E Tu Google?

[Venardhi]

Well god fucking dammit to the bloody bowels of the underdark.

I should have known it was too good to be true. Nothing lasts forever but why couldn't it just last a little longer this time?

iGoogle has been revamped. With bigger icons, more space between gadgets, some sort of useless toolbar on the left side, etc. etc. Basically making it twice as big, without offering any more functionality and making me have to scroll to see my entire (encompassing 7 whole gadgets, three of which are as small as possible.) iGoogle page.

The whole point of such a page is to be able to have a one-stop jumping off point when I get online, I don't want to have to deal with excessive graphics and an oversized (and currently broken) clock/calender taking up useful real estate.

Does no one appreciate effective use of screen space and minimalist user interfaces anymore? I thought that was Google's mantra?

I've already sent a very stern e-mail and filled out their survey. I encourage you all to do the same. Next time I'm on the other side of the bay I intend to poop on their lawn.

- Vin

EDIT: Typo in the subject line. Can a mod help a trekker out?

 

[Alaedhros]

Vin, may I recommend logging in at google.co.uk? I don't know when google plans to change the UK interface, but until they do (or until you find a new site), it's not a bad workaround.

 

[Psion]

That's a temporary fix at best. Google rolled this out to unsuspecting "volunteers" last summer as part of an experiment, got nearly a thousand complaints and about ten (if that) complements on the new design, refused to let the "volunteers" go back to the old system, then last week announced that after a successful test, they were rolling the new look out to everyone.

Not only is there a huge waste of screen space, but lots of functionality is broken. Even something as basic as moving gadgets between tabs is lost.

To be honest, I like having the tab bar over on the side ... I have plenty of space for it on this display, but it would be a lot nicer if they'd allow for the location of the tab bar to be the user's discretion instead of Google's.

I've been getting hooked on Google Apps recently, using them increasingly in a variety of circumstances with almost no reason not to recommend them. From this experience, I now have a huge reason to second-guess the Google approach.

 

[Alaedhros]

That's a temporary fix at best.

That's true. Unfortunately, it's the only fix I've got. When you've coded up another, let us know?

I've been getting hooked on Google Apps recently, using them increasingly in a variety of circumstances with almost no reason not to recommend them. From this experience, I now have a huge reason to second-guess the Google approach.

This is one of the biggest arguments against "cloud computing", in my opinion. Not only does the data live somewhere else, so do the programs themselves--which means vendors can (and will) change versions whenever they want.

 

[FordSVT]

That's a temporary fix at best.

That's true. Unfortunately, it's the only fix I've got. When you've coded up another, let us know?

I've been getting hooked on Google Apps recently, using them increasingly in a variety of circumstances with almost no reason not to recommend them. From this experience, I now have a huge reason to second-guess the Google approach.

This is one of the biggest arguments against "cloud computing", in my opinion. Not only does the data live somewhere else, so do the programs themselves--which means vendors can (and will) change versions whenever they want.

I like to own my data 100%, and I don't like the idea of HAVING to be online just to use a program I should be perfectly capable of running on my own machine. As memory and processor speed increase, the viability of cloud computing definitely improves, but so again, so does the ability to simply run things on my own computer. Even hand-held tablet computers today are so powerful they can run multiple copies of virtually any application and barely leave a dent on the gigantic hard disk, I don't know why I have to run everything off the net.

I like Word, I click the icon, three seconds later I'm typing. It uses 1/100th of the hard drive space on one of my two disks. This is supposed to be an inconvenience I should suck Google's dick over?

 

[USS KG5]

I like to own my data 100%, and I don't like the idea of HAVING to be online just to use a program I should be perfectly capable of running on my own machine.

Well the whole point going forwards is that the distinction between online and offline becomes blurred, if not totally erased. We are looking at a future where the whole developed world is online pretty much 24/7.

Media distribution is moving towards an on-demand model, software has a good argument for doing the same. Why have a massive infrastructure for updating local copies of Microsoft Office when you can just update your central servers.

With Chrome Google is looking in the direction of an even more radical future, where computers run only a very basic OS locally with virtually everything else served through the "Cloud" - a new age of smart terminals.

As memory and processor speed increase, the viability of cloud computing definitely improves, but so again, so does the ability to simply run things on my own computer.

Well in theory it should make no difference as things move onwards. Cloud applications do not have to run in JavaScript forever, and in fact Google Chrome is already a very fast means of running web applications. Any real grunt work (like rendering video) would be done on a web server - why do you need local speed?

Even hand-held tablet computers today are so powerful they can run multiple copies of virtually any application and barely leave a dent on the gigantic hard disk, I don't know why I have to run everything off the net.

You don't. Ther odds are that local application models (where you buy your shrinkwrapped box with Photoshop or Office in) have a long life left to them, and the "Cloud" for many businesses (like that I IT manage for) is a bit impractical because cheap bandwidth is not really available.

It is all about a more centralised future technologically, and crucially a new business model of "software as a service", based on the principle most of us don't own a car wash, but a lot of us use one. So why pay to own software (like photoshop) you might use once a month?

For Google Office it is early days, and Microsoft's online version of Office is barely off the ground. But the "Cloud" is becoming a force in the IT business because it offers lots of opportunities to make money beyond the model of selling shrinkwrapped boxes.

I like Word, I click the icon, three seconds later I'm typing. It uses 1/100th of the hard drive space on one of my two disks. This is supposed to be an inconvenience I should suck Google's dick over?

Nope - but the whole idea of software-as-a-service is that the Internet is now so universal and powerful that a web based service can start to approach the power of a desktop application.

For users it will be better in many ways - gradual enhancements you pay for on a monthly basis and not a three-yearly big jump that involves a big whack for a new shrinkwrapped box in order to keep up.

It is early days though - and it remains to be seen if Google will be bigger winners in the long run. If Microsoft pull off their goal of having MS Office online with the same abilities and performance as the desktop application - it will still be the best office suite money can buy, and they will keep their market lead.

Either way, I doubt that MS Word is going anwhere in the near future, so don't worry!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I like to own my data 100%, and I don't like the idea of HAVING to be online just to use a program I should be perfectly capable of running on my own machine.

Well the whole point going forwards is that the distinction between online and offline becomes blurred, if not totally erased. We are looking at a future where the whole developed world is online pretty much 24/7.

Media distribution is moving towards an on-demand model, software has a good argument for doing the same. Why have a massive infrastructure for updating local copies of Microsoft Office when you can just update your central servers.

With Chrome Google is looking in the direction of an even more radical future, where computers run only a very basic OS locally with virtually everything else served through the "Cloud" - a new age of smart terminals.

As memory and processor speed increase, the viability of cloud computing definitely improves, but so again, so does the ability to simply run things on my own computer.

Well in theory it should make no difference as things move onwards. Cloud applications do not have to run in JavaScript forever, and in fact Google Chrome is already a very fast means of running web applications. Any real grunt work (like rendering video) would be done on a web server - why do you need local speed?

Even hand-held tablet computers today are so powerful they can run multiple copies of virtually any application and barely leave a dent on the gigantic hard disk, I don't know why I have to run everything off the net.

You don't. Ther odds are that local application models (where you buy your shrinkwrapped box with Photoshop or Office in) have a long life left to them, and the "Cloud" for many businesses (like that I IT manage for) is a bit impractical because cheap bandwidth is not really available.

It is all about a more centralised future technologically, and crucially a new business model of "software as a service", based on the principle most of us don't own a car wash, but a lot of us use one. So why pay to own software (like photoshop) you might use once a month?

For Google Office it is early days, and Microsoft's online version of Office is barely off the ground. But the "Cloud" is becoming a force in the IT business because it offers lots of opportunities to make money beyond the model of selling shrinkwrapped boxes.

I like Word, I click the icon, three seconds later I'm typing. It uses 1/100th of the hard drive space on one of my two disks. This is supposed to be an inconvenience I should suck Google's dick over?

Nope - but the whole idea of software-as-a-service is that the Internet is now so universal and powerful that a web based service can start to approach the power of a desktop application.

For users it will be better in many ways - gradual enhancements you pay for on a monthly basis and not a three-yearly big jump that involves a big whack for a new shrinkwrapped box in order to keep up.

It is early days though - and it remains to be seen if Google will be bigger winners in the long run. If Microsoft pull off their goal of having MS Office online with the same abilities and performance as the desktop application - it will still be the best office suite money can buy, and they will keep their market lead.

Either way, I doubt that MS Word is going anwhere in the near future, so don't worry!

And all this is already happening in the business world. Frameworks like Adobe Flex exist specifically so these "zero footprint" applications can thrive. Companies are finding they can slash their IT costs by employing software-as-a-service (SAAS), rather than having someone manage all their versions locally.

I remember, like you said, Microsoft floating the idea a few years ago of having Office be entirely online, and you'd pay for it on an annual basis, always having the latest version. The infrastructure wasn't really there at that time, but that's changing rapidly.

There are a host of reasons businesses in particular like the SAAS model, too. It reduces their capital investments. Companies like recurrent, predictable fees over irregular, large investments, especially when you factor in the IT cost savings.

In the future, probably only applications that require significant interaction with the local hardware/file system will be hosted locally. But even that line is blurring. It used to be unheard of to be able to watch HD quality video in a streaming format, but it's starting to happen now.

I know it's unpopular with a lot of people. I'm sure the open source community--people who particularly like having control over their software--will keep filling the niche for locally-loaded software. But the big, commercial orgs are likely to settle on the SAAS model.

 

[Alaedhros]

^ Yeah, it makes perfect sense for business and organisations. I don't see it taking off for home users soon, though; why would Joe User prefer SaaS to a local version?

 

[USS KG5]

^ Yeah, it makes perfect sense for business and organisations. I don't see it taking off for home users soon, though; why would Joe User prefer SaaS to a local version?

Well - because it becomes another monthly bill rather than installing and configuring a shrinkwrapped box of Office, Photoshop etc. You have to remember that Mr Average Joe is usually not terribly au fait even with simple Windows configuration jobs.

After all - why worry about patching your software from viruses etc when you KNOW you are always running the latest most secure version?

It is a bit of a tough concept to grasp after years of installing Windows, Office etc but the future almost certainly lies with online service packages, imagine if instead of buying a new PC, Windows, Office, Photoshop etc you just subscribe to a service package with all of the above.

Some of these packages will doubltess be ad-supported and "free" in terms of monthly fees. While there are privacy issues with this model obviously there will be a market and choice for the consumer.

As another poster pointed out the big names are already well on the way with the "cloud" for business - the consumer market cannot be far behind.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Good points, KG5. Somebody might be less averse to paying $10-20 a month for their software, rather than shelling out hundreds in one shot.

It's not as if this model isn't already in use for regular consumers, either. Millions of people happily pay $15 a month for online games. Granted, productivity software is different, and people perceive it differently. There isn't really a need for the software to be remotely hosted, but it does come with advantages.

Personally, I wouldn't mind companies offering their wares in several ways at once:

1. For a monthly fee, you use a remotely-hosted version.
2. For free, you use a remotely-hosted, ad-laden version.
3. For a significant charge, you download an offline version that never expires.

There's no reason a company couldn't do that, if they wanted to keep their options open and appeal to the most customers.

 

[USS KG5]

I think that the categories you outline Robert are probably roughly the business model we will see, though with different vendors.

I would not be surprised if Microsoft used the Office brand for the 1st and 3rd categories, and the 2nd would see a "Windows Live" branded home office software.

 

[Alaedhros]

Well - because it becomes another monthly bill rather than installing and configuring a shrinkwrapped box of Office, Photoshop etc. You have to remember that Mr Average Joe is usually not terribly au fait even with simple Windows configuration jobs.

That's true, which is why most software comes with sane defaults that 90% of people (including myself) don't touch. Double-click on the installer, click Next a couple times, and you're done. So I'm not sure I buy "ease of configuration".

After all - why worry about patching your software from viruses etc when you KNOW you are always running the latest most secure version?

Doesn't most software on Windows auto-update itself?

It is a bit of a tough concept to grasp after years of installing Windows, Office etc ...

Ah, please don't misunderstand me; I've been reading about SaaS for a while, and I think I understand the basics of it. I've even used it a few times myself. I'm simply not sure it will expand much outside of a niche market.

As another poster pointed out the big names are already well on the way with the "cloud" for business - the consumer market cannot be far behind.

The idea that what works for business will work for home users isn't a certainty all of the time. I think Robert Maxwell's suggested model makes a lot of sense, and I do think a minority of the population will use SaaS, but I don't think it will ever be a majority, and not anytime soon. It's not any easier than using a local copy, it will have higher latency, and you're dependent on the provider for everything. To illustrate how inconvenient this can be, you need look no further than the recent extended Gmail outage and iGoogle upgrade frustration; relying on a provider means you're trusting them to remain online and to upgrade in a way that you agree with, neither of which seems too likely.

 

[USS KG5]

That's true, which is why most software comes with sane defaults that 90% of people (including myself) don't touch. Double-click on the installer, click Next a couple times, and you're done. So I'm not sure I buy "ease of configuration".

It is all well and good to say that until you have a problem, because of software and hardware incompatibility, because of that "default" config not fitting your system or needs, because of lax security settings letting in viruses or spyware.

Virtualisation is becoming huge for precisely these reasons. It is not ease of configuration it is no configuration needed ever - it simply becomes someone elses problem. All your PC needs to do is run a simple background OS.

I love the idea that the current model of Windows applications is so ingrained that you cannot understand the need for anything different ( I appreciate this is probably not exactly your stance), but if the lethargic development of the desktop under Microsoft's stewardship has shown us anything it is that innovation, change and competition are sorely needed.

Doesn't most software on Windows auto-update itself?

A lot of software downloads and installs its own updates. These updates unless monitored can sometimes break your PC, certain updates conflict with others. Once again running applications remotely makes these issues not your problem.

Ah, please don't misunderstand me; I've been reading about SaaS for a while, and I think I understand the basics of it. I've even used it a few times myself. I'm simply not sure it will expand much outside of a niche market.

Well it is already forming the basis of a huge business market, and the Google Apps that are a basic implementation of SaaS are extremely popular, and already have had a big impact on the industry. I'd be surprised if the "cloud" turns out to be a flash in the pan, though it is an annoying buzzword!

The idea that what works for business will work for home users isn't a certainty all of the time.

That is not what I am saying - I have stated many potential benefits for home users, the case for enterprise use and for SMBs is very different, let alone home and business!

I think Robert Maxwell's suggested model makes a lot of sense, and I do think a minority of the population will use SaaS, but I don't think it will ever be a majority, and not anytime soon.

I'd say it will become a sizeable market - particularly as Netbooks and their ilk grow in popularity. Linux is a pig to configure but if you just open a browser and point at Google there would be a big market right there. Remember one of the best things about SaaS is that you are not tied to one PC, log on anywhere in the world and there is everything just as you left it. Superb for business but also great for home users.

It's not any easier than using a local copy, it will have higher latency, and you're dependent on the provider for everything.

You are with Microsoft as well. Look at the balls up they make with every new software release. Vista is gaining acceptance now but has been a disaster so far in many ways for users worldwide.

When you have your nice PC with Vista, you are dependent on MS to supply you with patches for the bugs, security updates, updates for the security software, updates for software to adapt to nw technologies.

You might be able to run anything - but without support from your provider your PC is a timebomb, thats with Windows and the old fashioned way just as much as Google, Adobe or whoever in the "Cloud".

As for network latency - remember that all that is going to and fro is keystrokes and changes to the the GUI. With the sort of bandwidth we can expect in a decade (assuming the infrastructure keeps up, and it kinda has to) it will appear totally seamless.

To illustrate how inconvenient this can be, you need look no further than the recent extended Gmail outage and iGoogle upgrade frustration;

If it helps - I'm not a Google fanatic. No new technology is perfect and considering the load put on them Google's servers do pretty well.

They are a big mega-corp like Microsoft and therefore are just as prone to being total shits. That is a sad side effect of the corporate world that brings us these innovations in the first place.

relying on a provider means you're trusting them to remain online and to upgrade in a way that you agree with, neither of which seems too likely.

Are you seriously saying that with the current application model that providers "upgrade in a way you agree with"? OK - SOMETIMES I agree, sometimes it drives me bluddy mad. I can't see any difference in this whether the software is on your desktop or on a distant server.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I don't like the cloud version of software just because what it means is that you aren't allowed to actually own a copy of software anymore. I have to pay everytime I use it, plus most likely using anything that the company decides is an advanced feature (which in Photoshop is most likely any type of editing tool other than the basic brush) you have to pay on top of paying for it. And in some cases it's on top of having to buy a disk for the drivers to access the program.

In other words, the cloud model isn't about convienience, it's about saftware manufacturers being able to literally squeeze the last nickle out of you for daring to use the product.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't like the cloud version of software just because what it means is that you aren't allowed to actually own a copy of software anymore. I have to pay everytime I use it, plus most likely using anything that the company decides is an advanced feature (which in Photoshop is most likely any type of editing tool other than the basic brush) you have to pay on top of paying for it. And in some cases it's on top of having to buy a disk for the drivers to access the program.

In other words, the cloud model isn't about convienience, it's about saftware manufacturers being able to literally squeeze the last nickle out of you for daring to use the product.

Well, yeah... pretty much. Software companies know paying a fee every month is a lot more attractive to many people than shelling out several hundred bucks at once. And many people will keep paying even when they don't use the software, on the off chance they might use it again someday.

Software companies are in the business of making money, after all. If you don't like how a software company distributes its software, by all means, don't use it! The market will make or break SaaS. I think it's perfect for more casual users who don't know a driver from a command prompt. It's for people who want it to "just work." If all you need is a browser, well, it's pretty hard to screw that up. I'm sure someone will, though.