Open letter to Google: Don't sue the government, just make Apps better

By | November 2, 2010, 12:45pm PDT

Summary: An open letter to Google: questioning whether a lawsuit against the US Government was wise for Generation Y perception, but if Google Apps is even up to the job in the first place.

Dear Google,

You are suing the US Department for the Interior over a 5 year contract to outsource its communications worth nearly $50 million, because they chose Microsoft’s locked-down rival cloud service instead.

I understand that you are rightfully annoyed, by not only the monetary value of the contract, but the fact that the US DoI didn’t even consider Google Apps for the job; not even a mere glance.

Chris Dawson thought you should have just “kept your mouths shut” and carried on with the highly competitive edge that you have over various other products, especially in light of the recent global privacy scandal where Street View cars collected wireless payloads.

To spare you any more chatter, I’ll keep my thoughts brief. Wake up, smell the coffee, and pour yourself a few cups.

Instead of kicking up a fuss that you weren’t even considered, perhaps you should have examined why Google Apps wasn’t contemplated in the first place and made proactive steps to make it better?

If you found this move by the US DoI offensive, it made me wonder why you haven’t hurled lawsuits at universities publicly denouncing Google Apps for Education as having ‘unacceptable’ levels of privacy. Though universities and institutions of education do not pay for the outsourced cloud offerings of either Microsoft’s Live@edu or Google Apps for Education, you rely on good press from these institutions to build up the portfolio for other potential education customers.

So perhaps you should take a step back, retract the lawsuit and reconsider your position. If a government department doesn’t even bother to consider the service you have to offer, for whatever reason they may or may not give, perhaps ask yourselves why.

Universities have not ‘gone Google’ for various reasons, practical and otherwise. Google may not consider student or university email to need high-grade security, but Microsoft clearly took a proactive step in producing a derivative service aimed at such an eventuality.

But also take into account the message you are setting out. Perhaps this news story won’t filter through to every student and young person in the world, but I am sure most people who read the story will feel that Google is stamping its feet in a childish rage.

It has a knock-on effect, and for the students who do read this story and the other thoughts and opinions around this lawsuit you presented, you could be doing further damage with them when they enter the workplace.

Go back and start work on Google Apps using a competitive edge, instead of applying your existing Gmail mod-like service as a quick fix to fill the market.

Lots of love,

Zack x

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

37
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Open letter to Google: Don't sue the government, just make Apps better
bruinsensei 4th Nov 2010
@Economister
Well, Brown University students managed to read each other's Gmail.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/whoops_students_going_google_get_to_read_each_others_email.php
0 Votes
+ -
for wanting a phone that just works and not because it "cool" to own a Droid now a days.

Thanks for shoving your crap down our throats Google...
0 Votes
+ -
They don't have time for that
LBiege 2nd Nov 2010
... as they are busy working on a spin to convince government that their feature-less APPs are actually better than competitions that provide more.
@iPad-awan Seriously, do you have any idea how the government's spending of your money is supposed to work?

There are good legal grounds for the case, irrespective of Google's motives for bringing the suit. Universities are NOT legally bound in the same way and so their choice to use Google, Microsoft, Apple or other is wholly irrelevant. Nor are private smart phone users. Don't be so absurd.

And if you're suggesting the the iPhone "just works" then you're obviously a VERY late comer to the smart phone market.
0 Votes
+ -
Spot on Zack
hubivedder 2nd Nov 2010
The customer is king
0 Votes
+ -
Why should the Government hire them?
Cylon Centurion 2nd Nov 2010
Google has serious issues with security and privacy. That is a fact. Why would a government agency hire a company that can't keep a secret?
0 Votes
+ -
Well....
Economister 2nd Nov 2010
@Cylon Centurion 0005

I haven't seen any of my gmail floating around on the web yet. How about you?
0 Votes
+ -
Don't use GMail
Cylon Centurion 2nd Nov 2010
@Economister

But the fact remains that GMail is data mined for keywords to serve you ads, and Google is in constant trouble with overseas governments over various privacy issues.

Also, Google's main source of income is advertising, not it's various software services.

All of a sudden, their services don't seem to attractive, do they?
@Cylon Centurion 0005

you do realize that google apps premier are ad free and work as SaaS don't you. Typical microsoft fanboy , using FUD to discredit competitors
@Economister
maybe not, but Google has already had to admit their admins were snooping in teenage girls email accounts. So while the emails arent floating around, they arent as secure as you would think
@Economister
Well, Brown University students managed to read each other's Gmail.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/whoops_students_going_google_get_to_read_each_others_email.php
@Cylon Centurion 0005 :
serious with security and privacy has never stops idiots buying microsoft - the leakiest most insecure OS and Apps on the planet
0 Votes
+ -
One isn't ready for prime time on the desktop.

One is considered the "upper range" and thus won't be bought by the majority.
0 Votes
+ -
Really?
Cylon Centurion 2nd Nov 2010
@deaf_e_kate

I thought that honor went to Adobe?
Or for that matter reliable. Ah well, of course any evidence to the contrary are mere trifles or anecdotes.
@zkiwi

No. Microsoft is not necessarily more secure. But, their business model is not based on spying on their customers and selling advertising. Microsoft makes their money by selling Windows and Office. They don't need to spy on their customers. But, Google does.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess you conveniently forget that...
zkiwi Updated - 2nd Nov 2010
Microsoft's wares phone home systematically for a range of reasons, not least to make sure you are "legal." They actively harvest and maintain a register of your hardware and software configuration, and it goes back years. So, spying on their customers yes.

As to data sharing, they state in their EULA that they will share this information only with themselves and their affiliates.

So, Microsoft doesn't spy... Nah, they have and do.
@zkiwi
Microsoft is very open about this. They collect metrics about your system through customer experience improvement programs (if you opt in)
No personal information is sent to microsoft so they are don't spy you as you mentioned.
more info can be found at
http://www.microsoft.com/products/ceip/en-us/default.mspx
0 Votes
+ -
That they don't collect any personal information. And yet, there's a huge outcry for them doing that, yet the same people defend Microsoft for doing the same thing.
0 Votes
+ -
What evidence?
ye 3rd Nov 2010
@zkiwi: Are you claiming Microsoft's wares are secure?
Or for that matter reliable. Ah well, of course any evidence to the contrary are mere trifles or anecdotes.


I have yet to see any credible evidence to the contrary.
0 Votes
+ -
@ye
zkiwi 3rd Nov 2010
It's not that you haven't seen any, it's that you will not accept any. A big difference.
0 Votes
+ -
Credible evidence?
jasonp@... 3rd Nov 2010
@ye
Seriously. You've seen no credible evidence that Microsoft has had security problems in the past. Apparently news outlets and the internet have done a wonderful job of hiding that information from you by reporting on them from time to time. Maybe you recall SQL Slammer? Nimda? Code Red? Melissa? VBS/LoveLetter? Blaster? Sasser? Any of those ring a bell? I uderstand you like the view when your head is up your arse, but surely you can pull it out every once in a while.
0 Votes
+ -
Like I said:
ye 3rd Nov 2010
@zkiwi: 's not that you haven't seen any, it's that you will not accept any.

"I have yet to see any credible evidence to the contrary."

Take note of the highlighted word. Present something credible and we can talk.
0 Votes
+ -
@jasonp@...: Apparently news outlets and the internet have done a wonderful job of hiding that information from you by reporting on them from time to time. Maybe you recall SQL Slammer? Nimda? Code Red? Melissa? VBS/LoveLetter? Blaster? Sasser? Any of those ring a bell?

Not that Windows is insecure. They all took advantage of bugs. Bugs are not design flaws. Every OS has bugs. Furthermore the infections were made worse by insecure default configurations.

Windows is quite secure if you use it securely (i.e. not the default configuration in earlier versions (2000 and XP).

And finally: Nothing like dredging up vulnerabilities from a decade ago to comment on the current state of the Windows. My how desperate you are.
0 Votes
+ -
@ye
zkiwi 3rd Nov 2010
Credible evidence is all over the place, but you will not see because you don't want to.

Oh look, I can boldface too. Nah, that's only an anecdote, I really have no evidence that I can boldface type that is credible.
0 Votes
+ -
MS has serious problems with security
Tom6 Updated - 4th Nov 2010
@Cylon Centurion 0005. Ever heard of viruses or malware?

If you were a virus writer would it make more sense to go for individual desktop machines and affect machines 1 at a time or go for server machines and take-down significant infrasture wiping thousands of machines at a time?

60% of servers run linux, less than 1% run Windows and so we almost never hear of servers getting infested.

Desktops, on the other hand, constantly have problems which anti-virus companies profit from greatly. MicroSoft claims 90% dominance of the 1 market where anti-virus and malware problems are rife.

People choose Windows when they don't know enough or care enough about security.
Regards from
Tom
0 Votes
+ -
Naive in the extreme
Economister Updated - 2nd Nov 2010
"If a government department doesn't even bother to consider the service you have to offer, for whatever reason they may or may not give, perhaps ask yourselves why."

Have you lived under a rock these last many years. You are automatically assuming government competence.

Could it be that you are unable to recognize incompetence if you see/experience it - ANYWHERE?
0 Votes
+ -
Government and Incompetence are synonomous
LiquidLearner Updated - 2nd Nov 2010
@Economister

That said, there are some serious advantages Exchange Online + SharePoint have over Google Apps. In fact the two aren't even remotely competitive, having extensively used both. I still move users to Google Apps when the need fits but most prefer BPOS. And Google Apps is much cheaper and/or free depending on the size and type of business.

Google has decided that rather than build a product that allows users to continue their current work flow with the additional features as an added capability or option that they are going to decide how they feel users should work and how the service should function. I don't think there is anything wrong with that but it will most definitely cost them contracts like this. Combined with some other features Microsoft offers, like the ability to have a hosted + on-premise solution and data localization, I can see why the government would go the Microsoft route. That said they may have just thrown darts at the wall and picked who it hit.

I do agree with your earlier point on privacy. I think the Google privacy issue is overblown. Sure they've gone too far in the past, as has Microsoft, but I'm not going to hold them over the fire over every mistake either company has ever made. As for who has the more secure online service, I'd wager they are likely on par with each other. I doubt you'll have either service directly hacked any time in the near future outside of guessing or capturing a user's password. The entire service though? No, probably not.
Nice to see another one who gets it. Google wasn't chosen because their solution didn't meet the needs of the government. Well thats just part of it, the other parts are that Google has privacy issues, their apps are just too new and haven't been tested, and it doesn't meet the governments needs. I know I said the last one twice, but it has to be reiterated so that they will stop crying and work on improving their products instead of sitting around playing with office toys. Its time Google faced the music, they lost the bid based on the quality of their software.
0 Votes
+ -
Tweedledee and Tweedledum (NT)
Economister 2nd Nov 2010
@Loverock Davidson
> because they chose Microsoft?s locked-down rival cloud service instead.

I think the point is that the FRQ specified a particular vendor with inadequate (if there even could be sufficient) justification. Whether it was Microsoft or something else is inconsequential.
0 Votes
+ -
Poor Google
jpr75_z 2nd Nov 2010
I wouldn't use their crapapps either. No surprise there. Then factor in their CEO's complete insensitivity to personal privacy... Gee why would the government say no....?
@jpr75_z ,

but you foget Los Angeles, wyoming, oregon that have gone google. Here is the list of customers http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/customers.html
What does it matter how good the apps are if the government never even considered using them?
How would they know if they are good or not?
@Theli

In a government bid process they list their requirements. Google didn't meet their requirements so they didn't even bother submitting a bid. I'm guessing you don't have much experience with this? Not a slam on you, just saying it doesn't work like the private sector.

It is not up to the agency to go looking for solutions. They post what they want and companies look and then bid based on those requirements. Almost all government contracts are handled in such a fashion. Which is why I don't buy that it was slanted towards Microsoft. I don't think they looked at what MS offered and then did their request for bids. Just Microsoft offered a solution that fit.
@LiquidLearner

do you happen to know what kind of people are in charge of making those decisions in the gov?
frequently they are biased or have "other interests" on choosing a company.

"They post what they want and companies look and bid based on those requirements" - Google wasn't allowed to bid...
government in cahoots with the insecure microsoft, is this news anymore ?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix