Thank god I no longer live in a world where I am tied to my calendar. As google gets bigger, google calendar will get better, and the worse it will be a place to work. Understanding the need for a great calendaring app requires a company that has lost its soul.
Really? A bunch of things about Outlook calendering drives me up the wall. I can't find a way to tell it that I've attended an event just dismissing the late notice. Also just the other day it prompted me with a late notice about a cancelled weekly meeting.
Isn't that just user error (failure by someone to send out a cancellation notice)?
"Both Google/Microsoft offerings were NOT reviewed"
"These applications were not extensively reviewed during this process, but are already used in other departments for teaching and learning purposes."
"Office 365 comes with its Office online apps and the option of deploying SharePoint Online and Lync* (which were not reviewed)."
I want white-boarding in GMAIL!!!
Limitation of Liability:
"Google does not limit their liability in regards to its confidentiality obligations and includes Customer Data in definition of Confidential Information. Google is responsible for any actions of its employees and agents."
"Microsoft caps its liability for "free" services at $5K including any damages related to Institution Data short of Gross Negligence or Willful Misconduct."
Google is far superior.
But http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/user_terms.html
says this: "YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE AND PARTNERS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ..."
Am I looking at the wrong TOS?
> 12.2 Limitation on Amount of Liability. NEITHER PARTY MAY BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN THE AMOUNT PAID BY CUSTOMER TO GOOGLE DURING THE TWELVE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO LIABILITY. > 12.3 Exceptions to Limitations. These limitations of liability apply to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, but do not apply to breaches of confidentiality obligations, violations of a party’s Intellectual Property Rights by the other party, or indemnification obligations.
So, they put a cap on liability of how much they've been paid in the past year (which in most cases for their educational program is nothing), but do not limit liability for breaches of confidentiality obligations.
It doesn't seem like google is saying, "if we lose an email, and it costs you a million dollars, we're liable for it".
From this section: "Confidential Information.
5.1 Obligations. Each party will: (a) protect the other party’s Confidential Information with the same standard of care it uses to protect its own Confidential Information; and (b) not disclose the Confidential Information, except to Affiliates, employees and agents who need to know it and who have agreed in writing to keep it confidential. Each party (and any Affiliates, employees and agents to whom it has disclosed Confidential Information) may use Confidential Information only to exercise rights and fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, while using reasonable care to protect it. Each party is responsible for any actions of its Affiliates, employees and agents in violation of this Section.
5.2 Exceptions. Confidential Information does not include information that: (a) the recipient of the Confidential Information already knew; (b) becomes public through no fault of the recipient; (c) was independently developed by the recipient; or (d) was rightfully given to the recipient by another party. "
It sounds like what Google is really saying is, "If we make some kind of secret deal with your organization, you better protect that secrecy as well as you protect all of your confidential information, or there is no limit to how much we can sue you for the breach."
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/education_terms.htm...
Nice Freudian slip, btw.
[1] https://kb.berkeley.edu/jivekb/entry.jspa?externalID=2980...
I've seen entire hedge funds run on excel sheets. Our traders do alot of trading right out of excel sheets with custom C# addin's.
(Someone I work with created a "market data bus" using Excel. It had the side effect of preventing Outlook from receiving email while it was running, so you had to have two machines if you wanted to read email AND get market data via this method. Now that's shoddy software engineering.)
And having seen how not to do it is also an invaluable lesson. ;-)
(Burn, karma, burn)
IIRC, the City of Los Angeles did a similar evaluation, yet they shuttled a migration to Google due to security concerns.
In less-public implementations, I've seen planned migrations from MS to Google Apps dropped after pilot tests, mostly due to user complaints about usability.
I don't fault MS or Google in any of these areas, but rather those conducting the analysis.
Actually most of the city is using Google Apps and the contract has been renewed. The LAPD decided it wanted additional security and hasn't migrated yet.
The amendment will remove the LAPD, portions of the city attorney's office, the Los Angeles Fire Department, Department of General Services, and Department of Transportation from the contract
Only a little more than half of the expected number of users have been migrated.
Still a nice win for Google, but also a cautionary tale.
- Integration with Collaboration Tools: SharePoint Online is all about collaboration. As they want to continue using Microsoft Office, there is no better way (at the moment) than SharePoint. Google's cloud connect Add-In for Office is the first try at this, but it is still rather ugly (who wants a large bar on all documents, what about using the ribbon?) They also misspelled Lync, which is the Google Talk of Microsoft, goes much further than GTalk and integrates in ALL Office applications. You can chat with the people currently editing the same document you are editing on your local computer.
- Ease of Tools Development: "Google has a more robust and documented API" - NO, simply not true. "aligned with the skillsets on campus" is a valid argument. But saying it is easier to develop for Google products than for the MS stack is a stretch.
- User Familiarity: They say, that they use MS Office. Familiarity therefore is high with Office 365.
have exact same description (copy-pasted?) but have different advantage results.
For 2.Location of Data advantage goes to "Microsoft (slight). Google has more qualifications on U.S. data storage obligation in minor respects."
For 3.Data Management and Transfer it suddenly become "Draw"
