post

Sun’s Web-search Enabled StarOffice Now Included in Google Pack

The announcement is not a surprise (update: Sun kept the surprise for tomorrow) since Google Operating System outed it days ago: Google now includes Sun’s StarOffice, previously costing $70 in their free Google Pack. As you could expect, reactions range for labeling it as Google goes after Microsoft again (the New York Times) through shrugging it off to declaring a Microsoft victory.

Microsoft’s Don Dodge asks:

What has changed? Star Office has been around for 8 years and has gained no traction.

I can’t believe he does not know the answer: it’s mass distribution, getting installed “by default” (even if selectable), that’s what’s changed.

Donna Bogatin, Defender of the Faith (in Microsoft, that, is) goes further, claiming this move a victory for Microsoft:

Who needs Microsoft Office? Who needs the Microsoft Desktop? StarOffice, Google do. WHAT ARE THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOGLE PACK? You must have Microsoft Windows XP or Windows Vista. SO, every Google Pack download with, or without, Sun StarOffice, is a MICROSOFT WIN!

Wow, what a discovery, the OS monopoly means a victory for Microsoft even as their applications are replaced by competing products … I don’t think Microsoft would have loved this argument in the antitrust case. She goes even further:

Sun StarOffice itself needs Microsoft Office, big time. The StarOffice value proposition is Microsoft Office dependent: “Now you can have a full-featured office productivity suite that’s compatible with Microsoft Office at just a slice of the cost.”

Donna obviously mixes compatibility with dependency. Of course Office app vendors strive for MS compatibility, that’s simple due to the Microsoft monopoly no-one (other than Microsoft) would question. But to call the fact that these products are actually replacing MS Office a win for Microsoft is a stretch to say the least. In fact Donna spins so masterfully, is she ever goes into politics, she’ll have a safe place at the O’Reilly Factor on FOX News. Oh, and Donna, how about opening up comments on your blog?

Dan Farber at ZDNet is a lot more balanced, and he asks the right question:

But is StarOffice, Google Apps or whatever Adobe, Zoho, Zimbra, ThinkFree and others are doing a game changer, massive disruptors that will eviscerate Microsoft’s super-profitable Office business and free users from .doc and .xls tyranny?

Tyranny is the key word here. The Office monopoly means that millions of people are using it out of fear – fear of losing compatibility, or perhaps simply due to inertia. StarOffice will not be an absolute “winner” by itself, nor will the rumored Adobe product – but, along with the web-based offering from Google, Zoho and ThinkFree, together they make a dent… lots of small dents, for that matter.

Personally I am a big fan of Web-based services, and I don’t ever want to see bloatware that needs to be installed and constantly upgraded on my computer – unless it provides vital functions that are not available online (yet). But I understand it’s a matter of preferences. If I still was a world traveler like Vinnie, I’d probably prefer to have my apps and data “in a box”, too. Offline or online, the choice will largely depend on our lifestyles, and the need to collaborate or not.

What’s important is a behavioral, cultural change, the fact that business and millions of individuals – employees, students, freelancers, moonlighters, small business workers.. anyone – realize that they no longer need a Microsoft product to stay compatible.

You and I are likely using different email products or services. Yet we can email to each other flawlessly. Why wouldn’t the Office market be the same? If When we have a market with several capable products, when users don’t accept the default, but select based on features, service, price … you name it, i.e. when they have choice – we all win. Be it offline or online.

Update (8/16): Oh, you Fools, don’t you know that mindshare is everything?

post

Texty: Not All Good Names Are Taken, After All

The best thing about Texty may be its name. TechCrunch calls it Dead Simple Content Creation And Editing. You just start typing in a simplified editing window on their site, add images if you want to, do some formatting, click a button and pick up an embed code to include in your site.

The result: WYSINWYG: What You See Is NOT What You Get. Your page is a container, it has a little javascript code, but the actual text body is on Texty’s site. The text appears to be there, you can read it, but it does not show up on Google Reader, and certainly does not get indexed by Google or any other search engines: you lose findability.

Of course there may very well be situations when the ability to send / publish a piece in multiple copies, while you retain the ability to centrally update it is beneficial. In fact a Zoho Writer user “discovered” this months ago. Some of Owen Kelly’s scenarios:

  • Centrally update his resume, while it’s posted in multiple places
  • Submitting academic paper for a conference – organizers want to publish it early, while it still goes through iterations

(Read the full essay here: Zoho for distributed publication.)

The score for Texty: good for some (distributed publishing), dangerous for others ( no search, text may disappear if the service goes belly up). And, as we’ve just seen, it’s nothing new.

But I have to give it to them (whoever they are) they got just the right name: it’s catchy, simple, and actually tells what they do. I can’t believe such a name was still available! I guess *not* All Good Product Names Are Taken, after all. smile_shades

post

Why Google’s Storage Pricing is Not a Rip-off

If you have a Gmail account, check the ever-growing counter at the bottom: it stopped counting. My Google apps accounts are frozen at 2048MB, non-branded gmail accounts at 2886MB. (I was wrong, the counter still runs. Thanks for the correction, Tony ) Which is not to say you can’t get more storage, as we know yesterday Google announced their pricing:

  • 6 GB – $20.00
  • 25 GB – $75.00
  • 100 GB – $250.00
  • 250 GB – $500.00

Some say it’s a rip-off: I tend to disagree… or let’s just say it depends what other Google services will be covered by the “shared storage”.

It’s already more than just Gmail, so it’s not fair to compare it to Yahoo Mail, which offers unlimited storage (who really needs unlimited email?). Besides, productivity-minded hardcore Gmail fans who find Yahoo mail inferior won’t switch just for the sake of free storage. Features count, after all. Talk about which, you do have to pay to get some of features, e.g. POP access on Yahoo Mail – that’s free on Gmail.
The Flickr comparison isn’t fair, either. Granted, if all I want is unlimited photo storage, a Flickr or Zooomr Pro account is a better deal – but Google has more goodies in their bag.

Think of what happens if when Docs and Spreadsheets – or whatever the eventual name will be, when it includes presentations, JotSpot ..etc. – will become all covered by the shared storage package. Now you have a complete productivity suite on the Web. Not counting photos, music and videos, it’s still hard to reach stratospheric storage requirements – but as you use Word, Excel less often, and most of your “new” stuff is in the cloud, you may start wondering if you should have ALL your documents uploaded, searchable, linkable, backed-up – the whole enchilada.

Both Yahoo and Google have a range of services, and very different pricing policies. Comparing storage on its own is misleading: we should look at the overall value we get from a full productivity suite + storage. If Google chooses not to charge for the apps, only storage, it’s not a bad combo, overall you can get more functionality for your $ then with Yahoo. $20 a year ($1.66 a month!) does not seem that much. By the way, you’re likely spending more on Microsoft Office now smile_omg

Related posts: Andy Beal’s Marketing Pilgrim, Search Engine Land, Between the Lines, Computerworld, ParisLemon, Insider Chatter, Google Blogoscoped, Googlified, Mark Evans, Geek Speaker, VentureBeat, Web Strategy, jkOnTheRun, Googling Google, Damien Mulley, Download Squad, Mashable!, mathewingram.com/work.

post

Google Storage Price: Fastest Inflation Ever

As I’ve reported before, this morning several Gmail users found their accounts had 9030MB storage, instead of the typical 2.8G. A few hours later Google Blogoscoped and Google Operating System discovered that we can now purchase additonal storage on Google, via this account management screen. Here’s the price scheme they reported (annual prices):

  • 6 GB – $1.00
  • 25 GB – $75.00
  • 100 GB – $250.00
  • 250 GB – $500.00

If you think 6G for $1 per year is too good a deal, you’re right. By the time I tried it, the price for 6G was $20. The $1 price was not a typo though: see Philipp Lenssen’s screenshot and order receipt for the $1 pricing.

From $1 to $20 in minutes – that’s probably a world record in inflation…

Has anyone else grabbed it for $1?

Also see: Mashable!, Infectious Greed, Venturebeat, Official Google Blog, VentureBeat, ParisLemon.

Update: I can’t help but wonder about the timing: is Google trying to rain on Microsoft’s parade? They’ve just announced Windows Live SkyDrive– whith a whopping thumbs_down 500Mb of online storage. 500Mb sure goes a long way .. where’s the upgrade option?

Stories on SkyDrive: Read/WriteWeb, Mashable!, All about Microsoft, Windows Connected, One Microsoft Way , Insider Chatter, Don Dodge, jkOnTheRun, Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life and Geek Speaker , TechCrunch.

Update (8/10): The Gmail storage counter stopped counting / growing. My Google apps accounts are frozen at 2048MB, non-branded gmail accounts at 2886MB. Michael Arrington said it right:

Today Google said they were not going to play that game any more. They effectively took their toys and went home. I never thought I’d see that.

post

Gmail Testing (Selling?) More Storage

While most “average” email users are content with Gmai’s 2G storage, others are close to hitting the ceiling – see Paul Kedrosky’s rant on how he’d like to buy more space, but can’t.

This morning a Chris Selland reported seeing 9G – 9030 MB, to be exact. A search on Google and Technorati doesn’t bring up anything – I wonder if he is a randomly picked participant in Google’s early test. If you read this, please check your Gmail account, and comment back if you’re is increased.

Thanks.

Update. This appears to be the real thing – see also comments below. Mashable reports the same. While these appear to be randomly picked accounts and the additional storage simply became available free, Google Operating System talks about a pay-for-storage theme that would be available across several Google services. Ionut quotes these annual prices:

  • 6 GB – $1.00
  • 25 GB – $75.00
  • 100 GB – $250.00
  • 250 GB – $500.00

These options are accessible via the account management page now, however, the $1 for 6G deal appears to be a typo, I’m seeing 6 GB ($20.00 per year); the other prices are correct.

See update on the pricing here.

post

Attachments are Evil – Link, don’t Send

Well.. not fully .. just yet. But I’ve argued it would be so in a recent post: Flow vs. Structure: Escaping From the Document & Directory Jungle.

Forget attachments, the version control nightmare, software incompatibility issues, storage requirements: share documents by URL. That’s what the newly released Zoho Viewer enables you to do with your Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint files as well as PDF, RTF, ODF and OpenOffice documents. It’s private, not indexed by Google or other search engines, so you don’t have to worry about leaking confidential data, yet you can easily share documents, right from the Viewer interface, or by using the URL it generates. Essentially it’s a TinyURL, SnipURL ..etc for documents, with additional options, like embedding the URL, tracking the number of views, or even editing your uploaded doc’s with the relevant Zoho programs.

While it’s really simple to use, here’s an intro video :

Attachments are Evil… smile_angry

Related posts: Lifehacker, Wired, TechCrunch, Digital Inspiration, Zoho Blogs.

Update: (2/13/08):  ReadWriteWeb introduces PDFMeNot, a similar service for PDF’s only.

post

Microsoft’s Software plus Service: The Missing Component

Microsoft laid out its web-based strategy at their recent annual meeting with financial analysts. Pressed by first of all Google, but even smaller players like Zoho and ThinkFree, Microsoft announced they will add similar services to their Office products, first of all Word and Excel.

We’re not moving toward a world of thin computing,” said CEO Steve Ballmer, referring to systems in which simple processing takes place on a PC, but more complex processing is moved to a centralized computer through a network connection. “We’re moving toward a world of software plus services.”

A few days later Microsoft’s half-hearted announcement (leak?) about giving away free, ad-supported versions of its baby-office, MS Works 9 sparked speculation if this would in fact turn out to be a Software plus Service offering.

Let me reveal a secret: I’ve been using Microsoft’s “software plus services” for years – long before the term was coined. Microsoft Money, the product I was forced to switch to when my bank abandoned Quicken support 7 years ago is a classic example of software plus services. The client software came with a browser-like UI, smoothly connecting online services into the basics ran on my PC. In fact switching between screens I often did not realize whether I was working offline or online. Isn’t that what “software plus services” is all about?

Money was a latecomer to the personal financial management scene, clearly dominated by Intuit’s Quicken, and in the first few years it got better and better … perhaps Microsoft’s intention was to kill Intuit after they could not buy it. When it didn’t happen, they must have lost interest – the annual Money upgrades brought less and less new features or even bug fixes, and smart users started to skip releases between upgrades. Then trouble started left and right: weird things happened to my accounts beyond my control. Categorization? I’ve long given up on it, most of my downloaded data is associated with junk categories. The real bad part: data changed in existing accounts, very old transactions downloaded again into already reconciled months..etc. This is my bank account, my money we’re talking about! The very data I meticulously took care of while in my possession now got randomly changed. The only way to be really sure I have the right balances was (is) to go and verify them at the individual bank or broker sites.

But none of this compares to the total ignorance Microsoft showed when they “upgraded” Online Banking on the 19th of July. There was no prior warning, or an option to upgrade at a later time when I logged on, I was simply notified that an upgrade *had taken place*, and that I no longer have access to my online accounts until I do a bunch of house-cleaning:

In order to update successfully, you will need to disable the existing online services for some of your accounts, set up those accounts again so that they will use the updated service, and then merge the old and new accounts.

Of course it’s not that simple, first I had to process all pending downloaded transactions, then back-up Money, then proceed with the task above. Oh, and the poison pill: merging accounts. I had the misfortune of doing it at a previous Money upgrade, and merge it didn’t… I ended up with zillions of duplicate entries to be cleaned manually. But I had no choice… I wanted to make a payment, and Microsoft locked me out of my accounts – so I started laboring away, around midnight. This time (unlike many) I was actually lucky: after about two hours, I was all set, the merges worked this time, and I was ready to make the payment – the 2-minute transaction I started 2 hours earlier.

(Update: Telling quote from a Microsoft employee:

This past weekend I got the most horrible and scary warning from Money. Just reading the instructions on how to keep using Money with Online Banking is enough to make this computer professional run screaming from my office. The instructions are 24 freaking pages!!! longer than the manual for the product. I seriously almost went to the “Add / Remove Programs” Control Panel to fix the problem.)

Now, if you’re a regular reader, you’ve probably noticed my anti-Microsoft leaning, and I don’t deny it: we all (well except Mac users) share the frustration of failed updates, the pleasure of patching the patches after Black Tuesdays – what is there to like? But none of that is comparable to a software company ignorantly cutting off their users’ access to their own money, (and I don’t mean *MS Money*smile_omg) and not even feel the need to apologize. It’s the absolute Cardinal Sin. And now this company wants me to put my trust in their services?

I’d much rather trust Wesabe with my money matters – their user groups are lively, full of advice, the CEO himself participates, in fact he is taking user calls 7 days a week. The full truth is, I have not switched yet, as they lack in functionality vs. Money, but I can’t wait….

Back to the title of this post – what’s the component Microsoft does not have to offer Software plus Service? It’s Customer Focus. It’s simply not in their DNA. It will be hard to deliver *Service* when your customers don’t trust you.

Update#2: Omar Shahine, a Microsoft employee responded – it’s worth reading in full, in fact I’ve just suscribed to his blog. I’m just quoting a few excerpts:

I absolutely empathize with this post on Software + Services by Zoli. As a long time user of Microsoft Money, I am this close to outsourcing the software part to Wesabe…

Now, I don’t agree that Microsoft lacks Customer Focus. That’s saying that all 70,000 employees lack customer focus…

I certainly don’t mean to imply that all 70,000 employees lack customer focus. They may all have the best intentions, it’s the end result that counts, the company’s interaction (or lack of) with Customers, and that’s often through products.
Money issue aside, I think it we add up the time spent with bungled patches, rebuilding Outlook profiles..etc, we (computer users) ALL lost days of our lives to Microsoft.
That’s bad enough, but can mostly be attributed to unintentional technical glitches. The Money Online Update was “Crossing the Rubicon”: Somebody in Microsoft had to make a deliberate decision that it was OK to cut off customers access to their financials without first telling them, giving them options, or even apologizing after the fact. That makes the *company* blatantly ignorant – despite the best intentions of those 70K employees.smile_sad


Update #3
: Further evidence of Customer Focus, the Wesabe way. I suppose they did not intend to pile on, but their comments got held for moderation, so they did not see each other’s.

And in perfect timing, here’s an article on Customer service 2.0, the Zoho way. The two stories they link to are worth reading – somewhat similar to what I’ve talked about here. Beliefs are important – but in our materialistic world, there is always the “What’s in it for them?” question. Well, it *pays* to focus on your customers. It may well be Zoho’s key differentiator, why users stick with them, instead of the default Goo-rilla. smile_tongue
It certainly paid another company, Atlassian which grew to over $20M in revenue without a sales force. “Support is Sales for us” – they claim (PDF), and the numbers back them up.

Update (8/8): Wow, interesting timing: Today Microsoft released Microsoft Money Plus, the 2008 version of the Money products. It comes in four editions: editions: Essentials, Deluxe, Premium, and Home & Business. Well, almost. Microsoft offers a nice comparison chart, which neglects to mention a small detail, available only at the footnotes:

* Important note – Microsoft Money Essentials will not be able to open previous Money or Quicken files. If you are upgrading from a previous version of Money or Quicken, Money Plus Deluxe may be the right solution for you.

Not opening Quicken … well, it’s their decision. But not opening data from their very own previous releases? And this is hidden in the small print?

I rest my case.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
post

When Google Juice Hurts

msapple

Today my blog is getting a lot of hits from the Google search “Microsoft Office 2008”. This is typically a good indication that something newsworthy has just happened… and there we go, it’s on TechMeme: Microsoft Delays Office 2008 for the Mac. Actually, a delay by Microsoft is almost not newsworthy – shipping on time would be smile_omg

Now, the only problem is that all those readers driven to my blog by Google are probably disappointed: my old post from June 2006 is not about what later became Office 2008: back than I was poking fun at yet-another Microsoft delay, declaring that if Office 2007 slipped any further, Microsoft might as well call it Office 2008. A few weeks after this post MS announced they’d be using the Office 2008 moniker for the Mac software.

Sorry to disappoint anyone, I have no clue how this little post became the #1 search result on Google for Office 2008.

For information on the *real* Office 2008 you’re better off reading these posts: Ars Technica, ParisLemon, LucaFiligheddu.com, Neowin.net, Apple 2.0, Macworld, Office Evolution, Mac Mojo, Microsoft News Tracker, Compiler, Computerworld, BetaNews , MacUser, O’Grady’s PowerPage , CyberNet Technology News, Lifehacker, Web Worker Daily,

Tags: , , ,

post

Microsoft Works 9: Ad-Supported, Free

Download Squad summarily writes off Microsoft Works:

It’s always been sort of an ironic name for a product, because it just barely works.

I strongly disagree – at least with the “always” part. In the late 80’s Works was my main productivity suite: I was happily crunching numbers, generating charts, including them as well as data from my database in word-processing documents. In other words, I had a perfectly working and lightweight integrated office suite at the time when Word, Excel and Powerpoint were part of a suite only in name, but moving data between them was a major pain. It had to be lightweight: my laptop had 640K memory (that’s K, not MB!) and two 720k floppy drives – no hard-disk at all. Yet it was happily churning away with Works.

Once again, Microsoft had a perfectly working integrated suite 20 years ago, they just decided to downplay it favoring the higher margin, high-end but fragmented products, which took years to become a true Office Suite. As a result, by today Download Squad may be right:

Sure, if all you need is a basic spreadsheet, calendar, or word processor, MS Works will do. But since it can’t handle most MS Office documents, Works is barely worth the $50 you’d have to pay if you actually went out and bought a copy.

I doubt a lot of users shelled out $50, since Works has long been the default product OEM’s installed on (low-end) PC’s – but soon it may be entirely free, reports ZDNet:

“If ad revenues exceed 67 cents per year, we could actually give Works away and still make more money,” two Microsoft researchers and one person from MSN stated in a paper presented to Chairman Bill Gates at a Thinkweek brainstorming session earlier this year.”

“This year” in the above quote refers to 2005. It only took Microsoft to make up their minds two yearssmile_wink

Of course the question that everyone asks is whether Works will be enough to fend off Google, Zoho, ThinkFree, the online office suites invading Microsoft’s turf.

bbcI don’t think they are comparable: Works is still just a client-based, personal productivity tool. If you’re looking to get off the desktop, use web-based, anywhere-accessible, sharable, collaborative products – Works just does not cut it. Update: apparently BBC News thinks so, too.

But the ad-supported Works can’t be entirely client-based: MS will have to pipe in those ads somehow. And once you’re connected, they can start serving up more than just ads – could this become a “Software plus Service” offering one day?

Although Software plus Service is a new buzzword, Microsoft has been doing it with years – more about that in the next post.

More on the subject: TechCrunch, Andy Beal’s Marketing Pilgrim, Compiler, PC World: Techlog, One Microsoft Way , IP Telephony, VoIP, Broadband, Profy, Lifehack, Phil Wainewright, All about Microsoft, Read/WriteWeb,

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

post

Why Would We Need a New Desktop OS?

I’m glad to see ZDNet agrees with me. David Berlin poses the question: By 2010, will Windows ‘Seven’ (or any desktop OS) really matter? My question a few days ago was: Windows Seven in 2010. Does Anyone Still Care?

David goes on to explain how almost everything he does nowadays is done in the browser – that is online. His experience with installed software is painful – like the recent Vista upgrade. As for myself, I still have to cool off before I can tell you how badly a forced Microsoft Money update scr***d me and all online banking users. Arrogant ignorance by Microsoft, as usual.

On the other hand, are these new Windows versions getting any better? We can read stories of high-profile bloggers switching back to XP, analyst firms advising their CIO clients NOT to upgrade to Vista, but today is the first time we here a major PC manufacturer (Acer’s President) clearly labeling Windows Vista a flop. Technically as well as commercially.

“The whole industry is disappointed with Windows Vista”

“Users are voting with their feet …. Many business customers have specifically asked for Windows XP to be installed on their new machines”

It’s great that he can now openly say this – a few years ago Microsoft would have penalized Acer.
Analysts think the problem is that consumers prefer lower-cost machines that might not work well with Vista.

“Most of the machines I see pitched in catalogs are in the $700 range, certainly under $1,000,”
“Computers with that amount of hardware are a better fit for XP. With Vista’s requirements, people may be thinking about sticking with XP, and putting less money into the hardware.”

Exactly. But this is a chicken-end-egg issue: why would anyone want to buy stronger hardware just to run a new Operating System? It only makes sense for tangible benefits, i.e. gaming, video editing..etc. Otherwise, buying more powerful machines only so they can be bogged down by Vista (or Windows Seven for that matter) is meaningless arms race. For productivity / business use, the trend is just the opposite: with the move to Web Applications, wee need less CPU, storage, memory (well, maybe not that, with zillions of FireFox tabs open…). Since I switched to Web Apps, I barely ever hear the fan come up in my trusted old laptopsmile_wink

I’m confused though:

“Microsoft reports Microsoft itself says Vista has been a smashing success, saying it had already sold 20 million Vista licences by March.”

With consumers not buying, corporate CIO’s not upgrading, manufacturers being disappointed … where did those 20 million customers come from?

Update (7/23): It’s really amazing how Donna Bogatin does not get it. She writes off David Berlind’s article as simply based on the author’s personal computing habits… Web Worker Daily, can you hear this? Microsoft OS extinction case? What are you talking about, Donna? I re-read and re-read the Berlind piece and don’t see it. That’s not what he (and I) are talking about. But here’s another ZDNet-er, Ryan Stewart coming to our rescue: in case it’s not clear, what we’re saying is The desktop OS will still matter, just not which one.

P.S. Donna’s blog does not allow commenting. What a surprise…

Related posts: /Message, Dvorak Uncensored, ParisLemon, Wired,

Update (8/9):  a very good analysis by eWeek: Broken Windows

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,