Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses
What I love about Google's battle with Microsoft so far is that they've been playing to Microsoft's weaknesses rather than attempting to confront the colossus head-on. No Word-feature-complete attempts, instead they target the use cases where everyone runs into trouble with Microsoft products. Most recently, they've launched an informal collaboration version of Google Apps. The idea is to let people at a company collaborate without having to involve the IT department. Anyone who works at a company with an IT department knows why this is a good thing.
More generally, Google are tackling Microsoft by providing tools and reasons that embody "it's better on the web". Now the Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security are helping to build that case as well. The Washington Post has an article on cellphone, cameras, and laptops being seized as people enter the US. What better reason to keep your data on the web than to avoid losing your $2,000 laptop as you pass through the passport desk?
The killer quote for me was:
"We just access our information through the Internet," said Lou Brzezinski, a partner at Blaney McMurtry, a major Toronto law firm. That approach also holds risks, but "those are hacking risks as opposed to search risks," he said.
Naturally you must assume that your data stored on the web are already accessible by the fascist state police, but at least you're not losing your laptop as well as your privacy. I've just finished Cory Doctorow's Little Brother and its setting (police state California) seems more relevant with each passing day.
How long until we see a Google Apps with crypto in an un-subpoenable nation?
tags: web 2.0
| comments: 9
| Sphere It
submit: 
0 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/6284
Comments: 9
How long until we see Google as an even larger threat than all our combined governments?
It really is criminal how both visitors and returning residents have to succumb to a Guantanamo-like limbo when entering the US. At least the EFF is putting up a fight:
http://logicalextremes.blogspot.com/2008/02/eff-sues-dhs-over-intrusive-border.html
I DISAGREE!
I planned on using Google Docs to collaborate with a friend on my second book. Then I read their "Terms of Service." It essentially said: "Google owns everything, and you suck!"
No way I would EVER use Google Docs for anything important. I really think O'Reilly's legal team should take a peek at Google's terms, just to make sure you own what you think you own.
Now... if they made a Google Docs appliance for the enterprise... then we'd have something!
Have pity on the rest of us about Cory Doctorow's new book. First Tim, now you. But Amazon says it's not out til April. Can we at least have the first chapter??
Liz
Have pity on the rest of us about Cory Doctorow's new book. First Tim, now you. But Amazon says it's not out til April. Can we at least have the first chapter??
Liz
"The idea is to let people at a company collaborate without having to involve the IT department. Anyone who works at a company with an IT department knows why this is a good thing."
And anybody who works in an IT department or a legal department knows why that's a TERRIBLE thing.
Let's just transmit our proprietary corporate documents in plain text across the entire Internet, for the whole world to see as they traverse the globe, and then store them on Google's servers - who will now own the documents, per their terms of service.
This is a good thing? IT departments have policies against such things for a reason.
Don't get me wrong - there are great things about Google. This just isn't one of them.
This is a good thing? IT departments have policies against such things for a reason.
Surely businesses have these policies and IT Departments merely enact and enforce the policies. If the business is happy then the IT Department is - which tail is wagging which dog?
Also - it's probably horses for courses; most of what is produced and shared electronically isn't worth the worry of it being found. If it has a high risk factor attached (say a contract negotiation) then other means should be found. However I suspect an online store would merely replace emailing a Word document - and isn't that just a different way to "transmit our proprietary corporate documents in plain text across the entire Internet,"
The Terms of Service posted on the Google Docs and Spreadsheets site assigns content rights of anything saved on Doc and Spreadsheets to Google. Here’s the wording from the mighty Google itself:
“… you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services…”
There are many good things about Google. This is certainly not one of them.
Post A Comment:
STAY CONNECTED
RECENT COMMENTS
- Gote Borg on Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses: The Terms of Service po...
- Mike Riversdale on Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses: This is a good thing? I...
- Michael Langford on Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses: "The idea is to let peo...
- Liz Castro on Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses: Have pity on the rest o...
- Liz Castro on Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses: Have pity on the rest o...
- bex on Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses: I DISAGREE! I planned ...
- Logical Extremes on Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses: It really is criminal h...
- Info Hamecher on Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses: How long until we see G...
- Michael Sparks on Google Plays to Microsoft's Weaknesses: "The Washington Post ha...
RADAR TOPICS
Michael Sparks [02.08.08 03:42 AM]
"The Washington Post has an article on cellphone, cameras, and laptops being seized as people enter the US."
That's really quite nasty :-( I doubt I'm the only one staying away from tech conferences in the US due to the sorts of restrictions on entering the US these days... It was nasty enough being fingerprinted like a criminal on the way in & out last time (and finding a note in my baggage saying it'd been rummanged through - after they'd broken the zipper othe baggage) but confiscating property?