Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The last couple of places I've consulted at have been Google Offices. There's some things I like, but I honestly hate Gmail and their spreadsheet is a joke. I do like how they can be integrated into things like zoom for meetings that seem easier to build smarter offices.
I'm wondering if this is just a Silicon Valley thing or if Google is getting tractions elsewhere?
Microsoft is the standard. Has been since the nineties when Word overtook Word Perfect and will continue to be for some time to come.
Everything Google does with respect to productivity is laughable. I do applaud them for creating a productivity suite and cloud that is accessible; clearly, if you cannot afford $6.99 a month for Office 365 + 1 TB of OneDrive Google Drive has you covered. Plus you can use Google Rewards and use the cash to purchase more cloud for free, or get an LG phone that is how I got 200 GB (100 GB bonus for each phone). But I do not like their terms and conditions. Everything has to be a Google Documents format, and you have to store pictures and videos at a set resolution. When you download your information, it has to be unpackaged and unconverted first. But that's just me.
I would much rather deal with the way that Microsoft does things, with stuff like Files on Demand and the tight integration of Office 365 and OneDrive into Windows 10, than deal with Google anything on that front. I still use Google Drive as a backup because I'm getting free storage, but I upload originals, I do not use Google Documents format or unlimited storage. Its petty but I figure if I can still get the storage I need to store originals why not do that. I am no where close to using up my storage. When it expires, I'll probably get 100 GB for $1.99. Microsoft wants twice as much for OneDrive, and while I do prefer OneDrive I want Microsoft to bring back the 100 GB option as 50 GB is too small and 1 TB is too much.
And I do not like the Backup and Sync program from Google, but that is for a different thread. Microsoft has a superior product. That is not going to change and that has been their strength from the beginning. Only people using Google Docs are some educational institutions or small businesses that feel that they're getting a better deal with G Suite. The large players are still using Office 365.
Outlook is better on Android than Gmail is on Android. With Outlook you can see your email attachments on OneDrive, Dropbox, and Google Drive plus your calendar plus your email in the same app. Only issue I have with Outlook is that it does not want to sync the calendar into the phones calendar. Plus Outlook on the desktop has the Sweep option where you can easily get rid of all email from a sender and it does not rely on labels like Gmail does.
Google created Inbox for Gmail to better compete with Outlook anyway.
The last couple of places I've consulted at have been Google Offices. There's some things I like, but I honestly hate Gmail and their spreadsheet is a joke. I do like how they can be integrated into things like zoom for meetings that seem easier to build smarter offices.
I'm wondering if this is just a Silicon Valley thing or if Google is getting tractions elsewhere?
I remember Google Apps for Business being used by a number of larger organization. At that time (10 years ago?), Google Apps was cheap (~$50 a year) and it provided a nice collaboration SaaS platform. Of course, most still used MS Office on their computers - just used Gmail and the Drive functionality.
When O365 came out. It just integrated better. Most of our clients are using O365 today. I've only worked with a few Google environments. And none within the last 4-5 years.
Google is playing the long game. Simple and free software for college students... and over time they'll bring that to work with them.
Except when they get to work - they find that everyone is using Active Directory/Azure, Exchange Online, SQL, SharePoint, Skype, and MS Office. So unless they are starting their own business, it's likely they'll just adopt to MS. Not saying MS is better - but the reality is that MS dominates the business/enterprise.
From a data security perspective, I'd hesitate to use any cloud based solution for business purposes.
I think you should research that a bit more. That impression is perpetuated in the industry by in-house IT executives who are probably trying to rationalize their existence or fearful about how a loss of direct control will affect their relevance (and therefore personal value) to the business.
And logically it makes sense that the cloud is as safe or safer than in-house computing centers: Let's say you own a hardware store chain with six stores. Think about how many employees you have to devote to IT infrastructure and security and how much capital you're likely to have to invest in IT infrastructure and security. Now think about AWS and Azure. Think about how many employees they have to devote to IT infrastructure and security and how much capital they're likely to have to invest in IT infrastructure and security. The reality is that your little company will never have the bandwidth, much less the resources, to develop the institutional expertise regarding data security that AWS and Azure have. And once they've developed the institutional expertise, they can very efficiently deploy that expertise across all their customers' data infrastructure, thereby spreading the cost of developing and maintaining that expertise over literally thousands of companies. Even if you invested what was necessary, you'd bear that entire cost yourself. As exploits become more prevalent, widespread and aggressive, the small data center will increasingly be at a disadvantage.
I think you should research that a bit more. That impression is perpetuated in the industry by in-house IT executives who are probably trying to rationalize their existence or fearful about how a loss of direct control will affect their relevance (and therefore personal value) to the business.
And logically it makes sense that the cloud is as safe or safer than in-house computing centers: Let's say you own a hardware store chain with six stores. Think about how many employees you have to devote to IT infrastructure and security and how much capital you're likely to have to invest in IT infrastructure and security. Now think about AWS and Azure. Think about how many employees they have to devote to IT infrastructure and security and how much capital they're likely to have to invest in IT infrastructure and security. The reality is that your little company will never have the bandwidth, much less the resources, to develop the institutional expertise regarding data security that AWS and Azure have. And once they've developed the institutional expertise, they can very efficiently deploy that expertise across all their customers' data infrastructure, thereby spreading the cost of developing and maintaining that expertise over literally thousands of companies. Even if you invested what was necessary, you'd bear that entire cost yourself. As exploits become more prevalent, widespread and aggressive, the small data center will increasingly be at a disadvantage.
I do know what I am talking about, and I disagree with you. My company is not a "little company". I work for multinational financial services organizations. Our security standards are higher than cloud based sefvices. The obvious other side to your argument is that Azure, AWS, etc. are much bigger targets for attack. Bigger targets with more people who could make a mistake is the biggest risk to security.
Minimizing endpoints minimizes failure. The other question is of data retention. How long after data is deleted are all copies of that data gone?
I do know what I am talking about, and I disagree with you. My company is not a "little company". I work for multinational financial services organizations. Our security standards are higher than cloud based sefvices. The obvious other side to your argument is that Azure, AWS, etc. are much bigger targets for attack. Bigger targets with more people who could make a mistake is the biggest risk to security.
Minimizing endpoints minimizes failure. The other question is of data retention. How long after data is deleted are all copies of that data gone?
What about both? I use the cloud, but I always have a local copy somewhere. The cloud is just for those devices that cannot store all of the data that I have. Are companies seriously storing all of their data on subscription in the cloud without any local backup? Stop paying the cloud, and you don't have access to your data.
What about both? I use the cloud, but I always have a local copy somewhere. The cloud is just for those devices that cannot store all of the data that I have. Are companies seriously storing all of their data on subscription in the cloud without any local backup? Stop paying the cloud, and you don't have access to your data.
Given my industry has social security numbers, bank account numbers, etc. of ordinary everyday people, we tend to be more paranoid about what other companies get copies of our data.
I understand that might be different for industries outside my own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
