Google Apps for your domain – My initial thoughts

First off, a link to the story;

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2008994,00.asp

    I know that there are going to be many out there who will discuss the technical aspects of ‘Google apps for your domain,’ so I am going to tackle a different angle.

I’m afraid my first comment needs to be a tad frivolous but I think it’s definitely applicable for this discussion. What’s with the name? I figured after their huge IPO Google could hire some great marketing guru’s. Who ever came up with the name ‘Google Apps for your domain’ must be a relative or something to get that job because wow, the name sucks. While this is an open source and free app that isn’t necessarily driven for commercial use, it is their foothold and starting point into that market, and they really should have picked a name that would help the product be taken seriously. ‘Microsoft Office’ is exactly what it sounds like. ‘Google apps for your domain’ is going to be something that only us ‘geeks’ are going to understand, not your average consumer. Imagine if as the IT manager of a company I walked into an HR department and said “Ok, I am uninstalling Microsoft Office and I’m going to install Google Apps for your domain for you to do all your work on.” I don’t know if I would escape that department alive. So, while perhaps a bit frivolous, there is a lot to be said for the importance of the name of your product.

    So, basically what this comes down to is the good ol’ debate of open source versus proprietary code. This is a debate that I seem to have all the time with ‘fellow geeks,’ so I will share my thoughts on it. I am in my nature a staunch capitalist. I believe in competition, a free market, survival of the fittest. Many people have accused me of being a ‘Microsoft lackey.’ There is 2 simple reasons why I love Microsoft. First, it’s an innovative company that continues to research and innovate (I know people will disagree with me, but look at how much they spend on R&D every year alone) and they produce a fantastic product. Second, it’s proven that they are the best, and if you stick with Microsoft products, everything you work with is going to be almost universally compatible, because Microsoft has the vast majority of market share. So how is Microsoft proven as the best? The last sentence answers that. They have the market share. The free market will not support and inferior product, especially not over this extensive a time period. Now, I know that there are those who will say ‘they have the market share because they won’t let anyone else into the market.’ It’s always easier to complain when someone beats you by saying they aren’t playing fair. Market leaders are always accused of this. It’s the curse of being on top. It used to be said of K-Mart that no one could ever challenge them. Look at what happened. It is said that no one can now challenge Wal-Mart (who killed K-Mart) and while it may be a daunting task now, it will happen. Companies go through life cycles and every company will eventually be destroyed in an open market if that company does not continue to grow, change and innovate.

    So, in conclusion I think if Google wants to take on Microsoft for the Office turf (which I sincerely hope they do, competition is always good) they need to take it seriously before they can expect us to. This first attempt (if it really is one) is so poor it’s hardly worth mentioning. How can you take this product as a serious threat with a name like that?

So, what do you think?