platform, but only supported on Windows, etc., etc. Microsoft also removed features they have already developed from entry level software to force you to buy the more expensive ones (which happens other places as well) - sometimes to silly levels. Versions of Windows that can only run 3 programs, limiting TCP/IP connections on consumer windows, no remote desktop or ability to install language packs on Windows 7 Home. The services that Google charges you for actually consume more of their resources, and therefore cost them more money.
Clearly MS feels much more strongly about wring every cent they can out of you than they do about advancing the state of the art or making the world a better place. Google, on the other hand, does things like telling you that results have been filtered due to legal requirements, and suggests you protest it.
Google takes the risk to invest in risky projects, and so it makes sense that they will cancel some of them. For example, I was peeved that they stopped supporting the iPhoto to Picasa Web uploader, but I can understand it. Apple broke the thing with every new iPhoto release. People would download it and wonder why it didn't work. Google also removed the public free translation API because people were using it in their very expensive commercial translation products. The only request I think that is reasonable to make is that if they are going to cancel something they: a. Do it with sufficient advance warning, and b. allow you to get your data out. They seem to have been very good at both things so far.