Posts Tagged Google Apps

Google Apps Engine - A Route To Acquisition?

Google Apps EngineUp until recently I hadn’t payed much attention to Google Apps Engine.  Last month I attended the Google Atmosphere event in London and got a quick run down on Apps Engine from one of the Google Engineers at one of the stalls, I have to say I was very impressed with what I saw.

Google Apps Engine is one of the Cloud Computing offerings in the rapidly emerging segment of PaaS (Platform as a Service). Other significant competitors in this arena are Salesforce.com with their Force.com platform, Amazon.com with their AWS (Amazon Web Service) offerings and Microsoft’s Azure.  Interestingly, Google had invited both Amazon and Salesforce to present at the Google Atmosphere event while Microsoft were at their own event launching Windows 7.

Traditionally when you wanted to build and deploy Web Applications / Sites you had to arrange hosting, or worse deploy servers.  This typically had to be in place before you touched a line of code and often times ended up being a messy, time consuming and expensive affair. Now with Google Apps Engine all you need is a Google account and the ability to use Python or Java.  The best part is that its free for modest sized apps/sites (up to about 5 million page views per month) and has reasonable usage charges beyond that.

You do have to give consideration to what you are signing up for before you get started. Unlike developing your solution on a LAMP stack, your Google Apps Engine project isn’t going to be easily portable, you do retain ownership of all your data and can export this at any time to migrate it elsewhere, but bear in mind that the data is stored in what Google call “BigTable” database and is accessed via GQL (Google Query Language). GQL has a similar syntax to SQL but the underlying data is stored very differently.

Force.com, Amazon S3/SimpleDB or Microsoft Azure all present similar issues but you have to balance these concerns with the benefits of the platforms.

This is not a statistical fact but I suspect that the majority of web applications that are written are in the “throw away” category, that is that they are either never brought to completion, are not implemented if they are completed, are built as a pilot or are built for a finite short term purpose. Only a small percentage of applications that are launched ever run into the happy problem of scaling but if your application does fall into this category you don’t need to worry if its built on Google platform, you seamlessly get access to the vast resources Google runs its own business on.  If on the other hand your application fell into the “throw-away” category you will have benefited because you didn’t wast time, resource or money worrying about the stack.

Some of the really nice benefits of the Google Apps Engine are the ability to seamlessly use most of the other Google service offerings via simple API calls, indexing, mail, docs, image manipulation, Google Talk and Google Maps to name a few.

Additionally I have seen a good deal of discussion on, what I consider to be a plausible argument that Google will be on the market to buy successful and innovative applications / companies that use the Google Apps Engine.  Google is renowned for its preference to buy early stage start-ups and after all if they buy a company that has deployed a successful app on its own engine, they will have little integration work to complete besides changing the name and the logo.

As always your thought and comments are appreciated.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post  [Post to Digg] Digg This Post  [Post to Reddit] Reddit This Post  [Post to StumbleUpon] Stumble This Post 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Google Atmosphere

Last week I was at Google’s Atmosphere event in London. The event was highly informative, entertaining and thought provoking with speakers ranging from Nicholoas Carr (Author: The Big Switch), Nikesh Arora(Google), Dr. Werner Vogels (Amazon), Dave Girouard (Google), Geoffrey Moore (Author: Crossing the Chasm), Marc Benniof (CEO & Founder Salesforce.com), Matthew Glotzbach (Google), Dr. Carsten Sorensen (LSE).


Below are the “Google Atmosphere Videos” from the day which I would recommend watching if you have the time.

Google Atmosphere Highlights

Google Atmosphere Opening Video


Google Atmosphere Opening Session


Nikesh Arora, President of Global Sales and Business Development at Google, and Adrian Joseph, Managing Director Google Enterprise EMEA.

Nicholas Carr on Cloud Computing


Dr. Werner Vogels (CTO Amazon)


The Perfect Storm


On the panel: Dr Werner Vogels - CTO Amazon.com, Nicholas Carr - Author, The Big Switch, Paul Daugherty - Chief Technology Architect, Accenture, Dr. Carsten Sorensen - LSE

Panel - Risk and Reward


Marcello Cordioli - CIO, Permasteelisa, Olivier Carre-Pierrat - Infrastructures & Telecoms Director, Euromaster, Jeremy Vincent - CIO Jaguar Landrover, Claudio Umana - CIO, Fracarro, Jean-Francois Caenen - CTO, Cap Gemini France, Moderated by Guy Clapperton

Making Waves: Google Cloud Innovation


Nelson Mattos - VP EMEA Product & Engineering, Google and Matthew Glotzbach - Director of Product, Google take a look at innovations from the Google Enterprise team.

Panel - Collaboration in the Workplace


Paul Cheesbrough - CIO, Telegraph Media Group, Francois Blanc - CIO, Valeo, Todd Pierce - SVP & CIO, Genentech, Andy Beale - CIO, Guardian Media Group

Marc Benniof (Salesforce.com) on Cloud Computing


Focus on the Core by Geoffrey Moore


IT can help a business focusing on your core and increase innovation - After 3 decades of delivering systems of record, IT must focus on collaboration.

Fireside chat with Dave Girouard and Alan Eustace


An open forum with Alan Eustace - SVP, Engineering & Research and Dave Girouard - President, Google Enterprise. Chaired by Adrian Joseph - Managing Director, Google Enterprise, EMEA.

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post  [Post to Digg] Digg This Post  [Post to Reddit] Reddit This Post  [Post to StumbleUpon] Stumble This Post 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Has Cloud Computing Killed The Operating System?

The Operating System originated as a common set of platform management abstractions, to free software developers from the complexity of managing hardware. To many of us that concept has become somewhat distant and when we think OS we usually think in terms of UI or GUI (Graphical User Interface). Most of the current generation of operating systems have become exceedingly bloated primarily because, their creators have been pushing the notion of the OS as a competitive differentiator for many years.

In the early days computers had a single CPU and the obvious thing to do was to build an Operating System that could run many different applications, preferably at once. This created the need for more functionality to manage resources and also manage the applications themselves. Added to this, many OS vendors started to bundle even more widgets, gadgets and applications to their offerings and hey presto - it takes me several minutes to wait for my computer to start-up anytime I want to do anything, this despite the fact that all I want to do is get at Firefox.

My gut-feeling is that Cloud Computing is about to kill the operating system as we know it. The fatal blow has in-fact already been dealt but the demise will not likely be recognised for some time yet.

Desktop Operating Systems

With increasing adoption of Cloud Computing and SaaS it seems to me that, increasingly the tasks I want to complete on a computer are presented to me in a browser. My browser runs on top of my operating system which has a bunch of features and complexity that I would rather forget about. In order to run my operating system with all its bells and whistles the hardware I have is, no doubt vastly over-specked - yet it still takes a number of minutes for me to get going every-time I start-up (Windows Vista in this case is shamefully bloated and slow).

Google recognised this frustration and in July of this year came out and announced its Google Chrome OS. My understanding of Chrome OS is that, in essence it will be a stripped out and hardened Linux Kernel with the ability to run a browser and little or no extra functionality. Google claim they will have users up and running in seconds and promise an end to security vulnerabilities, viruses and malware. This sounds like a good proposition to me - and it will be free, better again.

Meanwhile Microsoft came out and told the world about its research on Gazelle. Gazelle is a research program Microsoft are running under the title “The Multi-Principal OS Construction of the Gazelle Web Browser”. Its interesting that Microsoft’s approach is still underpinned by Windows 7, which I admit I haven’t seen or tested yet, but I have my concerns about its bloat-factor having observed many new Microsoft OSes over many years.

I am not aware of significant research efforts by other companies into offerings that will compete head-on with Goggle’s Chrome OS or Gazelle, however many Linux OSes are very nicely placed to jump into this changing eco-system and capture significant market share. In my view there are three primary reasons that have, thus far stopped Linux from taking a much more significant desktop market share;

  • The Ugly Factor
  • The inability to install and support mainstream applications
  • The lack of branding and consumer awareness


  • Breaking this down a little bit, most Linux OSes are extremely robust and efficient platforms, the GUI in most instances runs as an added application but in my view is pug ugly. So simply by removing the GUI app and running your choice of browser directly on the OS possibly provides a realistic alternative. As mentioned previously, most of what today’s and tomorrows users require is presented to them in a browser, so why bother with the rest of the OS? I guess this is what Google are doing with Chrome OS - but with independent Linux offerings users are not necessarily tied to a specific browser. The problem of installing mainstream applications is quickly disappearing with browser delivered SaaS models, and finally the branding issue? Perhaps there is room here for Firefox, who have a very significant browser market share compared to the resources available to them to jump in and disrupt the market?

    So in conclusion, perhaps the Desktop Operating System isnt whats under threat here, maybe we will see the OS going all the way back to its roots again becoming a set of platform management abstractions. Maybe then its the GUI that is at stake? This could explain why Steve Balmer (Microsoft CEO) recently went on the offensive talking trash about the Google Chrome OS and Apples Safari browser, calling them “rounding errors”. In the same breath he also noted that Mozilla’s Firefox was (in the browser market) the most successful so-far. Evidently what is really upsetting Balmer is Google’s recent announcement of its “Internet Explorer Chrome Frame Plug-in”, this according to Balmer is Google replacing Microsoft’s browser rendering engine without telling you, and he calls it an “unanticipated competitive attack factor”.

    Microsoft after-all has reason to be concerned, there is a lot at stake here, in their fiscal year 2009 they had revenues of almost $15 Billion from selling their Operating Systems. 80% of which was received from OEM’s (computer manufacturers who bundle windows on their products). If there were to be any significant shift in this pattern it would have an immediate impact on what appears to be Microsoft’s most profitable business line. Additionally the broad market penetration of Windows Desktops eases the way for many of Microsoft’s other products.

    Server Operating Systems

    Over on the server OS front there is likely to be an even more interesting evolution over time. While many IT Departments and Hosting Companies have for the past couple of years put significant investment of time and resources into virtualising their server infrastructure, little has changed because most of this virtualisation still uses the principle of running a single Server OS on a single virtual machine (basically swapping bare-metal for VM’s).

    On the Cloud Computing front Amazon offers an excellent alternative to in-house virtualisation with its EC2 offering and recent analysis by Guy Rosen estimates the number of Amazon EC2 instances launched daily in their us-east-1 region at 50,000 (bear in mind that this is only one of a handful of regions for Amazon EC2).

    However many commentators are predicting that Virtual Machines and even Amazons EC2 are only a stop-gap measure on our way to something completely different. The argument is that the Operating System as the owner of a single servers hardware (either bare-metal or virtualised) will lose dominance over time as the the abstractions of computing, storage and networking that enable resource pooling, multi-tenancy, high availability, dynamic workload balancing and the other benefits that arise from a virtualised infrastructure become a reality.

    This concept is already taking root with a number of vendors. Noteably Microsoft’s Azure platform decouples the infrastructure completely from the application layer providing flexible virtualised compute, storage and networking capabilities for developers. Currently Azure only supports .NET but as I understand it, support for Ruby-on-Rails, Python and PHP will be added in the near future. Over at Amazon there are 2 services in this category that are also gaining traction, Amazon SimpleDB and Amazon S3, SimpleDB is a virtualised database service and S3 is a storage service.

    With all these compute, networking database and storage resources being presented to us as virtual layers and the availability of other major cloud computing offerings such as Google Apps, SalesForce.com, etc., etc., it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to see where the traditional server operating system fits into the IT puzzle of the future.

    As always, your comments are welcome.

    [Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post  [Post to Digg] Digg This Post  [Post to Reddit] Reddit This Post  [Post to StumbleUpon] Stumble This Post 

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Why the Irish Government needs an IT Strategy

    Why the Irish Government needs an IT Strategy

    Like so many others, inefficiencies in government and a lack of transparency have long been a source of minor annoyance to me. More recently this “minor annoyance” has become a significant source of frustration as I now feel that the lack of transparency and prompt action by the Irish Government is hitting me in the pocket in the form of extra taxes and levies every which way I turn. People and businesses everywhere have had to adjust sharply to the current economic reality and my question is, why hasn’t the Irish Government done this also?

    There is limited value in me commenting broadly on Public Sector Reform, however I believe I can comment with some knowledge on the situation with government IT. Recently I have been in discussion with a couple of organisations who have expressed interest in collaborating on an Open Government initiative that I am trying to get underway, (more on that over the coming weeks…) a substantial part of this initiative involves taking public information and transforming it so as the data provides transparency and insight into the business of government for the general public.

    While researching (digging through Government, Local Authority and State Body websites, publications, annual reports, etc) it became very clear to me that we have very little joined-up thinking when it comes to government technology. My initial purpose was to find most of the major data-sources available to the public, but I came up entirely empty handed. The sad truth is that there is virtually no useful government data made available to the public in any meaningful format.

    While I was trying to figure out why we had a complete lack of useful information available from our public sector two very interesting government reports were published;

    1. Technology Actions to Support the Smart Economy
    2. Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes

    Having read these two reports it struck me that many of the issues faced by Government IT are likely to be as a result of fragmented strategy and a lack of co-ordination between institutions. I began to feel that there was a glimmer of hope resulting from these two reports until I read back over a number of previous reports published by the Irish Government. In particular a report titled “Progress Implementing the Information Society” dated July 1999. This 1999 report is well worth dusting off on its 10th birthday and interestingly progress has been so poor, that this report could easily be re-dated and very few people would notice that it was in fact 10 years old.

    I decided to dig a little deeper and signed up to www.etenders.gov.ie to get more insight into the procurement practices of government technology products and services and what I discovered was to say the least disappointing. From E-Tenders there were three points that struck me;

    1. The extraordinary level of obstacles that were put in the way of anyone who was interested in tendering for projects
    2. The duplication of services each individual government entity was procuring
    3. The seemingly complete lack of strategy and standards

    In many cases the the “Conditions for Participation” section was in fact much longer than the “Description of the goods or services required” and many of these conditions ruled out any company that wasn’t many years old, this point alone in my view stops us getting value for money as it doesn’t allow many young and agile companies from participating in government contracts.

    One R.F.T. (request for tender) in particular caught my attention (Tourism Ireland Imagery Website ). As far as I can make out, Tourism Ireland are looking to add a feature to their website to store and display photos. Sounds simple enough and a good idea (why wasn’t this part of the original design?), they go on to specify that “the contract would be expected to cost between €50K and €206K”. Two points I thought here;

    1. Why shoot yourself in the foot by telling everyone how much you are willing to spend
    2. Why not use a service like Flickr? Flickr is good enough for the official White House photo stream and at time of writing, hosts more than 3.7 billion images. It also has an API (Application Programming Interface) that would enable Tourism Ireland (Discover Ireland) to do pretty much anything they want to do with all their photos. On top of this there is a thriving community on Flickr that could be used to raise awareness of Ireland as a destination of choice for tourists. The cost? $24.95 per year, while I am not a mathematician, this sounds like a saving of somewhere between €50K and €206K.

    Moving forward;

    “The Taoiseach announced on 7th May 2008 that responsibility for eGovernment was to be consolidated in the Department of Finance. Responsibility for the delivery of individual eGovernment projects will remain the responsibility of individual Departments and Offices. This new arrangement will ensure that there is strong, coordinated leadership from the Centre, with regular communication between the Department of Finance and the various Departments, Offices and Agencies with responsibility for various projects.”

    What exactly does this mean? Personally I think this is flawed thinking and a major throwback to the daft practices of the 1980’s and 90’s where corporates put Finance in charge of technology, added to this the Department of Finance is hardly a shining light of progression and transparency, just take a look at their website, not the most friendly site in the world and much of the content eg. the FAQ section hasn’t been updated since 2003.

    In the “Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes” Colm McCarthy suggests the introduction of an IT Advisory Group comprising senior independent ICT practitioners from medium-large companies in Ireland to advise their counterparts in the civil service, meanwhile in the “Technology Actions to Support the Smart Economy” report Barry McSweeney subtly suggests the appointment of a government C.T.O.

    My view is that a combination of the two suggestions from McCarthy & McSweeney could be just what we need. In a sense what we need is a Department of Technology or a Government IT Department. The C.T.O. in charge of this department should be accountable to a committee comprised of senior industry peers, a minister and a senior civil servant and the position should be open for re-appointment every three years (not a civil service job for life, this rotation could be used to ensure the best and brightest was always in charge). The new Irish Government IT Department should take under its control all the IT departments and teams from all government departments, local government and state bodies.

    Here are just a few areas that should be concentrated on:

    Government Websites;

    The new Government IT Department should hire a crack team of web developers & project managers and take all of the development of Government Department, Local Authority and Government Body websites in-house. All of this development should be done on Open Source platforms, such as Ruby on Rials or Drupal. These platforms would facilitate rapid development and deployment of world class websites and should also include mandatory features to share information including the provision of RSS and API’s to enable public access to government information. Government Departments and Government Bodies (such as the Central Statistics Office) should be compelled to openly share all available information (except obviously personal and sensitive information) in an accessible and standard format.

    This development would save us, the tax payers millions every year while providing increased transparency and access to information. Additionally I know many developers and entrepreneurs who could use this information in various projects and mash-ups (some existing and some yet to be created).

    Government Network;

    Many people don’t realise it but the Irish Government owns a very significant fibre optic network in Ireland. Despite this it seems that each government department, independently tenders out its connectivity requirements to external providers. If the government were to leverage this network and utilise it for all its own connectivity requirements they could significantly improve performance and save a very significant amount of money. Again, doing this would require a centralised approach.

    Cloud Computing Adoption;

    While there has been much mention of Cloud Computing in government circles, there has been (to my knowledge) no actual significant take-up of Cloud Computing Services. Each Government Department, Local Authority and Government Body has its own email and file storage servers. I would suggest that as a matter of urgency we should have a policy decision to immediately migrate all of these services to Google Apps. With a public sector comprising of some 370,000 people there is a potential saving of hundreds of millions of Euros to be made here on an annual basis. It is difficult to tell just how many people are employed in Government IT (according to Colm McCarthy’s report it is 1,300 people, but I believe that this number is vastly understated), but a vast proportion of them I believe are tied up in keeping email and file servers going. In addition, cloud computing is also a greener method of providing these services.

    In many ways, what I have mentioned here may only be touching the surface. However, I believe if our government is serious about re-invigorating our economy on the basis of Ireland becoming a global digital hub, it must first get its own house in order. The few things I have mentioned here should not be difficult to implement and while saving us hundreds of millions of euros could also show the world that we are serious about becoming a knowledge economy.

    If you have any comments on this topic or if Open Government is of interest to you, please fill in the comment box below - I would love to hear from you.

    [Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post  [Post to Digg] Digg This Post  [Post to Reddit] Reddit This Post  [Post to StumbleUpon] Stumble This Post 

    Tags: , , , , , ,

    Will Cloud Computing Define Your I.T. Career?

    Despite what many people neatly ignore and categorize as “hype”, cloud computing is slowly but steadily gaining ground. Surprisingly, a recent Rack Space survey indicated that 67% of small business and 47% of mid sized businesses in the U.K. were not familiar with the term “cloud computing”. I am guessing here but, I think the reason that so many IT professionals are not yet familiar with this technology shift is simply down to the fact that they are swamped.

    As I have mentioned in previous posts, the current economic headwinds haven’t dampened the insatiable appetite for computer storage space and resources and with tighter budgets many I.T. folks are running flat out on daily tasks and are thus fully occupied in maintenance mode, this doesn’t leave any time to take a step back and consider strategic directions for the medium and long term. I have also seen some evidence to suggest that cloud computing is actively being resisted or ignored because some I.T. practitioners see it as a threat to their jobs. I can certainly understand the sentiment, after all, would you walk into your boss’s office and say;

    Ever hear of cloud computing?

    Ever hear of cloud computing?

    “hey boss!, you know all this money you pay me to keep all these systems going and all the money we spend on technology, what would you say if I told you that you don’t need to pay me any more and you can buy the same services for a fraction of the cost using this thing called cloud computing?”

    Interesting scenario, huh?

    In reality this situation is nothing new in I.T., as always, the technology keeps changing and getting cheaper, and tasks that start out requiring specialist I.T. skills to complete soon become mainstream, get packaged with proper user friendly interfaces and are passed off to consumers and end users to take care of themselves. In the greater scheme of things, its not that long ago that I.T. professionals were paid to take a computer out of a box and plug it in, or when an I.T. guru was required to plug a modem into a P.C. and setup an internet connection for an end user. A typical end user today is capable of doing as much (or more) as many I.T. professionals just a decade ago. Think about it, most users today can go down to their local P.C. store, buy their equipment, setup home networks, connect to the internet and create or update their web-pages / blogs or social network profiles, etc.

    One interesting trend over the past number of years has been the divergence between what has been seen as corporate systems and consumer systems. For example, most corporates have adopted Microsoft Exchange or Lotus notes as messaging systems while consumers have tended to opt for Yahoo, HotMail or Google Mail. Anyone familiar with implementing and maintaining corporate messaging systems will be well aware of the complexity and cost of this endeavor and most end users don’t understand why they are restricted to small storage limits at work, especially when they can get 50 or 100 times more storage space on their personal email systems. Similar examples can be found all across the spectrum of enterprise systems. The easy (and often free) availability of consumer systems combined with restrictions imposed on end users by corporate I.T. has ignited a trend where many users tend to circumvent corporate systems in favour of their personal services.

    Meanwhile there has been something else very interesting happening in the divergent paths between corporate and consumer technology / systems. While corporate systems have in my view been getting more and more complex, costly and bloated, consumer systems have become far more simple and usable. Take the example of Google Docs V’s Microsoft Office, I have used office for many years and like most everyone else, upgraded to the latest version (2007) as soon as it became available. In honesty I find the newer MS Office experience very frustrating because of a number of things including, changed file formats (I have to be mindful when sending documents to others who may not be able to open them) and a whole bunch of new complexity and features that I don’t need, want or use, added to this is the fact that I have to email myself documents to take them from home to work (or vice versa) and I frequently run into versioning problems with documents stored in many places. More recently I have started using Google Docs, Its free, simple, intuitive and I can get at my documents from wherever I go, looking through the menus I can appreciate that the functionality is far more limited than Microsoft Word, but I haven’t yet found anything limiting about it. I have stopped bringing a laptop with me when I travel and instead tend to do everything I want through an internet browser.

    This all brings me to the point where I am wondering if we, as an I.T. community need to “press the reset button”?

    Are we really adding value to the organisations which we serve or are we so immersed in what we do, that we simply keep blindly doing what we have always done? I appreciate that every organisation is different and many companies need to run very specialist and perhaps niche applications, however, I also believe that the great majority of corporate computer users have been given tools that are, outdated, bloated and not easy or friendly to use. To add insult to injury, we continue to invest heavily in time and money to keep many of these systems alive while users circumvent these systems and embrace technologies and services that we should probably be embracing instead of resisting.

    This brings me to the main point I wanted to make, if the I.T. community continues to resist (or ignore) the adoption of cloud computing (where it makes sense), how long do you think it will take before the I.T. department and the people working in I.T. are bypassed and become irrelevant within a company? Many core services that I.T. departments provide to a company are now available to savvy end users who can actually provision the services themselves and get better service at a better price. The same trend is rapidly emerging in more significant ways, particularly in provisioning virtual servers on Amazon AWS, All you need now to setup a server farm is a credit card and a web browser.

    It is my belief that we need to re-examine and understand what our users actually want to achieve. After all, does your boss, or the average employee at your company really care what server hardware you use? or what type, let alone what version of a particular type of software you use? I don’t think so! Most people just want to do their day jobs and not wrestle with the systems they use.

    In conclusion, my advice would be to look around at the various different solutions you can use to help simplify your users life and pluck up the courage to walk into your boss’s office and suggest how you can make your I.T. department, your systems and your users a whole lot more efficient while simplifying the technology and reducing costs. Wouldn’t it be better for you to suggest this to your boss today, as opposed to him/her telling you that he/she has done this in six months time?

    [Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post  [Post to Digg] Digg This Post  [Post to Reddit] Reddit This Post  [Post to StumbleUpon] Stumble This Post 

    Tags: , , , , , , , ,

    The Case for Google Apps (gmail) V’s Microsoft Exchange

    Many IT departments and companies are either currently unaware of, or adopting a “wait and see” approach to cloud computing. Unfortunately the cloud computing concept still seems to be somewhat abstract for some IT professionals who are running flat-out to maintain existing systems. Additionally, current budget and resource constraints at many organisations are preventing network and IT managers the time to adequately explore the benefits that cloud computing could bring to their organisations. In light of this I thought it might be beneficial to bring forward a very specific solution to a very common problem.

    Despite the economic slowdown, demands for enterprise messaging, collaboration and storage space continue to grow at a phenomenal pace. IT departments (like everyone else) have had to make do with tighter budgets and this has resulted in reduced capital spending on servers and systems. Paradoxically the reduced spend has caused the total cost of ownership for systems like Microsoft Exchange to grow higher because IT engineers are now spending significantly more time trying to free up storage space and keep older systems running smoothly.

    The age old solution to this problem would be to ride out the recession and once the economy gets back on track look at freeing up some budget to get back on the hardware and software upgrade treadmill. However there is another, I believe better solution.

    Move your enterprise to Google Apps (Gmail, Google Docs, Etc.)!

    I can already hear the screams of heresy coming from the hallways, but before you tie me to a stake, hear me out. I accept that Microsoft Exchange has been the de facto standard for enterprise messaging for many years. When Microsoft Exchange came to prominence it offered a much better solution than pretty much anything else on the market. However, since then the requirement has grown for a myriad of add-ons and extensions to Exchange to scan for viruses, block spam, archive emails, add legal disclaimers, add signatures, filter content, compress attachments, etc. Depending on your environment, the list is pretty staggering. The simple truth is that the add-ons can cost your organisation as much as 50% of the cost of the Exchange environment itself. Indicated T.C.O. figures for Microsoft Exchange vary wildly from $24 to $72 per user / month (median $36), this does not include the listed add-ons which can typically cost $8-$12 extra per user / month.

    Enter Google Apps, the price? $50 per user / year ($4.16 per month). For your 50 bucks you get a brand-able solution with, email, calendar, project & team site creation, document and video collaboration & sharing and Google Talk (instant messaging, voice over IP and video conferencing). The solution works with your own domain name(s) and has all the extra features built-in (virus scanning, spam filtering, content filtering, archiving, disclaimers etc, etc.) There are a host of other benefits such as 25 GB email accounts for everyone and best of all it will work through the familiar web client, your outlook client, your iPhone, windows mobile device or your blackberry enterprise server.

    Setup of this service is also extremely easy and can be done for a small organisation in a matter of hours or a large organisation in a couple of days. Beyond setting up users initially there is virtually no maintenance with the exception of additions/deletions or other routine changes.

    The move from Microsoft Exchange to Google Apps could potentially save your organisation $502 / User / Year.

    When I started looking at Google Apps I immediately thought it would be ideal for S.M.E. but I soon found case studies on very significant corporate users (Genentech & G.E.) and Local Governments such as The District of Columbia which has 28,000 employees on the system.

    Here is a video on the D.C. Government implementation.

    In conclusion, I appreciate that moving your enterprise messaging and collaboration solutions onto the cloud is likely to be an emotive issue but I am finding it difficult to find any significant reason to keep it in-house. I would like to hear your thoughts on this topic (whether you agree or disagree).

    [Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post  [Post to Digg] Digg This Post  [Post to Reddit] Reddit This Post  [Post to StumbleUpon] Stumble This Post 

    Tags: , , , , , , ,