Is Google's Enterprise Software Too Cheap?
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
Seems like the perfect opportunity to sell Postini support now that they aren't bundled anymore. Support isn't Google's core competency anyway, they're probably leaving this to others on purpose.
'Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM', remember? It'll take a generation to get rid of the crap, but it will happen. The CIO at USC arranged a campus-wide rollout; more will follow. Once students (who then enter the workforce and, eventually, make decisions) decide that $free >> $discounted for Office, and things like a proper mail merge/track changes/export to Word are implemented, it's all over.
Things like Scribd and ever-improving ajax applications, along with hopefully forthcoming solutions to permit web browsers to exploit multicore 'puter power, should help a lot. It always blows me away when managers make excuses for paying (out of habit) for features that their workers do not use. Free is not always better, but all other things kept equal, free+no-local-maintenance is very good for a company.
The only people really complaining are the middlemen who add no value. Imagine that, technology that makes you add value or get out of the supply chain.
Oh god, not this shit again.
Look at any typical SLA and tell me you don't see a zillion loopholes for lawyers to wriggle around. There's never any real guarantee of service unless an ironclad SLA is hammered out, and I suspect that if Google gets traction with Gmail for Domains, they'll do it.
When I was at Google (2003-2004) we had something like 10 seconds of user-visible outage. That was before Gmail, but it was also with a staff of ~200 people and ~250K servers. I have every reason to believe that Google can still stomp the shit out of all contenders on uptime; they just need some incentive to do it for specific services.
(my $0.02 only; I don't work for Google anymore. In fact I doubt I could ever go back; it would be too depressing to see what's become of the bullpen atmosphere in ops. Even still -- Urs may be the best in the world at what he does.)
When I can walk out the back door and speak directly to the head of the department in charge of our application programming team, or the guys running the servers, and so on, then I feel pretty good about guaranteed uptime. More importantly, I can blame someone when it fails.
Let's presume for a minute that my smallish enterprise was to move to Google Apps, and for some reason completely beyond the control of my people (Google failure, cable cut, whatever), the service goes out. Who do I blame?
You can call it "shit" if that makes you feel better about it. But it certainly doesn't cut any ice for me to walk into the President's office and say "But Google only had 10 seconds of outage in 2003-2004." I'm still fired. Imagine how much worse it would be for someone in a large installation.
When I control the gear, I control what I can and can't accomplish. Unless you can sell me on a serious guarantee of service and compelling functionality...no thanks.
Does Boeing outsource anything? Discuss.
Obviously if you can run everything in-house for cheaper than an organization can do it elsewhere, you should. Large numbers of businesses are discovering that's not the case, or their 10 seconds of downtime isn't actually consequential. (If it is, then having an in-house base of expertise is critical. But an SLA is not the same as an in-house ops department!)
doesn't channel-friendly just mean higher priced?
Postini likely adds a great deal of value to Gmail by virtue of the vastly larger corpus. If that means that Postini is no longer a viable product for 3rd-party deployment, tough shit for the 3rd parties.
What I don't understand is why a Postini user (eg.) wouldn't just switch to Gmail for Domains and forward everything through an IMAP relay.
I originally replied (on autopilot) regarding the existing Google Docs/Applications framework. If they don't merge the entire mess into a rollup offering, I'm going to be flabbergasted.
Hiring 1000 people in a support center in India is a very un-googly thing to do, so I guess Google will keep the prices low and persist educating their customers to be able to use the services themselves. Maybe someone can invent a better way to do just that.
Another excellent reason to adopt them.
"non-scallable phone support"
Here's how to provide the best scalable support: Make your apps easy to use and do exactly what their supposed to without bugs. No need for "support centers". Problem solved. Woo hoo!
Having worked with numerous "enterprise" packages in various capacities, I can assure you that most enterprise software vendors offer something that only barely qualifies as "support" anyway. The difference is that Google isn't lying about their level of support,
A friend higher up than me in business once told me that large corporations are in the business of managing risk. This is in stark contrast to a startup founder's penchant for taking them.