Steve Ballmer is blabbering about Office 365 as I write this; the live event (Press conference) can be streamed here. During the past half an hour, I heard him repeating "Office 365 is where Office meets the Cloud" at least four different times. Come on dude, have you ever typed https://docs.google.com on your browser?
Is this a kind of product that will change the way businesses work? Had this come five years ago, I'd have said yes. And it offers nothing new that Google Docs/Apps does not. Storage on the cloud so that it can be accessed anywhere, online collaboration, conversations and discussions, we've been-there-done-that.
The Office 365 website has a page called 'Why Microsoft?' that boasts: We deliver the best productivity experience across the PC, phone, and browser for the way you work today—and the way you will work in the future. Today? And future? Sure, if you can fit in "the last five years" under today or future.
The emphasis was on small and medium businesses. MS prices Office 365 at $6 per month per user. Google Apps is available at $5 per month per user, and at $50 per annum, and if you want only the Office part, it is free! Why would a small/medium business already running on Google Apps/using Google docs like to switch?
The one area where Microsoft Office 365 can score over Google Apps is for organizations that use the offline versions of Office and they use it as a productivity tool for faster collaboration, but they would be large enterprises. The four plans for large enterprises are costlier, available for $10 to $27 /user/month.
Another advantage people might see is that you can use your offline copy of Microsoft Office to connect to Office 365, and hence you don't need a browser. Google has a different idea altogether—they believe you do not need anything other than a browser.
Mr Ballmer tells us Office 365 can be accessed from a mobile device running Windows Mobile OS as well. And Google Docs can be accessed from a device running Android. Or Windows Mobile. Or iOS. Or any Operating System on any device that can run a browser.
The debate will continue. It is basically between open-source and proprietary, and the philosophical differences between the way Google and Microsoft, and Apple for that matter, treat the cloud. Google wants to put everything on the cloud and provide direct access from there, and MS/Apple want to maintain a local copy of the cloud data onto end-user devices.
Google Docs have come a long way ahead. I need not advocate the benefits here, but the evolution it has been through puts it at quite a headstart. And the support and development from the open source community will keep it way ahead.
On the other hand....the biggest risk with the cloud thing is that you have to store your personal information on their servers...I Am not comfortable...are you??
ReplyDeleteAmiya:
ReplyDeleteWell, most of your information is already on the cloud. Your email, your photos, your documents in your emails, and maybe even your bank accounts.
All data is encrypted is what I believe, though I have no strong reasons behind that.
Can you really rely on your machine hard disk, or an external drive that you use to back up your data? I fear losing all my data forever more than losing it to some software developers for whom my data may not mean anything at all.
'losing it to some software developers for whom my data may not mean anything at all'...
ReplyDeleteI guess you are underestimating them...Cyber crimes wouldn't otherwise have existed.
That's the biggest arguments against facebook.
What data more important than your bank details and liable to be cyber-attacked are you anyway going to put on a cloud?
ReplyDeleteCyber crimes do not exist by hacking the cloud, but mainly by impersonation or hacking into other secure systems. I believe my data in Google Docs is as safe as my Citibank account. And my point is that either one of them has equal chances of being misused.
'I believe my data in Google Docs is as safe as my Citibank account.'
ReplyDeleteIn former case Google cannot be held responsible for data loss. It's your choice to use Google docs OR not.
In the latter case, read the clause from terms of conditions citibank europe below. I am assuming same holds true for citibank elsewhere in the world:
2.4. You must tell us immediately of any unauthorised access to the Service or any unauthorised transaction or instruction which You know of or suspect, or if You suspect that someone knows Your password. You can do this by contacting your Relationship Manager or by calling +44 (0) 20 7986 5888. We would expect You to co-operate with Us and with the police in any investigation. We may also disclose information about You or Your account to the police or other third parties if We think it will help prevent or recover losses.
Unauthorised transactions
4.1. We will refund You the amount of any transaction carried out in accordance with Your instructions where Your password has been used without Your authority, unless 4.2 below applies.
4.2. Your liability will be unlimited for any loss from use of Your password by any person who acquired possession of it with Your consent, or if You have acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. For example You may be deemed to have acted with gross negligence if You fail to follow the safeguards set out in 2.1 above.
Here is Google's terms and conditions:
ReplyDelete14.2 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND “AS AVAILABLE.”
14.4 ANY MATERIAL DOWNLOADED OR OTHERWISE OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF THE SERVICES IS DONE AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK AND THAT YOU WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR OTHER DEVICE OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM THE DOWNLOAD OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL.
14.6 GOOGLE FURTHER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
15.1 SUBJECT TO OVERALL PROVISION IN PARAGRAPH 14.1 ABOVE, YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR:
(A) ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY.. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFIT (WHETHER INCURRED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY), ANY LOSS OF GOODWILL OR BUSINESS REPUTATION, ANY LOSS OF DATA SUFFERED, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSS;
(B) ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OR DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF:
(I) ANY RELIANCE PLACED BY YOU ON THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY OR EXISTENCE OF ANY ADVERTISING, OR AS A RESULT OF ANY RELATIONSHIP OR TRANSACTION BETWEEN YOU AND ANY ADVERTISER OR SPONSOR WHOSE ADVERTISING APPEARS ON THE SERVICES;
(II) ANY CHANGES WHICH GOOGLE MAY MAKE TO THE SERVICES, OR FOR ANY PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY CESSATION IN THE PROVISION OF THE SERVICES (OR ANY FEATURES WITHIN THE SERVICES);
(III) THE DELETION OF, CORRUPTION OF, OR FAILURE TO STORE, ANY CONTENT AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS DATA MAINTAINED OR TRANSMITTED BY OR THROUGH YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES;
(III) YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE GOOGLE WITH ACCURATE ACCOUNT INFORMATION;
(IV) YOUR FAILURE TO KEEP YOUR PASSWORD OR ACCOUNT DETAILS SECURE AND CONFIDENTIAL;
15.2 THE LIMITATIONS ON GOOGLE’S LIABILITY TO YOU IN PARAGRAPH 15.1 ABOVE SHALL APPLY WHETHER OR NOT GOOGLE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH LOSSES ARISING.
...so I will feel much better doing online transactions with CITIBANK than with GOOGLE...
ReplyDeleteI believe the previous one got deleted
ReplyDelete15.1 SUBJECT TO OVERALL PROVISION IN PARAGRAPH 14.1 ABOVE, YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR:
(A) ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY.. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFIT (WHETHER INCURRED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY), ANY LOSS OF GOODWILL OR BUSINESS REPUTATION, ANY LOSS OF DATA SUFFERED, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSS;
(B) ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OR DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF:
(I) ANY RELIANCE PLACED BY YOU ON THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY OR EXISTENCE OF ANY ADVERTISING, OR AS A RESULT OF ANY RELATIONSHIP OR TRANSACTION BETWEEN YOU AND ANY ADVERTISER OR SPONSOR WHOSE ADVERTISING APPEARS ON THE SERVICES;
(II) ANY CHANGES WHICH GOOGLE MAY MAKE TO THE SERVICES, OR FOR ANY PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY CESSATION IN THE PROVISION OF THE SERVICES (OR ANY FEATURES WITHIN THE SERVICES);
(III) THE DELETION OF, CORRUPTION OF, OR FAILURE TO STORE, ANY CONTENT AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS DATA MAINTAINED OR TRANSMITTED BY OR THROUGH YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES;
(III) YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE GOOGLE WITH ACCURATE ACCOUNT INFORMATION;
(IV) YOUR FAILURE TO KEEP YOUR PASSWORD OR ACCOUNT DETAILS SECURE AND CONFIDENTIAL;
15.2 THE LIMITATIONS ON GOOGLE’S LIABILITY TO YOU IN PARAGRAPH 15.1 ABOVE SHALL APPLY WHETHER OR NOT GOOGLE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH LOSSES ARISING.
Now this is amazing google doesn't let me copy paste its terms and conditions:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en
If you are really comfortable with the cloud..try this...make a password protected excel sheet with your bank accounts and passwords..and upload it to google servers.
ReplyDeleteIn case your account gets hacked then try and argue that somebody stole it from the google servers in which case I seriously doubt you'll win a lawsuit against either citibank or google.
Even google's url were not secure until recently...
ReplyDeleteOk, I get your argument. I still am not convinced that my data is not safe with Google (now even Microsoft). Or Facebook/Amazon/Dropbox for that matter. I mean, the creators of cloud would have thought of this feeling of unbelief in the minds of users before launching their services. Millions of people still use them. The Amazon cloud is used by organizations to host financial web applications. Their credibility lies in keeping the data intact.
ReplyDeleteOk tell me this, if you do not trust the cloud, can you use Gmail? Don't you have any confidential data in one of your emails that you want to guard with your life?
See...in my opinion it's a matter of trust..if you trust big companies with your confidential information...then sure go ahead with confiding in them your every single secret.
ReplyDeleteI never share passwords on gmail. Else, Google Ads will read my mail and show me a suitable advertisement according to my password.
I believe that the moment you are connected to the internet ...you are risking your privacy. World wide web has evolved into such a complex beast that even the experts don't fully understand its behaviour.
Regarding the security measure (all that 128 and 256 bit encryption), I say even If one has the strongest military in the world one cannot guarantee that one will not be attacked or that one is invincible.
Having said that one cannot stop living and so therefore I can't stop using internet for banking, email or commenting on a blog.
and to your argument organizations host at their own risk. Here is the link to amazon's web services or EC2 terms and conditions:
ReplyDeletehttp://aws.amazon.com/agreement/
:) Abe itna Terms and Conditions padhega to koi bhi service use nahi kar paayega. Every service has Terms and Conditions, and all T&C's have loopholes.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, my point was that you never know if the bank account whose details you so safely guard may have been hosted on some cloud, making your paranoia meaningless.
Regarding your argument about 128 and 256-bit encryption, I—and many individuals, businesses, organizations, and governments around the world—trust the RSA encryption and believe it can be broken only in theory.
Think about it.
If it was otherwise, world economies would have collapsed like a pack of cards. Consider all the multi-billion transactions that take place everyday through these encryptions on NYSE, NASDAQ, BSE, SGX, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, and Hong Kong stock exchanges.
It's still a matter of trust..nobody is stopping google or any other cloud companies from reading your data. In fact, bots read it every day. It's just how strictly they follow their code of business conduct.
ReplyDeleteYou trust them and that's it. No legal binding, no obligation, nothing.
And world economies are bound by treaties and terms and conditions which hold them accountable for their actions.
In the end, it's still about the trust.
I'd suggest you go and read your credit card's terms and conditions, (I have read it), you'd be surprised to know what you never had known otherwise.
These days..google knows everything..every darn thing...what you are doing, where you are, who are your frens, who's your family, what job you do, how much you earn, you qualifications, you goals, your health, what you are shopping, what you are reading so on and so forth...
ReplyDeleteThey tailor search results for you even if you are browsing anonymously which is ultimately ridiculous because then their results become biased and not neutral. It's like saying you don't need to know the rest of the stuff, not relevant to you. I mean WTF..what if I want to know the stuff google is hiding from me?
So, The Cloud beside being a marvelous piece of technology is also, seriously, how well you trust the corporates with your personal information.
The more you trust them the more powerful they become.
Ultimately, there is no IAEA types agency that will audit their servers every year to make sure they have not misused people's data.
ReplyDeleteYour assumption about RSA encryption that they are practically impossible to break.
ReplyDeleteThink about a situation when you have stored your private key on a password protected excel sheet on a cloud.
Beside that storing, retrieving and processing encrypted data is much more expensive and process intensive. I wonder google or other cloud companies do that. Encryption so far is only widely used while transmission of data.
Encrypt at source -> Transmit -> Decrypt at target and store it.
Banks will never store their data on cloud. Here is one article describing a bank's server security
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bankozarks.com/server-security.php
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_does_google_protect_your_data_in_the_cloud.php
ReplyDeleteGood article!! That adds some credibiliy to ur statement...and may be a lot of people will now feel secure now to store their data on the cloud!!!
ReplyDelete