Working Fast on Office 2.0

Another guy I interviewed yesterday up at Microsoft was Chris Capossela, head of a bunch of Microsoft Office stuff (they call it the Information Worker group). He’s a senior vice president at Microsoft. He told me several reasons why companies aren’t going with the latest shiny object coming out of Silicon Valley:

1. Everyone knows what Microsoft Office does, and how it works. Trying something new in business? Not easy to do when there are hundreds, or even thousands of people involved in the decision.
2. IT wants to stay in control inside corporations. Why? Cause they have many constituencies to serve. Lawyers. Executives. Regulators. Let’s say a company gets sued and the judge asks for all of their communications. Can they provide those if they happen, say on Twitter? No. How about Exchange? Yes.
3. They need to know these services will stay up. Twitter being down for a few hours? It’s a pain in the behind for everyone, but totally unacceptable inside big companies. IT departments get fired if stuff like that happens.
4. They need integration into their other systems. Chris showed me what happens when someone calls his desk phone. The phone call gets routed to his Windows Mobile smart phone and shows up on his desktop’s screen at same time. If he doesn’t answer it, the call goes back into voice mail, but the voice mail shows up as email in Outlook. That requires systems to talk to each other, something that doesn’t happen on, say, Gmail.

Anyway, today we’re interviewing Ismael Ghalimi, founder-producer of the Office 2.0 conference and keeper of the definitive database of Office 2.0 apps on our WorkFast.tv show. I’ll definitely ask him how Office 2.0 (er, Silicon Valley’s newest shiny work tools) are measuring up with Microsoft’s. You can watch that interview live and then participate in our “after show party” where Ismael will take more of your questions in our Kyte.tv chat room.

Comments

  1. Don’t you think that these enterprise IT managers will tolerate some of the issues with cloud software when they consider the huge savings? No software to buy. No support staff to pay. Fewer configuration issues.

  2. Don’t you think that these enterprise IT managers will tolerate some of the issues with cloud software when they consider the huge savings? No software to buy. No support staff to pay. Fewer configuration issues.

  3. Working in the IT trenches, I’m also fascinated by the non-stop coverage of webified Office replacements… I don’t really get it, honestly. Reading the articles, one feels like the authors are totally out of touch with corporate IT requirements and needs, and can only think from a consumer and/or tech geek perspective. It’s totally unrepresentative, and it’s very frustrating–it also creates a huge disconnect between IT and end users within organizations. The end users (and CxOs–hopefully excluding CIOs) read things like the NYT and USA Today and get woefully misdirected. For IT, you’re swimming against that tsunami current, and there’s nothing to back you up.

    Chris identifies some of the many reasons why it’s just not possible for most, at least not today. It may sound like he’s just protecting his “turf,” but it’s totally true. Of all the online apps I’ve seen, nearly all become silos outside the organization. Want to tie it into an existing app? Tough luck.

    Worse yet, consider another, very real problem: when an online app is updated, you get the update–like it or not. That is totally unacceptable for a well-run IT shop. If that update breaks something, too bad for you. Now extend that… what if you went to an entirely “Web 2.0″-based set of apps and services. If an update of one app breaks the integration or method of connecting another app or set of apps, again, too bad.

    These issues aren’t unsolvable, but this approach is taking steps backwards in so many ways. The browser as an app platform, IMO, is a lousy idea–it is a very, very poor layer of abstraction that is ill-suited to solving those problems. What about a security update to Firefox/IE? As it stands today, it is exceedingly rare that a security update to the OS breaks an app entirely. And now, instead of the stability of the OS being paramount to productivity, it’s the stability of the browser–do we really want to place all our business-critical processes on that? We want the instability of one app to take out the rest? People complain about bloat… and now we want the 300 MB Firefox 3.0 running memory footprint added to our baseline?

    The browser is just nowhere near mature enough for this. Not today. And not likely yet for years.

  4. Working in the IT trenches, I’m also fascinated by the non-stop coverage of webified Office replacements… I don’t really get it, honestly. Reading the articles, one feels like the authors are totally out of touch with corporate IT requirements and needs, and can only think from a consumer and/or tech geek perspective. It’s totally unrepresentative, and it’s very frustrating–it also creates a huge disconnect between IT and end users within organizations. The end users (and CxOs–hopefully excluding CIOs) read things like the NYT and USA Today and get woefully misdirected. For IT, you’re swimming against that tsunami current, and there’s nothing to back you up.

    Chris identifies some of the many reasons why it’s just not possible for most, at least not today. It may sound like he’s just protecting his “turf,” but it’s totally true. Of all the online apps I’ve seen, nearly all become silos outside the organization. Want to tie it into an existing app? Tough luck.

    Worse yet, consider another, very real problem: when an online app is updated, you get the update–like it or not. That is totally unacceptable for a well-run IT shop. If that update breaks something, too bad for you. Now extend that… what if you went to an entirely “Web 2.0″-based set of apps and services. If an update of one app breaks the integration or method of connecting another app or set of apps, again, too bad.

    These issues aren’t unsolvable, but this approach is taking steps backwards in so many ways. The browser as an app platform, IMO, is a lousy idea–it is a very, very poor layer of abstraction that is ill-suited to solving those problems. What about a security update to Firefox/IE? As it stands today, it is exceedingly rare that a security update to the OS breaks an app entirely. And now, instead of the stability of the OS being paramount to productivity, it’s the stability of the browser–do we really want to place all our business-critical processes on that? We want the instability of one app to take out the rest? People complain about bloat… and now we want the 300 MB Firefox 3.0 running memory footprint added to our baseline?

    The browser is just nowhere near mature enough for this. Not today. And not likely yet for years.

  5. Working in the IT trenches, I’m also fascinated by the non-stop coverage of webified Office replacements… I don’t really get it, honestly. Reading the articles, one feels like the authors are totally out of touch with corporate IT requirements and needs, and can only think from a consumer and/or tech geek perspective. It’s totally unrepresentative, and it’s very frustrating–it also creates a huge disconnect between IT and end users within organizations. The end users (and CxOs–hopefully excluding CIOs) read things like the NYT and USA Today and get woefully misdirected. For IT, you’re swimming against that tsunami current, and there’s nothing to back you up.

    Chris identifies some of the many reasons why it’s just not possible for most, at least not today. It may sound like he’s just protecting his “turf,” but it’s totally true. Of all the online apps I’ve seen, nearly all become silos outside the organization. Want to tie it into an existing app? Tough luck.

    Worse yet, consider another, very real problem: when an online app is updated, you get the update–like it or not. That is totally unacceptable for a well-run IT shop. If that update breaks something, too bad for you. Now extend that… what if you went to an entirely “Web 2.0″-based set of apps and services. If an update of one app breaks the integration or method of connecting another app or set of apps, again, too bad.

    These issues aren’t unsolvable, but this approach is taking steps backwards in so many ways. The browser as an app platform, IMO, is a lousy idea–it is a very, very poor layer of abstraction that is ill-suited to solving those problems. What about a security update to Firefox/IE? As it stands today, it is exceedingly rare that a security update to the OS breaks an app entirely. And now, instead of the stability of the OS being paramount to productivity, it’s the stability of the browser–do we really want to place all our business-critical processes on that? We want the instability of one app to take out the rest? People complain about bloat… and now we want the 300 MB Firefox 3.0 running memory footprint added to our baseline?

    The browser is just nowhere near mature enough for this. Not today. And not likely yet for years.

  6. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  7. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  8. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  9. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  10. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  11. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  12. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  13. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  14. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  15. I can only agree with bulvg. Blogs are littered with web 2.0 examples but rarely if ever do you see stats about usage. Yes IBM has 40.000 photos, 10.000 wikis etc. etc. but how many those are actually viewed and how many employees actively engage in conversation.

    I have the faint feeling that most of employees couldn’t care less about web 2.0 in the enterprise. They want to go to work… get their work done with minimum effort and then go home.

    Oh btw, just because there are millions of Facebook users doesn’t mean these people will actually use Facebook to do work… most likely they are using Facebook to connect with their friends.

    I really wish this wasn’t true. But my experience with clients I am working with on a daily basis show otherwise.

    So here my question… Does anyone have usage data on web 2.0 Intranets and office applications?

  16. All the points Chris makes are totally valid as general oppositions to using Office 2.0 apps. But that does not mean that they are valid for a specific app say Google Docs.

    Google Docs is very reliable. You can export all the docs out of it. And how about integration? With the ever-increasing number of APIs, it is going come sooner rather than later.

    So, I believe when you consider the costs and benefits (free & great collaboration features), even today, Google Docs is (almost) better than MS Office. Just wait a couple more years and the situation will be completely different. As Mary points out, MS Office is definitely not the future.

  17. All the points Chris makes are totally valid as general oppositions to using Office 2.0 apps. But that does not mean that they are valid for a specific app say Google Docs.

    Google Docs is very reliable. You can export all the docs out of it. And how about integration? With the ever-increasing number of APIs, it is going come sooner rather than later.

    So, I believe when you consider the costs and benefits (free & great collaboration features), even today, Google Docs is (almost) better than MS Office. Just wait a couple more years and the situation will be completely different. As Mary points out, MS Office is definitely not the future.

  18. All the points Chris makes are totally valid as general oppositions to using Office 2.0 apps. But that does not mean that they are valid for a specific app say Google Docs.

    Google Docs is very reliable. You can export all the docs out of it. And how about integration? With the ever-increasing number of APIs, it is going come sooner rather than later.

    So, I believe when you consider the costs and benefits (free & great collaboration features), even today, Google Docs is (almost) better than MS Office. Just wait a couple more years and the situation will be completely different. As Mary points out, MS Office is definitely not the future.

  19. All the points Chris makes are totally valid as general oppositions to using Office 2.0 apps. But that does not mean that they are valid for a specific app say Google Docs.

    Google Docs is very reliable. You can export all the docs out of it. And how about integration? With the ever-increasing number of APIs, it is going come sooner rather than later.

    So, I believe when you consider the costs and benefits (free & great collaboration features), even today, Google Docs is (almost) better than MS Office. Just wait a couple more years and the situation will be completely different. As Mary points out, MS Office is definitely not the future.

  20. All the points Chris makes are totally valid as general oppositions to using Office 2.0 apps. But that does not mean that they are valid for a specific app say Google Docs.

    Google Docs is very reliable. You can export all the docs out of it. And how about integration? With the ever-increasing number of APIs, it is going come sooner rather than later.

    So, I believe when you consider the costs and benefits (free & great collaboration features), even today, Google Docs is (almost) better than MS Office. Just wait a couple more years and the situation will be completely different. As Mary points out, MS Office is definitely not the future.

  21. All the points Chris makes are totally valid as general oppositions to using Office 2.0 apps. But that does not mean that they are valid for a specific app say Google Docs.

    Google Docs is very reliable. You can export all the docs out of it. And how about integration? With the ever-increasing number of APIs, it is going come sooner rather than later.

    So, I believe when you consider the costs and benefits (free & great collaboration features), even today, Google Docs is (almost) better than MS Office. Just wait a couple more years and the situation will be completely different. As Mary points out, MS Office is definitely not the future.

  22. All the points Chris makes are totally valid as general oppositions to using Office 2.0 apps. But that does not mean that they are valid for a specific app say Google Docs.

    Google Docs is very reliable. You can export all the docs out of it. And how about integration? With the ever-increasing number of APIs, it is going come sooner rather than later.

    So, I believe when you consider the costs and benefits (free & great collaboration features), even today, Google Docs is (almost) better than MS Office. Just wait a couple more years and the situation will be completely different. As Mary points out, MS Office is definitely not the future.

  23. All the points Chris makes are totally valid as general oppositions to using Office 2.0 apps. But that does not mean that they are valid for a specific app say Google Docs.

    Google Docs is very reliable. You can export all the docs out of it. And how about integration? With the ever-increasing number of APIs, it is going come sooner rather than later.

    So, I believe when you consider the costs and benefits (free & great collaboration features), even today, Google Docs is (almost) better than MS Office. Just wait a couple more years and the situation will be completely different. As Mary points out, MS Office is definitely not the future.

  24. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  25. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  26. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  27. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  28. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  29. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  30. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  31. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  32. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  33. Mission-critical command and control standardized system-wide integration. (And no that’s not actually buzzword, nor just a a good idea, it’s the law).

    Chris Capossela obviously knows his stuff, but to anyone neck-deep in the CIO/IT tarpits, such be so commonsensical as to be redundant even stating it, but I guess the Valley-Geek Spooky Kids need things jack-hammered in repeatedly, that is if you can pry them away from the Macbook Pros for a few milliseconds.

  34. Robert, you hit it right on the key points. IT must deliver rich, integrated desktop Office tools, legal document “production” capabilities and control. We just went thru this very exercise of deciding which solution is a better match… the whole ROI, benefit analysis. And legal was a huge factor. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

  35. Robert, you hit it right on the key points. IT must deliver rich, integrated desktop Office tools, legal document “production” capabilities and control. We just went thru this very exercise of deciding which solution is a better match… the whole ROI, benefit analysis. And legal was a huge factor. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

  36. Susan,

    If you are using Google Apps Premier Edition, than the archive component meets HIPPA, S/OX, and SEC 17 requirements. If you are running exchange in-house, than Google Message Discovery meets the needs. Depending on your archive needs, GMD lets you manage inbound/outbound only or include internal messages.

    As for control, “managed services” and “Hosted Services” do not mean loss of control in any way.

    In fact, services like GMD are better fits than many in-house solutions as they provide the search and treading capability that is also required under some of the regulations.

    Regards,
    Allen

  37. Susan,

    If you are using Google Apps Premier Edition, than the archive component meets HIPPA, S/OX, and SEC 17 requirements. If you are running exchange in-house, than Google Message Discovery meets the needs. Depending on your archive needs, GMD lets you manage inbound/outbound only or include internal messages.

    As for control, “managed services” and “Hosted Services” do not mean loss of control in any way.

    In fact, services like GMD are better fits than many in-house solutions as they provide the search and treading capability that is also required under some of the regulations.

    Regards,
    Allen

  38. Wow, a VP from Microsoft, he must be really smart and innovative and leading the new software wave.

    Robert be critical, any idiot from Microsoft well tell you why sticking with the old is great. The ones that aren’t are probably floating resumes, hahaha.

  39. Wow, a VP from Microsoft, he must be really smart and innovative and leading the new software wave.

    Robert be critical, any idiot from Microsoft well tell you why sticking with the old is great. The ones that aren’t are probably floating resumes, hahaha.

  40. I wish Microsoft would bring that kind of integration to their consumer products. The MobileMe mentality–”Exchange for the rest of us.”

  41. I wish Microsoft would bring that kind of integration to their consumer products. The MobileMe mentality–”Exchange for the rest of us.”

  42. 1. Everyone knows what Microsoft Office does, and how it works. Trying something new in business? Not easy to do when there are hundreds, or even thousands of people involved in the decision.

    You know, Robert, having standards makes it easier for businesses to try something new. And darn it, isn’t that what MS has tried to stop from happening for the office document format (verging on the criminal). When it comes to negative strategies, they sure are creative!

    http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2007/09/04/microsofts-more-important-standard/

  43. 1. Everyone knows what Microsoft Office does, and how it works. Trying something new in business? Not easy to do when there are hundreds, or even thousands of people involved in the decision.

    You know, Robert, having standards makes it easier for businesses to try something new. And darn it, isn’t that what MS has tried to stop from happening for the office document format (verging on the criminal). When it comes to negative strategies, they sure are creative!

    http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2007/09/04/microsofts-more-important-standard/

  44. 2. IT wants to stay in control inside corporations. Why? Cause they have many constituencies to serve. Lawyers. Executives. Regulators. Let’s say a company gets sued and the judge asks for all of their communications. Can they provide those if they happen, say on Twitter? No. How about Exchange? Yes.

    Oh boy Robster. IT’s main “constituency to serve” is the people who use their systems every day for serving the corporations customers – not lawyers, executives
    or regulators. And yes, at present web apps offerings are not mature yet as a business to offer big corporate’s needs.

    But the web apps business will become more mature and will be able to offer the requirements of lawyers, execs and regulators. And IT departments will flee the client/server nightmare.

    Oh yeah, and not all companies are big. SMEs are much more prevalent and are much more free-thinking to try something new.

    History lesson! In the Olden Days, corporations didn’t outsource electricity either. Yep, it was generator (read:inhouse server) galore in those days.

  45. 2. IT wants to stay in control inside corporations. Why? Cause they have many constituencies to serve. Lawyers. Executives. Regulators. Let’s say a company gets sued and the judge asks for all of their communications. Can they provide those if they happen, say on Twitter? No. How about Exchange? Yes.

    Oh boy Robster. IT’s main “constituency to serve” is the people who use their systems every day for serving the corporations customers – not lawyers, executives
    or regulators. And yes, at present web apps offerings are not mature yet as a business to offer big corporate’s needs.

    But the web apps business will become more mature and will be able to offer the requirements of lawyers, execs and regulators. And IT departments will flee the client/server nightmare.

    Oh yeah, and not all companies are big. SMEs are much more prevalent and are much more free-thinking to try something new.

    History lesson! In the Olden Days, corporations didn’t outsource electricity either. Yep, it was generator (read:inhouse server) galore in those days.

  46. 2. IT wants to stay in control inside corporations. Why? Cause they have many constituencies to serve. Lawyers. Executives. Regulators. Let’s say a company gets sued and the judge asks for all of their communications. Can they provide those if they happen, say on Twitter? No. How about Exchange? Yes.

    Oh boy Robster. IT’s main “constituency to serve” is the people who use their systems every day for serving the corporations customers – not lawyers, executives
    or regulators. And yes, at present web apps offerings are not mature yet as a business to offer big corporate’s needs.

    But the web apps business will become more mature and will be able to offer the requirements of lawyers, execs and regulators. And IT departments will flee the client/server nightmare.

    Oh yeah, and not all companies are big. SMEs are much more prevalent and are much more free-thinking to try something new.

    History lesson! In the Olden Days, corporations didn’t outsource electricity either. Yep, it was generator (read:inhouse server) galore in those days.

  47. 3. They need to know these services will stay up. Twitter being down for a few hours? It’s a pain in the behind for everyone, but totally unacceptable inside big companies. IT departments get fired if stuff like that happens.

    Robert, Robert, Robert. Robert pleeeaase cut the drama. In big companies nobody gets fired for professional stupidity, you know that. You should know that it’s horrible management if you fire people who make mistakes.

    Now inside “big companies” IT departments are often outsourced. And yeah, if the vendor screws up there’s gonna be discussion (probably about money), and who nows, the vendor is replaced by another vendor.

  48. 3. They need to know these services will stay up. Twitter being down for a few hours? It’s a pain in the behind for everyone, but totally unacceptable inside big companies. IT departments get fired if stuff like that happens.

    Robert, Robert, Robert. Robert pleeeaase cut the drama. In big companies nobody gets fired for professional stupidity, you know that. You should know that it’s horrible management if you fire people who make mistakes.

    Now inside “big companies” IT departments are often outsourced. And yeah, if the vendor screws up there’s gonna be discussion (probably about money), and who nows, the vendor is replaced by another vendor.

  49. 3. They need to know these services will stay up. Twitter being down for a few hours? It’s a pain in the behind for everyone, but totally unacceptable inside big companies. IT departments get fired if stuff like that happens.

    Robert, Robert, Robert. Robert pleeeaase cut the drama. In big companies nobody gets fired for professional stupidity, you know that. You should know that it’s horrible management if you fire people who make mistakes.

    Now inside “big companies” IT departments are often outsourced. And yeah, if the vendor screws up there’s gonna be discussion (probably about money), and who nows, the vendor is replaced by another vendor.

  50. 3. They need to know these services will stay up. Twitter being down for a few hours? It’s a pain in the behind for everyone, but totally unacceptable inside big companies. IT departments get fired if stuff like that happens.

    Robert, Robert, Robert. Robert pleeeaase cut the drama. In big companies nobody gets fired for professional stupidity, you know that. You should know that it’s horrible management if you fire people who make mistakes.

    Now inside “big companies” IT departments are often outsourced. And yeah, if the vendor screws up there’s gonna be discussion (probably about money), and who nows, the vendor is replaced by another vendor.

  51. 3. They need to know these services will stay up. Twitter being down for a few hours? It’s a pain in the behind for everyone, but totally unacceptable inside big companies. IT departments get fired if stuff like that happens.

    Robert, Robert, Robert. Robert pleeeaase cut the drama. In big companies nobody gets fired for professional stupidity, you know that. You should know that it’s horrible management if you fire people who make mistakes.

    Now inside “big companies” IT departments are often outsourced. And yeah, if the vendor screws up there’s gonna be discussion (probably about money), and who nows, the vendor is replaced by another vendor.

  52. 3. They need to know these services will stay up. Twitter being down for a few hours? It’s a pain in the behind for everyone, but totally unacceptable inside big companies. IT departments get fired if stuff like that happens.

    Robert, Robert, Robert. Robert pleeeaase cut the drama. In big companies nobody gets fired for professional stupidity, you know that. You should know that it’s horrible management if you fire people who make mistakes.

    Now inside “big companies” IT departments are often outsourced. And yeah, if the vendor screws up there’s gonna be discussion (probably about money), and who nows, the vendor is replaced by another vendor.

  53. 3. They need to know these services will stay up. Twitter being down for a few hours? It’s a pain in the behind for everyone, but totally unacceptable inside big companies. IT departments get fired if stuff like that happens.

    Robert, Robert, Robert. Robert pleeeaase cut the drama. In big companies nobody gets fired for professional stupidity, you know that. You should know that it’s horrible management if you fire people who make mistakes.

    Now inside “big companies” IT departments are often outsourced. And yeah, if the vendor screws up there’s gonna be discussion (probably about money), and who nows, the vendor is replaced by another vendor.

  54. 4. They need integration into their other systems. Chris showed me what happens when someone calls his desk phone. The phone call gets routed to his Windows Mobile smart phone and shows up on his desktop’s screen at same time. If he doesn’t answer it, the call goes back into voice mail, but the voice mail shows up as email in Outlook. That requires systems to talk to each other, something that doesn’t happen on, say, Gmail.

    What an incredible replacement for voice mail! I am so impressed.

    Forget the new iPhone and let’s all move to Windows Mobile! (Make sure to read up on the task manager, uh)

  55. 4. They need integration into their other systems. Chris showed me what happens when someone calls his desk phone. The phone call gets routed to his Windows Mobile smart phone and shows up on his desktop’s screen at same time. If he doesn’t answer it, the call goes back into voice mail, but the voice mail shows up as email in Outlook. That requires systems to talk to each other, something that doesn’t happen on, say, Gmail.

    What an incredible replacement for voice mail! I am so impressed.

    Forget the new iPhone and let’s all move to Windows Mobile! (Make sure to read up on the task manager, uh)

  56. 4. They need integration into their other systems. Chris showed me what happens when someone calls his desk phone. The phone call gets routed to his Windows Mobile smart phone and shows up on his desktop’s screen at same time. If he doesn’t answer it, the call goes back into voice mail, but the voice mail shows up as email in Outlook. That requires systems to talk to each other, something that doesn’t happen on, say, Gmail.

    What an incredible replacement for voice mail! I am so impressed.

    Forget the new iPhone and let’s all move to Windows Mobile! (Make sure to read up on the task manager, uh)

  57. Robert, spot on… you hit the nail on the head. MS Office will remain dominant fo the foreseeable future simply because the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.

    SharePoint is having a play on this as well, but in general alternatives are becoming a reality. We are in limited release of Open Office, for instance, to see if we can get away from using MS Office licenses for the general public – those that don’t need heavy integration.

    However, integration is becoming the name of the game! The layers of complexity build in the technology arena only to make it SIMPLER on us as end-users… that is the sole goal…

    I wrote a little piece on this a few months back if anyone is interested in a read:

    http://www.changeforge.com/2008/04/08/why-do-you-still-use-microsoft-office-vs-open-office-vs-google-docs/

  58. Robert, spot on… you hit the nail on the head. MS Office will remain dominant fo the foreseeable future simply because the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.

    SharePoint is having a play on this as well, but in general alternatives are becoming a reality. We are in limited release of Open Office, for instance, to see if we can get away from using MS Office licenses for the general public – those that don’t need heavy integration.

    However, integration is becoming the name of the game! The layers of complexity build in the technology arena only to make it SIMPLER on us as end-users… that is the sole goal…

    I wrote a little piece on this a few months back if anyone is interested in a read:

    http://www.changeforge.com/2008/04/08/why-do-you-still-use-microsoft-office-vs-open-office-vs-google-docs/

  59. @Toph – Start taking your zantac. you wish Microsoft would make your lunch lunch sandwich too?? Why would you wish that when there is a free market full with great alternatives to all things MS?

    I suggest you take it slow and start with FireFox (it’s a browser, but it’s not from MS).

  60. @Toph – Start taking your zantac. you wish Microsoft would make your lunch lunch sandwich too?? Why would you wish that when there is a free market full with great alternatives to all things MS?

    I suggest you take it slow and start with FireFox (it’s a browser, but it’s not from MS).

  61. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  62. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  63. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  64. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  65. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  66. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  67. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  68. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  69. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  70. Gmail’s Postini archive engine is not a business class solution as we loose control of the actual data. MS Exchange puts us in control of the data and archiving – WIN!

    Have you actually used the service? There is no loss of controlling the data and in a legal sense, you may not have a choice. Control of the data albeit retention using envelope journaling, not message journaling, has a different meaning when talking about the potential of compliance rules or company policies. Postini’s Archive and Discovery works in-line with Exchange and provides for full control of the data.

    The benefit of using Postini’s solution is no limitations on storage, none. That benefit alone may help increase server performance according to some reading I have done on Exchange forums.

    Every time a message is sent will be copied and then sent to the journaling account. Reducing that extra I/O may prove beneficial, though Postini still provides you journaling options.

    Postini’s Discovery offers increased performance, less storage needs, increased I/O and less CPU time. Factor some of those into your ROI against MS Exchange and you may see a different result.

  71. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  72. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  73. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  74. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  75. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  76. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  77. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  78. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  79. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  80. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  81. In some ways, I do wish the last sentence of #3 were true; sadly, where I work (a university — five figure number of students, four figure number of staff, many dozens of IT people) while it’s true that the IT department controls the IT budget and policies, they are very definitely not in control of the services they provide, nor held accountable for the failings thereof. They imposed Groupwise (quite possibly the most braindead e-mail system in existence), with the result that IMAP now fails on a daily basis, just months after blowing six figures on newer, faster FCAL disks to try to compensate for the software’s painful inefficiency.

    The discovery requirements mentioned do apply to all communications in certain industries, like financial services, but for most businesses, that sort of comprehensive monitoring isn’t mandated, or indeed practical or even desirable. No, I can’t provide a record of everything posted to Twitter – or every e-mail I’ve received, or phone call in or out – nor could I be legally required to do so. So, Twitter isn’t suitable for a stockbroker – but just fine for the rest of us.

    Yes, there are lots of business out there still running Office – often Office XP, or even Office 2000. No, they probably aren’t attractive targets for Google Apps, but they’re a hard sell for Office 2007 as well – quite possibly harder, since it’s much easier for someone to try using Google Docs for a job than it is to go and get Office 2007 licensed, approved and installed.

    1 and 2 aren’t the whole picture: our central IT department doesn’t control individual desktops or software acquisitions, nor does everything have to go past everyone. I could deploy Twitterific department-wide tomorrow, if I had a reason to want to; sadly, binning Groupwise would involve more hoops to jump through. If the IMAP service worked properly, I could at least dump the client for something standard…

  82. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  83. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  84. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  85. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  86. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  87. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  88. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  89. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  90. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  91. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  92. Like they say: “No s**t, Sherlock!”. You should have just written a post about the sun rising tomorrow. It would have been just as obvious.

    The fact that you thought this post offered any new perspective or insight speaks volumes about how out of touch the Web 2.0 dweebs are out of touch with corporate American. And why 99% of these companies have Zero chance of turning a profit.

    Scoble, for you next “investigative report” I challenge to find one company on the F500 that has standardized of plans to to standardize on any Web 2.0 productivity offering.

  93. LOL @ ‘Twitter’ references in this post. It’s a hoot how many advocates there are for these social media sites being taken seriously in the business world.

    I mean yes they are being leveraged as marketing tools but as reliable, integrated communications utilities? Not a chance!

    However I think they are a preview for things to come. A few years from now communications systems may very well look, act, and feel just as lucid as some of these Web 2.0 portals.

  94. LOL @ ‘Twitter’ references in this post. It’s a hoot how many advocates there are for these social media sites being taken seriously in the business world.

    I mean yes they are being leveraged as marketing tools but as reliable, integrated communications utilities? Not a chance!

    However I think they are a preview for things to come. A few years from now communications systems may very well look, act, and feel just as lucid as some of these Web 2.0 portals.

  95. LOL @ ‘Twitter’ references in this post. It’s a hoot how many advocates there are for these social media sites being taken seriously in the business world.

    I mean yes they are being leveraged as marketing tools but as reliable, integrated communications utilities? Not a chance!

    However I think they are a preview for things to come. A few years from now communications systems may very well look, act, and feel just as lucid as some of these Web 2.0 portals.

  96. Yes, that is basically a requirement: 100% uptime and perfect flowing integration. I remember the win.95 instability and how Aust. naval admin refused to allow it to be a part of naval IT. Same can occur for anything on a ‘Seattle’ OS. Enterprises need proven platforms that keep on working day in and day out. GPD.

  97. Yes, that is basically a requirement: 100% uptime and perfect flowing integration. I remember the win.95 instability and how Aust. naval admin refused to allow it to be a part of naval IT. Same can occur for anything on a ‘Seattle’ OS. Enterprises need proven platforms that keep on working day in and day out. GPD.