Microsoft strikes back: introduces docs for facebook(docs.com)
docs.com
Microsoft strikes back: introduces docs for facebook
http://docs.com/Main/Home
10 comments
Maybe it is just me, but everyone with whom I want to collaborate on a document is not my facebook friend and most probably never will be.
+1
Yep.. Facebook doesn't own my 'real' inbox - Google does - and that's why I'll continue to use Google docs.
Yet another careless move by the Ballmer administration.
Yet another careless move by the Ballmer administration.
Probably one of the wisest business decisions I have seen Microsoft make in quite some time.
If you daydream a bit and think of the possible future implications with this partnership of sorts with Facebook (who I might add has been now aggressively taking measures to become the portal to the web) this could really be huge for Microsoft in terms of market share, mindshare, etc. if 1. online/cloud docs stay a relevant competitive space 2. somehow becomes a profitable model (direct or indirect) 3. become the exclusive provider of such service for Facebook.
Very interesting.
If you daydream a bit and think of the possible future implications with this partnership of sorts with Facebook (who I might add has been now aggressively taking measures to become the portal to the web) this could really be huge for Microsoft in terms of market share, mindshare, etc. if 1. online/cloud docs stay a relevant competitive space 2. somehow becomes a profitable model (direct or indirect) 3. become the exclusive provider of such service for Facebook.
Very interesting.
If this goes the way Microsoft and Facebook want it to, it's going to reopen antitrust investigations. At this point Microsoft is almost going out of their way to break cross-platform compatibility.
I'm not an antitrust expert, but I've learned a little bit in the last decade+ when it first really grabbed my attention and I can't think of one example to support your theory that this action by Microsoft is "almost going out of their way to break cross-platform compatibility."
I suppose the stretch would be that if Facebook DID indeed become the de facto destination and portal for the overwhelming majority of internet users and "docs" was the only service available that some companies may be able to raise issue, but even then I am not convinced since you don't and won't NEED Facebook as your portal for the internet and to share productivity documents (and I'm putting on my future goggles here).
And keep in mind this is coming from someone who is not a fan of Microsoft, but greatly respects Bill Gates, and was a former employee of Apple.
I suppose the stretch would be that if Facebook DID indeed become the de facto destination and portal for the overwhelming majority of internet users and "docs" was the only service available that some companies may be able to raise issue, but even then I am not convinced since you don't and won't NEED Facebook as your portal for the internet and to share productivity documents (and I'm putting on my future goggles here).
And keep in mind this is coming from someone who is not a fan of Microsoft, but greatly respects Bill Gates, and was a former employee of Apple.
Sharepoint and Outlook web access have a significantly degraded user experience on anything but Internet Explorer running on Windows (client.) Full outlook web access isn't even supported.
The fact that Microsoft is building their new platform on top of these technologies is troubling.
The fact that Microsoft is building their new platform on top of these technologies is troubling.
?
Are you suggesting that the Office Web App clients are being built on top of Sharepoint and Outlook web clients?
Please note, when I visited docs.com the app was automatically authorized to have access to my Facebook profile. I had to find the app under my Facebook App settings and remove it manually to deauthorize it. So, Facebook 3rd party partners do not need permission from the user to access the information?
This is Facebook's "instant personalization" feature that just launched. You can disable it in the privacy settings/applications. (it's opt out).
Thanks for the heads up, I'm definitely opting out.
From the blurb that was presented when I tried to opt out: "Please keep in mind that if you opt out, your friends may still share public Facebook information about you to personalize their experience on these partner sites unless you block the application."
Basically there's no way of preventing "select Facebook partners" from having access to my profile.
From the blurb that was presented when I tried to opt out: "Please keep in mind that if you opt out, your friends may still share public Facebook information about you to personalize their experience on these partner sites unless you block the application."
Basically there's no way of preventing "select Facebook partners" from having access to my profile.
It only shares information that you've made public anyway. Which if you're me is none of it.
So it's still giving them at the very least a name, which is sketchy, but it's not as bad as it could be.
So it's still giving them at the very least a name, which is sketchy, but it's not as bad as it could be.
This is a great move on Microsoft's part. The general population on HN might not make a switch but there are a LOT of people who have no idea what google docs are but are on Facebook all the time. Think your average farmville player or your grandmother/parents/random cousin in high school.
Don't see any reason to switch from google.
"You need a SharePoint server and license in order to collaborate, and either: You need to pay license fees for an on-premise version of Office 2010 or You need to pay an as-yet-unspecified subscription fee."
http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10002712/the-hidden-cost...
?
The Web Apps hosted on Microsoft's servers are free (or rather ad-supported). If you want to host them on your own servers, you need to buy various things. I thought Google Docs was the same way?
Good grief. $41,000 for a full set of CALs to run SharePoint. Does anyone know if that's per server or for a given site?
I understand Microsoft's motivation in trying to sell this but it's hard to fathom the reasoning of anyone who would buy it.
I understand Microsoft's motivation in trying to sell this but it's hard to fathom the reasoning of anyone who would buy it.
Sharepoint 3.0 was free to anyone with a Windows Server 2003 license. Once you build out that infrastructure a bit the marginal costs to upgrade into MOSS (SharePoint 2007/2010) start to look ok.
I personally prefer more socially focused solutions (e.g. Jive) but SharePoint is making huge strides as both a collaboration backbone and as a document management platform.
Some Fortune 500 companies are now building new intranet apps around SharePoint rather than standalone. There are a number of off the shelf solutions available as SharePoint "web parts".
I personally prefer more socially focused solutions (e.g. Jive) but SharePoint is making huge strides as both a collaboration backbone and as a document management platform.
Some Fortune 500 companies are now building new intranet apps around SharePoint rather than standalone. There are a number of off the shelf solutions available as SharePoint "web parts".
I used to have an obsession about reserving a great name or two whenever a new service came out. I worked on my own shareware application, and I never knew where I would branch out for my next app.
I registered apps.facebook.com/docs when Facebook Apps first came out. Facebook took that name (the Canvas URL) away from me within days, however.
I still have my three letter twitter account name, as well as usernames like "Call" and "Cards" on one of the biggest and most-advertised poker sites, from when they were in beta. I've found it interesting to see which companies would take back their names after realizing they let a good one go, and which would not.
I registered apps.facebook.com/docs when Facebook Apps first came out. Facebook took that name (the Canvas URL) away from me within days, however.
I still have my three letter twitter account name, as well as usernames like "Call" and "Cards" on one of the biggest and most-advertised poker sites, from when they were in beta. I've found it interesting to see which companies would take back their names after realizing they let a good one go, and which would not.
[deleted]
Aren't most of the concerns people have with cloud computing related to privacy? I won't ever trust Mr. Zuckerberg with anything slightly private.
And I'm not very concerned with privacy in general.
And I'm not very concerned with privacy in general.
This is very interesting, indeed.
I think it may take a bit of time to anticipate the consequences.
I think it may take a bit of time to anticipate the consequences.