Comments on: Google Apps Premier Edition: Is Google Changing The World Again?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:33:00 +0000

“Assuming you didn't have a battery backup”
My desktops do have battery backups, and my laptop has its battery. So given a power loss, I'll have plenty of time to get my document saved. Wouldn't work today if my internet dropped and I'm using Google Apps.
So, FireFox 3 eh? Their official roadmap doesn't really mention Offline Apps. It's only buried in 2 lines of the feature spreadsheet – I wonder how deep the support will really be.

By: Dustin Weber

Dustin Weber — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:26:00 +0000

Right, but the Google Search Appliance doesn't require babying or monitoring. You basically, plug it in to your data, set a few things up, and it just works.
That's how the Google App Appliance would work too. You wouldn't need staff to manage complex servers. You just have one (or two redundant) box(es) sitting there in the rack looking all colorful and cool making all the other servers jealous.
As far as licensing go's, I'm guessing Google would vastly undercut Microsoft's costs. No one offers anything comparable to the Google Search Appliance for the price (last I heard). I don't think Google is interested in licensing as much as MS. I'm guessing you would purchase the appliance based on how many users, but that would be the limit. No client costs for the desktop, no server licensing, no server costs at all!
Like I told EJ, many of the head-hanchos at Firefox are employed by Google. Guess what Firefox 3 is going to support? Offline applications.. (ie: offline google apps). That will change the way some users do their work.. I predict.
Let's just wait and see what happens!
- Dustin Weber

By: Dustin Weber

Dustin Weber — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:19:00 +0000

Word doesn't autosave after every letter you type. It does it every few minutes, just like Google Apps does... so how is it any different? Assuming you didn't have a battery backup, the only situation that would be different was if the storm caused your computer to stay on and your internet connection to be lost (not likely).
Besides, guess where many of the head-hanchos of Firefox work? Google!
It's no surprise, in my opinion, that Firefox 3 will support offline applications (ie: Google Apps offline). That would allow you to work on your precious documents anywhere offline.
Until then, you could always save your Google app document in word/excel format, or any number of different formats to work on off-line.
You could even use ::gasp:: open-office to do your work offline! The callaboration feature of Google apps is what is truly killer. You should check it out if you haven't yet.
In the mean time, let's wait and see what Google does. If Firefox 3 supports offline apps, we'll see a paradigm shift in this arena (IMHO).
- Dustin Weber

By: Dustin Weber

Dustin Weber — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:11:00 +0000

I think it all depends on a particular business or home user. I know many companies I've worked for (both small and large) that have serious problems with mail never getting sent/received properly. Especially anything international.. servers, routers, switches, connections.. there are so many points of failure, but all that is off topic.
Let's just put the debate on hold and see what Google does. I bet we'll see a change in the IT culture as Google moves in to compete with MS.
- Dustin Weber

By: Dustin Weber

Dustin Weber — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:08:00 +0000

I don't use it currently, but I have plenty. It is good, you are right... but it's too complicated. There is something to be said for simple elegance.
Let's just wait and see what happens. I'll revisit this topic in a year or so and it will be interesting to see what happens.
- Dustin Weber

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:35:00 +0000

[quote]I mean just imagine reducing staffing, server, licensing, (etc.) costs by simply adding in one box[quote]
I thought that you were promotion the Google hosted approach? Doesn't the Appliance model make Google Apps just like any other mail server? I would imagine that they would charge for licensing on the appliance. Otherwise, they wouldn't have the services based income that all of the software companies are trying to get. That is what this is about. Microsoft, Google, etc want you to pay to use services and have no control over the nuts and bolts. Microsoft is also planning an online office suite. I wouldn't want to use Microsoft's either. I will stick to my desktop application. If I am on the road, I don't want to be required to have an Internet connection so that I can write a document.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:58:00 +0000

Security is big, no doubt. And see my other post regarding an Apps Appliance.
Just out of curiousity, what is your experience with corporate email/calendar functionality? I've been very impressed with the Exchange->Outlook->Sharepoint Server combo that Microsoft continues to make advances in. Have you seen Sharepoint and the recent versions of Office and what they're really capable of?
I'm not saying that Microsoft is or is not the way to go, but that's what many companies are indeed paying for right now. And I would venture to say they are getting their money's worth.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:42:00 +0000

I thought we were talking strictly about small businesses – not a home user. Home users typically can't be bothered to backup an important file or two on their desktops, let alone run their own backup servers.
Regardless, I do think that when they come out with an App Appliance (I haven't heard anything about one, but it just makes too much sense for them to NOT make one), they're going to get a lot of people on board. But until then they'll just have a lot of convincing to do.
Personally, I'd still be hesitant on using web-based office apps. I mean, what do you do if you're in the middle of working on some document and a storm pops up outside, knocking out your internet connection? What can you do? Sure it “autosaved” some minutes ago – but what about the last few minutes (or longer) of work? I take for granted that I can hit Save and know my data is saved.
Then there's the issue of being offline and wanting to get some work done – in a car, for instance. What can I do, type in notepad and paste into Google Whatever later?
I just don't see enough advantages for Google Apps over desktop office suites. For price and functionality it's just hard to beat things like OpenOffice – and I don't need an internet connection to get work done.
Google Apps is cool – but I'll take my desktop apps, thanks.

By: Dustin Weber

Dustin Weber — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:38:00 +0000

Well, it's obvious that the real concern in the end is security. You'll likely have a similar amount of reliability either way you go.. with each having it's own advantages/disadvantages.
I know a lot of the talk out there from the naysayers (like you) centers around security.. and Google has to be addressing it soon. There is a reason they hire the best & the brightest PHD's constantly?
I predict you'll see a huge rise in Google Apps popularity as soon as they do, especially if they offer a "Google Apps Appliance". It would be tough to defeat it then, right?
As far as the phrase "you get what you pay for", consider this:
Mercedez-benz cars: In the US, they are looked upon as a status symbol because of their price/rarity. They are expensive cars with a reputation of "German Craftsmanship".. right? Unfortunately, they are some of the least reliable cars on the road. I can't find the article (didn't really search all that hard), but Consumer Reports recently had an article saying a Lexus from the early 90's was in the shop less (and cost less to repair) than a 2006 Benz. The same article stated that many of MB models were among the least reliable cars on the road. So, MB owners, are you getting what you paid for?
What about IT spending on email/calendar functionality? Are we getting what we pay for?
- Dustin Weber

By: Dustin Weber

Dustin Weber — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:26:00 +0000

Right, but we were talking about the average home user weren't we? I mean, are we to assume that home users would have backup servers? I mean it's smart, but maybe not totally possible in all circumstances (if the main mail server was in your basement, for example).
But regardless, if we are talking about a large business.. it really comes down to cost & reliability & security. Google wins on security and reliability (would you agree?), bu t I'll admit that they haven't answered the security aspect of it yet.
I would be willing to bet they'll address it fairly soon. They offer the Google Search Appliance which is an incredible piece of hardware... I'm sure the Google App Appliance is the next big thing.
I don't think Google is gonna capitalize on this baby immediately, but I think it's inevitable. If the hardware could be put in a companies server room, I'd be willing to bet that a large number of companies will take the jump.
I mean just imagine reducing staffing, server, licensing, (etc.) costs by simply adding in one box.
- Dustin Weber

By: Dustin Weber

Dustin Weber — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:14:00 +0000

OK, well obviously all the large, medium, & small businesses that have chosen to use Google's services didn't know this.
I wonder how they made the decision? Do you think Proctor & Gamble, GE, and L'Oreal just ignored these facts? Someone should send them this vital information, heh. I wonder if we aren't getting the whole picture for that ruling?
- Dustin Weber

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:10:00 +0000

Sometimes, I like to poop.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:57:00 +0000

[quote] So whatâ€™s more important? Being able to â€˜cacheâ€™ outgoing mail during an outage while losing all incoming email (in-house approach) or not being able to â€˜cacheâ€™ outgoing mail but still successfully keeping all incoming email (Google approach).[quote]
Incoming mail would not be lost. As EJ said that is what backup MX records are for. That is also why SMTP has retry timers and re-delivery logic. If your server is down for a short amount of time (4-5 days) you will still receive all of the incoming mail when the connection is restored. That is why the SMTP standard exists. Also, if incoming mail is lost during that time it is the fault of the sender's servers not complying with the standard. I run my mail server off of a DSL connection and I have never had an outage more than a couple of hours. Businesses with enterprise circuits (T-1, T-3) have less downtime than that. (SMTP retry information from Section 4.5.4 of RFC2821)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:36:00 +0000

There is also the fact the if your email is stored on anyone else's SMTP server, no matter how short, it can legally be read without your knowledge. Since it is electronic communication it is not covered by the wiretapping laws (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5697267/site/newsweek/ Couldn't find the actual FCC and court ruling). With your own mail servers, the time email is spent on other's SMTP server can be minimized. With Google's solution it is unavoidable. I don't think I would want my internal business email subject to that possibility, no matter how remote.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:40:00 +0000

Yeah, still not convinced
You don't lose incoming mail – that's what properly setup backup mx records are for.
There's obviously something to be said for being able to send critical emails – and if the situation arouse, there are alternatives for such emergencies (go to the local wireless hotspot for an internet connection, for instance).
I still stand on the ground of “control your own destiny”. And honestly, I'd be a little suspicious of relying so heavily on something I only pay $50/year for. My $50/year means absolutely nothing to the uber-giant Google. They could make decisions that ultimately screw me and my data, and what's the recourse? Kick and scream on a blog? The phrase “you get what you pay for” keeps nagging at me.
I don't run a business right now, but I do think I'd stay away from such a service if I did.