Google: Firms can get rid of Office in a year
Summary
Dave Girouard, president of Google's enterprise division, says Google Docs will reach a "point of capability" next year that will serve the "vast majority's needs."
Topics
SINGAPORE--In a year, most enterprises will have the choice to "get rid of [Microsoft] Office if they chose to", suggests Dave Girouard, president of Google's enterprise division.
Girouard, one of the company's four presidents including founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, said in an interview with ZDNet Asia that he expects Google's online document application, Google Docs, to reach a "point of capability" next year that will serve the "vast majority's needs."
He acknowledged that Docs is currently "much less mature" than Google Mail or Calendar. "We know it. We wouldn't ask people to get rid of Microsoft Office and use Google Docs because it is not mature yet," he said.
But, this is expected to change in a year, when the company's introduces some "thirty to fifty" updates to Docs to beef up the SaaS (software-as-a-service) office suite. These will include updates to features and performance, Girouard said.
"That having been said, I don't think Office will entirely disappear," he added. Instead, Microsoft's offering will become a specialized offering for office workers who need its additional functions, akin to Adobe Photoshop, which is targeted at skilled workers, said Girouard. Microsoft Office is "an overkill tool for most people", he noted.
For more, read "Google: Firms can get rid of Office in a year" on ZDNet Asia.
Just In
already there. But, to unwind all of the huge mess
created my MS Office will take some time.
created my MS Office will take some time.
Google has the BEST talent on board,
Coders who are Open_Source and Linux distro
users who do this because they want to NOT
because they have to.
MS has a huge lethargic monopoly that is like trying
to move frozen molasses to a level playing field.
By the time they can get re-assimilated Google plans
on having their product ready to go.
Plus, ONLINE storage/email/backups/data_archiving/
you name it. Google is in the PERFECT position to
pounce and let the LOWER cost of doing business
pave this highway.
Companies to not want to invest in new hardware
just to run a HUGE Operating System or Office Suites
when Google has what they need and it is secure.
Coders who are Open_Source and Linux distro
users who do this because they want to NOT
because they have to.
MS has a huge lethargic monopoly that is like trying
to move frozen molasses to a level playing field.
By the time they can get re-assimilated Google plans
on having their product ready to go.
Plus, ONLINE storage/email/backups/data_archiving/
you name it. Google is in the PERFECT position to
pounce and let the LOWER cost of doing business
pave this highway.
Companies to not want to invest in new hardware
just to run a HUGE Operating System or Office Suites
when Google has what they need and it is secure.
since hairball of the baroque features in MS Office
are fading fast in importance due to the emergence
of the cloud.
By the time MS figures out what hit them, Google
will have the best features for the 21st century,
and MS Office will still have a tangled legacy of
old features for printing on 8.5x11.
are fading fast in importance due to the emergence
of the cloud.
By the time MS figures out what hit them, Google
will have the best features for the 21st century,
and MS Office will still have a tangled legacy of
old features for printing on 8.5x11.
All well and good. A few questions though. What would happen if:
A) In many situations, even an hour delay of not being able to access company-wide files goes beyond unacceptable. Google cloud is hit with a g-mail-like outage, say in the middle of a work day. What does a company do if the shared documents are mission critical?
B) What assurances can a company that relies on Google Docs have in terms of the security of its potentially valuable data? I'm talking sepcificaly about assurances that go beyond a 'promise' made by one legal entity to another.
C) Company requires any sort of scripting or VBA application development/usage for its mission-critical documents?
I love google docs for personal use, but I just don't see Google being able to address all three with any degree of reliability. I can see the service becoming useful for very low-level importance communications and collaboration, but not any serious work.
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
A) In many situations, even an hour delay of not being able to access company-wide files goes beyond unacceptable. Google cloud is hit with a g-mail-like outage, say in the middle of a work day. What does a company do if the shared documents are mission critical?
B) What assurances can a company that relies on Google Docs have in terms of the security of its potentially valuable data? I'm talking sepcificaly about assurances that go beyond a 'promise' made by one legal entity to another.
C) Company requires any sort of scripting or VBA application development/usage for its mission-critical documents?
I love google docs for personal use, but I just don't see Google being able to address all three with any degree of reliability. I can see the service becoming useful for very low-level importance communications and collaboration, but not any serious work.
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
"A) In many situations, even an hour delay of not being able to access company-wide files goes beyond unacceptable. Google cloud is hit with a g-mail-like outage, say in the middle of a work day. What does a company do if the shared documents are mission critical?."
And What Happend if they have one of their Servers (google) IN HOUSE?
if it is a Big Company i`m sure they will have one of their servers running inside of the customers Company?
And What Happend if they have one of their Servers (google) IN HOUSE?
if it is a Big Company i`m sure they will have one of their servers running inside of the customers Company?
And What Happend if they have one of their Servers (google) IN HOUSE? - TheCableGuyNY
Because they wont - end of story. MS however is already providing that with Office 2010 you buy one corporate license you get both a desktop and a SaaS model. So yes you can host inside your own company Office 2010 SaaS.
I doubt very much you will get the same offer from google any time soon. If you do great. But I doubt it very much - kind of eats at their core biz and ultimately opens up their dirty little secrets to prying eyes 8).
Ultimately this claim that internal hosted stuff exchange, office (huh?), file storage experience more breakdowns that say google is full of it or works in some 10-50 user shop who cant afford to invest in enterprise gear.
Lets say you have 5000 workers. They all need email. With google thats ummm 250K/yr. I've set up a reliable, redundant exchange system with awesome fiber channel storage + all licensing for say $500k. Now lets see by the time year 3 rolls around everythings probably good for 2 more years and I've not only hit the break-even point but I've actually written down my initial outlay by half. Year 4, written down to -0- cost. Add in labor maybe 120K/yr - still in a win by year 5. How about year 6 and 7...
Ultimately when the "fad" fades and people start looking at the books again not what looks good on the front page of a trash rag like zdnet then you might not see the mass defection to google that everyone envisions. All MS would have to do is say cut the price by 25% of the licensing (which they do and more for large account like 90% reduction) and in the end you have less reason.
We'll see but the math still doesnt work out.
Because they wont - end of story. MS however is already providing that with Office 2010 you buy one corporate license you get both a desktop and a SaaS model. So yes you can host inside your own company Office 2010 SaaS.
I doubt very much you will get the same offer from google any time soon. If you do great. But I doubt it very much - kind of eats at their core biz and ultimately opens up their dirty little secrets to prying eyes 8).
Ultimately this claim that internal hosted stuff exchange, office (huh?), file storage experience more breakdowns that say google is full of it or works in some 10-50 user shop who cant afford to invest in enterprise gear.
Lets say you have 5000 workers. They all need email. With google thats ummm 250K/yr. I've set up a reliable, redundant exchange system with awesome fiber channel storage + all licensing for say $500k. Now lets see by the time year 3 rolls around everythings probably good for 2 more years and I've not only hit the break-even point but I've actually written down my initial outlay by half. Year 4, written down to -0- cost. Add in labor maybe 120K/yr - still in a win by year 5. How about year 6 and 7...
Ultimately when the "fad" fades and people start looking at the books again not what looks good on the front page of a trash rag like zdnet then you might not see the mass defection to google that everyone envisions. All MS would have to do is say cut the price by 25% of the licensing (which they do and more for large account like 90% reduction) and in the end you have less reason.
We'll see but the math still doesnt work out.
My company is a Google Enterprise partner, so
I'm probably a bit biased, but I've worked with
Exchange and Windows infrastructure for many
years. Anyway, here are my responses to your
points.
A) This is a serious problem. The unpleasant
fact is, though, many organizations have
internal outages within their own
infrastructure quite often.
B) Google has gone to great lengths to provide
security of Apps content, including SAS 70
certification. I'm far more concerned about
security than most of my peers, and I feel far
more confident storing data in their
infrastructure than I would storing it in that
of most Fortune 500s. The fact is, most
information leakage doesn't come from security
problems in the base infrastructure, but from
users who aren't security conscious, and
arguably you'll have fewer problems with those
users if the actual content is stored in the
cloud rather than on local hard drives.
All that said, it's nice to have those legal
assurances, and you simply don't have those if
you're hosting your own infrastructure.
C). Google App Engine.
http://www.google.com/google-d-
s/scripts/appengine.html
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
I'm probably a bit biased, but I've worked with
Exchange and Windows infrastructure for many
years. Anyway, here are my responses to your
points.
A) This is a serious problem. The unpleasant
fact is, though, many organizations have
internal outages within their own
infrastructure quite often.
B) Google has gone to great lengths to provide
security of Apps content, including SAS 70
certification. I'm far more concerned about
security than most of my peers, and I feel far
more confident storing data in their
infrastructure than I would storing it in that
of most Fortune 500s. The fact is, most
information leakage doesn't come from security
problems in the base infrastructure, but from
users who aren't security conscious, and
arguably you'll have fewer problems with those
users if the actual content is stored in the
cloud rather than on local hard drives.
All that said, it's nice to have those legal
assurances, and you simply don't have those if
you're hosting your own infrastructure.
C). Google App Engine.
http://www.google.com/google-d-
s/scripts/appengine.html
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
1 percent, it seems most disagree with you.
Add to that your obvious hatred of all things Microsoft (or are you just another troll, the jury is stil out on that one) has obviouslly clouded your perception of how things really are, which is why you statements hold no real insight or meaning.
Good luck with that fanasy.
Add to that your obvious hatred of all things Microsoft (or are you just another troll, the jury is stil out on that one) has obviouslly clouded your perception of how things really are, which is why you statements hold no real insight or meaning.
Good luck with that fanasy.
Especially since I already know of a number of major companies already
waiting to migrate over... not counting a number of city governments as
well.
waiting to migrate over... not counting a number of city governments as
well.
We wouldn't ask people to get rid of Microsoft Office and use Google Docs because it is not mature yet
So goole is saying that in a year it will be able to do everything that Office does, yet you said that Office does things (like printing) that nobody wants, yet to have it compete google is trying to add those features themselves.
So it appears that you have been totally incorrect all this time.
And yet you say, to unwind all of the huge mess created my MS Office will take some time, yet no-one says that MS Office makes any kind of mess, except you.
Grasping at straws still, I see.
So goole is saying that in a year it will be able to do everything that Office does, yet you said that Office does things (like printing) that nobody wants, yet to have it compete google is trying to add those features themselves.
So it appears that you have been totally incorrect all this time.
And yet you say, to unwind all of the huge mess created my MS Office will take some time, yet no-one says that MS Office makes any kind of mess, except you.
Grasping at straws still, I see.
I.E. More than people need.
Why pay for extra if you won't use it?
Why pay for extra if you won't use it?
8.5x11. MS Office will be on a downward slide from here
on out.
on out.
What happened to Windows Mobile?
The same thing will happen to the bloated
MS Office with Windows Operating Systems
that take a small SAN to hold the OS.
Good bye and don't forget to defrag the
virus/worm infested drives!
The same thing will happen to the bloated
MS Office with Windows Operating Systems
that take a small SAN to hold the OS.
Good bye and don't forget to defrag the
virus/worm infested drives!
On what planet do you spend most of your time?
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
Good Healthy Competition has already driven Microsoft to make their next version of office with a Hosted SaaS Edition.
Google has had to create Google Wave to compete with Microsoft's office / communcation / colaboration platforms, and it will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.
I think if Google next releases a Backoffice product, Microsoft will be in trouble.
Google has had to create Google Wave to compete with Microsoft's office / communcation / colaboration platforms, and it will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.
I think if Google next releases a Backoffice product, Microsoft will be in trouble.
era of much cheaper, much more functional web based
(with offline support) office suites.
And, more functional has NOTHING to do with baroque
features for printing on 8.5x11 paper.
(with offline support) office suites.
And, more functional has NOTHING to do with baroque
features for printing on 8.5x11 paper.
Paper isn't going away (however much I want it to). Printing is hardly a baroque feature. Formatting is not a baroque feature. Layout is not a baroque feature. Mail Merge is not a baroque feature.
Google isn't even close, and in a year *still* won't be close. Microsoft office isn't just a word processor and mail program and spreadsheet. Access and Power Point are important to a huge percentage of Office users. Office has integration and automation and workflow features that work together. Not to mention an *enormous* base of software written in Office (and for Office and to support Office documents).
Google--not so much. And that's quite aside from the whole security aspect.
Besides, one man's bloat is another man's essential feature.
Google isn't even close, and in a year *still* won't be close. Microsoft office isn't just a word processor and mail program and spreadsheet. Access and Power Point are important to a huge percentage of Office users. Office has integration and automation and workflow features that work together. Not to mention an *enormous* base of software written in Office (and for Office and to support Office documents).
Google--not so much. And that's quite aside from the whole security aspect.
Besides, one man's bloat is another man's essential feature.
not in to a distant future,Google will have their servers running everywhere in the World.and they will dominate they will dominate the storage/computers/cellphone market.
I just wish WordPerfect was available for my Mac at home. WP works better than the word processors made by Microsoft and Google.
Wrong! I can't believe just how out of touch with reality Google really is. They are very arrogant too. most firms cannot get rid of Office in a year. The problem with Google is that it doesn't provide the functionality that Microsoft Office does to allow a business to run and be productive. Google's employees need to put the office toys down for a day and look at the real world around them.
Hmmm, I wonder if that is an apt description for another SW company I know about....
Anyway, you are of course correct in most of what you are saying. The problem is, most users use only a small fraction of what Office can do (and yes, at times different fractions). Office was scoffed at by the incumbents when it first arrived, but MS had DOS/Windows to screw the competitors with and eventually prevailed.
History has a way of repeating itself. MS's iron grip is slipping, and they have not come up with a credible new strategy IMHO. One year is probably ridiculous for most firms, I agree. But Google is on a very steady march forward and they have the vision, the people and the staying power. If I were you, I would feel a bit nervous (since your entire life seems to be wrapped up with MS).
Anyway, you are of course correct in most of what you are saying. The problem is, most users use only a small fraction of what Office can do (and yes, at times different fractions). Office was scoffed at by the incumbents when it first arrived, but MS had DOS/Windows to screw the competitors with and eventually prevailed.
History has a way of repeating itself. MS's iron grip is slipping, and they have not come up with a credible new strategy IMHO. One year is probably ridiculous for most firms, I agree. But Google is on a very steady march forward and they have the vision, the people and the staying power. If I were you, I would feel a bit nervous (since your entire life seems to be wrapped up with MS).
'Anyway, you are of course correct in most of what you are saying. The problem is, most users use only a small fraction of what Office can do (and yes, at times different fractions).'
I'm glad you agknowleged that point. However you missed the next step. Those users that rarely need to use even 10% of Office features, and usually use less still have to work, collaborate, and often-times interface with other end-users in their own company that DO use a LARGE portion of Office features. So unless Google Docs can directly interface with these high-level professionals work in MS Office, nothing else will really matter. At the home desktop/school this would make sense (and even then, wouldn't work for the latter if the major is in any way related to tech, math or business). Fortunately, I believe Google is A) smart enough to realize this and will make sure their system is interoperable with existing MS Office offerings and B) Will make this integration of the two as easy and pain-free as possible to lower the real and mental switiching costs.
In any case, just wanted to muddy up this sharply white/black world folks love to paint in these boards.
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
I'm glad you agknowleged that point. However you missed the next step. Those users that rarely need to use even 10% of Office features, and usually use less still have to work, collaborate, and often-times interface with other end-users in their own company that DO use a LARGE portion of Office features. So unless Google Docs can directly interface with these high-level professionals work in MS Office, nothing else will really matter. At the home desktop/school this would make sense (and even then, wouldn't work for the latter if the major is in any way related to tech, math or business). Fortunately, I believe Google is A) smart enough to realize this and will make sure their system is interoperable with existing MS Office offerings and B) Will make this integration of the two as easy and pain-free as possible to lower the real and mental switiching costs.
In any case, just wanted to muddy up this sharply white/black world folks love to paint in these boards.
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
if you re-read mine, you will find it far from black and white. It is actually quite reasonable, somewhat like yours (except for the parts poking fun at LD, but that is fair game IMHO).
Only the MS pro folks load the doc with this stuff. Once removed, it served the departments purpose. And those MS folks lost cred and moved down the ranks.
Almost no single entity or group of entities in any one corporation
need to use ALL or even the Majority of the features available in Word,
Excel, etc.. Probably the only single app in the entire Office package
that has most of its features used by a majority is Outlook, covering
communications, calender, contacts and pretty much all of the actual
management of a company. Word is grossly overloaded with things
that almost nobody ever uses; Excel has so many arcane features that
even experienced users can't figure them all out and most of the rest
of it is unnecessary for over 95% of the people currently using Office.
Yet Microsoft charges $350 per license (I know, half that for students
and maybe even 1/3 for enterprise clients) for software that may
never even be touched. Add to this the fact that installing the Office
package as a whole takes up something like 30GB of hard drive space,
and you eliminate the less-expensive notebooks and netbooks as
functional enterprise machines that could save the company money. In
other words, the Microsoft Lock-In not only costs you for licenses, but
also for the hardware to run it.
Simply put, most businesses or consumers don't need the bloat
that is Microsoft Office. Now that a number of less-expensive
roughly-equivalent options are available, enterprises are seriously
looking at whether or not they really want to put out that much money
just to maintain the status quo. They didn't need all those functions
before the desktop computer, do they really need them now? In all
seriousness, rather than being a relatively-small support division of
the enterprise, IT has become the single most-expensive outlay in the
corporate world. Anything that can reduce that cost can in turn help
restore and improve profitability in today's troubled times. Being able
to eliminate maybe 2 to 3 Million dollars in recurring expenses on a
single application begins to look very inviting; especially if that can
mean the difference between bankruptcy and profitability.
need to use ALL or even the Majority of the features available in Word,
Excel, etc.. Probably the only single app in the entire Office package
that has most of its features used by a majority is Outlook, covering
communications, calender, contacts and pretty much all of the actual
management of a company. Word is grossly overloaded with things
that almost nobody ever uses; Excel has so many arcane features that
even experienced users can't figure them all out and most of the rest
of it is unnecessary for over 95% of the people currently using Office.
Yet Microsoft charges $350 per license (I know, half that for students
and maybe even 1/3 for enterprise clients) for software that may
never even be touched. Add to this the fact that installing the Office
package as a whole takes up something like 30GB of hard drive space,
and you eliminate the less-expensive notebooks and netbooks as
functional enterprise machines that could save the company money. In
other words, the Microsoft Lock-In not only costs you for licenses, but
also for the hardware to run it.
Simply put, most businesses or consumers don't need the bloat
that is Microsoft Office. Now that a number of less-expensive
roughly-equivalent options are available, enterprises are seriously
looking at whether or not they really want to put out that much money
just to maintain the status quo. They didn't need all those functions
before the desktop computer, do they really need them now? In all
seriousness, rather than being a relatively-small support division of
the enterprise, IT has become the single most-expensive outlay in the
corporate world. Anything that can reduce that cost can in turn help
restore and improve profitability in today's troubled times. Being able
to eliminate maybe 2 to 3 Million dollars in recurring expenses on a
single application begins to look very inviting; especially if that can
mean the difference between bankruptcy and profitability.
He`s trying to defend his Job...
no one likes MS.only the employees...
no one likes MS.only the employees...
You are absolutely right on. MS Office has become so complicated and convoluted that for most mere mortals, doing routine tasks, Office has become so complicated. While the much-touted Ribbon was alleged to simplify things, in so many cases it didn't.
The real "killers" is the absurd thinking that style specifications follow instead of precede the text. Pity, WordPerfect lost--its reveal codes preceded text AND one could see them.
The real "killers" is the absurd thinking that style specifications follow instead of precede the text. Pity, WordPerfect lost--its reveal codes preceded text AND one could see them.
You know, features that are NEEDED day in and day out? And features that other Office Suites do NOT provide?
Can't do it can you? Gonna post a blithe statement aren't you?
Can't do it can you? Gonna post a blithe statement aren't you?
I really can't imagine any decent sized business who would use email hosted by another party. Allowing a third party access to all of your corporate emails and any file attachments - yikes.
For students, regular users like myself, mom & pop, sure, I love google documents. The kids can create a homework paper on there, share it me, their teacher etc. But as a business tool? No way.
For students, regular users like myself, mom & pop, sure, I love google documents. The kids can create a homework paper on there, share it me, their teacher etc. But as a business tool? No way.
I have 200 geographically dispersed personnel
that require access to e-mail and a portal. I'm
also the company helpdesk, webmaster, LAN
Administrator, IT Department Head (mostly warm
a seat in the conference room every so often),
graphics editor, MR Fixit, etc. In short, I
have so many responsibilities that I cannot
possibly do them all as effectively and as
securely as a third party.
2 years ago I believed that Google could do a
better job with e-mail than I could, would
provide an online backup, and would ultimately
provide tools that we hadn't realized a need
for. Today we have several employees using
mobile e-mail devices thanks to the simplicity
of Gmail, we have 3 portals for employees using
Sites, have a company-wide calendaring system,
and only experienced about 8 hours of total e-
mail problems. My users prefer Outlook, so
Gmail is more of a failsafe than a way of life.
All in all, I consider the move to Google Apps
a success.
That said, I don't think Google can deliver on
their promise when it comes to Docs. They've
made some incremental improvements and I know
they're pushing hard to improve browser speeds,
but they are also hampered by their tendencies
to reinvent the wheel. I'm invested in their
plan, but I still believe Microsoft Office will
be an integral part of our business for the
next several years.
that require access to e-mail and a portal. I'm
also the company helpdesk, webmaster, LAN
Administrator, IT Department Head (mostly warm
a seat in the conference room every so often),
graphics editor, MR Fixit, etc. In short, I
have so many responsibilities that I cannot
possibly do them all as effectively and as
securely as a third party.
2 years ago I believed that Google could do a
better job with e-mail than I could, would
provide an online backup, and would ultimately
provide tools that we hadn't realized a need
for. Today we have several employees using
mobile e-mail devices thanks to the simplicity
of Gmail, we have 3 portals for employees using
Sites, have a company-wide calendaring system,
and only experienced about 8 hours of total e-
mail problems. My users prefer Outlook, so
Gmail is more of a failsafe than a way of life.
All in all, I consider the move to Google Apps
a success.
That said, I don't think Google can deliver on
their promise when it comes to Docs. They've
made some incremental improvements and I know
they're pushing hard to improve browser speeds,
but they are also hampered by their tendencies
to reinvent the wheel. I'm invested in their
plan, but I still believe Microsoft Office will
be an integral part of our business for the
next several years.
If it works for your company, great. I guess I'm just too conspiratorial. If I was the CEO of a company, I would not want internal company mails and documents going to Google - knowing that they can be intercepted and read covertly. I wouldn't want them going to MS either, nor anyone else. The potential for abuse - for industrial espionage etc. - is just too great, as far as I see it.
Just play nice and have nothing worth hiding, and you should have no problems! :P
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
I think he was referring to trade secrets, IP, and information that could affect stock prices.
Not nefarious stuff, like putting mercury in baby formula, but stuff like a great new software interface innovation, or a business plan to compete with Google.
Most stuff the average person could care less about, but they don't want to trust it in the hands of MS, Google, or Apple.
I tend to agree.
Not nefarious stuff, like putting mercury in baby formula, but stuff like a great new software interface innovation, or a business plan to compete with Google.
Most stuff the average person could care less about, but they don't want to trust it in the hands of MS, Google, or Apple.
I tend to agree.
Next year we will have a faster wired {docsis 3.0 cable Modens & Verizon Fios} internet connection speed 100Mbps+ everywhere here in the US.and we will have a Fast Wireless Connection (WiMax and LTE Wireless 4G ) 30Mbps+
Thats why the online Storage will start to explode Next year.
http://gizmodo.com/5168035/giz-explains-why-wimax-and-lte-wireless-4g-data-will-blow-your-mind
Thats why the online Storage will start to explode Next year.
http://gizmodo.com/5168035/giz-explains-why-wimax-and-lte-wireless-4g-data-will-blow-your-mind
When you reach Vermont.
"Next year we will have a faster wired {docsis 3.0 cable
Modens & Verizon Fios} internet connection speed 100Mbps+
everywhere here in the US.'
Regretfully this is neither true nor likely to be true until
'negotiated monopolies' are totally eliminated in the 'net-
provider world. As long as one phone company, cable company
or other provider maintains exclusive access to certain rural,
suburban and urban areas, the concepts you describe are a
practical impossibility. As long as they have full control of their
clientele, they will not bother to upgrade their hardware to
something that costs them more money than they've already
spent.
Based on your own user name, you should be quite familiar
with the problem.
Modens & Verizon Fios} internet connection speed 100Mbps+
everywhere here in the US.'
Regretfully this is neither true nor likely to be true until
'negotiated monopolies' are totally eliminated in the 'net-
provider world. As long as one phone company, cable company
or other provider maintains exclusive access to certain rural,
suburban and urban areas, the concepts you describe are a
practical impossibility. As long as they have full control of their
clientele, they will not bother to upgrade their hardware to
something that costs them more money than they've already
spent.
Based on your own user name, you should be quite familiar
with the problem.
The way I understand Google's corporate 'cloud' concept is that
all corporate emails and documents will be housed in a local
'cloud' somewhat similar to Microsoft's Exchange server, only
without Exchange. No data necessarily leaves the corporate
network and all the applications are housed on local servers,
rather than having copies in every desktop machine in house.
This greatly reduces the number of licenses required (by a ratio
of thousands to one) and allows the company to back down to
'smart terminal' level desktops instead of a fully self-contained
machine. This saves millions of dollars in software licenses and
other millions of dollars by purchasing more limited hardware
that no longer needs all the power and capability once
demanded by the software. They'll be able to use any operating
system they choose, or even let each user choose as they wish,
including linux and OS X. And with many corporate servers
already running UNIX in one flavor or another, there's no more
reason to prohibit a sysadmin from choosing to use OS X as
their primary desktop.
all corporate emails and documents will be housed in a local
'cloud' somewhat similar to Microsoft's Exchange server, only
without Exchange. No data necessarily leaves the corporate
network and all the applications are housed on local servers,
rather than having copies in every desktop machine in house.
This greatly reduces the number of licenses required (by a ratio
of thousands to one) and allows the company to back down to
'smart terminal' level desktops instead of a fully self-contained
machine. This saves millions of dollars in software licenses and
other millions of dollars by purchasing more limited hardware
that no longer needs all the power and capability once
demanded by the software. They'll be able to use any operating
system they choose, or even let each user choose as they wish,
including linux and OS X. And with many corporate servers
already running UNIX in one flavor or another, there's no more
reason to prohibit a sysadmin from choosing to use OS X as
their primary desktop.
Looking forward to it. Bye, Bye MS Office!
and it is astonishing how much willing people have become to accept substandard, limited functionality products like Google Docs and Apps. I will NEVER abandon desktop-based full featured product suites like Office. Hell, I'll even take iWork or *Office (Star/Open/Neo/whatever) before I make Google Docs the primary choice.
With Office 2010, let's see how Google contends when Office Web Apps brings much more functionality to online apps. This war is just getting started.
With Office 2010, let's see how Google contends when Office Web Apps brings much more functionality to online apps. This war is just getting started.
Please. Microsoft does NOT deserve money, from ANYONE! They are a criminal organization. EOS!
And don't worry: there's always OpenOffice (or Abiword, or KOffice, or more) for "sufficient for the job" that's not cloud-hosted.
The Microsoft Berlin Wall is coming down.
The Microsoft Berlin Wall is coming down.
Anybody willing to put even more private information on Google servers is crazy. If you need to put things on the Cloud, there are safer and more private places to go for a very reasonable cost.
Look, I really do not understand why so many are knocking MS Office. Really, I do not. I do not use all the features. but I use many of them. On my Linux systems I use Open Office and like it as well, but the interface is NOT as slick and I prefer Office.
Some, maybe many, maybe even most will be able to use Open Office or Google Apps without missing anything. Those people will be thrilled at the lower cost. Others, including many large corporations, will continue to use MS because its integration with MS servers is required and the cost of conversion is great. Over time, even those differences will be minimized.
So imagine this, things will change! Whichever product line comes out on top will feel the ire and complaints from the many Bloggers who make their living blogging. Life will go on.
Some, maybe many, maybe even most will be able to use Open Office or Google Apps without missing anything. Those people will be thrilled at the lower cost. Others, including many large corporations, will continue to use MS because its integration with MS servers is required and the cost of conversion is great. Over time, even those differences will be minimized.
So imagine this, things will change! Whichever product line comes out on top will feel the ire and complaints from the many Bloggers who make their living blogging. Life will go on.
Oh, Logic, how sweet it is.
Software is simply a tool. From the OS itself to the Word Processor, they are all simply tools. And people will use the best tools available at a reasonable price.
Free software does not always meet people's needs, just as some paid for software is not up to par.
Let the best one get my cash. Plain and simple.
Software is simply a tool. From the OS itself to the Word Processor, they are all simply tools. And people will use the best tools available at a reasonable price.
Free software does not always meet people's needs, just as some paid for software is not up to par.
Let the best one get my cash. Plain and simple.
I also find the performance of MS Office, even on my netbook, much snappier. Putting together charts, docs, and diagrams is just faster with a local app, I don't care what anyone says.
Once MS irons out the integration with cloud storage and thier local office apps, I think both MS office online and Google docs will see minimal acceptance. Just because it doesn't cost money to use it doesn't mean it's free.
Once MS irons out the integration with cloud storage and thier local office apps, I think both MS office online and Google docs will see minimal acceptance. Just because it doesn't cost money to use it doesn't mean it's free.
Open Office is available now and I use it excelusively at work 9scientific
engineering) and home.
Lets hope google go the open document route so these two alternatives are
compatible
engineering) and home.
Lets hope google go the open document route so these two alternatives are
compatible
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
