Going Google: It's not a slam dunk yet, sorry

Google has started up an interesting ad campaign in four major US cities (including Boston) in which it touts the benefits and simplicity of moving to Google Apps. Here's some info about this from the Official Google Blog:

Every morning, millions of people wake up to a very refreshing experience at work. They don't see "mailbox is full" errors in their email. They don't worry about backing up their data. They can get to any file they need from any computer, anywhere with Internet access and a browser. They can all access and edit the same documents and spreadsheets at the same time as their colleagues. They use Gmail and Google Calendar at work as fluidly and easily as they use their personal Gmail accounts. They video, voice and text chat with their peers globally as naturally as they send email.

The IT people at these companies and organizations don't waste time or money buying, installing or managing email servers. They focus on the smart, innovative stuff they want to work on, because they never have to bother with expensive and painful software upgrades, hardware compatibility issues or managing data centers. They have left many IT frustrations and costs behind and moved on to something better.

Here at Google, we have a term for the moment a company realizes there's a better way and goes for it: "going Google." Over 1.75 million businesses, schools and organizations have gone Google — including Motorola, University of Notre Dame, the Mercy Corps and many more — and each day, 3,000 more organizations join them. We want every organization to understand the benefits of going Google, so today we're telling the story in a new way. We're kicking off a series of outdoor billboards in four cities — Boston, Chicago, New York and San Francisco — that will change every weekday for the next four weeks. The billboards tell the story of an anonymous IT manager who gets so fed up with the typical IT status quo that his company eventually — you guessed it — goes Google.

Visit www.google.com/appsatwork to get more information about the benefits of going Google. Already gone Google? Tweet your story and check out our tools to help spread the word.

In keeping with my recent talk and Microsoft Gets FAMiliar with Cloud Strategy article, I should point out the following observations. Gmail and Google Calendar work primarily because they are simple and efficient. (Though they can be made less so with various "labs" add-ons now.) This is exactly why I use these solutions myself. They're just superior. Microsoft's web-based version of Outlook, Outlook Web Access (OWA) does not work because it is big, busy, and slow. It is in fact, too much like the desktop version of Outlook, which also does not work (for me at least). But at least OWA does get away from that "tied to one machine" issue that dogs desktop Outlook. So for online activities--email and calendar--I feel that Google has already won. Gmail and Google Calendar are better.

For productivity applications, there is Microsoft Office and then there are older versions of Microsoft Office. Nothing else compares, and that includes OpenOffice.org (and its many derivatives), iWork, and, yes, Google Docs. Microsoft, of course, is busy porting four Office 2010 apps to the web as part of Office Web Applications (also, awkwardly, OWA). Office Web Apps will be free. This solution is vastly superior to Google Apps. It's not even close.

So. Where does this lead us? Ultimately, the conclusion is the same as almost any debate about cloud computing. While some Luddites believe that desktop-only solutions (Outlook, Office) are all they'll ever need, and starry-eyed idealists (myself, certainly sometimes) believe that the future is all-cloud, the reality is that, today certainly, hybrids solutions are best. So for all those guys supposedly "going Google", I bet a huge percentage are using Gmail/Google Calendar in the cloud, but also using Microsoft Office locally. (Go figure, but that's what I'm doing.) It's not about idealism, it's about using the best solution. And right now, neither company--Google or Microsoft--has one across the board. Office Web Apps will keep people in the Microsoft ecosystem, at least partially. But it won't help the email/PIM picture at all. Nor will stem the flood of people who are, in fact, moving to the cloud.

Discuss this Article 65

simongoldring
on Aug 4, 2009
'has one across the board' should be 'won', I presume. Simon
benjwah
on Aug 4, 2009
Yep. Once you go GMail & GCal, you never go back. Then you say "Wow, this cloud computing's great, I reckon I'll try Google Docs & Spreadsheets". And you realise why you love Office. @Simongoldring - I think you'll find that the "one" Paul was referring to is a solution. Rather than saying that no one has "won" the contest for an across the board solution. Nice eyes though. Always best to keep writers on their toes, or the internet will devolve entirely into L337 H4x0r5 hoo karnt spel.
richardfrisch
on Aug 4, 2009
Vendors such as Microsoft, Google and Apple want us to be married (or is that enslaved) to them. As Paul points out, the quality of vendor solutions vary by application. Some are great, such as Google email and Calendar, some are dinosaurs that should be extinct (I place Outlook in this group) and some are okay but bested by alternatives (think Google Docs vs. Word+Excel+PowerPoint). Many people use a vendor's suite. Perhaps they are in an enterprise where the sysadmin dictates the applications. Perhaps they are typical users who want use their computers to accomplish tasks and not spend their lives in pursuit of a technology PhD., Geeks like us often try to work with best-in-breed applications creating our own customized suite of applications, both locally installed and web-based. Paul's mashup of Google email and Calendar, with Microsoft Office (local and web-based) are what I use. Other than email, I am ready to switch at a moment's notice. I only need something new and shiny to attract my attention.
mikegno
on Aug 4, 2009
The problem with the Google solutions is that many people are growing to distrust Google. I do, and would never my personal info to them, much less confidential communications..
trieste
on Aug 5, 2009
Office has become a real Swiss Army Chainsaw. There is nothing that it can't do but for a large percentage of its user base it is overkill. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/08/microsoft-word-1983---2009... An interesting article from a 20-year Word veteran.
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 5, 2009
Paul, my advice to you, stick to the consumer view. Your business view, especially when it comes to email is completely wrong. I have seen some small companies, say 20 users or less switch to google for email. Why? Well they have or had a version of SBS and the box it ran on got old and needed to be replaced. They only ever used maybe 20% of what SBS could do not because they did not like it, but because they were focused on their company and what it does and only use enough of any IT solution to achieve what they need to get done. So the price to replace SBS and the hardware was way more than going to gmail for 20 users, and using a XP box for a simple file server. Also they DONT REALLY CARE as much about their email data being in the cloud. Now in any company that has an IT staff and say 100 or more employees, they are not ready to put sensitive data in the cloud for a few reasons. Security is #1. #2 is access. Access as in your network connectivity. At my company we have a main site, a DR site and then 30 small sites. We use big nation wide vendors and yet monthy we have some sort of outage. Sometimes it can take more than 24 hours to resolve issues with network connectivity, and its completely out of our hands. Imagine if our users could not get the data in have in Outlook for that long? Or say all of their data in sharepoint or on a cloud file server? Also have you ever heard of a roaming profile? You know whatever computer you go to in your company your Outlook profile will be there. Add in OWA, the best webmail I have ever used, and Active Sync to say an iPhone and you pretty much have your Outlook data where ever. The funny thing is, I have had this ability long before gmail was even around. It was a Blackberry server back with Exchange 5.5, but as my wife has been saying for YEARS, you can never get away from work and that is because of Exchange and its many access points. All Google is doing is copying that model but with less features. Same for MobileMe, in fact MobileMe while not free, offers more Exchange like features than Google does. As far as office goes, IMHO as long as the saved files are kept at the corporation, Office has peaked. I am not saying Open Office will replace it, but I am saying that we are still sitting on Office 2003 at my company, even though we own Office 2007 and soon Office 2010, because the users are not asking for anything better and we are not in a hurry to fire up a big project with replacing Office 2003 anytime soon. Many, many corporations are just not ready to put their data in the cloud. Lots of little things are there now, like virus and spam scanning of email, but the email data arrives and stays in the corporation. Lots of other stuff like check/credit card authorization that used to run on servers at a company now pass through encrypted lines to vendors that specialize in this service and in those cases they dont house any real data they just provide a real time service. Gmail is great for single users, and small organizations that don't have or need an IT staff or even an office for that matter. Lots of people/organizations fit that model. Lots dont.
Andreas J
on Aug 5, 2009
Ok, so I might be a little weird saying this, but I actually like WinLiveMail and WinLiveCal better. And yes, I have used GCal and GMail. But I can defiantly see everything moving to "the cloud." I've even started editing video in "the cloud."
shark47
on Aug 5, 2009
Interesting! I actually prefer using Outlook even for my GMail account than reading the email on the web page. The one thing I like about GMail is the new email notification (which Live Mail does not support). Other than that, I think GMail is simple, but overrated. It's not the next best thing since sliced bread. In fact, as new features get added to GMail, it's starting to look more busy and confusing. The best thing I can say about Google Docs is that I'm glad that my company still uses Office.
Delmont
on Aug 5, 2009
rrode74: Very good comments all around! Yes, you speak of the real corporate world.
shark47
on Aug 5, 2009
"Gmail is great for single users, and small organizations that don't have or need an IT staff or even an office for that matter." I agree. My friend helped a non-profit set up a GMail apps account for all of its 50 employees. He did get them to install Thunderbird as the mail client. I heard its going well so far.
Andreas J
on Aug 5, 2009
I also don't use Google solutions because of privacy issues. Google doesn't [exactly] care about privacy(they look through your email and web history). Microsoft at least does care about privacy.
anonymuos
on Aug 5, 2009
So just because you don't use advanced functionality and need everything simple, it shouldn't exist? Outlook 2010 is super-responsive, fast, not bloated at all and you can put anything you use most frequently the way you want and the rest of the advanced functionality off.
pmcgrath
on Aug 5, 2009
Why would you consider email and calendaring "online activities?" Assuming by online you mean via a web browser. 99.9% of my email and calendaring are done on the desktop. Honestly, how often do you access your gmail from a computer thats not you own? With smartphones, netbooks and laptops, I would bet very rarely. So why not just configure outlook/activesync? Its not hard and it doesnt take that long. Really, Paul, you always make it sound like MSs Exchange group should be waking up in a cold sweat at night worrying about gmail. I think you are in the minority. The features provided in the Exchange/Outlook solution are so far superior to gmail/calendar that most of us who use it, and administrate it, would never make the change to gmail willingly. The cost saving is a red herring. I've done the math. At 3 years Exchange vs gmail breaks even. At 5 years Exchanged is cheaper. Outlook/Exchange is better than Google Mail/Calendar.
GoodThings2Life
on Aug 5, 2009
"...and each day, 3,000 more organizations join them." Umm.... 3000 companies join them EVERY DAY?! Seriously? Where's the evidence of this? That's 21,000 companies a week, no less than 90,000 per month, and no less than 1,080,000 per year... so I can't help but think that using their math would conclude the entire world would "go Google" with a year or so. Nevermind that if it's really growing so rapidly, that the 3,000/day figure will also grow faster as everybody jumps on board. And yet, not one single company I do business with has standardized on Google. Not one. I don't even know any that are actively considering it in their organization. I'm sorry, but the numbers don't add up.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
As Chrome did, all Google Docs does is push everyone else working in the space to do better than they have or would have done. Mission accomplished. That its on the cloud and not a desktop is a win for Google.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
"The features provided in the Exchange/Outlook solution are so far superior to gmail/calendar that most of us who use it, and administrate it," Like Mac users, this group is a minority.
de Silentio
on Aug 5, 2009
@Ocean: "all Google Docs does is push everyone else working in the space to do better than they have or would have done." I'm confused by your statement. Are you trying to say that one can work better with Google Docs than with Office. Please clarify. ------- The only thing I use GMail for is testing to see if the changes I make in Exchange work. And when I use GMail for that limited application, I dislike my experience. I, albeit rarely, use Yahoo! and Live Mail also, both of which I enjoy more than GMail. As for the other Google Apps, Google Docs is the only one I am familiar with. And, once again, I don't particulalry enjoy that experience either. Maybe it's my familiarity with Office, I don't know, but I don't like any of the Google products that are offered. I would use OpenOffice before I would use Google Docs.
de Silentio
on Aug 5, 2009
@Ocean: "Like Mac users, this group is a minority." Do you have numbers to back that up? Even if you are correct, and Exchange/Outlook is a minority, that doesn't take away from the fact that Exchange/Outlook are superior.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
This commentary I read yesterday about MS Word was succinct. It doesn't name Google Docs as the answer...it just points out that we have a lot of various options in the Web-centric world we live in. "Word, to this day, is still largely a digital representation of a bunch of 8½ by 11 pieces of paper. -- Go into any office today and you'll find people using Word to write documents. Some people still print them out and file them in big metal cabinets to be lost forever, but again this is simply an old habit, like a phantom itch on a severed limb. Instead of printing them, most people will email them to their boss or another coworker, who is then expected to download the email attachment and edit the document, then return it to them in the same manner. At some point the document is considered "finished", at which point it gets dropped off on a network share somewhere and is then summarily forgotten. People keep doing this, but it is an astoundingly awful way to work. -- Word was designed in a different era, for a very specific purpose. We don't work that way anymore. Microsoft has added a metric ton of collaboration features to Word over the years to try and adapt to this reality, from Track Changes to Sharepoint integration. I've used almost all of them, and not only are they somewhat clunky, but getting other people to use them is like pushing a rock uphill. There has to be a better way." http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/08/microsoft-word-1983---2009...
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
"I'm confused by your statement. Are you trying to say that one can work better with Google Docs than with Office." No, I'm saying that Google Docs is partly responsible for pushing MS to make sure it's cloud offerings are as perfect as can be. Working in the cloud = Googles competitors.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
"Even if you are correct, and Exchange/Outlook is a minority, that doesn't take away from the fact that Exchange/Outlook are superior." As are the PC's that Apple builds and perhaps the OS as well. It doesn't matter, as this crowd always says. It's the numbers that count, right? As one analyst said: " Their apparent goal for Windows 7 was merely to make something better than Windows Vista. If Microsoft were a healthy, functional, competitive company willing and able to honestly assess its own shortcomings — like the Microsoft of the ’90s that conquered the entire industry — their goal would have been to make something not just better than Vista, but better than anything else on the market, including Mac OS X."
techman.merb
on Aug 5, 2009
I service a decent number of companies and none of them would consider going to a cloud only solution for anything that is mission critical. As it is now, some clients have enough Internet access downtime to make things difficult at times. If all their data was dependant on Internet access, they would require a 100% uptime guarantee from their ISP and I have never found one that can do that.
de Silentio
on Aug 5, 2009
@Ocean: "As are the PC's that Apple builds and perhaps the OS as well." I wouldn't go that far. In any case, I wasn't saying that Exchange/Outlook is superior to GMail (even though I think it is), I was merely stating that market share is NOT the determining factor in superiority. You and I both know that the numbers do not determine superiority.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
"If all their data was dependant on Internet access, they would require a 100% uptime guarantee from their ISP and I have never found one that can do that." I work for a nationally known hospital -- we've got two ISP's, and we have pretty much 100% uptime between the two. Not all companies have this though.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
"You and I both know that the numbers do not determine superiority." Is that also true in the case of IE and Windows and perhaps even MS Office?
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
I don't expect de Silentio or anyone else to answer the question I asked above.
lotsamystuff
on Aug 5, 2009
"I've used almost all of them, and not only are they somewhat clunky, but getting other people to use them is like pushing a rock uphill. There has to be a better way." It's precisely because they ARE "somewhat clunky" that people don't use them. The best way to proofread is still on paper with a red pen. Anything that's going to be published should be proofed that way, and it's going to be a very long time before that will change.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
Hey Paul, got any proof, or are you making stuff up? "And last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began working toward a formal investigation of Apple when it demanded that the companies explain a recent episode in which Apple denied Google the right to publish a communications application on Apple's iPhone. Apple-friendly press and analysts immediately blamed Apple's US-based wireless partner AT&T for the denial, leading AT&T to issue a statement that says it has absolutely nothing to do with the iPhone App Store. That places the blame squarely where it belongs: on Apple." http://windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=102591&feed=rss&subj=0
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
And here is why Paul should do research before blaming Apple: "*Applications like this, which redirects a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service.* -- So, sure, it’s true that “AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store”. But AT&T does require that the apps Apple approves for use in the U.S. adhere to AT&T’s interpretation of their own terms of service." http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/03/att-slingplayer
de Silentio
on Aug 5, 2009
@Ocean: Yes, have I given you the impression otherwise? Let me qualify my statement a little, just in case. If we are looking at this purely from a market standpoint, the numbers are all that matter. But if we look from a usability/functionality/familiarity standpoint, the market share numbers only factor in because of familiarity. And even in this case of familiarity, it isn't the market share itself that makes a product superior, it is the fact that people know how to use it "instinctively" that make it superior. Now, with Internet browsers familiarity isn't really a key factor, because they all generally work the same way. With Office applications, I think an argument can be made either way. With OSX and Windows, familiarity is a big factor, because they operate in vastly different ways. The problem is, since Windows has a much greater market share, more people are familiar with Windows. So, am I going back on what I said at the beginning? No, because Mac OSX might be suprior than Windows. But I wouldn't know because I only use Windows.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
"Steve Jobs also noted during a Q&A session that AT&T is actively policing voice-over-IP apps. He stated that AT&T is the reason why apps like Skype are WiFi only. " http://www.dailytech.com/ATT+Blames+Apple+for+iPhone+Google+Voice+Reject...
de Silentio
on Aug 5, 2009
@Ocean: "I don't expect de Silentio or anyone else to answer the question I asked above." By the way, I was working on the answer before your comment.
johnbaxter
on Aug 5, 2009
techman.merb, you say "... require a 100% uptime guarantee from their ISP ..." ISP singular? If you need access, you need multiple ISPs selected for disparate routing to the world (as with Qwest DSL and Broadstripe cable here).. Among the banks, Wells-Fargo figured this out in the 1980s: you didn't see a branch with only one ATM. What wasn't visible was that the ATMs were connected by different networks, with contracts requiring physical separation throughout the runs (usually going down different streets right from the branch). Other California banks didn't.
SandmanX82
on Aug 5, 2009
And on cue, Ocean goes into off-topic tangents... Here's a thought. If you'd like to discuss things posted on windowsitpro.com, you could always...oh, I don't know....comment over there? No?
lotsamystuff
on Aug 5, 2009
OT: "leading AT&T to issue a statement that says it has absolutely nothing to do with the iPhone App Store" Ocean, you should know better than to question Paul. AT&T clearly has a lot to do with the iPhone App Store (as you reported, above), and their statement did NOT read the way Paul reported it, but the truth never mattered to his head-nodding minions.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
Sandman...get a life.
pmcgrath
on Aug 5, 2009
BladRnr: My Exchange server requires very little time from me. Its pretty much set it and forget it. The Kerio server does seem to be a less expensive solution, but I have had no experience it with so I can't say how it compares to Exchange in functionality or usability. I'll have to take it for a test drive. We are looking to upgrade our 5 year old Exchange 2003 install next year. When compared to the $50/user/year for Google, Exchange is cheaper in the long run. More to the point of the post, it seems we agree that the server\client solution is better than a browse based\cloud solution.
de Silentio
on Aug 5, 2009
I have more to say about superiority. I got to thinking that IT products are nothing but tools that we use to accomplish tasks. When we talk about one product being superior than another, we have to look at the way the product is used and how well that product can be used to accomplish it's task. Take the example of a hammer: If I am merely pouding in a nail, a 16oz hammer is just as functional and relatively easy to use as a 20oz hammer. However, if something is really stuck (like my brake rotors) a 16oz hammer may not be able to do the job and a 20oz hammer will be able to do the job. In the case of the brake rotor, the 20oz hammer was far supior to the 16oz hammer. But for just pounding nails they are equal (for the most part). The superiority of Mac and Windows is analagous, in a small way. I'm sure that Mac is superior to Windows in certain tasks, and Windows is superior in other tasks. However, they are still tools that can only be used for specific tasks. I don't want to sound like I am posing an "Apples and Oranges" argument, because I am not. But I don't think we can call Windows or Mac superior in general. There are too many factors involved. And, frankly, in the end it boils down to a subjective preference anyways.
de Silentio
on Aug 5, 2009
@BladRnr: I will say that Exchange is not expensive and time consuming. The fact that I work in k-12 education means that I get hefty (and I mean HEFTY) discounts on all MS products, including Exchange. I spent a portion of last summer setting up the server and have not touched it since. Set and forget, is what you called it. I also have never used Kerio, but my guess is that if they don't offer the same discounts for education that MS does, my Exchange solution is just as expensive as any other solution (TCO wise, of course). Additionally, my backup solution has an Exchange agent, which allows granular backup and restore. Every email, calendar item, contact, etc. can be restored without having to restore anything but the lost infromation itself. I ask, in trying to learn, can you do that with your email server?
Waethorn
on Aug 5, 2009
I had a client that was pushed (by their ISP - a small DSL "business ISP" that isn't Bell or Rogers) to switch to hosting all their data on Google, and to use Google Docs. They weren't made aware of their privacy issues, and because they were a regulated business, they got into a lot of legal trouble because of it. They are now threatening legal action against their former ISP. Besides that, they HATED Gmail because Google doesn't do CRM. They also found it slow, clunky, and with Google's track record for outages (17 in the last 6 months), extremely unreliable compared to their former setup. Outlook is much faster, especially because they have to cross-reference several pieces of communication, and index them with documents in their CRM plugin. Time & billing for phone calls can also be tracked and referenced by contact directly in Outlook. They are now licensing new copies of Office with Software Assurance. Be aware that Google & co. can upgrade their systems whenever they like. Upgrade and maintenance windows aren't done on customer time, so you are at their mercy. On-site solutions can be scheduled for off-hour maintenance. Google can't.
redunion1940
on Aug 5, 2009
I just do not see how the cloud is going to work. I use outlook to connect all of my email accounts into one easy to use space on my desktop, I don't want to browse to my email, that takes to much time. Also I do not like the idea of keeping my data on anything other than my hard drive, that way I can keep it secure. I am also part of that niche group called PC gamers and I personally dislike on-line games, I want to have a single user experience on my desktop.
LuxZg
on Aug 5, 2009
I use GMail - personally. But I also rarely use it in the online web form. As for my multiple other accounts, I use Windows Mail at home and Outlook at work. And only reason why I don't use Outlook at home is that it's an overkill for my home usage. And like others I don't get all those touting of Gmail/GCal vs Outlook. While, yes, Outlook is a huge app, it is also a reason why it is THE app of choice for many. People do need all those "bits and pieces" which Outlook has and Gmail doesn't, some more, some less, but a lot of people stay with Outlook because of this. Btw, with connection reliability and speed issues I have both at work and home, I'd never allow for a "cloud-only" solution for any business data. Not having access to data can "kill" you in corporate world. My favorite personal usage of e-mail services is, like I've said, combination of Gmail (which keeps my data "backed up" on "cloud" and always accessible from web) with a desktop client that still keeps all the data on my hard drive as well. So if my Net connection is gone, I can still browse thousands of e-mails on my hard drive; if I'm not on my computer I can always connect to web-mail that has all those emails stored online; and if I have both my desktop and online connection, I have no worries, but I'll still use desktop app because it makes my work much faster and reliable than online solution. So to conclude - like many people, I agree that not even Gmail is a corporate solution for corporate environment.
techman.merb
on Aug 5, 2009
Regarding multiple ISP connections...unfortunately I am located in Montreal, Canada. We have relatively limited options when it comes to Internet access. Basically we have to choose berween DSL from various ISPs who are all running on the Bell backbone - so if Bell goes down so do the rest of them- or ONE cable Internet provider which is not available in many industrial areas. Some areas have frequent Internet outages or slowdowns and running exclusively on the cloud would be a foolish thing to do for most companies that I service. Some of my clients are photo design firms and storing large images upwards of 100 MB in the cloud would not be practical in any sense of the term. Not to mention that for many small businesses in today's economy paying for multiple Internet connections is an expense they do not wish to make.
SandmanX82
on Aug 5, 2009
"Sandman...get a life." The irony of this is astounding. It would mean so much more if it weren't coming from someone who spends much of the day making NUMEROUS comments on virtually every article Paul posts, cross-referencing all his off-topic posts with other articles that had to take time to dig up. I'll work on that whole life thing though. Thanks for the tip.
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 5, 2009
Exchange does cost money. Throw out that you get education discounts means nothing as the vast majority of Exchange users dont get that discount. To be legal, it at the very min, a single server (hardware), Windows server license, Exchange server license, Windows server cal's and Exchange server cal's. You do get a break when you are talking thousands of users, but still, figure $90 for every user and that is Open license (windows and exchange cal, at a discount price). The Exchange server license is around $550 for a standard, $3500 for Enterprise version, to say nothing for the Windows servers license Exchange sits on top of. SBS 2008 is much cheaper but once you hit 75 and then 250 users you have to move past it. Technically Exchange is no walk in the park. Its harder than rebuilding a Windows PC, but its not rocket science. In larger companies an Exchange environment can get really complicated, with many Exchange servers that are clustered, and running different roles. A full time Exchange Administrator in a large company is going to make at least 60K up to 90K. Google would be cheaper in the low end and the larger end.
sjaak327
on Aug 5, 2009
Paul, are you still in Amsterdam ? Don't go into the coffee shops too often. Gmail better then OWA ? It doesn't even come close. As to companies moving over to the cloud for their email solutions, nah not going to happen.
shark47
on Aug 5, 2009
"And on cue, Ocean goes into off-topic tangents..." Like robertsjoe, he doesn't need any excuses to do so...
de Silentio
on Aug 5, 2009
@rrode74: BladRnr asked how anyone could say that Exchange is not expensive or time consuming. I answered him. It is neither expensive nor time consuming for me.
Ocean
on Aug 5, 2009
"because they were a regulated business, they got into a lot of legal trouble because of it. They are now threatening legal action against their former ISP." We'd have seen it in the press AND Paul would have blogged about it.
de Silentio
on Aug 5, 2009
Ocean, I don't know the motivation behind your comment that I wouldn't answer your question, but it seemed rather arrogent to me, like you thought you caught me in a literary trap that I wouldn't be able to get myself out of. I know my answer to your question didn't involve any questions for you to answer, but perhaps you can make a comment about what I said, since you were so confident that I wouldn't answer you. Otherwise I have no alternative than to think that you let yourself believe you had tripped me up with your question. Thanks.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use