Google/Salesforce.com Announcement Is A Yawner
from the next dept
For the past couple of weeks, there's been a lot of discussion about a possible alliance between Salesforce.com and Google, as many speculated about ways the two companies could team up to take on Microsoft. From the get go, it was assumed that the companies might find offer a way to integrate Salesforce.com's CRM offering with Google's nascent software business to create a more complete on-demand service. Today, the two companies made a formal announcement and (surprise) it's not nearly so exciting. The crux of it is that Salesforce.com customers will now have a greater ability to manage AdWords campaigns. This isn't even a new thing, but rather an enhancement of a pre-existing offering. Despite the the lack of earth-shattering news here some are still insisting that the deal is aimed squarely at Microsoft, which really doesn't make much sense given the actual news. The whole thing feels a lot like the big Sun/Google non-announcement from 2005, when everyone expected the companies to announce some major Microsoft Office-killer. When the actual announcement was something minor having to do with the Google toolbar, pundits still scrambled to discern deeper significance, even though there really wasn't any. If you're wondering why Google and Salesforce.com didn't unveil a more meaningful integration of their offerings, Joshua Greenbaum has a nice analysis (which he penned before the announcement), in which he points out that Google's apps aren't capable of serving in this manner due to technical limitations. The fact that they can't easily be integrated with other services is a downside to being "lightweight" and one of the real reasons that they're not (yet) a substitute for Microsoft Office. Expect this to be a major Microsoft talking point as it continues to justify its own refusal to get on the web office bandwagon.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is a case where Google continues to
The new economy will be based on network, interaction, communication, content distribution, work-from-anywhere.
Microsoft is old economy;
Google is new economy.
Microsoft had such a great run with software/OS. Microsoft made its money from technologies, products and services that did not exist 30 years ago. 30 years from now we will be looking back on Microsoft as a Compaq, Sun, IBM, Xerox, Polaroid; thinking were they really that big?
Think now of how much importance is given to network connectivity, the PC and its software is no longer an ends to a means but a conduit to what you rally want.
The PC and the software that runs on a PC have become a commodity. Commodity pricing will follow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google's continuing purchase
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is a case where Google continues to
Xerox isn't really that much smaller either, they just don't have research projects out the wazzu like they did in the 70s and 80s.
Microsoft's market share and market will change too, so will Google's. This is technology, it changes, it evolves and as long as companies and governments don't artificially screw with the market everything works correctly, innovation occurs at the expense of a business model. Adapt your model the New, or you and it die like the Old. This is why state sanctioned or corporation forced monopolies, duopolies etc. are Bad.
Technology changes. Paradigms and work flows change with it, and so must your business model. If you hinder innovation for your own selfish business reasons you're two things: 1) a business person with no insight in and little foresight with the market you're in, you are incompetent and 2) you're doing a disservice to your customers (who want better products), to your shareholders (who want a long-lived investment that won't come crashing down on top of them when people finally realize that you're screwing them out of the New) and to humanity (which benefits directly from newer technology).
It does matter if you're the State, a trade union, a worker's union, an industry association, a corporation or an incorporation: greed is a temporary facade that you live with to make some immediate cash. Flow with the market, with innovation and technology, and let your business model evolve over time. You'll make more money, earn more customers as well as keep them longer, and your business will grown. Most importantly, you'll make more money and do so knowing you worked hard and worked fairly for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm dying to know...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://venturebeat.com/2007/06/05/more-thoughts-on-google-salesforce/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm dying to know...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boring
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm dying to know...
I do like Mac, but I also like to tinker. Apple computers are expensive and leave little room for upgrading.
So I will be slightly satisfied (or dulled to a zombie-like existence) with Windows until the next generation OS comes along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm dying to know...
[ link to this | view in thread ]