Google & Sun Planning Web Office 751
astrab writes "According to this post at Dirson's blog, Google and Sun Microsystems are to announce a new and kick-ass webtool: an Office Suite based on Sun's OpenOffice and accesible with your browser. Today at 10:30h (Pacific Time) two companies are holding a conference with more details, but Jonathan Schwartz (President of Sun Microsystems) claimed on Saturday on this post of his blog that "the world is about to change this week", predicting new ways to access software."
Google Conquers all (Score:5, Funny)
[X] Google Moon
[X] Google Sun
Looks like we live in a google universe.
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:5, Funny)
I dno't.
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:4, Funny)
Sheesh! If you're going to use a contraction, the apostrophe goes in place of the letter you removed. This should very obviously be "I d'not."
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:5, Informative)
Well, that was a HUGE letdown (Score:5, Informative)
In the Q&A session, Eric Schmidt says that they will *assist* in the distribution of OpenOffice (whatever that menas), but that they are *not* announcing a new product (i.e., Google Office).
I think that the blog community got way, way ahead of this story.
Re:Well, that was a HUGE letdown (Score:4, Interesting)
What was Google's alternative,
-- John.
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:5, Funny)
Effective this week, the Universe will be officially renamed to "Googleverse". This is not just an effort to pay homage to Google, our new ruling class, but also to distinguish the Googleverse that we live in from other parallel universes.
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:5, Funny)
What if? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google has the resources to pull this off. Sure, they're draining talent away from Microsoft to come work for them...why not do the same to Apple? Make a kick-ass UI, have it run on top of Linux...hell, you could even make your own API instead of using X-windows if you really wanted to. Start from scratch, why not? They have the money, the time, the personnel. Write the drivers for the hardware yourselves.
I mean, come on. They have all that talent working there now and quite frankly, they've only come out with "neato" little things here and there. Yes, great search engine. But take all that talent and make something really cool! Something revolutionary!
Re:What if? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What if? (Score:5, Interesting)
Firefox (hooked in with Google-stuff), Google Office, and some of the usual opensource tools. The trick is to get a major PC manufacturer on board like Dell or something, so that hardware support isn't a huge problem (you control the hardware).
Re:What if? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google could just ensure that their test team is testing major vendor's hardware like Dell, HP, etc. After all, if you're talking about business and joe user functionality, you don't need to focus on 3D acceleration and such.
Google could just sink their cash into Novell/SuSE, RedHat, or Mandriva and provide a bundle that already works. Oh, wait, that's right -- you can already get Linux bundles with Java, OO/SO, etc.
So what's the "new" aspect you're suggesting, other than Google becoming involved in the marketing and distribution? What precisely is it that we need for a desktop GUI that isn't already in KDE and/or Gnome? 3D alpha-transparency spinners? Corona effects for the "glint" off metallic 3D lettering?
What Google could really provide in this area is some funding to improve the hardware support and configuration/maintenance utilities for components like configuring 3D support, adding/removing software, etc. I'm not talking about yet another front-end for RPM or APT, but some real improvement in reducing dependencies and manageability.
Re:What if? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Google was to release something, it would be smartest to release something that works on Windows, Linux and OS X. Let the support for the OS, where the biggest headaches come from, to someone else. That makes the most business sense to me.
Re:What if? (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone already took an open source operating system and slapped a pretty GUI on it, that was Apple. But I agree, google might do the one thing Apple has left to do: be hardware independent.
I don't know about a Google OS, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google replaced all of our day-to-day software with complex AJAX sites, making us not need anything else, other than a browser and possibly a hard drive to save sensitive information. (everything else will probably be on Google's server, making it even easier to publish stuff you want to go public with)
The opportunity Google has with this, is you can have an entire workstation that is not only hardware independent, but Operating System independent as well. I can check gmail just fine in linux, windows, and MacOSX and have the same experience on all 3. Why not do something similar to that for all desktop applications?
Re:What if? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even ignoring the whole lack-of-revenue-source-from-massive-expense and massive-barriers-to-entry things, such an undertaking would be a /minimum/ five year project. I don't think Google has had the time.
Re:What if? (Score:4, Interesting)
As others have said, perhaps they're working on a minimum OS that loads in a few seconds and just provides a browser to access the Googleverse.
Companies always fall short in making products that are really revolutionary. Why couldn't Google create a small, bootable OS that works on a piece of hardware bigger than a PDA yet smaller than a full blown laptop. Large screen with great contrast to be able to read in very high or low light situations. Make it Wifi and touch screen. Surf the web, check your email, do work with the new Star/Open office through Google, chat, do your calender etc etc. Many many many companies have tried and failed to bring something like this to the masses. Why? Well, not only are they expensive, they are also limited. How many reviews of such devices are always "didn't have this...it had this but would be nice if it had that..." kind of thing. Well, MAKE it have things people will actually need and use. Make it the size of an average paperback book...only thinner. Don't worry about storage because everything will be online...just provide plenty of memory and processing power to do things. And here's the clincher...make it affordable.
Do I see Google doing something like this? Nah, not really. Would be nice though. Would be nice to have something like the little data-pads that were on Star Trek: The Next Generation. They were almost a perfect size. Maybe one day before I die I'll see a company that actually does it right and is a success with it.
Sun is doing it... (Score:4, Informative)
Sun is working on project looking glass Which is linux based, and the UI is similar (and maybe even a bit cooler) than osx. Check out the screenshots [sun.com]
Re:What if? (Score:4, Interesting)
And I said "what if". Though what if they're making a very small OS that just gets you booted, loads a browser and then gets you online where you can access the googleverse?
Meh...what do I know. Hey, at least they're making neat things...just not revolutionary things.
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:3, Funny)
Is Google the harbinger of the Sigularity [wikipedia.org]?
I, for one, welcome our new Googleverse!
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the days of Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail, this practice was extremely annoying; you got half the screen filled with colour animated generic ads. Google proved that if you used targetted ads you could replace half a screen worth of ads with just one single group of text advertisements. I suspect they'll do something similar for an office suite, perhaps with the ads targetted to the content of your document.
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember how ebay got nailed for ads asking if you want to buy a slave because the word slave appeared on a page, and google got into the act too: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/24/ebay_afric an_slaves/ [theregister.co.uk]
So you'll see ads having to do with a combination of glue, panties, and bikes in France or some other such shit.Re:Google Conquers all (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, typing up love letters will get you ads for eHarmony or Viagra.
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Google Conquers all (Score:3, Insightful)
Blog blogblog! (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft's Worst Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Between Sun's passionate hatred of Microsoft and Google's competence, it's got to be a bad day over a Redmond.
Re:Microsoft's Worst Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that Google's brand recognition will be a hugem benefit in this endeavour, and I, for one, look forward to seeing how well it is adopted. My fingers are crossed that it might be a success. I am very interested to see how such a service will be embraced by the public.
Re:Microsoft's Worst Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's just keep it in perspective. Open Source is the big revolution, and what is working wonders in the technology world today - not Google. Google is a company, and right now Google knows exactly how to serve and please its customers. Let's hope they continue that trend, but everyone fails eventually -- even a mega-billion dollar company.
Re:Microsoft's Worst Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft will do what it normally does: give it away for virtually free until the competition is destroyed or forgotten.
Now I am not saying it will be successful, but don't put it past Microsoft to start bundling MS Works in with Vista with the option to "upgrade" it to the full MS Office via a monthly $9.99 subscription. What else do they have to do with Works?
I will also admit this tactic is getting harder for them to pull off (Money vs Quicken, Media player vs iTunes, etc), but that does not
How it should work (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll lose here. Google gives it's products away for actually free and is tons better at running an ad-based business than MS is. MS can't use their typical predatory pricing schemes to kill google, unless they start paying people to use their software.
Of course, they can always leverage their windows monopoly to try to do kill google. Still, if everything is web-based and platform agnostic, that will be harder than it used to be. The insidious bit is that google inherently runs on their software (IE), and there's nothing they can do to stop people from going to google's site. It's not like with Netscape, and they could pay OEMs to keep Netscape off the desktop.
Imagine a web-based office application that could be used from anywhere, and also allowed you to download a platform-agnostic (likely Java) offline editor. You could access your documents anywhere, take them with you, and edit them anywhere. Key to success would be a method of integrating the offline document when you bring it back online - integrated (but transparent and seamless) version control would be critical there.
Now HERE is where the real kicker is. Google could sell this system to companies so they could run it on their own network. Think MS Exchange for documents, only functional. This would inherently integrate backups, and it would allow tons of collaboration benefits that can only be dreamed of now. This is such a no-brainer I'm legitimately surprised MS hasn't done something like it.
I think this is doable. If they pull it off, it could seriously threaten MS.
Microsoft could easily kill this (Score:4, Interesting)
If the app is like Gmail but even more complicated (which seems likely), even small changes to the browser features this app depends on (some of which are not standardized and were originally introduced by Microsoft) will have massive effects on the app's performance. And Microsoft could easily make such tweaks ad infinitum by way of "security updates" that close security holes by continuously re-tweaking the advanced features of IE.
Most users won't download a whole new browser just to try out a new Google feature. They might not even realize they have to...when a site doesn't work right most users assume it's the site's fault, not the browser's.
Re:Microsoft could easily kill this (Score:5, Insightful)
This would not be a game that Microsoft would want to play since they could spend a ton of effort only to see their hole patched without anybody even noticing. Not to mention that since Google relies on widely used features that are support by many browsers, breaking a Google web app will likely break many other web apps. The providers of these other apps probably don't have the resources to patch IE problems as quickly as Google does. So that could be another dangerous risk to take, suddenly giving IE a reputation of breaking lots of random websites every time you do a Windows Update. Those same sites will probably work just fine in Firefox or Opera and the providers of those apps will suddenly have a very good reason to advertise this fact!
Re:Microsoft's Worst Fear (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, I did I mention that all your data will belong to Microsoft?
Re:Microsoft's Worst Fear (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft's Worst Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Matter of perspective. When you drop the large rock upon the sleeping gorilla, bloodying his nose but failing to kill it, who's going to have the worse day, you or the gorilla?
One thing's for sure, however: It'll sure get noisey inside the cage, and be entertaining as hell for anyone able to watch it from a safe distance...
Re:Microsoft's Worst Fear (Score:3, Informative)
Google makes products that work the best on MS platforms.
Google Earth - MS only,
Google Talk - MS only, but thanks to Jabber other OSs can piggyback.
Google Desktop Search - MS only (IE 5.5 +)
All this talk about the mighty Goog toppling "Micro$haft" is pretty pointless, as it seems that google's code is not all that portable over different OSs and browsers.
It's like a parasite, you want to exploit the advantages of your host (being installed on 90 % of world's computers), but you don't want to
Re:Microsoft's Worst Fear (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair though, Microsoft don't seem to have to put any particular effort into making their OS break, it just kinda happens.
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, if this is true, things are going to get pretty interesting...
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Meanwhile, Google Ulcer will rule all while still in beta!
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
They may be developing an ulcer, but as we established in the previous front page article [slashdot.org], it would be due to H. Pylori, not stress...
Nevertheless, I agree. OpenOffice for the Web? Brilliant!
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but with their development process, it will be at least 3 years before Ulcer Vista (TM) sees the light of day. By the time it's finally released, it will lack the much lauded "WinPeptic" feature set that they're hyping today, and it will just be playing catch-up to Apple's iReflux (TM), a component of the Indigestion X (TM) system.
Good deal (Score:5, Interesting)
it right on the front of the google home page.
But does it .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is your comment "interesting"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, though, the concept of versions becomes a little irrelevant, don't you think? I suspect they'll launch a version 1 as soon as they possibly can. The marketing types will hype up a version 2 and version 3, but the engineers will know better. They'll be able to incrementally update their software every day, if they so choose. Zillions of little changes will evolve this suite into
Re:Read again (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not get ahead of the game. This is only if it takes off, which will be decided by the market and will sure be a slow process.
Besides, who wants to be deprived of all its documentation every time DSL is down?
Re:Read again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Read again (Score:5, Insightful)
Not forgetting, of course, that all this is based on AJAX. That is, HTML, CSS, Javascript/ECMAScript, which aren't "owned" by any one vendor. The day Google starts producing (i) the majority web-browser browser with (ii) proprietary extensions is the day we have to worry in the slightest about vendor lockin.
And the day Google habitually charges a subscription fee for any of its mainstream services (go on, name one) is also the day we can even start worrying about them becoming the next Microsoft here.
This isn't about vendor-lockin. This is about taking away Microsoft's competitive get-out-of-jail-free card, their monopoly over the majority development API (the Windows API).
Once a full-featured (hell, even half-way decent) MS Office compatible office suite doesn't need the Windows API, there's no hard requirement for most businesses to use Windows. In fact, the ease of adminning/free-ness/lack of installation requirements of a web app means there are very compelling reasons to make the switch.
The reasons Star/OpenOffice haven't taken off are:
(i) Marketing: Nobody (apart from us geeks) has really heard of them.
(ii) Trust: Very few companies have the kind of big-name-brand trust CEOs (erroneously) have for Microsoft).
(iii) Hassle of administration: There are no practical obvious admin advantages in switching from one desktop app to another.
However:
(i) Everyone and his grandma have heard of Google these days, and they could (should they wish to) likely amass a marketing budget on the same scale as Microsoft's, at least for one product launch.
(ii) Google, although a relative newcomer, is now sufficiently ubiquitous and useful that it's rapidly gaining (if it hasn't already) big-name-brand recognition.
(iii) Switching from a desktop app to a web app, however, is a no-brainer. Especially for overworked and underfunded IT departments the world over.
Ahhh, the beauty of humility. (Score:5, Insightful)
"the world is about to change this week"
Yes, accessing applications on a remote server. That's certainly a new, world-changing idea.
Except that it isn't [webopedia.com].
Not when the idea has already been done. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying that if I discovered the secret of eternal youth, then that wouldn't change the world, simply because it's not a new idea, people have been looking for it since the dawn of time?
No. The difference in your (poor) analogy is that people were searching for the secret, but did not find it, whereas you did. With respect to client-server technology, it has been done for years already. Thus, implementing an office suite over the Internet is no different than implementing it over, say, a LAN. The "secret" has already been found.
Just because it's already been thought of doesn't mean that an implementation won't potentially be interesting.
I didn't say it wasn't interesting. I said it wasn't new.
Will be able to write a document without AdSense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will be able to write a document without AdSens (Score:5, Insightful)
If it lessens Microsoft's dominance, it's a working business model.
$.02 (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, that wouldn't be the best strategy available from a monitary perspective. In this case, java would be considered a sunk cost. And I can't see any PHB's, even at sun, thinking otherwise.
So, the strategy is probably focused on promoting Operating System agnostism. And, if sun is lucky, get attention and prove (to the average person, not programmers and admins) that they are relevant. Hence, the potential for long term gain. In this case, breaking even on the investment is well worth it.
I don't think this is a game that Microsoft wants to play because no matter what the outcome they have to lose, with the exceptional case of this not catching on. But if google promotes it, at the very least, free office software should get attention no matter what.
This is just my 2 cents, but with exchange rates I think it only amounts to 1.
Re:Will be able to write a document without AdSens (Score:5, Interesting)
Googles main business is searching.. and that's what they make their profit.
MS otoh makes a large part of their profit from the Office suite.
So MS got more interested in the search engine business.. Google doesn't like it and wants to fight back.. so they now pick their battle field.
Not the searching business as they've got too much too loose, but the office business. Google doesn't have a lot to loose there but MS does.
Things like these happened in the past.. if a competitor from another business comes into your business, you see where you can hurt him the most and attack him in this business..
Shift the focus, make clear to him he's got more to loose than you, and hope he'll retreat and you can focus on your core business.
So either an office suite war will start.. or MS will slow down on the area of searching and let Google have that part of the market.
I hope it includes spell-checking. (Score:3, Funny)
Could I borrow some o's? You seem to have a few too many.
Re:Will be able to write a document without AdSens (Score:4, Interesting)
Two Years Later (Score:5, Insightful)
So I wonder how long until we can expect to see a similar service from Microsoft.
Release all your numbers and words? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do law offices want to create all their documents online, hosted God-knows-where and visible to unknown techs with access to the servers? This would probably be a negligent breach of confidentiality in many cases.
With the exception of Slashdot, most people normally write docs and spreadsheets for a limited audience and would be uncomfortable not knowing who was reading it.
I'll keep a local copy thank you. But if
Re:Two Years Later (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, most of those people are being let go because of their poor grammar skills.
Re:Two Years Later (Score:3, Interesting)
I heard Scott McNealy speak last summer and he was totally gung ho about this exact idea, in nearly those exact words. Except what did he call it, um, "Utilit [itnews.com.au]
Re:Two Years Later (Score:5, Insightful)
The browser is a crappy application platform. All the remote access methods (MS DHTML download behavior, hidden frames, XmlHttpRequest) are severly limited in functionality, especially error recovery and detection. Raise your hand if you've ever had sending an email in gmail screw up? The UI design decisions a browser makes to optimize the browsing of hypertext are totally different than the ones you make when you're create an application, especially an office suite. Web applications have a couple notable benefits, combined with some signifigant flaws. The major advantages are remote access and ease of installation/support. Disadvantages include, but are not limited to, more difficult cross platform development (yes, really: it's harder to get complicated DHTML behaviors working in multiple browsers than a regular application, and it's complicated by being hard to reliably detect your platform), lack of local file access, limited UI customization possible (have to roll your own drag & drop, limited context menu support), no integration into the desktop (standard menu shortcuts hit the browser, not the application), and a limited widget set to work from.
Theres a good reason why people moved away from thin clients. People are slowly moving back, for a variety of reasons, and there *are* good reasons to do it, but until someone (Microsoft in Vista?) develops a standard and widely deployed remote application host, which is *not* a web browser, AJAX and web applications are going to remain underdeveloped and overhyped. Look to Java Web Start for inspiration (if only Java apps weren't so crappy...)
The real test of AJAX, I guess. (Score:5, Interesting)
This assumes the web office is written in AJAX and not Java. If it's written in Java, expect trouble. I used Corel Wordperfect for Java, man. It wasn't a usable tool.
Also, to be quite frank, they're going to have to put some very serious interface cleanup work into this. StarOffice is really just not up to the level of quality in terms of user interface which Google's tools tend to follow.
Incidentally, is it just me or does it seem odd that they're targeting Word BEFORE Exchange?
Re:The real test of AJAX, I guess. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.somis.dundee.ac.uk/pub/corelindex.htm [dundee.ac.uk]
The past of web-based office suites...
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what technology it will use (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder X or VNC (Score:3, Insightful)
Not this online crap again... (Score:5, Funny)
Compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
I can only imagine how Gates is feeling..
furniture (Score:5, Funny)
This is so much worse that MS Office (Score:5, Insightful)
How could it be different? Well, Google would distribute their web apps *including* source code as bundles that could be installed on "personal servers" (like on the thousands of dedicated server companies run by smaller, generally independent shops http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dedicated+se
Think of it this way. How many corporations are going to start to standardize on Gmail? Not my company, and I'm happy for that. People, please see through this nonsense. Maybe we really do need the "click to download source" clause in the GPL v3. Otherwise, people will gladly give up their freedom just to see some lame company with an incredible data center suck away all of their freedom and privacy. Google is completely evil.
If they wanted to be good, the proof would be in enabling other people by opening their software stack and allowing for a much more distributed architecture.
Re:This is so much worse that MS Office (Score:5, Interesting)
If the data is accessible in a standard format (it seems likely that this will save into OpenDocument, and GMail can be accessed through POP3), the underlying database is unimportant. I can see the problem with GMail, since its labels don't map onto a currently-standard protocol, though.
As for releasing source, Google's business model is based upon advertising, so it's not in their interest to release the source that would allow people to quickly create identical competitors. They spent the time and money on the development, it's theirs to apply their business model to. This does not make them evil. Not by a long way. They're conducting their business and systems in such a way that people can obtain their services for free, and that they can make a profit.
They have not acted in a way remotely resembling "evil" in this matter. They're not sucking your freedom — your data is accessible through open protocols. They're not sucking your privacy — your data is analysed by a computer system to provide targetted advertising. As much as spam filters are "stealing my privacy", I'm not convinced it's a serious issue.
Re:This is so much worse that MS Office (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing the point of the original post, which is that the product is based on OpenOffice.Org, which is released (I believe) under the GPL.
The idea of the GPL was to give everyone an equal opportunity. With the increasing number of services based on Free Software with slight modifications and then released as a web service, the GPL becomes a de-facto BSD license, which wasn't the purpose.
There's discussion in the Free Software community to rectify this problem by requiring ASPs, if they make changes to code that's under the GPL, to be required to release those changes, in the same way they would if they'd given the code away in binary form.
For the user, this is the same situation. If I get a copy of a binary or I use a web site, it's the same effect, as distribution. Therefore the GPL3 may include a clause to require the same effect of giving a binary as making a service.
It took me a long time to appreciate why this was necessary, but with this latest announcement, I think it is.
shortcuts (Score:5, Interesting)
Google - OK. But Sun? (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, before this time we had never considered the concept, but once we did, it really opened doors for possibilities. I remember thinking to myself it is only a matter of time before more people start doing this. And now, a few years later, here we are with Google and Sun claiming they will change the world with this. The are a little late in books, and not far enough into the project to claim the world will change. Nevertheless, it will be cool to see it done (if it works well).
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
How is this new? (Score:3, Informative)
Terrible Disruption in the FORCE (Score:5, Funny)
Capitalist at heart (Score:5, Insightful)
Dont Count on it changing the world yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
StarPortal (Score:4, Informative)
It is essentially a Java encapsulation of Star/Open Office accessible through a browser. Pretty cool stuff, but involved some hefty Java downloads (~100MB?) to get it started up. Once started up though, it was almost identical to using a native version of Star/Open Office.
Marty
This is gonna be great (Score:5, Interesting)
Although I guess in fairness, MS Office has the first two items covered already.
I'm still working on this... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can download one for free, if I wish, and it does not have advertising.
It starts faster, and will probably do more.
It does not require an internet connection to work.
It does not broadcast any document I work on over the Internet.
Granted, some of these are speculation on how the new suite would work, but it's speculation based on similar existing apps.
The most useful thing I can think of would to be able to download a copy to a local machine, which equates to some damn easy deployment of software.
~D
wtf? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
One good thing that should come out of this is improved MS Office integration for Openoffice - users are going to want to import/export Office docs to send to other people and the kind of massive user base and testing Google can provide should help to catch all those annoying minor import problems with OO.org.
As several have already stated... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe this is why Google was buying up all that unused fiber?
Dream comes true? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it was IBM that first championed the cause of having applications that were provisioned only for selected users who paid for it. This was like in the 80s and early 90s. The more you paid, the more applications were available on the mainframe, for your user id. I am not sure about the details since never worked in this field.
Then, Microsoft came along and cornered IBM's market. They cornered the market by making people realize that owning your software actually means having it on a disk, taking it wherever you want, etc. After they cornered the entire market, they started talking about Web Services - about Office being run on the web. This is like Steve Balmer's dream.
Now Google comes along and actually moves forward in that direction, but interestingly, they have most people on their side. Will Google become the next Microsoft?
This is a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)
This hurts Microsoft right where they can be hurt the most. It's worth noting that their other divisions don't make near the amount of money that Office does; and it could be argued that as Office goes, so goes the OS. If you can access an office suite from any browser, would you care as much what OS you use, be it Win, Linux, OS X, or a Google OS?
Here's some reaction to this, in no specific order:
This could really be online services done right, and if anybody would do them right it'd be Google: they have the server infrastructure to support this kind of move, and few other companies do, including Microsoft. We might remember this announcement as the day the PC died in 5 years--that might be pretty forward thinking, but if this works out as well as it reasonably might, do you need more than a browser platform for average computing tasks? Particularly when your email, browser, and office docs are unified by the great need to search that body of information by the best search engine yet designed?
Google, you don't want to see Clippy angry! (Score:4, Funny)
-Eric
WOW..Tremendous Letdown! (Score:5, Informative)
Chairs (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing To See Here (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Excellent. Still waiting for ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Google is officially evil (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google is officially evil (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blog (Score:5, Insightful)
[mumbles]how is parent moded +5 Insighful ? Gotta metamod more frequently[/mumbles]