Google Apps to Become Paid Service

FredDC writes "Business Week reports Google Apps is becoming a paid service soon for companies who wish to use it for their domain. Disney and Pixar are reportedly thinking about switching to Google Apps instead of using Microsoft Office. Could this be the end of a monopoly? Or the start of a new one?"

Pixar's considering Google Apps?

WTF? Why is Pixar considering Google Apps? Isn't Apple's .mac service up to scratch?

Anyway, I've been using Apps for my personal domain for quite a while. It's pretty great for a freebie - just point your mx records at google, create an admin account and google takes care of everything else. Setup catch all accounts, gmail accounts for different users, calender, gtalk, etc are all there.

But I won't continue to use it if it costs anything. Like I said, its great for a freebie.

Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps?

Maybe because Microsoft Office won't be a Universal binary until later this year?

I don't expect people to read the article, but at least read the comment you're replying to.

Google Apps for your domain is not an online office suite, but a gmail, gtalk, gcalender, etc for your domain.

Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps?

So it's the killer widget instead of the killer office suite? Maybe Apple should be scared then. :P

It's an exchange killer, not an office killer.

Apple and Google don't compete. Apple has no need to be afraid of Google.

Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps?

Ever hear of Writely [google.com]? Google Spreadsheets [google.com]? Presently [slashdot.org]? Why on earth would you assume that the current (beta) incarnation of Google Apps for Your Domain is anything more than an initial offering?

Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps?

Probably because it would seem weird for all *Pixar* employees to have "@mac.com" email addresses. .Mac is really an excellent service for the home user. For the enterprise, not so much (nor is it intended to be).

Pixar and Disney going with Google Apps would have significant implications (all good, I think) for .Mac.

Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps?

.mac isn't an application suite - it's basically a shared disk (the 'iDisk'), a webmail interface (although 'Mail' is much better), and a place to put your website. Oh, you can sync your address book through it as well... It has peripheral advantages, if you use other mac apps ... the "casting" abilities of the iApps, for example, where I can publish/subscribe to various document-formats (eg: iPhoto does 'photocasts'); it's only really being used as a network-shared disk in this instance though.

It's actually one of the few things I think must have slipped under Steve's radar - I don't think .Mac is worth the money.

Simon.

Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps?

1) "You don't have to install FF to find out, just read the linked article (I know, I know, I'm obviously new)."

I did read the article, I picked up on:

Google Inc. (GOOG ) is finally about to take a big leap onto Microsoft's turf. Since last August, the search leader has offered a test version of an online office productivity software suite, called Google Apps for Your Domain, ...

... and sort of expected "office productivity suite" to include word-processing and spreadsheets, since they do *have* those. But you're right in as much as they don't do these *yet* ... farther on in the paragraph there is:

Soon, it's expected to add word-processing and spreadsheet services to the suite, which includes an online calendar, chat service, and Web page builder

2) "Install Firefox. It works with more websites than Safari"

I just don't like Firefox - I've never had a great experience with it, and I have no need of google apps, so I'm happy as I am, thanks.

Simon

Re:Pixar's considering Google Apps?

That statement was pulled out of their asses. The Google Apps page has always said it would be free for beta, and then after beta, new signups will be charged. I know, because the company I work for has made the switch. We were looking for new email hosting at the time anyhow, and that came up as a recommendation. After weighing the alternatives, and treating GMail as if it was costing the same as the others (so as not to give it unfair advantage in our minds, as it has to be GOOD for our company) we still chose GMail.

There has been a few snags. No IMAP, POP3 implementation sucks, SMTP and POP3 both require use of secure ports, no folders (tags instead, useless to a pop3 client), and some (minor, temporary) hassles now and then with adding email lists, names to email lists, new accounts, and setting forwards.

If I had my vote again, I might choose to have the company pay for a managed email solution... But were on it, and weve worked out most of the kinks. And I love GMails interface. Ive given up on Thunderbird and just use the web interface now.

Gamma

Wait, does this mean a Google product is out of beta? Stop the presses!!!

Re:Gamma

I know it isn't the point, but take a look at the keyboard in these pictures:

http://www.activewin.com/screenshots/officexpkeybo ard/images/officekeyboard.JPG [activewin.com]
http://home.uchicago.edu/~iyjung/bigpictures/48.jp g [uchicago.edu]

That is the way MS is pushing for layouts. Do you notice that the Insert key isn't there? It's now a control key off of some other random key. Which key that is will change between just about every keyboard model.

Sure, we can keep the Caps Lock key in the wrong place, hell, even on dedicated key at all, but we get rid of the Insert key. Go figure.

price

Is google apps nice? Yes. Very. I love gmail, docs & spreadsheets... everything Google does. Is it better than Microsoft products? Only if price is a concern.

Yes, Microsoft is the great evil, but they used to be "cool," kind of the way Google is now.

Source?

This is only going to become a paid service for those who want to host it themselves. If you are going to continue to use Google's server's then the price remains free.

Where do you get that information? It wasn't in the article.

When I signed up for Google Apps for Your Domain a few months ago, they said that they would eventually start charging for new user accounts, but user accounts that already exist will remain free when they transition to a paid service.

Let's see...

Buying Microsoft Office = expensive.
Using Google Apps = US$ X per year.
Downloading Open Office = free, except for the bandwidth (which you need to connect to Google Apps anyway).

If I was in charge of a small company, I know what that company would use... and what solution would be the best to preserve it from our friends at the SPA.

Re:Let's see...

Contrary to the title, it's not MS-Office that google is going after, it is Exchange.

Every Exchange admin I have ever spoken with claims that it is a nightmare to set up and maintain. There is a trend now to outsource that functionality. Google is targeting that market.

Exchange a big obstacle to Linux Adoption

I have read many times that its the lack of MS Exchange on *nix desktops that is the major stumbling block for a lot of businesses that have considered switching. If so, its fine by me if Google can offer an alternative to Exchange functionality for business users. Its much more likely that any google solution will be *nix compatible than anything MS will offer in the future.

Now, if there was only some way Google could wrest control over the games industry from Microsoft and let game developers develop for alternative platforms a bit easier. My gaming habits are the only thing keeping me from leaving XP completely. I am not likely to stop gaming, I can't/won't play consoles, and the future looks pretty MS monopolistic to me unless something changes. I think there are a lot of people like me out there too.

Hopefully both!

It wouldn't bother me one bit if the monopoly shifted from Microsoft to Google. They both have proven track records, both opposite.

Start of a new one

I'm sorry but it's been a long while since I have felt comfortable with Google's 'do no evil' mantra. They are a billion dollar company with shareholders to report to. I wouldn't be suprised if in 5-10 years we see the same sort of slashback here we see now for MS applied to Google. I particularly don't like the way the toolbar trawls my PC for information to report back to the Googel servers. It was at that point I stopped seeing them as saviours and more like the circling vultures they may well turn out to be.

Google

All your email belong to us.

Support

I cant wait to see their corporate solutions. I also cant wait to see what proprietary bull Microsoft will pull to try and lesson the Google competition.

Google server in a box?

I cant imagine a real company allowing its data to be housed outside its control. But if google sells a server in a box that houses all the apps needed to meet most of the documents needed, it could make sense. IT takes care of maintaining this big server. And all the other people use stripped down pc with no USB dongle, no print screen, no copy-paste that runs a simple browser to create the documents and with a full audit trail for all printed copies, it makes sense. Really. Companies are paranoid about security. Currently any document in the intranet server can be saved to usb thumb drive, cut/paste into emails, or forwarded via emails ... If Google or any company can promise a full information lock-down to the management, they will get a sympathetic ear.

Re:Google server in a box?

I cant imagine a real company allowing its data to be housed outside its control.

Guess what: a lot of real companies can't imagine trusting their most important data to only their in-house IT guys. Otherwise there wouldn't be successful companies that handle the outsourcing of hosted apps, backups, e-commerce, and so on. And there are. There are also plenty of companies that thought they had it all under control internally, and totally blew it.

News for today: Author Spreads Paranoia

Could this be the end of a monopoly? Or the start of a new one?"

It's only a monopoly when there's one ridiculously successful entity (or a group of aligned entities) that holds control over the market. This would only be a monopoly if Microsoft Office crashed and burned. This also completely discounts OpenOffice which has picked up a lot of steam recently. Just because Google has proven the "Do No Evil" catchphrase to be bogus, it doesn't mean that they can create a monopoly out of thin air.

Leads to open formats

The use of Google Apps will not create a monopoly. Rather, it will precede a shift to real open formats (i.e., not Microsoft's XML implementations) which are application agnostic. Interfaces, rather than applications, are what must be open to truly benefit consumers.

Since slashdot is now slashvertising

I'll be happy to speak about our Contnent Managment, Office and software as a service solutions. Give me a call toll free or visit my website for more info.

Can a day go by where google doesn't make frontpage for doing something millions of other companies already do (and are frankly better at)

thanks

Uh oh

Google is doing what Microsoft has dreamed about forever - turn computer platforms into monthly revenue generators. This has been the source of erotic dreams for Microsoft executives forever. I don't care how cool a web application is, there is just something fundamentally wrong with having my productivity depend on someone else's servers.

In some measure, this is already the case - how many people at work haven't searched online for solutions to problems encountered at work. This being one form of online dependence. This is a far cry from depending on an outside server. Think about the exposure to DoS attacks that this makes your company? Corporate war is just around the corner. Get a botnet to bring down your competitor's internet and their entire workforce productivity drops to zero.

Additionally, just wait until some security hole opens up and a lawyer's documents are hacked into because they are being edited online.

This is just a bad, bad idea on its face.

Tinfoil hat time

Simply because a tiger hasn't eaten your face yet doesn't mean it won't in the future. We should be as suspicious of google as we are of any other big software company. Just because they have a catchy bumper sticker slogan doesn't inoculate them to the temptations of corporate culture.

Re:Tinfoil hat time

Should we be suspicious of every large business that started out small? At what point does a small, presumably non-corporate business become "big" and full of the "temptations of corporate culture"?

Google's shareholders have virtually no voice in the operation of the company, remember? How can a company be answerable to people that never had a real voice in the company in the first place?

Cautious? Sure. Suspicious? I'm not sure.

Re:Tinfoil hat time

Should we be suspicious of every large business that started out small?

Yes. (Then again, I tend to be very cynical about companies in general.)

At what point does a small, presumably non-corporate business become "big" and full of the "temptations of corporate culture"?

Hard to say, but if you can influence back door sessions of state legislatures I think that's a good indication you've crossed the boundary.

Re:Tinfoil hat time

Not answerable per-se, but any company with shareholders (in most countries, including the US) is legally obliged to ensure that it acts in the best interests of the company as a whole and the shareholders in particular.

Not true.

The officers of a corporation *are* legally required to operate the company in accordance with the articles of incorporation that define what the company's goals are. In most cases, a key goal in the articles is to increase shareholder value. But companies can (and are) formed with very different goals in mind. I could start a company whose primary goal is to waste its investors' cash as rapidly as possible while avoiding acquiring any tangible assets (the "Brewster's Millions" goal), and I would then be legally at risk if I were to invest shareholders' money in anything that might return a profit. Of course, it would probably be hard to find investors.

In Google's case, I'm not sure exactly what the articles of incorporation say, but I suspect they contain at least some of the things found in Google's IPO Letter [google.com]. If that's true, then Google's execs do not, in fact, have the same obligation to focus on improving shareholder value that most company's do. Even if it's not in the articles of incorporation, the fact that Google made clear to potential investors that its primary goal is "to develop services that significantly improve the lives of as many people as possible" and that Google's leadership intends to focus on the long term even at the expense of the short term, means that shareholders can't claim that they expected Google to act outside of those parameters.

Working against all that, of course, is the fact that those who are in control at Google are also shareholders and see significant personal financial gain from increased stock price.

And when I'm not connected?

Let's pretend $MegaCorp dumps MS Office and implements Google apps. What the fuck am I supposed to use to write my documents, spreadsheets and now presentations if I'm in a car, plane, train, backwards country -- wherever I can't jack into the Net? Notepad?

Locally installed apps still...

This won't even put a dent in the M$ office suite installed base, because locally installed apps still work when the network is down and/or having problems.

Later,
-Slashdot Junky

Current users...

Like others here, I currently use this free service. It'd seem that based on the fine print, current users of the Beta should not be affected by the non-free service:

*Organizations accepted by Google during the Google Apps for Your Domain beta period are eligible for free service for their approved beta users even beyond the end of the beta period, as described in the Terms of Service.

No, because of a little thing called legacy data

Seriously, for all the Web-based e-mail/office applications, I'm surprised at how little effort or thought is put towards migrating legacy data. SugarCRM and Gmail at least have some import capabilities (Outlook contacts in CSV format) but what about all of your old mail, calendar items, to-do/task lists, Excel macros, and Access databases? Every time one of my colleagues suggests yet-another-Web-based AJAX office suite, I shake my head and wonder how they expect existing organizations and individuals to switch without some sort of well-planned migration strategy?

Look, I'm not expecting some nifty migration wizard to automagically convert my existing data to $shinyWebbyOfficeSuite (I've been through enough Novell to Microsoft migrations to know that never works) but I'd like to see one of these would-be Office alternatives make a concerted effort to bring me on board besides marketing and hype.

What, no spelling Nazis?

Where are the pedants decrying the spelling of the word "innstead"? Shame on you all!

Hang on a second... I think I just poured mockery on myself.

Obvious problems...

I think virtually any office environment would be insane fools to replace Microsoft Office with Google's apps. I'm really stunned that nobody on /. has pointed out the glaringly obvious problems:

1. The Internet

If for any reason the company loses it's internet access (this NEVER happens) that company has NO access to any of their internal data yet they still have to pay for that non-existant access. One fiber cut or lightning strike can knock out internet access for days for many companies. If they were running Google apps they'd basically have to completely close up shop for that period.

2. Performance

These are web apps, so they're inherently slow. Google Docs and spreadsheets slows to a crawl with very large documents. Gmail in an account with thousands of emails is painful.

3. Data integrity

Google encourages users in the software to store all their documents on Google's servers, not locally. Is google willing to guarentee those documents availability? Are they doing regular backups? I happen to know that they don't. My gmail account has spontaneously lost mail, for example.

4. Security

Security on Google apps is feeble and basic, you might as well publish all your internal information to the web.

5. Features

Google apps only have a tiny fraction of the features of MS Office, or even OpenOffice. Unless you're only doing very basic tasks, Google's apps lack features you are currently using.

I want to expand on this last point. The feature-set of the google apps is INCREDIBLY sparse compared to MS Office. Gmail is nice for webmail, but it's SLOW and has only a crude filtering mechanism (no folders = retarded) nowhere NEAR as sophisticated as Outlook, or any of a dozen proper email applications. Many of Google's own employees complained quite loudly when the company switched from Exchange to Gmail due to the lack of features, particularly in regards to Google Calendaring, which sucks. Their spreadsheet app apparently has no graph or reporting capabilites. None.

The whole ASP concept is basically snake oil. Vendor lock-in at it's absolute worst.

Since when is Google Apps an office suite?

A replacement for Outlook and Exchange, maybe. But "Google Apps for Your Domain", the service in question, isn't an office suite.

It is:

1. Domain registration
2. Website hosting
3. Email hosting (with POP and webmail)
4. Calendar hosting (with CalDav and web-based calendaring)
5. Chat (Jabber-based, can tie-in with Google Talk)

It is *NOT* a replacement for Word, Excel, or PowerPoint. That is 'Google Docs & Spreadsheet' (minus the presentation software, which is rumored to be coming soon.)

How about 'neither'

I dont see them killing off MSO, nor becoming anything other then a 'fad'.

The professional world in general isnt ready for 3rd party hosting of their daily bread and butter apps, yet. Someday perhaps, but after being stung from the last attempt at a return to the concept of ASPs, not many will step up to the plate again for a while.

google apps at universities

They aren't trying to replace Office (though if they include the Google Docs and Spreadsheet and PPT thing I'd be happy) - they are trying to replace corporate mail systems. Harvard
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516036 [thecrimson.com] has been looking into it and I'd be thrilled if they do use a GMail like interface because the current FAS webmail system is a piece of tripe. (I logged into it once and then went back to SSH and pine - some departments don't even have a webmail interface because the damn thing is so bad).

The added storage space and some savings you'd get from moving to Google Apps is nice but a lot of students (well in Physics,astronomy anyway) still need to be able to SSH in and start a remote X session, which I don't see happening soon, so they are still going to have to spend money on their own servers. As the article points out Google isn't without competition - Windows has Live @edu (run away) and there is .mac (which needs to allow something.edu before its going anywhere and it'd be nice to have a Windows/*nix port of Backup). Personally I think the best solution for Harvard at least is to shut up and spend money and buy additional space, and redesign the webmail client (just keep pine around).

Sarbanes-Oxley implications?

Does anybody know what the implications of Sarbanes-Oxley are for doing this? After all, Disney is a public company, and SOX has a number of regulations regarding how public companies are permitted to store their data. Are hosted apps ok?

Charging for BETA?

Does that mean Google is going to drop the "Beta" testing? Who charges for beta apps?

Commercial monopolies don't last

Microsoft holds a monopoly on Office software (arguably not OS software any more), and that monopoly is rapidly being undone by web-based companies that provide software their customers prefer - as Microsoft has been worried about since the mid-90s.

Remind me again why we needed the DOJ to persecute Microsoft for decades?

Pick Your Platform

This could be quite nice. It could potentially meant that, if all documents are in a web-based tool, my underlying platform becomes less relevant. I could use my company-issued POS, or I could use my MacBook. Who cares, so long as I have a browser?

OTOH, I'd have to rely on internet access. I couldn't work on my documents in a plane.

Disney, Pixar, you mean Steve Jobs is trying to fu

ck Microsoft? With the help of Google? Who would have thought? That's why Gates is getting a little jumpy...

Gist of Article Missed

I can't find anywhere that it says the service is to become a paid service. The article talks about everything but that. Now I suspect that some or all of it MAY become non-free, in fact the sign-up makes that pretty clear. It also says that people who sign up during the beta will continue to get the service for free.

Only thing in this article about paying anything though is that Microsoft has a competing product for $39/mo and that Google employees get "paid massages", maybe whoever wrote the summary was thinking of paid messages or something.

No new monopoly as it currently exists

This can't create a new monopoly (as it currently exists) since you can save your documents to your own machine in ODF, MS, or PDF format. The monopoly is in the lack of interoperability of file formats - not in applications. That's the whole point of the ODF standard - to allow different applications to operate on a file. Google Apps goes even one further since there are even more formats available. Now, if Google prevented you from saving your documents then that would be a different matter.

Disney/Pixar aren't *actually* considering Google.

Come on people, we've seen this game before. Disney/Pixar are conveniently "evaluating" Google Apps so that Microsoft will be pressured to lower their prices on MS Office.

This is the same thing that happened with Linux in the late 1990's. Companies would leak and/or hint that they were doing a serious evaluation of Linux, and Microsoft would suddenly swoop in with deep discounts. In the end, though, Linux actually did take a chunk of that market away from Microsoft, which is why Microsoft now goes to such great lengths to publish a bunch of lies about TCO.

I think the MS Office alternatives are now where Linux was in the late 1990's -- some serious evaluations, some early adopters, but the big migrations are probably still a few years away.

Rumors

I am often amazed by the accuracy of the Apple and Google rumors. I guess it was about a year go that it was reported that Google was going to be creating a web based competition for Office and Google denied it. Now it is coming true and this is pretty much the case for most Apple rumors.

I wonder who is driving the market in these cases. Given the expense of development time I would like to think that the corporation are having information leaks, but could it be possible that WEB 2.0 is helping shape the business that we talk about so much. Could Apple be secretly keeping tabs on all of these post from site to site and trying to get information on which rumors are the most popular.

I hate to think of the time it would take to initiate this CIA style department of a corporations, and I find it highly unlikely, but after today I think I am going to start keeping a chart of all the rumors that come out for the main stream development firms and charting how many of them come true.

No news here

It has been known since day 1 when google apps for your domain became available that it would eventually become a paid service. The company that I work for with over 100 users has migrated to corporate hosted gmail, google calendar, google docs, and a jotspot wiki. Our sales people use an on demand CRM system and our consultants use an on demand project management/billing/invoicing system. We are total on demand. The only in-house servers that we have are strictly for internal development and testing of our Web Services code by our programmers. Even our code repository is ASP hosted.

Google Apps is not going to replace Office

Google Apps are not going to replace Office any time soon.

  1) A web based interface does not stack up to a native gui app.
  2) Google Apps are not full featured.
  3) Security. Shopping list on google servers - sure, why not.
        My personal financial information - not a chance.
        Corporate Data - You are kidding me, right?
  4) Availability - no internet connection. no Google Apps.
   

but

What happens if you are unhappy with Google's offerings, and want to move to another platform? How do you get your users emails and calender events out if your email solution does not support IMAP or give you access to the raw data in a proprietary format?
We are not even considering Exchange as we have 500GB of emails for 200 employees with the largest mailboxes being well over 10GB, but whatever we use, we want the option to move to something else if we need to. Is that an option with Gmail?

Why hasn't anyone called out Google on this?

Google's word processor and spreadsheet app have an interface which have a striking similar UI to that of Microsoft Office 2007's (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2007 #User_interface [wikipedia.org])

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Docs_&_Spreads heets [wikipedia.org], docs and spreadsheets went public in October 2006, but Microsoft publicly showed Office 12 as early as September 2005 (see http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2005/09/13/4 64879.aspx [msdn.com])

Why hasn't anyone called out Google on this? Had Microsoft done it, Slashdot would have been up in arms!

And no, I'm not new here.

how the fuck can goolge be a monopoly?

there is nothing to lock you into goolge apps aside from contractual argreements. the web raises no technical barrier to change, hence it's not going to be an Ms style monopoly.

Re:Not Newsworthy

RTFA. As has been said above, it's not about Office, it's about Exchange.