Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Scoops Microsoft w/ Mesh Applications

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the glimpse-of-the-future dept.

Google 152

Julie188 writes "Google's offline access for Google Apps is a kick in the shin at Ray Ozzie. Google took a page right out of the Ozzie mesh playbook when it announced the offline access (let's call it Google Docs Unplugged). Google delivered desktop apps from the cloud first and then added unplugged functionality. Microsoft wants to do the same, but in reverse, and faces an infinitely bigger challenge: rebuild Microsoft apps so they can become cloud enabled while pulling its giant channel (and embedded software) along in the process. Good luck with that, Microsoft. But then again, just because Google is making faster progress doesn't mean much. There's no guarantee users will like the unplugged versions of cloud apps."

cancel ×

152 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

dreamy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22939558)

cloud apps is such a dreamy name...........

+5 Funny (-1, Offtopic)

count rostov (1128123) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939560)

*Insert popular Slashdot meme here*

Re: -2 Offtopic (0, Troll)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939906)

*Make lame slashdot joke above*

Re: -1 Redundant (1)

fizzer82 (1201947) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940170)

*Continue overuse of the meme of using the word meme in slashdot postings here*

Re: -1 Redundant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940890)

how about some lolcatz?

http://icanhascheezburger.com/ [icanhascheezburger.com]

SharePoint (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22939564)

It's technology is called SharePoint. All Office apps are integrated with it and you can work offline, online, collaborate, etc. Oh yea, and it worked longed before Google docs did. This submitter is a typical anti-MS hack and doesn't know what they are talking about. GG Slashdot.

Well, let's see it then! (1, Insightful)

uuxququex (1175981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939756)

Could you point me to a URL, so that I may try it out for myself? Or is it, in traditional Redmond fashion, a lot of talk and no substance at all?

Re:Well, let's see it then! (1)

girasquid (1234570) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940402)

Sharepoint tends to get used in intranets, as opposed to being publicly available - we have one setup at our office, although I can't say that we use it for much - it's too clunky to do much other than keep a company-wide calendar, and make sure documents everyone needs to get to are available. If I'm not mistaken, there are also licensing fees to deal with when you set up Sharepoint(although I could be wrong, I didn't set it up).

Re:Well, let's see it then! (1)

berboot (838932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941146)

In reference to your comment on SharePoint licensing, there are two forms of SharePoint, Windows SharePoint Services 3.0, and Microsoft Office Server 2007. The former is included with Windows 2003 and 2008 licenses, and is covered by your standard CAL's you purchase with the OS. Office SharePoint Server (or MOSS) comes in two additional flavors (of course), Standard or Enterprise, which require additional software and CAL's for each user. The newest version of MOSS actually contains Content Management Server 2002's functionality, and is increasingly being used for Internet facing sites. Some examples of sites using MOSS's Publishing Features: http://new.skoda-auto.com/COM/Pages/Home.aspx [skoda-auto.com] and http://www.glu.com/ [glu.com]

Re:SharePoint (4, Interesting)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939834)

It's technology is called SharePoint.
It is actually much closer to Microsoft Office Live, as it doesn't require you to run a server (Microsoft does it for you) or pay a fee (apart from what you already paid for Microsoft Office).

SharePoint seems to be traditional client-server technology, and not related to any recent buzzwords like "cloud computing". For companies with a strong IT department, SharePoint it probably superior. For the rest of us, is is Google Docs or Office Live (or email, sadly).

Re:SharePoint (3, Insightful)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940554)

You're half right. SharePoint is designed more for business use whereas Google apps are designed more for geek's trying to organize a geek party. Office Live offers much of the same of the same functionality as SharePoint in a more simplified version. In terms of making apps available offline...I have this new fangled thing called Office that works reallyh well regardless of whether I'm connected or not. I can even set it up so that when I re-connect that the file is synchronized up to a Web site. Amazing stuff!

Re:SharePoint (1, Flamebait)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939842)

SharePoint is a typical MS Hack...

It does nothing exceptionally well and is universally hated by all who are forced to use it.

Re:SharePoint (5, Interesting)

The Spoonman (634311) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940182)

Only if implemented by incompetent boobs. Considering that describes a good 90-95% of IT folks, your comments are not surprising. When we migrated our Intranet to Sharepoint last year, pretty much unilaterally our 14,000 users said "FINALLY! An intranet that does what we need!" It's been fantastic, and they just love being able to manipulate the site to provide them just the information and applications they need. We've now begun a project to provide it to our clients, and their reaction has been the same.

Now, to the topic at hand: no, I have no interest in offline Google Apps. Google Apps is a barely usable hack that provides the barest of minimums of features for users. It's good for my grandmother, but even my mother finds it too limiting. Add to that using Firefox/Gears uses 5-10X the resources on machine and it just doesn't cute it. Microsoft's solution is exactly the path I'd go. It gives me the flexibility to use real applications AND still have access to my docs everywhere. But, I'm not a luddite, so...

Re:SharePoint (3, Informative)

lbgator (1208974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940494)

While I agree with your post in general, I am rankled by everyone calling Docs a "barely usable hack". Every user has differing needs, and your needs simply aren't met by Docs. That's fine: don't use it.

Google Docs does provide a simple free office suite with good collaboration, sharing, and version control. There are a lot of things it cannot do well or at all (graphs, embedded objects, work quickly, etc) but that is not to say it is worthless. Some people cannot be sure that they will have access to MS Office on every machine they encounter daily, some people may want to seamlessly collaborate with people who don't own office, some people may just choose not to use MS products but still want an easy online Office Suite. There are many scenarios that I can think of where something can go wrong with the MS solution, this is where Google shines. There are many features that Office has that GDocs doesn't. Every user has to choose what it is they are really after. No reason to get upset or fling insults.

Re:SharePoint (4, Interesting)

0racle (667029) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940516)

First, if you're not an incompetent boob, why couldn't you get anything before SharePoint to do what users need? Second, SharePoint sucks when you have a mixed client network, which is typical of Microsoft products.

Re:SharePoint (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940944)

How dare you claim Google Docs Airplane [blogtown.co.nz] isn't useful!

On a more serious note, Google Gears doesn't work with Firefox 3. If you navigate to any page that tries to use it Firefox crashes. Oddly I figured this out because every page on nintendo.com tries to use it (guh?)

Re:SharePoint (2, Insightful)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941274)

Yeah I'm a Linux user and I'd much rather use OpenOffice than Google Apps. Even AbiWord and Gnumeric are better. Google has to realize that browser based javascript is just not going to do it for full-blown office apps. Microsoft specifically broke the environment it so it wouldn't be able to do that. It's freakin' single threaded!

If they were smart they would switch to a SWT (e.g Eclipse IDE) rich client platform installed via java web start that contained strong web services integration with google for sharing, search and collaboration. Java 1.6 is damned fast now and and NetBeans and the Eclipse IDE have shown that Java can really shine on the desktop. Maybe with the newly released Java Micro-Kernel (Update N/Consumer JRE) they will move toward this direction. Update N is a few megabytes download and downloads the rest of the Java libs as needed.

Uggh - Sharepoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22939858)

Don't get me started on Sharepoint. That useless piece of garbage I have to "use" at work everyday...

Re:SharePoint (4, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939938)

It's technology is called SharePoint.

No, Sharepoint is marketing brand name, notable for being refreshingly brief.

The technologies, on the other hand, are actually ASP.NET applications, which are served using IIS and use a SQL Server database as data storage backend [wikipedia.org] .

Stuff is integrated with it? I'm shocked. Shocked, I'll tell you.

Re:SharePoint (1)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940444)

I'd say you weren't insightful, but your link is even if it proves you wrong about it being a marketing brand name. It is the actual name of the product. That's not up for dispute whether you like MS or not.

Your very wiki link says the following:

The term 'SharePoint' is commonly used to refer to one of the following two products:

        * Windows SharePoint Services (WSS)
        * Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS) http://www.microsoft.com/sharepoint/default.mspx [microsoft.com]

Re:SharePoint (5, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940084)

As someone else pointed out, SharePoint is more akin to storing docs online, sharing them with people, communicating with them, wiki functionality, etc.

And as someone who just implemented a SharePoint system, SharePoint is very expensive and requires some massive hardware. Google Docs is free and requires zero hardware purchase.

Re:SharePoint (5, Informative)

Thinman (59679) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940114)

Not really, SharePoint is just a Web Framework with support for office documents, but you are require to have a copy of office in your machine to work with, OTOH google applications run on the server and display on your browser.....

Regards.

No luck required (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940580)

Microsoft wants to do the same, but in reverse, and faces an infinitely bigger challenge: rebuild Microsoft apps so they can become cloud enabled while pulling its giant channel (and embedded software) along in the process. Good luck with that, Microsoft. But then again, just because Google is making faster progress doesn't mean much. There's no guarantee users will like the unplugged versions of cloud apps.


The key difference between the two businesses is that Microsoft makes software, and knows how to monetize what they do. Google makes... um... advertising?... and has no idea how to make money on anything they do which doesn't involve selling ads.

One thing the Stallmanista hordes infatuated with Google need to be asking themselves is this: what happens when REAL business people take over Google, and start trimming the fat on stuff which isn't pulling it's weight? And what happens when Google decides it can make even more money by selling it's data mine not just to the NSA, but to anyone [timesonline.co.uk] ? Ooops, sorry! Your company made the bad decision to rely on Google, so now all your information is being sold to the highest bidder... maybe even your competitors.

Yeah. So sorry, Slashdot, but all the rational companies aren't buying the "DUNT BE TEH EVEL!!11" schtick. We'll stick with a company with a proven track record of being committed to the needs of businesses, thank you very much.

Re:No luck required (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22941120)

You should learn the difference between "it's" and "its" before trying to make any kind of a point next time.

Re:SharePoint (1)

EricTheGreen (223110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941060)

And what happens when the Sharepoint server hosting all of this wonderousness goes offline?

+5 Insightful? Give me a flippin' break...

Re:SharePoint (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941304)

Even I know that any Slashdot article with both Google and Microsoft in the title sets off the alarms at Redmond. Everyone is to stop what they are doing and defend the queen. ;)

Re:SharePoint (1)

bitmonk (1197107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941204)

Sure, and Novell Netware was around before that, and Mainframes. I mean, GEEZ, did Google invent the frakking SERVER? C'mon people the Internet is nothing new, you can't change the future, STOP TELLING ME THAT I AM GETTING OLD!!!

devil is in the detail (4, Insightful)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939568)

People have been using mixed on-line/off-line computing for a long time; neither Microsoft nor Google invented this or were the first to figure out that it was useful.

What matters is how exactly it's done. I find Google's offerings a lot more persuasive than Microsoft's. Microsoft's collaborative features are cumbersome and hard to use, and Microsoft's office suite is expensive and heavy-weight. Google Docs is easy to get started with and works for most people; mainly what it needs is better embedded object support (including math) and bug fixing.

Twofo skiing into a spruce (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22939626)

Twofo [twofo.co.uk] is Dying is Dying

It is official; GNAA [www.gnaa.us] confirms: Twofo is Dying is Dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured slashdot trolling community when Google confirmed that Twofo troll posts had dropped yet again, now down to less that a fraction of 1 percent of all slashdot posts. Coming hot on the heels of a recent usenet survey which plainly states that Twofo trolling frequency has fallen, this news serves only to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo troll's are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in a recent digg.com comprehensive trolling test.

You don't need to be one of the Slashdot moderators to predict Twofo Trolling's future. The writing is on the wall: Twofo trolling faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo trolls because Twofo trolling is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo trolls. As many of us are already aware, Twofo trolling continues to decline in popularity. IP bans flow like a river of feces out of this man's anus [goatse.ch] .

"Twofo is Dying" trolls are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their core posters. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time trolls Daz and xyzzy only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo trolls are dying.

Lets keep to the facts and look and the numbers.

Twofo Trolling leader Echelon states that there are about 7000 "twofo is dying" trolls. How many "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are there? Let's see. The number of "Zeus sucks cock" trolls versus "Twofo is dying" trolls on slashdot is roughly in the ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 "Zeus sucks cock" trolls. "Fuck twofo" posts on slashdot are about half the volume of "Zeus sucks cock" posts. Therefore there are about 700 trolls specialising in "Fuck twofo". A recent article put "destroy twofo" at about 80% of the twofo trolling community. Therefore there are about (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 "destroy twofo" trolls. This is consistent with the number of "destroy twofo" slashdot posts.

Due to the troubles at Twofo, abysmal sharing, ITS, lack of IP addresses and so on, "destroy twofo" trolls stopped posting altogether and were taken over by "Zeus sucks cock" trolls who specialise in another kind of slashdot posting. Now "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are also dead, their corpses turned over to yet another charnel horse.

All major surveys show that Twofo trolls have steadily declined in slashdot posting frequency. Twofo trollers are very sick and their long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo trollers are to survive at all it will be among hardcore slashdot posters, hellbent on Twofo's destruction. Twofo trolls continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo trolls from their fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo trolls are dead.

Fact: Twofo trolls are dying

Re:devil is in the detail (4, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939720)

I don't really get the argument here. What's the difference between Google Docs' new functionality and Office Live? Other than that Microsoft is working from the desktop and moving to the web, and Google is working from the web and moving to the desktop. Oh, also: Office Live exists right now (albeit in beta), and Google only has a press release.

The article doesn't give a compelling reason for Microsoft being "scooped" in this case-- in fact, I think its author simply just don't know Office Live exists. Or am I missing something?

Re:devil is in the detail (5, Insightful)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939868)

What's the difference between Google Docs' new functionality and Office Live?

Several major ones: (1) Google Docs sharing is actually live; you can see other people's edits being made in real time, (2) all you need with Google Docs is a web browser--nothing to install, (3) Google Docs are data sources and sinks for mashups and other applications (including web forms submissions), (4) user management and sharing is much, much simpler with Google Docs--you can share and work with anybody, (5) Google Docs can integrate with both MS Office and OpenOffice, (6) Google Docs has mobile access.

Oh, also: Office Live exists right now (albeit in beta), and Google only has a press release.

Google Docs has had the limited sharing functionality found in Office Live since before Office Live even existed. The new Gears-based off-line mode is simpler and better and something that Microsoft simply doesn't have at all.

Re:devil is in the detail (1)

pacalis (970205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939964)

(1) Google Docs sharing is actually live; you can see other people's edits being made in real time
So do you have to share Google Docs to make edits in real time?

Re:devil is in the detail (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940074)

I'm not sure what you're asking. You always edit your document in the browser. If you happen to be off-line, it stores the changes and reconciles them when it can. If you happen to share the document and someone else edits it, you see their edits in real time. You don't need to do anything special or even think about it in either case.

Re:devil is in the detail (1)

pacalis (970205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940126)

It was a joke. I find google docs slow as hell.

Re:devil is in the detail (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940162)

It's a bit sluggish, but usable. It should get a bit better in Firefox 3, and a lot better once the new JavaScript engine has been integrated.

Re:devil is in the detail (5, Informative)

uptownguy (215934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940232)

We're actually comparing Google Docs and Office Live for a client rollout and I put both them both head-to-head yesterday. Clearly, some of your information is outdated.

(1) Google Docs sharing is actually live; you can see other people's edits being made in real time,
 
Same with Office Live. Different way of "seeing" and I prefer Google's but both work. And with a OneNote Notebook shared? Now THAT is nice and I prefer that to both.

(2) all you need with Google Docs is a web browser--nothing to install,

As long as you are editing/viewing someone else's Office Live Document, the same is true.
 
  (3) Google Docs are data sources and sinks for mashups and other applications (including web forms submissions)
 
I honestly have no idea on this one so I'll take your word on it. More to the point, I'd be curious to know about how easy those mashups are to create in Google Docs. I guess I've got more research to do! ;)
 
  (4) user management and sharing is much, much simpler with Google Docs--you can share and work with anybody,

Not true. This was the biggest surprise for me. The ease of use for inviting others is the same. In Office Live, it's as easy as entering someone's email address. Seriously. I expected it to be much more complicated from everything I read. It is not.
 
  (5) Google Docs can integrate with both MS Office and OpenOffice,
 
Or the flip side of this is to say that Google Docs will not open MS Word documents like people expect them to. And Spreadsheets will not open and look like you would think they should look in Excel. With Office Live, the curve is much less steep. Yes, proprietary formats are evil and the cause of this in the first place. Etc. etc. etc. But if you are a business with a few hundred spreadsheets that might or might not open as expected in Google Docs, Office Live becomes hard to ignore.
 
  (6) Google Docs has mobile access.

Nope. Or rather, yes, I guess you can *view* your Google Docs in a mobile view. But there is no way to edit them, at least from the phone I was testing it on. The same is true for Office Live. Both have great mobile viewers ... and make editing online next to impossible.

There's a lot of testing we have yet to do. And we aren't even close to deciding between the two. (Free as in beer vs. works with 100% of your current documents.) But -- as someone who spent most of yesterday comparing the two head-to-head, I really wanted to clear up that 4-5 out of your 6 points were no longer true.

Re:devil is in the detail (2, Informative)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940538)

As long as you are editing/viewing someone else's Office Live Document, the same is true.

Office Live doesn't let people create or edit Word, PowerPoint, or Excel files from the browser. And it doesn't work with Firefox on Linux at all (not because of Linux, but because Microsoft has disabled it).

Same with Office Live. Different way of "seeing" and I prefer Google's but both work.

In Google Docs, when one user selects and changes a cell in a spreadsheet, all other users see that in real time in their own application instances. Office Live doesn't have anything like that.

More to the point, I'd be curious to know about how easy those mashups are to create in Google Docs. I guess I've got more research to do! ;)

Very easy. Many on-line services accept Google Docs as sources and/or sinks, you can create mashups with Google Gadgets by simply selecting a range and a gadget in the spreadsheet (and then publish the Gadget), and you can design an input form right in Docs.

The ease of use for inviting others is the same.

I can't even sign up from Linux, the sign-up process is buggy, and there doesn't seem to be anything like Google Apps.

(Free as in beer vs. works with 100% of your current documents.)

It's a myth that MS Office works with 100% of MS Office documents; there are serious version incompatibilities, font problems, and macro problems.

In fact, I find the limits Google Docs imposes on formatting to be an advantage because it keeps people from wasting their time and my time by adding tricky features to documents.

Re:devil is in the detail (2, Informative)

uptownguy (215934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940698)

Office Live doesn't let people create or edit Word, PowerPoint, or Excel files from the browser.

Except that is 100% not true. Since I did that yesterday. I shared a document with someone else. She edited it. Directly from her browser. I honestly didn't expect it to work because of what I'd read here on Slashdot. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, just share what I found out yesterday for myself.

Sometimes I'm shocked how much people pass off second-hand or third-hand information instead of rolling up their sleeves and trying it out for themselves... Not trying to knock you, personally. I just think from reading what Office Live "can't do" it's clear that there are some misinformed people. I was trying to clear up some of that misinformation. We aren't football fans backing "our" team. We're professionals fascinated by technology. Right?

stop making things up (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941134)

Sometimes I'm shocked how much people pass off second-hand or third-hand information instead of rolling up their sleeves

You mean like you just did? After all, you didn't say you tried it, you just talked to someone who claimed it worked.

Unlike you, I did try it out before posting. Just like everybody else is saying, it doesn't work. The only document types that I can create are notes, lists, task lists, contact lists, and event lists. There's no way to create PowerPoint, no Word, no Excel.

If I upload a document and try to open it, it says:

A read-only preview of your document appears below. To view or edit a version with full functionality, open the document in its original application.


Is that clear enough for you? Or how much clearer do you need Microsoft to spell it out for you?

Now, why don't you go and try it out yourself, instead of making unfounded accusations against other people and proving yourself to be an idiot.

Re:devil is in the detail (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940790)

I want to complement uptownguy for basically making all the replies I would have made if I hadn't been on a commuter train while this discussion was happening. :)

Office Live doesn't let people create or edit Word, PowerPoint, or Excel files from the browser.

100% wrong. I don't know how new the feature is, but Office Live has let you do this for some time. Please don't spread FUD.

And it doesn't work with Firefox on Linux at all (not because of Linux, but because Microsoft has disabled it).

Well, that's a point, but I take issue with your insinuation that Microsoft disabled it out of some 'evil' anti-competition policy when it's much, much more likely that it's disabled for a much more mundane reason. For instance, some compatibility issue that came up during testing.

In Google Docs, when one user selects and changes a cell in a spreadsheet, all other users see that in real time in their own application instances. Office Live doesn't have anything like that.

Yeah, you have to hit "refresh changes." But it's not far off, and frankly I think Google (and you) vastly overestimate how important this feature is.

Very easy. Many on-line services accept Google Docs as sources and/or sinks,

Really? I've never come across one... care to show us some examples?

It's a myth that MS Office works with 100% of MS Office documents; there are serious version incompatibilities, font problems, and macro problems.

In my decades of using Office, I've never seen it. I'm not saying that the compatibility headaches don't exist for some documents, but comparing an import from Office-to-Office (which I've seen done hundreds of times and never with any problem) to Office-to-Google Docs, the difference is night and day. You're saying that because 0.01% of Office documents have problems it's ok that 25% of Google Docs imports have problems-- that math doesn't add up.

In fact, I find the limits Google Docs imposes on formatting to be an advantage because it keeps people from wasting their time and my time by adding tricky features to documents.

Ah yes, the "fewer features are better" view. Seriously?

stop making things up (2)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941278)

100% wrong. I don't know how new the feature is, but Office Live has let you do this for some time. Please don't spread FUD.

I have Office Live up on my screen. It does not support browser-based editing.

Perhaps you're confusing some kind of MS Office ActiveX embedding with browser-based editing. Or maybe you're simply lying.

Really? I've never come across one...

Well, evidently, you're living under a rock.

care to show us some examples?

Go read the Google Docs API documentation, or just try out one of the many third party Google Docs gadgets; they're a right click away in Google Spreadsheets.

Ah yes, the "fewer features are better" view. Seriously?

Within this context, it's not a view, it's a fact. Seriously.

Re:stop making things up (1, Interesting)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941366)

Perhaps you're confusing some kind of MS Office ActiveX embedding with browser-based editing. Or maybe you're simply lying.

Now you're picking nits. Using the offline feature in Google Docs is going to require a plug-in also... GASP!

Really? I've never come across one...

Well, evidently, you're living under a rock.


Maybe, but you still haven't provided any examples, so I'm more inclined to think they simply don't exist. That's not to say Google isn't trying, but there's no point in saying there are all these third-party sites that can use data in Google Docs if there ain't.

care to show us some examples?

Go read the Google Docs API documentation, or just try out one of the many third party Google Docs gadgets; they're a right click away in Google Spreadsheets.


And yet you can't actually link to a single one. Or are you saying the API documentation has a list of third-party sites that can import Google Docs?

Ah yes, the "fewer features are better" view. Seriously?

Within this context, it's not a view, it's a fact. Seriously.


If your co-workers waste your time with "fancy features" or whatever the hell you're complaining about, how is that Microsoft's fault? Take it up with your co-workers. More features in a product is always better; that's why Office sells so many copies in the first place. Seriously.

Re:devil is in the detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22941150)

When I was last using google's offerings, they were for small simple things. A very straight forward spreadsheed with 4000 elements was WAY too much for it. Maybe if they were broken up and mashed up with gears, maybe. But who wants to redo everything for google? Particularly based on a maybe. So I pretty much just use it to keep a list of my DVDs with UPC and ISBN code "just in case." That seems to be about the limits of Google's apps right now.

Re:devil is in the detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940776)

all you need with Google Docs is a web browser--nothing to install,

I thought you had to install Google Gears?

Re:devil is in the detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940246)

The difference is that in the MS case we have a multi-client single-server approach to collaboration so that any collaborators connect to the same server using a piece of installed desktop software.

Google is offering essentially the same thing except that with Google Docs you can get your work from a public terminal online and now offline using the desktop docs.
In either case, working offline is akin to the following:
Monday: Hey team work on this.
Tuesday: You miss work, but work at home. Team works together in office.
Wednesday: Hey team, this is what I came up with from home. Team: "sure just put it over there by the trash can, we'll get to it later.

Re:devil is in the detail (1)

eokyere (685783) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941102)

I was totally shocked today; my father uses google docs ... this old man could barely type, and hardly used email about 7 years ago, but I actually saw a google doc, of a speech he's working on with someone, on his laptop today. i was shocked initially, then I actually caught how he got to google docs ... his friend sent him the speech as an attachment to his gmail a/c, and then he saw the link that allows him to import the doc right into google docs maybe he will find out he can actually share and edit with another party at the same time; then he may find out he can actually use it on the road; then good luck, trying to pry his google docs out of his hands.

Re:devil is in the detail (1)

Potor (658520) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940166)

Google Docs is easy to get started with and works for most people

i would use gdocs more often if i could do endnotes / footnotes with it.

lack of these is a deal-killer for me, and i imagine many in the academic world. the idea of chipping away at a paper in different offices and around the world is quite appealing to me, especially if i can collaborate on it.

Re:devil is in the detail (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940680)

I agree, gDocs isn't all that good for academic writing. But, then, I think neither is MS Office.

For shared academic editing, I think the best choices are a Wiki with a jsMath plugin and PDF generation, or LaTeX with version control.

Re:devil is in the detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940514)

Read the third post all the way up from yours. It is from a guy that knows how to implement SharePoint and it has been a success.
Now, if you are a Linux tard and is not able to do anything out of WoW so it is your problem, not Microsoft's problem.
Linux is HATED by half of the people in earth, just like Hillary, so won't work. Meanwhile, Microsoft is hated only by the inhabitants of WoW...

Is this "in the browser" functionality (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939572)

Is this "in the browser" functionality? I read TFA but I could not work out if it was some application you download or whether it works in the browser. If its in the browser, then it might allow you to continue to work offline when a connection goes, but could you use a computer somewhere without internet access to create or modify a document?

If it is an application, on the other hand, it would be nice to know what platforms are supported. It would be ironic if the "kick in the teeth" for Microsoft only ran on Microsoft systems.

Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (2, Insightful)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939642)

I haven't read TFA, but my guess is that it's using google gears [slashdot.org] to provide offline capability. Available for win+mac+Linux on Firefox and IE6+

Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (1)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939682)

That's what you get for not previewing. it's supposed to be Google Gears [google.com]

Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939876)

What the hell is "Google Gears"? I mean besides "Google Gears is a plug-in that extends your browser to create a richer platform for web applications." Which is all the FAQ had to say.

Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (3, Informative)

nizo (81281) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940092)

Google Gears installs a browser extension that adds a JavaScript API that enables the browser scripts to access the local datastore. The extension requires Firefox or Internet Explorer and works on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.[2] A version for Safari is now available to developers. Currently, Google Reader is the only Google application that is supported, though other web applications such as Remember the Milk have added Google Gears functionality. The transition from online to offline mode and back has to be done manually in Google Reader because of the differences in data being transferred. Other applications, such as Remember the Milk, transition from online to offline mode and back seamlessly.


From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Gears [wikipedia.org]

Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22939760)

I was looking into it yesterday a bit. It's both, but mostly in browser, for now.

It's an in browser app that can leverage an optional plug-in [google.com] . I haven't tried it to see if a new document can be created offline or not.

what could occur later might be creating a stand-alone application [mozilla.org] that is essentially a shell in which the browser based apps can run, but pre-loads the interfaces locally.

Re:Is this "in the browser" functionality (4, Informative)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939916)

It is in-browser. It uses Google Gears, a small open source extension that makes it easy for people to turn on-line apps into off-line apps. It works on major platforms and browsers, including Windows, Windows Mobile, MacOS, and Linux. Remember The Milk, Zoho Office, and others are already using Google Gears, as is Google Reader.

Google Docs off-line was an obvious use for Google Gears, and the main question is: why did it take so long?

It's a good bet that off-line versions of GMail and Google Calendar are next.

Not likely... (4, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939576)

From TFA:

But the future's not all doom and gloom just because of Google's progress in bringing unplugged versions of cloud apps to users. Microsoft would be smart to be extremely observant about the end user experience, user feedback and usage patterns of Google Doc users, and then plow that knowledge back into Windows Live and other Microsoft Mesh efforts.
So...all Microsoft has to do to avoid defeat is listen to their customers?

Yeah...just not seeing that happening...

Re:Not likely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22939942)

From TFA:

But the future's not all doom and gloom just because of Google's progress in bringing unplugged versions of cloud apps to users. Microsoft would be smart to be extremely observant about the end user experience, user feedback and usage patterns of Google Doc users, and then plow that knowledge back into Windows Live and other Microsoft Mesh efforts.
So...all Microsoft has to do to avoid defeat is listen to their customers?

Yeah...just not seeing that happening...
It makes perfect sense to me. If, that is, by "plow that knowledge back into Windows Live and other Microsoft Mesh efforts" they mean "leverage their existing monopoly in desktop office software."

Apples and Oranges. (0, Flamebait)

blcamp (211756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939586)


I don't know who's going to win either Office battle, but I don't think one player will win both. Cloud apps and "traditional" (offline) apps are just different animals, as are GOOG and MSFT different companies. Clearly thier battles are heating up, but I don't see a clear victor here - just more bits being twiddled.

Bingo (5, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939596)

Virtual apps, streamed or live on the cloud. Unplugged. Mesh.
The summary was full of buzz words so I had to RTFA...which was also full of buzzwords

What I don't get is why basic office application are not better off on your local machine, or even OO.org on a flashdisk along with your documents, than on google's or microsofts server being analysed every which way.

Re:Bingo (1, Interesting)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939702)

oh god i just implied a bad idea from your comment..

what if we took documents of data.. and apon saving them taged a light weight reader/editor to the file.. that way if someone has the app to read the document it would just skim over the bin part but if not the data file is also executable that will open the data of the document within it's slef..

that way it doens't mater if they have the app or not jsut send them the document and they will surely be able to view/edit it..

i know this is a bad idea.. but still sounds kinda neat

Leverage! (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939800)

Real Programmers push their data to the web and let everyone else mirror it ;)
I think the same applies here, except google is doing the mirroring and it's one less hassle at the cost of them knowing that I have a spreadsheet that holds library dependencies for my slackware packages. I can deal with that.

Re:Bingo (4, Insightful)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939896)

What I don't get is why basic office application are not better off on your local machine, or even OO.org on a flashdisk along with your documents, than on google's or microsofts server being analysed every which way.

Because no matter how many people work on a "cloud" document, there's only one version of one app to worry about. When Google rolls out a new feature, you can actually use it right away instead of worrying about how it will render on your local copy of OO.o 2.1 versus my 3.0 beta versus Joe's copy of MS Office 07. Add to that the ability to trade docs by sending a url instead of an email attachment (which is almost certain to get trashed a spam filter or overzealous IT "NO ATTACHMENTS!" policy the first time you email a new contact) and it looks pretty compelling. I still wouldn't use it for anything confidential (same goes for gmail), but I can see the appeal for a lot of people.

Speaking of which - does it support ODT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940104)

Last time I checked google didn't support any real document format for export. I guess it is because the actual formatting capabilities in google are limited, but I would expect a converter.

Re:Speaking of which - does it support ODT? (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941132)

All the storage is done server-side, but yes, you can save locally as ODF

Flamebait (5, Insightful)

Hassman (320786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939604)

Can I flag this story as a flamebait?

plugged vs unplugged (4, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939616)

There's no guarantee users will like the unplugged versions of cloud apps.

Having to use a plugged, especially plugged-only and "internet as an afterthought", application is akin to having to drive down to the theater to watch a movie - sure the big screen is nice, but putting up with all the downsides is less and less attractive and the screens are getting smaller and the popcorn is getting more and more stale.

Meanwhile, using an app that easily unplugs is like having my favorite movies available anytime (that is, with an acceptable delay in feedback time) - I can watch on the (upcoming) Mitsubishi Laser TV whatever hi-def I had downloaded to the PS3, listening on the fine audio system, enjoying the whole affair with a group I can choose, and having an ice cold Becks with hot off the stove popcorn. Yeah, it's a little extra work, for now, but it's much more appealing.

not to slam Google but... (4, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939646)

But then again, just because Google is making faster progress doesn't mean much.

I enjoy watching Google beat the snot out of the previous 900lb gorilla as much as the next guy, but this was an understatement. All too often, Google has done the interesting 80% of the functionality and leaves the boring 20% of the cleanup, followthrough, polish and finish languishing in "beta" stage for months, years, forever. That's the 80/20 rule: the boring 20% is actually 80% of the sweat and toil to make a solid product/service.

Re:not to slam Google but... (1)

Alpha Whisky (1264174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939810)

Actually, in my experience, Google's betas are generally as stable as most other people's production releases (micro$oft, ati, creative labs, I'm looking at you).

Re:not to slam Google but... (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939890)

Agreed, but is that last 20% functionality compelling enough to make users shell out for Microsoft products? For my own home use, the answer is no way in hell, and if I can get my colleagues to feel the same way about things, it'll be the same answer at work; maybe it'll be the same 80/20 ratio that adopts Google vs. sticks with MS, but least it's a viable competitor. I don't see that happening, at least in my organization, with other alternatives like OpenOffice that require IT administration.

Paragraphs are part of the 20% (4, Interesting)

metamatic (202216) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939928)

Well, in the case of Google Docs, there's no easy way to make paragraph breaks and linebreaks appear different. That, to me, is pretty much a showstopper.

Re:not to slam Google but... (5, Insightful)

Hangtime (19526) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940006)

Amen brother. Google likes to build the 80% thinking no one uses the 20% and on average this would be correct. If you look at usability most folks don't use the higher end functions out of Excel (one of my pet pivs when Microsoft updated to 2007 and the ribbon). But if you look at all the advanced functionality (Sub-Totals, OFFSET(), VLOOKUP(), Validation, Goal Seek, Solver, Add-Ins, Macros, Data Analysis pack, Consolidate, STANDARDIZE(), Percentile(), etc.), however, the chances of any Excel user using at least one of these function thus one function within the 20% is very high and is a gotcha. Everyone complains about feature bloat in Office, but the beauty of the suite is that it will give you that one function you might need to make your life infinitely easier even if it isn't used by 99.9% of all the other users. Ultimately, this is why Google will have limited success. Its not fun building features for a few thousand or a few hundred users, but this is how you build your userbase by catering to smaller and smaller niches of folks who will gladly pay you money to purchase your software.

Re:not to slam Google but... (1)

smcdow (114828) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940042)

All too often, Google has done the interesting 80% of the functionality and leaves the boring 20% of the cleanup, followthrough, polish and finish languishing in "beta" stage for months, years, forever.


Which explains why everybody and their dog wants to work at Google. Would that all software projects were run this way. Usually, 80% is more than good enough and the last 20% usually isn't worth the effort, except to PHBs and PHBeancounters. And to the goobers posting to comment sections.

Rule of thumb: The first 80% of a project takes 80% of the total effort. The remaining 20% of the project takes 80% of the total effort, again.

Re:not to slam Google but... (2, Interesting)

Hangtime (19526) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940298)

Which explains why everybody and their dog wants to work at Google. Would that all software projects were run this way. Usually, 80% is more than good enough and the last 20% usually isn't worth the effort, except to PHBs and PHBeancounters. And to the goobers posting to comment sections

Of course this is if everyone is using the same program for the same purpose. Its called gold plating. However, when it comes to the Office Suite everyone has a a different way of using the program. Take for example this comment within the thread.

i would use gdocs more often if i could do endnotes / footnotes with it.

lack of these is a deal-killer for me, and i imagine many in the academic world. the idea of chipping away at a paper in different offices and around the world is quite appealing to me, especially if i can collaborate on it. /I.

I would say endnotes and footnotes fall into that 20% category. I certainly don't use them and neither do my colleagues. Of course within academia I would think they would be vitally important. Of course, then you start looking at the rest of the missing functionality and saying what else do I need to add and you end up where the Office Suite is today. While everyone will never use every piece of functionality within Word, everyone probably belongs to at least one 1% population that is using Word in a different way today. In fact, its the closest thing we have in the software world to being all things to all people.

Just checked gmail.com (0)

sheldon (2322) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940276)

Yup, still in beta after all these years.

Re:not to slam Google but... (1)

fragbait (209346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940368)

All too often, Google has done the interesting 80% of the functionality and leaves the boring 20% of the cleanup, followthrough, polish and finish languishing in "beta" stage for months, years, forever.
Given their culture of 20% on your own projects and soliciting others to help out, this really isn't a surprise with creative people. At 80%, the puzzle and mystery is gone. Everything left to do is known and is the "boring" part.

-fragbait

Hmmm... (2, Insightful)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939664)

I think Google Apps main appeal is the fact they're online, can be accessed anywhere, etc. Feature-wise they're clearly inferior to MS Office.

Without the online component (or "offline feature") it'll just be another freeware piece of crap.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939956)

Feature-wise they're clearly inferior to MS Office.

One man's lack of features is another man's bliss at simplicity.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941246)

As long as it's a notch above MS *spit* Works, I'll be happy. Is it, though?

Google Docs and Linux Usage (1)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939690)

There is a parallel here between usage of Google Docs and Linux Usage. As UMPCs powered with OSs like gOS use Google Docs and Gmail as their default document and mail providers, offlining these applications is very important. Truly now, we may be entering the phase where "The network is the computer". As users become disillusioned with Windows Vista and seek alternatives, this is the golden opportunity for computer manufacturers and more importantly, the Open Source community to promote and support these applications.

You really think MS faces the bigger task? (3, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939712)

Microsoft wants to do the same, but in reverse, and faces an infinitely bigger challenge: rebuild Microsoft apps so they can become cloud enabled while pulling its giant channel (and embedded software) along in the process.


You really think MS faces the bigger task? MS has widely accepted desktop and server apps already, and a working framework for companies to build a back end with database, web and other common services. I'd think MS would face the easier challenge here; all they need to do is convince people to swap out (outsource) their core corporate back end processing in favor of similar services hosted by Microsoft.

Google's challenge seems to be to convince companies to outsource their core corporate back end processes using brand new back end applications and desktop apps that just came out of beta. That seems like the tougher hill to climb.

In either case, the challenge isn't new; "cloud computing" seems like just version 10 of the outsourced processing pitch that's been used in the computing industry for at least 40 years - just ask EDS, IBM, Unisys, etc.

Re:You really think MS faces the bigger task? (2, Interesting)

Gybrwe666 (1007849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939900)

Yes, actually, it does. And it has nothing to do with technical prowess.

Right now Microsoft is making their money as a box mover. They create physical products, and then sell them to people. This is currently the way that they have become one of the largest corporations on earth. This entire model is predicated on a very traditional method of utilizing the channel (distributors, resellers, direct sales, etc.)

This one nasty fact has created a huge boondogle for Microsoft. In order to keep their share price where its at, they need to keep moving product. In order to move to a different meshed network, or online/offline model, there is a very real possibility that Microsoft will end up cannabalizing its own products. Not only that, but there is the very real possibility that such a product, in the face of a competitor with equal or better name recognition, will fail.

For the last 5-7 years, Microsoft stock has not exactly prospered, even if you normalize the data against the larger market. The growth hasn't been there. So any misstep by MS in Ray Ozzie's new world could conceivably be quickly and severely punished by the market.

Microsoft faces a far greater challenge, how to undo the existing, traditional, established model of delivery, upon which their stock price is dependent, while moving to a new, untested, difficult to assess, impossible to value model.

Google, on the other hand, has neatly sidestepped the issue by giving software away, creating an entire universe where its okay to use live customers as beta testers (nay, they actually leave billable products as beta for years and years), and they have the quick ability to make/undo changes to code, even on the new apps that allow for offline content, since your endusers are likely to realize that downloading the latest version is a Good Thing To Do.

If Microsoft were go come out with a eighth-baked product like Google Spreadsheets and actually sell it to business customers, they'd be crucified (see Windows ME and Vista, in fact). Google does it and the world cheers, and a good chunk of the geeks download it, play with it, and help make it better. For free.

Bill

Writely (2, Informative)

heffrey (229704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939748)

Google didn't hardly delivered Docs in the cloud first, it bought Upstartle and inherited Writely which then was rebranded as Docs.

Re:Writely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22941338)

And again in English?

SaaS is a trend, not an enduring technology (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22939762)

There's two competing paradigms that are going to define the market for the future: web-based Software as a Service (SaaS), and its nemesis, old software industry styled computing as a service (CaaS).

SaaS relies on you buying the OS or installing a free one, ditto for browser, and then using your applications online. Problems include: portability of your data, privacy, control of your data and its removal, the unreliablity of internet connections, and the unreliablity of browsers. Advantages: it's free, no IT department controls it, and someone else updates it. Google is the champion of this paradigm.

CaaS takes the current computing paradigm, in which you buy a computer, buy or download an OS or software, and maintain it yourself (or have an IT department do it if your business is big enough) and makes it subscription based. Somewhat realistically, it insists on this being a pay service, which as the internet ad bonanza begins to fade, seems sensible. Problems include: what happens if you don't keep up your subscription, unreliability of network software delivery, large companies like MSFT having knowledge of what's on your computer. Advantages: your software stays current, you can buy additional software and services from a trusted vendor, you know what your patch level is. Old software -- MSFT, Adobe, even Apple -- are the champions of this paradigm.

http://www.chrisblanc.org/blog/information-technology/2008/03/24/computing-as-a-service/ [chrisblanc.org]

Basically, while mesh computing sounds cool, it's a regression to a cheap form of thin client interaction. It adds nothing other than someone else maintaining your software for you, which Microsoft will do for their software, as will some Linux distros, automatically. Ignore the hype and the trends, look for the enduring technologies... that's the engineer's way.

Magical Thinking.... (-1, Troll)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 6 years ago | (#22939846)

Another day, another M$ is going down story. They aren't, and Google isn't going to take them down, nor is Mac or Linux... Billy will still make money hand over fist... At the same rate as the 90's... No, things change, Linux, Mac, and Google will all make money and lots of it, but is it the end of Microsoft? No, even the vista fiasco won't really hurt them in the long run. The pie is big enough for everyone, even MS, Goggle, Mac etc... As for Google out-innovating MS in this, no, MS had these features a long time ago

32 bit only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940014)

sigh. Sometimes I wonder why I bother running 64-bit linux.

Good luck (2, Insightful)

dodgedodge (166122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940036)

"Good luck with that"?? Doesn't M$ currently have like 90% of the office market? I think its Google that needs luck.

I've got a giant channel, too, ladies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22940098)

Could somebody please explain to me what manner of buzzword "Microsoft['s...] giant channel" is supposed to be? I seriously can't help but picture it as a euphemism of some sort.

Anybody know what file format it's saved in? (1, Interesting)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940266)

Does anyone know what format Docs will be saving the data in? It's being saved locally... what's the format?

Can I share it by emailing it or do I have to share it via Google?
Can I re-process it into a PDF?
Can I run it through a batch script?
Is it a format that I can search through locally and what meta-data does it expose to the host OS for use in filtering, organization, etc.

Re:Anybody know what file format it's saved in? (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941200)

Gears stores everything locally in SQLite, but you can save it to Word, ODF, and PDF

Not a good comparison (2, Insightful)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940606)

Making Google apps available offline is not particularly interesting. Wow...local storage...you mean like a decent Mac or Windows application offers? Syncrhonizing files up to a Web site is fairly trivial. In terms of offering the ability to synchronize files from a local store up to "cloud storage" Microsoft acquired Groove 3-4 years ago which was doing that years before. Not news. I'm no expert with inside information but if I know Microsoft I'd guess that they're thinking about making "mesh" into a platform for applications by anybody, not just Microsoft. That's what Microsoft is (usually) pretty good at. Providing a capability that would allow appliations and data to "roam" with the user as they move from device to device would be neat. Then I can use high fidelity applications on a Mac or PC when I have access to one or I can access degared versions of the apps (AJAX, Silverlight, Flash blah blah blah) when I don't have access to local applications.

That's not a knife... This is a KNIFE. (1)

Froqen (36822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22940870)

You want to start experiencing what a real Mesh feels like, install foldershare [foldershare.com] . You can use any application to work with your data rather then be tied to one application (like google docs). It's been killer for keeping everything between my work, home and laptop machines up to date and also sharing full quality photos to my extended family. Once we all add in the ability for web applications to access and stay in sync with my data and we will be cooking with fire.

Google's mesh applications? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941012)

I mean, OK, they've got Sketchup - I think we all knew about that one...

OH NOZ! (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22941144)

Well God forbid they actually have to make an Office 09 suite that's GOOD to compete instead of releasing a bunch of stupid ideas all rolled together into an overpriced Office 07.

"w/" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22941178)

Are you selling the article on Ebay or something? I'm glad this product includes Mesh Applications!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>