Google Sites is not the big story

The hullaballoo that attends every Google product debut triggers the predictable bloviation fest one normally associates with market-moving news. But much of the commentary about the debut of the revamped JotSpot technology misses the more interesting story.

Sure, the announcement is intriguing. But it's not because we're talking about Jotspot (or Google Sites, as the service was rechristened). I don't want to suck up too much to my cubicle mate Dan Farber (well, maybe just a little), but he's right about this being a show.

Eric Schmidt: Sites today, tomorrow the world?

Outside of a fanatic few, how many computer users really will give a fig about this particular announcement? After all, Google Sites is part of the company's enterprise group and the burden of proof is on management to demonstrate that it knows how to deal with enterprise customers. From his previous tours of duty at Sun Microsystems and Novell, Eric Schmidt doesn't need reminding.

But this is the equivalent of a golfing Mulligan. Even if it fizzles, the company's stock isn't in danger of collapse. More importantly, Sites is yet one more addition to Google's growing arsenal of free applications. And they're getting the hang of this.

From my perspective, the company is doing better than skeptics thought. I've been saving up this quote from a story InformationWeek did on the eve of Google's product rollout. The talking head was Tom Rizzo, a director for Office SharePoint Server at Microsoft.

"The Google solution is what I'd call patchwork, or Frankenstein, software...You have to put it all together yourself."

Precious, but not prescient. For the multitudes--not business--explain again why I should care. Forget the marketing blather. Most regular folks only use a small percentage of the functions Microsoft stuffs into its apps anyway.

A personal aside: When Google began offering apps a couple of years ago and I started to muck around with the offerings on my home PC, I wasn't expecting much. Two years later, the only apps I use at home exist on Google's cloud. Microsoft will have to develop an incredibly "wow" offering--or slash prices--before I again let them charge my credit card for the privilege of owning Microsoft Office.

[john55440]

"A personal aside..."

Microsoft Office 2007 is selling like hotcakes.

As for price, Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007 is a whopping $119.99 on Amazon.com

No Google MediocreApps for me! -grin

[charlie cooper]

:)

[foobartoo]

"Outside of a fanatic few, how many computer users really will give a fig about this particular announcement?"

Ask my extended family. I set up a Google site for planning our 2008 family reunion, and for a bunch of people who've never so much edited HTML before, it's made it possible to share information on our shared agenda, excursions, travel tips, and (even better) stuff I hadn't thought of. We're all busy adults with families, and the Google Site makes the collaboration process effortless.

Could I have used a different tool? I'm sure I could have, but since I already have Google Apps configured, and most of us use it for email, sharing the site was a simple as typing in some email addresses and clicking the Invite button.

[PBwikiChris]

I think that Google Sites and SharePoint target completely different audiences. How many companies that use Google Apps would every consider SharePoint, and vice versa?

SharePoint is good for companies that want a workflow system that is deeply integrated with Office and Windows...and that can afford the TCO and the programmers to customize it.

Google Sites is good for a group that is already using Google Apps as its main infrastructure. Sure, it's bare-bones and little integrated at this point, but it's there, and it's free.

At PBwiki, we aim at the middle ground...the teams, departments, companies, and classrooms that need a simple solution that has the features they need from SharePoint, and works with their existing infrastructure.