[HN Gopher] Google Workspace for everyone ___________________________________________________________________ Google Workspace for everyone Author : danirod Score : 186 points Date : 2021-06-14 12:13 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.google) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.google) | erik_p wrote: | This makes me miss Google Wave... Are they iframing in | spreadsheets with a slack clone? | drcongo wrote: | I have absolutely no idea what this announcement is actually | announcing. It takes seven paragraphs to actually get there, and | then announces something that I'm 99% sure was already available. | My wife doesn't have a work Google Workspace account, but she can | still use docs etc. What's actually changed? | swsieber wrote: | I think the original google workspace launch announcement was | better: | https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/workspace/introducing... | | Not a lot better, but still better. There's a gif of basically | integrated workflow between email, chat and document editing... | I think. | jollybean wrote: | This is a huge point. Google is funny in how inconsistent their | messaging is. | | I feel that they have neat product ideas, but organizationally | maybe the are oriented around engineering lines, so product | might lack focus, and product marketing is an afterthought. | | Remember Google+ ? Nobody knew what it was. | | Remember Wave? Nobody really knew what it did. | | How does the biggest company on earth fail to understand how to | communicate basic things? | | This product page has way too much text, and not nearly enough | 'what it is' 'what it can do' and especially 'why'. | | As such, it's hard to get the word out organically. | | Information spreads like a virus, you want a high R0 which | comes with clarity, consistency and authenticity. | tdeck wrote: | Everyone knew what Google+ was. It was Google's attempt at | cloning Facebook. In contrast to Wave, I don't recall any | confusion on that point at or after launch. | josefx wrote: | As far as I remember I first thought it was some weird | exclusive blog platform, that impression only turned into a | "complete failure to clone facebook ran by a team of brain | dead morons" when they tried to force subscribe everyone to | it. It was impressive how Google could completely fail at | something, of course Google and Facebook made a few deals | to stay of each others turfs behind closed doors so that | failure may have been intentional. | jollybean wrote: | Nobody knew what Google+ was. | | 'Company A strategy vs. Company B' is not something | 'people' think or know about. | | That's something for people in the industry to think about. | | Ask your mother or father who work in Real Estate and | Healthcare what 'Google+' is (back in the day) and they | wouldn't really know. | | And nobody knew what Wave was. I used it and couldn't | understand it, other than it was a means to communicate | with other people. Colossal product marketing, usability | and communications failure. | Jiocus wrote: | Almost. It was Google's attempt at cloning Facebook by | cloning _Diaspora_. | | https://diasporafoundation.org/ | hairofadog wrote: | I've got you covered. I watched the video, and here's what you | can now do with Google Workspace: | | * Be notified when packages are coming via "e mail" | | * Send your own "e mail" to other people | | * Organize events by date in a "calendar" | | * Write an episode of Stranger Things in a "document", or if | you don't happen to own the Stranger Things franchise, write | about your viewing experience | | * Write down a list of band names | | * Sum the number of times a given child poops in a day in a | "spreadsheet" | | * Take part in a "meet", which is a sort of phone call but with | video | | I hope that clears it up. | NotSammyHagar wrote: | What about 'encryption'? It apparently part of it, but the | examples were using a plugin written by a third party. | LegitShady wrote: | Ya I watched the video and still have no clue what this does | over regular Gmail/docs combo. | | Also Google's spreadsheet program is dogballs compared to | excel. | jeanloolz wrote: | Excel is certainly superior for analysis etc, but there are | plenty of use cases where Google sheets is superior to | excel, for instance http api to interact with your sheet. | Depends what you're trying to achieve really. | LegitShady wrote: | I think power query in excel does http and more quite | easily. | AnonHP wrote: | And chat. You forgot "chat"! | | I'm still puzzled at what's new and what's different from | what people with (free and paid) Google accounts have. | MikeDelta wrote: | This "e mail" thing sounds intriguing. How does the "e | mailman" know where to deliver this "e mail", and do I need | "e stamps"? | nh2 wrote: | The work procedures of the "e mailman" were captured in | this documentary: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x4_dozWkq0 | starik36 wrote: | Check out the "Ralph breaks the internet" documentary. It | has an easy to follow explanation. | spywaregorilla wrote: | What makes a "meet" special is that in a meet, it's socially | acceptable to scream while looking at your phone. | jeffrallen wrote: | That's all fine and dandy, but can I make boring | presentations full of bulleted lists? Because missing that | would really be a deal breaker for me. | growt wrote: | Great, now I have to watch it to see if you're joking about | the baby pooping part. | zyemuzu wrote: | You'll probably know by now, but sadly he wasn't joking. | dm319 wrote: | Wow, this is reminding me of Microsoft's videos on how to | throw a launch party to celebrate a new version of | Windows. | | https://youtu.be/1cX4t5-YpHQ | tdeck wrote: | This all reminds me too much of this joke video: | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ICp2-EUKQAI | neogodless wrote: | I threw one of those. Unfortunately, I missed this video, | and just served alcohol and played games on a Playstation | 3, and enjoyed my free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate. Those | Windows 7 playing cards were pretty clutch, though. | cutemonster wrote: | I started wondering if it's really from MS or maybe a | joke but got too bored to continue watching to find out | HappySweeney wrote: | It's sadly real. | k12sosse wrote: | Judging by the clock on the range hood.. that took 1.5 | hours to put in the can. LOL! | shard wrote: | Nice catch. Not sure if you're making fun of the fact | that it took so long to record all the takes for this | video, but 1.5 hours seems reasonable. As an amateur, it | would probably have taken me 4-5 hours to record that. | salex89 wrote: | Revolutionary. | Florin_Andrei wrote: | The old Google (of Larry and Sergey) is gone. | leavenotracks wrote: | This made my day... ... and saved me watching! | qbasic_forever wrote: | such ~~synergies~~ ! | mitjam wrote: | Wow this reminded me of this Weird al Yankovic gem: | https://youtu.be/GyV_UG60dD4 | starkd wrote: | All for $72/year. I'm pretty sure I could already do all | those things. | x0x0 wrote: | Apparently, an utterly incoherent announcement of: | | 1. a switchover to Chat (apparently some hybrid slack/discord/I | can't figure out) | | 2. serious plans to compete with microsoft office via more | enterprise capabilities | | 3. availability of (previously) paid gsuite-only features to | individuals for $10/mo | | all bundled together in a mash | cptskippy wrote: | I think Workspace is Google's attempt at a Teams/Slack/Wave | product. I have to use Teams at work and can't fucking stand | opening Word/Excel docs in Teams. That interface forces you to | focus on one thing at a time and provides no easy way to | navigate between work streams while maintaining state. Why | would I want that? | | Basically, Workspaces is failing so they're trying to open it | to a wider audience in the hopes that it won't fail. It'll | probably be abandoned by October and shutdown in a year or two. | walshemj wrote: | Me to that is the one thing I hate _NO_ Microsoft I do not | want to open an office document in some bastardized web | version. | jfrunyon wrote: | It is by no means failing; at least from what I see, their | adoption is higher than it's ever been. They are making a lot | of pointless changes while ignoring all the real problems | they have, though. Like the fact that group Chats are still | unusable for organizations with... you know... users. | bogwog wrote: | The real question isn't _is it failing?_ , it's _does any | employee at Google still happen to give a shit about it?_ | | Because if the answer is no, it's going to the graveyard no | matter how many users it has. (https://killedbygoogle.com/) | deelowe wrote: | It's all that's used at Google. The office suite isn't | going anywhere. | anoncake wrote: | What does Google use for internal chat? | romwell wrote: | Hangouts/Chat. | | Which means, practically, that everything is done through | internal mail lists, because chat is not usable. | | Pre-covid, that also strongly incentivized everyone to | actually work on campus. | what_ever wrote: | I don't find Chat unsuable at all. My only team related | emails are bug updates which are filtered. I feel group | chats on Chat is a better UX than old Hangouts. | | Edit: Disc: Googler. | mkr-hn wrote: | Same reason Blogger is immortal. | judge2020 wrote: | Workspace has SLAs[0] as well as 50+ features in | development at any time [1]. | | 0: https://workspace.google.com/terms/sla.html#:~:text=ra | te-,go... | | 1: https://support.google.com/a/table/7539891?hl=en (and | this is just the public list). | imNotTheProb wrote: | Google killing products is what lost me as a fanboy. I | even enjoyed their data collection. | | But getting rid of Google Play and changing their photos | policy was the last straw. Now I'm Gmail and some search | only. | | Even got me an Android with a custom ROM and chrome | compiled without Google.. | swiley wrote: | Ooh another one. I've completely lost track of them at this | point. | basch wrote: | >I have to use Teams at work and can't fucking stand opening | Word/Excel docs in Teams. | | If you open Word or Excel directly, does the main page show | you a list of appropriate documents to open? I have found the | amount of times where the workflow requires navigating to a | document through teams first to be extremely minimal. If the | document isnt on the list, typing a couple characters into | the Word/Excel search bar does the trick. | cptskippy wrote: | That works for documents you previously opened but not | documents just shared. You have to jump through hoops to | open them in the native app. Once you do they're in the | list but it's frustrating that it won't just do that by | default. | josefx wrote: | She can now pay for it? The fun part is the claim that Google | Workspace was designed around security and privacy, followed by | a screenshot of Gmail, which until 2017 actively scanned mails | for ad personalization. I can't wait for McDonalds to announce | that it was founded on the principle of a healthy vegan diet. | xxpor wrote: | Gmail doesn't scan emails any more? | ruined wrote: | Gmail certainly does scan and process language in email, | because they generate reply suggestions, and who knows what | else behind the scenes. | Laremere wrote: | They no longer do any ad personalization based on the | contents of your email, and AFAIK, they never did for | paying customers. | | Obviously, other systems process the contents of your | email, eg spam filter, the frontend displaying the email to | you, and I assume the government can get access through | legal warrants (the ethics of the secrecy of such actions | is a different debate - Google is required to follow the | law). | xxpor wrote: | Yeah, makes sense. I just hadn't heard about the ad | change. | judge2020 wrote: | For reference: | https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains- | traction-in.... | PedroBatista wrote: | They do, but they said they don't. | mkr-hn wrote: | What could they possibly gain from it that they don't get | from data mining they do openly that's worth the | inevitable lawsuits from SLA'd companies when it came | out? | MAGZine wrote: | they don't need to--remarketing is used enough that there | is enough demand for ads in your specific inbox, without | having to scan the contents. | skybrian wrote: | I don't think Gmail advertisers could track you unless you | actually clicked on an ad? By today's standards that's | actually pretty good. | influx wrote: | They also built a database of Amazon purchases, which lead to | Amazon now sending me worthless e-mails. Thanks Gmail! | nodesocket wrote: | I also don't get it. I am a single user with Google G Suite (I | guess called workspace) and pay $6 a month. What does this | announcement mean? | starkd wrote: | I was recently looking at it, but the only thing I can see it | gets me is the ability to add a custom domain name to my | emails. | nodesocket wrote: | I already have a custom domain, that's why I pay the $6 a | month for G Suite (previously). | rishav_sharan wrote: | I may be completely wrong here but I think some of the stuff | that you are paying for will now be moved to a free tier | called Workspaces Individual. | pkulak wrote: | Save time and just read the deprecation announcement in 6 | months. | [deleted] | exabrial wrote: | Not putting any eggs in this basket I got burned on Google Wave | and I won't forget it ever, hah. | mastazi wrote: | As a privacy conscious user, I hope one day there will be a | "Premium" Google account for individuals, where you pay in | exchange for not being tracked and not being shown ads. I wonder | if this announcement is Google going into that direction. I'm | sure Google knows that for many, perception of privacy issues has | changed drastically in recent years. | | At the moment, they still have dis-joined paid offerings, for | example Youtube Premium, Google Play Pass, Google Workspace, etc. | - with many Google products, such as Android or GMaps, there is | still no way to pay your way out of tracking/ads (at least that I | know of). Instead, there should be a single paid subscription, | for all Google services. | | I left Google a while ago[1] but if the "privacy subscription" | offering became a thing, I would be back in no time. | | [1] My main Google account was deleted and replaced with a | combination of Mailinabox, Nextcloud, Duckduckgo etc. - but I | have an alt account only for Youtube, linked to my wife's Youtube | Premium Family plan. | Relatotuile wrote: | I can't seem to find the answer to one of the most important | questions - Will this prevent users from using many Google | features like GSuite currently does? I'd hate for people to fall | into that same trap - You aren't able to use things like Nest to | Google account migration, many Google Home features, family | sharing, etc. | circlesguy wrote: | Prior art: https://circles.app/ Has chat, tasks, files just like | Google, but also has shared notes, lists, links and so on. | foobarbazetc wrote: | And before that: one million other PIM tools that have done the | same things for decades. | axismundi wrote: | ...and a few years later, once you have adopted it and moved your | stuff into it, Google will bin it and move on to something new. | No thanks, been there, done that: rss reader, wave, talk, | hangouts - never again. | ebr4him wrote: | More importantly, Google Photos!!!! | starik36 wrote: | What? Is it going away? My understanding is they are just | including lesser quality photos in the 15 GB limit. | jerrygoyal wrote: | I'm not sure why someone mentioned Google Photos. Afaik | it's not going away but actually has a paid tier now (after | 15gb exemption). imo having a paid tier is a good | indication that the product is bringing revenue so won't be | killed like other free products by Google. Google photos is | actually a good product anyway. | akkartik wrote: | Hard to justify a paid service from a company without | customer support: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27339588 | beders wrote: | Let's take bets on re-re-branding and or end-of-life date! | buggeryorkshire wrote: | It would be nice if they provided a route to getting old GAFYD | users over to a standard Google Account. | | I've still got old accounts with photos etc on that I cannot | move, and the only reason I moved from GAFYD is because of so | much functionality being missing. | | GAFYD https://lifehacker.com/what-does-google-apps-for-your- | domain... | shp0ngle wrote: | The most annoying thing is that I got married and I now want to | share my Google One account with my family | | ...and I cannot, unless they all have my domain. | | By the way, you can sort-of "move" your photos by adding them | to shared album and "saving to local" on the other side. But | then, if the original account is removed, the photos are still | removed (AFAIK). | AndrewDucker wrote: | I also can't have a YouTube Premium Family account, because | they don't support Google Workspace accounts! | | I really do wish I hadn't moved my domain over to them - but | my Google Calendar, email, and Google Play purchases are all | in there. | murgindrag wrote: | This is one of the many reasons I'd never use Google in any | business setting. I had GSuite / free-edition set up for my | family. Now, new members don't have access to basic features | like Google Voice without shelling out $6/month. A lot my | family signed up, so I'd be looking at thousands of dollars per | year. | | Google is happy to drop you, mostly for an obnoxious up-sell. | You're a statistic, and if they drive your business under, | that's a statistic too. | pylon wrote: | So I assume the things that are becoming free don't include using | your own domain for mail? Will Google Workspace Individual | include that? The TechCrunch article mentions it will be $9.99 | with introductory price of $7.99 which is more expensive than | current basic plan. | | I really just want custom domain hosting with Gmail and ignore | everything else. | berns wrote: | That's the first thing I looked for. It has not changed. It's $ | 6 / user / month. | JoshTriplett wrote: | The "book a meeting" mechanism shown in the animation towards the | end looks like an interesting competitor to Calendly and similar. | dfcowell wrote: | I just want that to replace the ugly as hell, never-updated- | since-day-1 meeting slots UX in Google Calendar. | znpy wrote: | What even is Google Workspace? | | Is this the used-to-be google apps? | | is this g-suite? | | is this google for education stuff? | Marveleouse wrote: | Do not use a Google Workspace account for personal use. Just get | a Gmail account. There's far too many restrictions and caveats | that they've manufactured in the past few years (for no good | reason). I've used Google Workspace since 2008, long before any | of these restrictions existed and I wish it wasn't a nightmare to | migrate 12 years of context to a Gmail account. Google put me in | lose-lose position. Don't put yourself in one. | geek_at wrote: | You can use google checkout transfer to transfer everything | from a workspace account to a gmail one | | https://takeout.google.com/transfer | twodayslate wrote: | > Transfer Your Content is only available to authorized G | Suite for Education Accounts. Please contact your | administrator, or sign in with another Google Account. | ceejayoz wrote: | Agreed. I've got email set up for my family via Google | Workspace and we're not allowed to manage our Nest with them. | All sorts of weird "oh you're a second-class citizen" spots in | Google's systems. | josteink wrote: | Family sharing of Google Play and YouTube Premium | subscriptions are not available for workspace accounts | either. | | Which makes it a no-go once you have a family, EOT. So now | the entire family have Apple services instead for the same | price. | | Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. | Tenoke wrote: | Workspace allows you to use Gmail with your own domain easily | which is really the only reason I use it for a project. | easton wrote: | Are they losing a lot of customers to Basecamp or something? This | seems like the business model for a lot of their customers (small | businesses/churches/etc that just need a space to put stuff where | everyone knows where it is). Those places are probably paying for | Google or Microsoft mail anyway though. | Angostura wrote: | It feels to me more like this is a response to Microsoft Teams | - scrape together lots of existing products and try to reskin | them under a new brand. | foobarbazetc wrote: | Basecamp is like a rounding error in usage compared to G*. | | Probably more Microsoft or whatever. | xyst wrote: | I don't need these "enterprise" features. I just need an e-mail. | That being said, I do pay ~$5 per month (they charge PER user) | for workspaces just for a hosted e-mail solution using my own | domain (firstname@lastname.com). | | One of these days, I'm going to self host it. Just need to figure | out what's the best way so my e-mails don't get bounced back or | get flagged as spam | mastazi wrote: | If you are a tech-oriented person (which I assume is the case | as you're a HN reader) you can set up Mailinabox without much | hassle. It does everything for you including the "e-mails don't | get bounced back or get flagged as spam" part. | | https://mailinabox.email/ | Skunkleton wrote: | In my experience self hosting email is more pain than it is | worth. I switched to fastmail and am very happy. Don't let | anyone dissuade you from giving it a try if you are interested | though. | ampdepolymerase wrote: | Some PM just reinvented Google Wave. | mcherm wrote: | No they didn't. | | I wish they had. | cpcallen wrote: | To a first approximation, Google Chat is already Wave. | circlesguy wrote: | Some PM just reinvented Circles https://circles.app/ | jfrunyon wrote: | "Use Rooms in Google Chat as a central place to connect, create | and collaborate with others. Over the summer, we'll evolve Rooms | to become Spaces and introduce a streamlined and flexible user | interface that helps you stay on top of everything that's | important. Powered by new features like in-line topic threading, | presence indicators, custom statuses, expressive reactions, and a | collapsible view, Spaces will seamlessly integrate with your | files and tasks" | | Cool. So when are we (admins - or heck even users!) going to be | able to edit, or delete, or hide, or restrict access to, | rooms/Spaces? | subpixel wrote: | As a paying customer, I built my entire family photo sharing and | storage scheme on the longstanding ability to sync images between | Google Drive and Google Photos. | | Google removed that functionality, borked my entire system, and | lost all of my trust that they know (or care about) what their | customers want. | nelsonfavedra wrote: | "How long until they sunset this for something new?" is the | first thing that comes to mind whenever one hears about | something Goog did these days. | brixon wrote: | They will sunset it without something new to replace it. | Brajeshwar wrote: | I like Google, but their product teams desperately need to talk | to each other. I had been a 2TB Plan subscriber for quite a | while. While trying to prune and free up some space, I realize it | is practically impossible to do it any way that is easy and | correct. | | It took me over two weeks of dedicated hourly time slots, a few | automation, and many manual deletions to clean up everything. I | also end up deleting essential documents that I should not have | (I did have backups). | | I wrote down my frustration, the horrible experience deleting all | the photos (some tips included that will help if you are planning | to do so) - How to delete all Photos and get off Google Photos - | https://brajeshwar.com/2021/how-to-delete-all-photos-and-get... | | I do have the grandfathered legacy Google Domains for Apps (may | be about 10 or odd domains) and I pay for about 5 domains Google | Workspaces. Teams find it easier to use Google Products | (especially Gmail, and Calendar). | room505 wrote: | I had some old photos that I thought I removed and realized you | have to go to https://picasaweb.google.com/, which redirects me | to https://get.google.com/albumarchive/ so that I can delete | them. There was no other way to find the photos. | Brajeshwar wrote: | Thanks. Now, I found a bunch of photos to delete from the | Picasa days. :-) | Tenoke wrote: | >While trying to prune and free up some space, I realize it is | practically impossible to do it any way that is easy and | correct. | | I do it by connecting drive to Google colab and using | bash/python as if it's a normal filesystem but admittedly even | then it can occasionally behave weird (especially with bigger | files). However, you can at least add whatever retry and double | checking logic you want. | dvfjsdhgfv wrote: | For Gmail, the only thing that works for me is the regular | Google Takeout. POP3 takes months to download all messages, | IMAP is... well, IMAP and not e-mail archiving protocol. | Fortunately Takeout exists so that you can just download | everything to a safe place and free some space. | cloudking wrote: | Google Workspace was formerly known as G Suite, which was | formerly known as Google Apps. It's the business version of | Google products that includes additional functionality that | consumer accounts don't have. | https://support.google.com/a/answer/6043385?hl=en | | I shall attempt to explain what this announcement actually means, | since it doesn't do a great job: | | 1) "Starting today, all of Google Workspace is available to | anyone with a Google account" there are a lot of individual | business owners that have signed up for free Gmail accounts and | use them to run their business, now they can pay a subscription | fee to upgrade those accounts to include Workspace functionality | (like Google Chat rooms, Meet recordings, Calendar appointments, | ML assisted writing, device management and other business | features). | | 2) Google Chat (their competitor to Slack) and Docs suite are | getting more deeply integrated in Gmail. Enabling the ability to | bring in Docs/Sheets/Slides inline with a Chat "room" for | collaboration without leaving Gmail. This will only be available | for Workspace users (business, enterprise, education or the new | individual plan). | snambi wrote: | I have no idea, what this is. | rohanstake wrote: | Looks good - but with Google products for everything, they have a | tendency to kill products, it's risky. | | Maybe if the Workspace has some integrations options, it would be | nice. | choppaface wrote: | Guh!! The image / video at the top seems to show Google Haircuts, | Google Gym, and Google Cafeteria. I thought this announcement was | that Google HR saw so many employees going remote that they were | opening up the employee-only workspace facilities to everybody. | Now I read this is just some dumb software. What a let-down. | pbasista wrote: | My first impression was similar. I thought that perhaps Google | would publish their ideas of ergonomic, healthy, efficient and | friendly workplace as some proposed standard that would be open | to collaborations and continuous improvements. | | Apparently, I was wrong. | Maksadbek wrote: | Use it while it is hot and not killed. | [deleted] | grouphugs wrote: | kind of a bad time for this don't ya think? | gregwebs wrote: | A link from this announcement goes here [1] where they show new | collaboration features that moves Google Docs in the direction of | coda.io to be able to better leverage structured data and tables. | I have been loving coda.io. | | [1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/workspace/next- | evolut... | corndoge wrote: | If you have a normal google account, once you sign up for | workspace, if you decide to no longer subscribe, you can't get | your original free account functionality back. No more gmail, | calendar, keep, etc. Learned the hard way | handrous wrote: | Hahaha, makes me feel so much better about my own work when I | see this kind of laziness out of the rich-as-hell giants. | | Dev: "OK, I finished the user story for migration from a free | account to a paid account this sprint, but, again, there's a | story for migration from a paid account to a free one and | that'll involve compromises X and Y and there are a couple Hard | Problems involved since usage may have exceeded free tier | limits, and we physically migrate the account in ways that will | be hard to undo since we cut corners to get this shipped, which | will make it even harder. That's going to be a big chunk of | work, and I think we'll need to break it up into smaller | stories. Will we be going over that today?" | | PM: "Ummmmmmm... yeah..." _presses big red button that throws | an inconvenient story into the "on ice" bucket that may as well | represent "deleted"_ "Putting that 'on ice', we'll definitely | get to it... some day." | runawaybottle wrote: | Don't you dare mock my standup style. | pylon wrote: | Wait really? I thought my regular Google account is | disconnected from a Google Workspace account? The email is just | used for initial sign up. | | I'm really glad I didn't try signing up for it when I was | trying to setup my custom domain to host mail. | corndoge wrote: | I signed up using my free account while it was gsuite. Gsuite | changed to Workspace, I stopped paying for Workspace and now | I can't use my original free services, and I get a blurb | explaining this is because I unsubscribed from Workspace. | | Possible I'm doing something wrong so I'd love to know what | it is, but as far as I can tell, I can't get my free tier | back. | mattzito wrote: | (disclosure: googler on workspace here) | | This was/is a domain account, right? @yourdomain.com? You | upgraded from the free "google apps for your domain" | account to a paid workspace account, and now you can't | downgrade? If that's the case, that's unfortunately works | as intended - that free domain-level tier doesn't exist | anymore, so anyone who is on it (myself included) who | starts paying and thereby upgrades to one of the current | SKUs, can't downgrade to a SKU that no longer is offered. | n_u_l_l wrote: | Can't OP move to Cloud Identity Free to keep access to | most of the free services[1]? They wouldn't have access | to Workspace-specific services like Gmail and Google | Calendar, but they would still have access to Google | Drive, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Keep, and Meet. I assume | other non-Workspace services like Google Play will also | stay available. | | 1. | https://support.google.com/cloudidentity/answer/7319251 | corndoge wrote: | No, I upgraded from a completely personal account, like | your mom might have, to Workspace. I cancelled my | Workspace subscription and now have no access to Gmail, | calendar, keep, etc. I never used "google apps for your | domain". | mattzito wrote: | Starting from an @gmail.com account? We've always | required you to have an accompanying domain for workspace | accounts, as far as I know. | corndoge wrote: | Reading over your previous post again I guess it was a | "google apps for your domain" account. I did use my own | domain and it was free, before I upgraded it (and when I | upgraded it the product was still called GSuite). I wasnt | aware the free tier was called "google apps for your | domain". I guess then that the situation you described | with the free tier no longer existing is what happened to | me. | | Good to know at least that I didn't do something wrong. | However, there was no warning about this happening in | either direction that I recall - no warning that I would | not be able to downgrade and no warning upon cancelling | my Workplace subscription that I would not go back to my | previous free tier. Nothing I could find by some | searching that described this either. I appreciate your | response here, otherwise I would never have known if I | did it wrong... | morpheuskafka wrote: | If you had Gmail on your own domain, then it was the | legacy Google Apps Free Tier. You can still create a | Google account for free with a non-gmail address, and | people can use that email to add you to docs and such, | but it doesn't have Gmail. The days when it was called | Google Apps was the last time you could get free email | hosting on a custom domain. | corndoge wrote: | > You can still create a Google account for free with a | non-gmail address | | Yeah - my email is elsewhere now, and I was hoping that | by cancelling Workspace, my account would convert into | the type of account you get when you sign up for Google | services with a non Google email. But it didn't. | ValentineC wrote: | There was a significant period of time (~6 years) where | one could upgrade to a free trial and downgrade again to | the grandfathered free tier. | | That feature was unfortunately removed some time in 2018. | northerdome wrote: | And Google Workspace still doesn't play nice with Google Home, | Photos, etc. I used to pay for GSuite and switched back to | Gmail because of all the services I was ironically locked out | of when I paid for them. | mullen wrote: | That's the funny thing about Google Workspaces, it's really a | downgrade when you look out at all the Google services you | are cut out of. Google Homes does not work, which is utterly | shocking to me. I pay Google for Google Workspace and fancy | smoke detectors and WiFi devices and they don't integrate | with each other. | moocowtruck wrote: | how do i know i can trust to start using this without google | killing like so many other things.. google today is so untrust | worthy to me... especially after this photo storage thing.. just | wow what a headache | davemtl wrote: | Is this just another Google product I'm going to invest a lot of | time in, only to find out that one day they take it 'round back | and put it down? [1] | | [1] https://killedbygoogle.com/ | ceejayoz wrote: | No, this is the other main scenario at Google; a product | important enough to keep, but with regular name changes so it | sounds new. | | Google Apps for Your Domain --> Google Apps --> Google Apps for | Business --> Google Apps for Work --> G Suite --> Google | Workplace | | Same thing happened to Hangouts/Chat/Meet. | callalex wrote: | Many of the migrations you mentioned were not automatic or | clean. | kwanbix wrote: | I don't understand why did they integrate chat with email. For me | they are two very different use cases. If not, I will be only | using email (or chat). I really don't get it. I had to uninstall | chat on my android phone as I was getting double notifications | for all chat messages. Really stupid IMHO. Of course there is | surely someone who loves the integration. | [deleted] | vtail wrote: | For as long a I am a "wanna-be founder", I used to be afraid of | working on ideas that compete with (parts of) Google business. | That feeling is no more. | | I use GSuite at work at a FAANG company, and Google slides with | 50+ pages is so slow (multi-second pauses when changing slides) | to be practically unusable. Finding documents in Google drive is | hard to impossible, and good luck keeping track of comments or | tasks assigned to you in multiple unrelated documents. | | I'm sure at some level consolidating their offerings is a right | product move, but I don't think Basecamp or Calendly should be | particularly concerned. | dijit wrote: | Never underestimate the power of an incumbent. | | Teams is not the best messaging/videoconferencing program by a | country mile, yet it shows the most growth YoY [citation | needed]. | | I worked for a few companies who dipped a toe into the | Microsoft waters and their products drowned everything else | out; this was not because the offering was technically superior | or cheaper. | hellomyguys wrote: | To be fair, Google "work" products seem to be a tier below | Microsoft's even, and Google doesn't iterate as quickly to | improve them either. | znpy wrote: | Indeed. | | Outlook is not my preferred email client but having. Used | it on both windows and Mac OS as groupware tool, it's still | better than most things by Google. | | It's just snappier, because it's native code. And outlook | on Mac OS used to be gorgeous. | | Excel is a jewel and a marvel of software engineering. | Google sheets is good for doing just 2+2. | | And so on. When it comes to office stuff, Microsoft | software is just better. | | Sadly, because it's all proprietary software, but it is was | it it. | Tostino wrote: | Google's is all proprietary too if it's any consolation | lol. | toast0 wrote: | > It's just snappier, because it's native code. And | outlook on Mac OS used to be gorgeous. | | I've been forced into using Outlook on Windows and Mac | and snappy has never been my impression, although I seem | to recall it being somewhat more usable on Windows. Not | that GMail is snappy either, but a browser based client | isn't necessarily slower than Outlook. Although an | actually fast native client would be hard to beat. | sokoloff wrote: | I've used only the outlook web access client for outlook | for four-plus years (literally haven't installed the | native client). It's been more than tolerable. | nicoburns wrote: | > It's just snappier, because it's native code. | | Gmail used to be snappier than Outlook is now when it | launched, even as a webapp. I'm not sure quite how | they've managed to mess it up so badly, but it's poor | engineering not a limitation of the tech stack. | | Agree with you on the other office products though. Word, | Excel, etc aren't perfect, but they're much better than | the alternatives for most things. | theshrike79 wrote: | Teams is an easy sell for organisations. | | "Do you already have O365? Yes? Then you already have Teams!" | | That's a hard place to sell a competing solution to =) | pydry wrote: | I worked for an organization where this was the case but | most people vastly preferred zoom. | | IT went as far as remotely disabling the use of zoom after | months of pleading with people not to use it. | | This was ostensibly done for security reasons (citing zoom | bombing, of all things, coz it was in the news). | | When teams had a raft of really bad zero days, of course, | nobody in IT batted an eye. | | MS reaaaallly got its hooks in to that place. | | It made me wonder how startups are supposed to compete with | this type of thing. Zoom was free _and_ better liked and it | still got shut down. | ignoramous wrote: | > _This was ostensibly done for security reasons (citing | zoom bombing, of all things, coz it was in the news)._ | | I don't think this is without basis? Zoom got some bad | press. Unsure if _Teams_ is any better. | | Zoom apps sending data to Facebook | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22693792 | | Zoom lying about e2ee | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25044254 | | Zoom installer on macOS | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22706650 | | Zoom rolling its own crypto | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22768494 | Spivak wrote: | I'm actually surprised that Slack hasn't tried their hand | at an email service to combat this. Yes o365 is more than | email but that's their foot in the door. If you cut off | that sales vector you make MS have to compete on the merits | of their add-on services and they don't hold up. Notion is | a OneNote and Sharepoint destroyers. Zoom and Slack are | better than Teams and S4B. Okta and Auth0 are better than | ADFS. | pixel16 wrote: | FYI ADFS is now going the way of the dodo and being | replaced by AAD which does what Okta and Auth0 do | already. | FourthProtocol wrote: | Do you know Okta well? I've been looking for product | comparisons but the best I came up with was Okta's "Why | Choose Okta vs. ADFS?" [1] | | And that's just sales talk. It says ADFS needs multiple | servers, which it doesn't. At least it depends on your | deployment model. And whether AD running on another | server constitutes "multiple servers" (of course just as | true for Okta). | | It also says Okta runs in the cloud. The implication is | that ADFS doesnt. Well, like anything, it does. | | The remainder talks about low TCO, deployment speed, | simplifying AD complexity, and the cloud. All of which | are rather subjective. | | I say all of this having done some very complex ADFS | deployments - at the extreme using Chip & PIN authN, and | authR from client workstations assumed to be compromised. | | So given the above I'd love to find a compelling and | unbiased comparison. Including featureset. | | [1] https://www.okta.com/resources/whitepaper/why-choose- | okta-vs... | forty wrote: | Is ADFS fully managed? I think Okta is competing with | Azure AD rather than ADFS. | screye wrote: | > Microsoft waters | | Microsoft and Google have a fundamentally different approach | to enterprise software than Google. Microsoft is the mediocre | Apple of enterprise tech, before Apple even got that | reputation. | | EVERYTHING IS INTEGRATED. Microsoft makes it so insanely easy | to stay within the microsoft ecosystem, that using a mediocre | software created by Microsoft is always a better option than | a 3rd party tool. (See slacks getting clobbered by teams, | despite slacks being significantly faster) | | Part of what makes MSFT click is that they they go above and | beyond to create a tool everyone can use. Additionally, they | are obsessed with customers to a point that their tools lose | all personality. This is bad if you want something that is | opinionated in exactly the way you want (see Obsidian vs | OneNote), but great for companies that want to offer an | inoffensive tool that is serviceable for all its employees. | | An incumbent is fearsome when it uses every little advantage | in its greater product offering to embed itself as the | obvious option. (Apple for consumer tech, MSFT for enterprise | tech). Google has refused to implement the kind of top down | organizational structure needed to enforce such integration | in its product lineup. This is the company that couldn't sync | its grocery lists with google keep. As long as it stays true, | Google will never be able to leverage the advantage of an | incumbent. It's a shame too, their products are honestly | quite good. | levesque wrote: | We use Teams at work, I miss Slack so bad. | larodi wrote: | So true and surprisingly so much not appreciated by so many | ppl that actually benefit from MSFT products - directly or | not. | [deleted] | judge2020 wrote: | > the most growth YoY [citation needed] | | March 31, 2020: 75 million DAU [0] | | March 31, 2021: 145 million DAU [1] | | 0: https://www.fool.com/earnings/call- | transcripts/2020/04/30/mi... | | 1: https://twitter.com/jeffteper/status/1387141320519557120?s | =2... | (https://twitter.com/bdsams/status/1387146648678244356?s=20) | realmod wrote: | GSuite is downright horrible compared to alternatives and its | only saving grace is GMail. And its the same with GCloud which | makes doing the most basic things slow and annoying. It really | feels like most of those GSuite products are there JUST so that | Google can say they have it. | Hamuko wrote: | > _GSuite is downright horrible compared to alternatives and | its only saving grace is GMail._ | | I've personally never found a better alternative to Google | Meet. | matwood wrote: | I like Meet b/c it's easy. Click link and people are in a | meeting. I don't want to force people to install and app or | hunt around for the tiny text that lets people join a | meeting from their browser. | | Meet is far from perfect (performance issues on Macs), but | ease of use trumps that for me personally. | blntechie wrote: | It's downright so simple to use, it's a pleasure. | | But the behavior of auto layout when someone is sharing a | screen is completely weird to me. Also their new UI which | rolled out to us recently is bit more complex than the | simpler one before. | camgunz wrote: | What attracts you to Google Meet? I prefer Zoom personally | (despite the privacy concerns), as I can have a meeting | with someone without the fans on my 2017 MBP 13" going into | liftoff, and the video feeds of the participants never | freeze. Legitimately every Google Meet I've ever been a | part of has either completely drained my battery, or frozen | the video feeds of multiple participants, or both, even if | there's just 1-2 other people. | | Plus I kind of resent Google Calendar not having reasonable | plugins for other video services (Jitsi, Zoom, etc.); feels | anti-trusty to me. | lazide wrote: | The issue I personally have with zoom (besides all the | historic security concerns) is that it is typically | incredibly complicated to use - too many bells and | whistles to do even basic things. Meet generally 'just | works', and has been better performance wise than Zoom on | my hardware. | | Zoom does seem to do better overly severely degraded | connections (and surfaces that It is happening). The | experience is still pretty bad though. | camgunz wrote: | Oh yeah that's totally fair. I was hosting a meeting the | other day and one of my participants wanted to share | their screen, and I still haven't found where to do that. | I just made them host. Their UI is hot garbage. | djrogers wrote: | It's in your meeting settings (sadly on their website, | not in the app) under "Who Can Share?". | Hamuko wrote: | > _What attracts you to Google Meet?_ | | It just works. You get a link, you open the link, you're | in. | | Whenever I get a Zoom link, it first forces me to | download the app. As in, you open the link and it | instantly downloads an executable to my computer, which I | need to then go delete. Then I need to fight the website | by clicking a series of links to get to the browser | version. Then I enter my name and join. Except oops, the | meeting has not formally started, so it has now kicked me | back to the previous page to re-enter my name. Try again, | except later since if you go before it's officially | started, you're doing this again. | | And that's how bad Zoom is even before you start the | call. The UI in Zoom calls is also worse than Google | Meet. What the hell is "Join with Computer Audio"? What | does that even mean? | matwood wrote: | This. Meet isn't perfect, but 'click link, meet' is so | damn simple. | rexreed wrote: | You should experience what it's like as parents and | educators to use Google Meet for school. It's barely | usable with massive performance and access issues. | | Google Meet unfortunately doesn't just work as easily as | it should. | Hamuko wrote: | Well, I'm not a parent or an educator, but we've had | company-wide meetings on Google Meet with triple-digit | attendance and I haven't noticed performance issues. | [deleted] | camgunz wrote: | Yeah it seems like Zoom's falling prey to the "we're a | 10,000 seat contract but we _really need_ this feature " | stuff. I think using Zoom was fine as long as you could | effectively ignore the UI (yeah "Join with Computer | Audio" is completely nonsensical, double especially at | that phase like, oh yeah I would like to make that | decision right now where people don't know I can't hear | them and they can't hear me, cool cool cool), but if | you're actually using Zoom features beyond like, everyone | get on Zoom, it's not wonderful. | jacobr1 wrote: | >Plus I kind of resent Google Calendar not having | reasonable plugins for other video services (Jitsi, Zoom, | etc.); feels anti-trusty to me. | | It isn't native to gcal, but the zoom chrome extension | works relatively well. | Semaphor wrote: | > its only saving grace is GMail | | Is that the HTML version? Because the normal GMail is also | horribly slow. | remus wrote: | > Is that the HTML version? Because the normal GMail is | also horribly slow. | | Out of interest, what is slow about gmail for you? I use | gmail for work and speed has never been a problem or even | an annoyance. Im genuinely interested as some people seem | to have a totally different experience to me and it'd be | interesting to understand why. | oarsinsync wrote: | Each morning I have to aggressively sift through ~300 | emails and archive ~270 of them. Archiving 10 emails at a | time can take several seconds, from pressing the archive | button, to the email list being refreshed with 10 more | items from the previous page. | | Opening a conversation that has more than 5 messages in | the thread will regularly take several seconds. | | EDIT: paging set to 100 conversations per page, with | reader view / vertical split to enable reading emails at | the same time as viewing the rest of the list of threads. | | Similar experiences with Chrome on Win10 as safari on | macOS or gmail app on iOS. | | It makes me miss Outlook. | blntechie wrote: | For me, if I have long email threads (think 1 year worth | of to and fros), it takes ages to load and keeps moving | the position based on images loading etc. The | conversation view completely becomes unusable beyond few | tens of emails. | Semaphor wrote: | A long delay when loading it, a noticeable delay (I'd | guess 50-200ms, it's not consistent) whenever I open any | E-Mail. Compared to Fastmail where the start-up delay is | shorter, and opening any mail feels instant. | matwood wrote: | I've used GSuite for years and find it fine. I do think it | performs best using Chrome though. The document collaboration | works well, and search works when I need it. Much better than | something like Confluence. | | What other tools would you suggest in place of GSuite (email, | calendaring, collaborative document building, | searching/finding docs, etc...)? O365 is all that comes to | mind. | zentiggr wrote: | > I do think it performs best using Chrome though. | | Sounds like a nail in the coffin, to me. | | I'll avoid Chrome. Unless it suddenly goes 100% FOSS, gets | audited, and every feature that causes platform lockin gets | stripped / opened. | amf12 wrote: | > I do think it performs best using Chrome though. | | Or Chromium which is FOSS. | jfrunyon wrote: | Curious what browser you use that doesn't have lockin and | is audited? | CPAhem wrote: | We're forced to used GSuite. I find https://syncdocs.com | useful - it lets me collaborate using MS Office on top of | GSuite | blntechie wrote: | I'm surprised your employer allows to login to the SyncDocs | client with your Google work ID. I'd be fired where I work | if I do that. | | Google Drive sync client doesn't even work half the time | for me and nothing would make me happier than going back to | Dropbox for me. | polote wrote: | > That feeling is no more. | | Yep, and I'm building something to sit on top of google Drive, | to manage files, and make it easier to collaborate as a team. | That's not something new, similar, to what Confluence, Notion | are offering, ... | | The reality is that google sucks at B2B, everything they do | don't work. There are a few exception like google Workspace | because Gmail was number 1 in B2C and they were the first to | get Words and Excel in the browser and Google Analytics. | | The reality is that, innovation for a big company is hard, | Microsoft was able to build Teams from scratch to compete with | Slack and managed to it, and that's an amazing achievement, not | something that we are used to seeing. | myko wrote: | > Microsoft was able to build Teams from scratch to compete | with Slack and managed to it | | Teams is complete shit though, they didn't compete on quality | of their offering. They're competing because every org | already pays Microsoft a lot of money and they may as well | use Teams because it's "integrated" | hpoe wrote: | Point of note, Teams wasn't built from scratch it was more | like a remodel of skype which they already owned. If you | start looking under the hood at various aspects of teams one | will start to see Skype all over the place. | wcoenen wrote: | Must be one hell of a remodel then, considering Teams is an | electron application. | pitterpatter wrote: | I don't know if they updated this yet, but one location | this was evident was on Linux. During a Teams call, if | you looked at the applications using pulseaudio, Teams | would show up as Skype. | amelius wrote: | > The reality is that, innovation for a big company is hard | | Then why is Apple innovating more than anyone else? | polote wrote: | Because it is _hard_ it is not _impossible_. | amelius wrote: | That still doesn't make much sense if innovation is | supposedly easier for small companies. | Infinitesimus wrote: | That statement is very hard to quantify even within the | same industry. | | Apple makes and will continue to make great products for a | specific subset of uses because they are willing to make | big investments and are very opinionated about optimal user | experience. The end result of that is the often great | experience of their ecosystem today. | | They obviously also employ tactics to lock out competition | too (see the purchase of AuthenTec, Dark Sky and a few | other small purchases of best in class companies explicitly | demanding that they don't work with anyone else). | | Innovation in reality is "improving things" and many many | companies suck at defining what an improvement is and who | the improvement is for. Too many focus on improving revenue | numbers and that's it instead of improving user experience, | reliability, security, privacy, etc. All things Apple cares | deeply about* | | * Again, Apple's decisions are only an improvement to a | subset of users but that's really all that matters to them. | Happier users means more use of Apple products which is a | win. | agumonkey wrote: | out of curiosity, what kind of machine are you using ? I expect | it's not network io causing the slowdowns, but i'm curious if | even latest machines can't handle google apps | vtail wrote: | I'm using a 2020 MacBook Pro 16" with 32GB of RAM. I'm WFH, | but don't notice any slowdowns on any other task. | j4yav wrote: | You aren't really competing on quality when you go up against | these kinds of products though, you are competing against "free | and good enough" which is actually quite compelling in a lot of | cases. If you've ever been up against Microsoft in a deal for | example they just ignore your product and keep throwing more | unrelated free stuff into the enterprise agreement until the | client acquiesces. | nicoburns wrote: | Presumably there's space for both "free and good enough" and | "paid and actually good" in a lot of market though. | Arcanum-XIII wrote: | Yep, but workspace is not free. Or good for that matter. It's | maybe cheap, but with so many asterisks that I, and lot of | other, starts to be unwilling to commit to anything Google | agentdrtran wrote: | sure, but when a business is paying for it it | becomes"paying extra for a better product that covers | something that works OK with what we already have" | [deleted] | what_ever wrote: | > and good luck keeping track of comments or tasks assigned to | you in multiple unrelated documents | | Try searching for "followup:actionitems" in drive. | | Disc:Googler. | inthewoods wrote: | I don't have this experience at all - first, I have slide decks | that have 100s of slides and it works fine. I have no issue | finding documents either - however I do struggle with the | invites to documents inside of Gmail. | WYepQ4dNnG wrote: | > Finding documents in Google drive is hard to impossible | | This! I can't wrap my head around on how impossible is to | search for things in drive. | dmje wrote: | Highly recommend https://slapdash.com which does a bunch of | things - among which is finding files in gdrive insanely | fast... | mattkevan wrote: | I found it was easier and quicker to message the person who | shared a doc with me and get them to resend the link than it | was to use the Drive search. | | Staggeringly bad for, you know, a search company. | anoncake wrote: | Google Search itself has become staggeringly bad so it | fits. | WYepQ4dNnG wrote: | yes, and that's what I normally do as well. I also bookmark | docs that I know I am gonna access in the future. I just | don't trust I will be able to find it again. | yuters wrote: | I mean it's Google. You'd think they'd have nailed the | concept of "searching" by now. :) | | But I have found a weird workaround for this. After | installing Google Drive File Stream locally and searching for | things with the file explorer, it doesn't seem that bad all | of a sudden. | runawaybottle wrote: | It makes you wonder if they really do have the best people | working on stuff. Is this really the same team that made | gmail/maps? | vtail wrote: | People use to laugh at PMs (disclaimer: I'm a PM), but making | right product decisions in a big Corp, with multiple parties | to align with that had competing interests, is _hard_. | | I'm sure Google has high quality engineers working more or | less on every product. It's just the solution space of | products with big surface area and many interdependencies is | really large. When you are more steps removed from your | customers, and can't move fast (comparing to a small nibble | team), finding the optimum becomes a very non-trivial | exercise. | | Most successful products at big corps have laser-focused | teams with highly influential leaders. Anything else results | on mediocrity. | derefr wrote: | Why is it, then, that Google products with ~N users tend to | be less good than equivalent open-source projects in the | same verticals with ~N users, when those open-source | projects mostly don't even have access to effective product | management? | DannyBee wrote: | Which opensource product do you believe has 1 billion | users like Gmail does? | derefr wrote: | None? Google has ~3 well-managed products that everyone | loves and uses, such that nobody even _bothers to try_ to | compete with them. These products are the exceptions. | They may as well not be Google products, because they | aren 't representative of Google's product-management | _philosophy_ at all. You can 't set up a new team at | Google and talk to them about doing things "the Google | way" and have them to understand that to mean "like Gmail | does." | | Google has 1000+ badly-managed products. Google's actual | product-management philosophy, is reflected in how | _these_ products are created, managed (into the ground), | stagnated, and usually eventually killed. My post was | about those. | | It's _very easy_ to beat the complete lack of product- | management in your average FOSS project, by just having | one full-time product manager with vision for where the | product should go. See, for example, what this guy | (https://www.youtube.com/c/Tantacrul) has to say about | various pieces of FOSS DAW software, where all the flaws | usually come down to a pure lack of product management on | the FOSS projects' part. The problems he points out could | all _easily_ be fixed by having one person with vision | submit bug-reports about workflow issues, and having | those bug-reports get taken seriously by the engineers. | (And he 's now doing exactly that, as PM, for Audacity.) | | Google should easily be able to hire guys like him, and | put them on projects like the ones I listed in my sibling | comment. But they just... don't... seem to have it in | them. | lazide wrote: | What large open source hosted office suite is better | exactly? I'm unaware of one. | | Same with large open source email services? (Ala Gmail) | | It's usually apples and oranges comparisons. There is | libreoffice, but even on it's best day it's not doing | real time document editing/collaboration with 10+ people | on opposite sides of the planet, and that is the Google | Docs bread and butter for instance. | derefr wrote: | I think you're trying to compare against Google's _best | and largest_ products (which probably have the best PMs | working for them, with the clearest demand for | "vision.") | | Compare instead Google's _average_ products (y 'know -- | the kind they eventually shut down) to the largest FOSS | competitors in those same verticals. | | For example, compare Google Reader at its peak MAU, to | the current #1 open-source RSS reader app. | | Or compare Google+ to, say, Mastadon. (Mastadon is a FOSS | Twitter knockoff whereas Google+ was a Facebook knockoff, | but I think the point stands.) | | Or, for a _painful_ one, compare Blogger to Wordpress! | (Okay, maybe that one 's not fair, since Wordpress is a | real company that can hire product managers. But _most_ | WP development is still random FOSS developers scratching | their own itches.) | | Or compare Google Code at its peak to, well, anything. | GitLab CE, GNU Savannah, _anything_. | | None of these were failures of engineering. They were | either failures of product management, or failures of | budget/staffing -- which is in essence still product | management, since it's a PM's role to fight for the | budget and headcount to get the job done. | | (That's not to say _all_ but the best Google products rot | on the vine. IMHO Google are pretty good with steering | their internal B2B _engineering-driven_ offerings, e.g. | GKE, Firebase, BigQuery, etc. Those are run a lot like | FOSS projects, in that it 's a combination of internal | engineers scratching their own itches, and customers | directly filing bug reports, that determine what gets | built. It's the B2C products, and the marketing-driven | B2B products -- where in either case the engineers | involved might not have the problem themselves, and the | customers might never directly engage with them in | troubleshooting their workflows -- that tend to falter.) | | > There is libreoffice, but even on it's best day it's | not doing real time document editing/collaboration with | 10+ people on opposite sides of the planet, and that is | the Google Docs bread and butter for instance. | | If that's your _only_ requirement, then the FOSS project | https://etherpad.org/ that Google acquired to build | Google Wave off of (and then later dis-acquired) | satisfies it pretty well. These days it's even kind of a | word-processor! (Originally it was just a multiplayer | <textarea> with per-user text background colors.) | vtail wrote: | That's a good question, even if I disagree slightly about | the premise, as random large open-source products | targeting consumers (as opposed to infrastructure | projects like Linux kernel) can dramatically vary in | quality. | | My hypothesis: devs are much closer to users, as they are | often users themselves, and have more freedom to work on | fixing broken experiences, as opposed to just rolling new | features. | ItsMonkk wrote: | Exactly. | | Linus was able to out-compete a team of hundreds of | Microsoft Engineers who spent years building a Source | Control system by himself within a span of 10 days when | he built git. | | You can't take Microsoft Source Control, add a few | stories, and end up with git in a Sprint. You can't split | that work up between different teams. | | The essence of git is in a unified design that matches | the essential complexity of source control requirements. | When you play the game of telephone from user to sales to | program manager to project manager to architect to lead | developer to UX designer to DB modeler, each step along | the path introduces errors. Those errors made the system | harder to design for, harder to scale, and harder to use. | | Linus was able to cover every element of those to a | passable degree himself. You need to empower your | developers. If they don't use the product, if they are | not dogfooding, you have no chance to compete against | those that are. | [deleted] | debacle wrote: | Making the right decision is easy. Winning the internal | political battles to nurture that decision to production is | sisyphean, especially when the alternative is falling in | line, not taking risks, and collecting a paycheck. | JustFinishedBSG wrote: | Are we using the same Gmail ? | | GMail is TRASH for me. It's the slowest, most ressoruce | intensive site/app I've ever had the "pleasure" of using. I'm | using Fastmail now and it's mindblowing how slow Gmail is in | comparison. | nicoburns wrote: | > GMail is TRASH for me | | It is now, but it didn't used to be. Gmail at launch was | incredibly fast. It gradually got a little bit slower over | time, and then they made it a _lot_ slower with a rewrite a | few years ago. | skulk wrote: | I still use the basic HTML version, it works fine and | does all the things I need a mail client to do (except a | "select all" button, which I've added with a short | userscript: http://ix.io/3pXu/js) | mattkevan wrote: | It's embarrassing quite how much faster the plain html | version is. Proof that all the fancy JavaScript gubbins | do very little to enhance the experience and a whole lot | to slow it down | nicoburns wrote: | Indeed. But they've always had both a fancy JS version | and a plain HTML version, and originally the fancy JS | version was just as fast if not faster. | handrous wrote: | A lot of Google's web stuff is god-awful, as far as | performance. Today I tracked a most-of-a-second delay on KB | input across my _entire_ browser to... having a tab with | the Google Cloud dashboard open. A really boring one with | nothing going on, too. Damn near an empty view. | josefresco wrote: | > Are we using the same Gmail ? | | Right back at you. I've used Gmail daily since it's launch | and have never experienced "slow" unless I was on a | slow/poor connection. How many tabs /instances are you | opening? Are you using ancient hardware? | handrous wrote: | Google Fiber, powerful MacBooks for the last decade-plus | (currently an Apple Silicon machine). Normal gmail takes | longer to do its AJAX requests than full-page loads on | "basic HTML" gmail, consistently. Lots longer. It also | likes to eat 400-500MB of memory and all the processor | cycles it can get, sitting in the background. | | Inbox was even worse, but I think they fattened up Gmail | to match it after Inbox folded so the Inbox-loving people | wouldn't suffer from increased performance when they had | to switch back. | | On the plus side they drove me to finally start using | real, native mail clients again, so... I guess I can | thank them for that. | josefresco wrote: | Maybe it's a Mac thing? -\\_(tsu)_/- | | I'm on PC and don't experience any of these issues. My | Chrome is using <400 MB of memory with two instances of | Gmail, G Drive, Google Calendar, Google Ads and a couple | more tabs, and is consuming maybe 0-1% of my CPU. I | routinely have 4 separate Gmail inboxes open each in | their own tab. | | Compose windows is instantaneous. Opening /viewing email | is also nearly instantaneous. Same for search, and | navigating between labels/folders. | handrous wrote: | > My Chrome is using <400 MB of memory with two instances | of Gmail, G Drive, Google Calendar, Google Ads and a | couple more tabs, and is consuming maybe 0-1% of my CPU. | | This is... very surprising. Are you sure you're | accounting for the resources each tab is taking up? They | may be listed separately from the core Chrome process in | the task manager. | | I just opened my very boring and nearly empty Google | Calendar and that tab _alone_ eats 275MB of memory and | idles bouncing around(!) between 0.2 and 1% of a CPU core | (which is a lot to be doing nothing, and the way it | bounces around tells me timers or WebSockets or some | other unfortunate-technology-to-have-added-to-Javascript | is involved) | | [EDIT] for reference, loading an HN page spikes to | 100-150MB of memory, then frees memory down to 40-75MB | over tens of seconds, and idles around 0.0% of CPU when | I'm not interacting with it. That's approximately the | base cost of rendering _anything_ and the (mostly memory) | overhead of isolating tabs so they can crash | independently. Calendar stays at ~275MB and constantly | uses some CPU, and I bet if I watched it over time that | memory use would grow. | | [EDIT EDIT] basic HTML gmail hangs out around 170MB but | keeps allocating then de-allocing 10-20MB more memory, | bouncing up then returning to about 170MB. Then when I | click on the link in the footer to load "standard" gmail | instead, it spikes to 700MB(!!!) then drops to "merely" | about 490MB and hangs out there indefinitely, using 0.4% | CPU constantly and spiking to 2.5% periodically, while | the tab is backgrounded. You are _definitely_ not looking | in the right place for your browser 's total resource | use. | jfrunyon wrote: | Good luck loading your email into... what, Outlook? | Thunderbird, god forbid? And having it use less... | | (In fairness, I suppose Mutt's resource usage is probably | lower.) | handrous wrote: | Sure, Apple Mail uses about half a GB, too (same mailbox | as I just loaded in Gmail, even). But that's the _whole | program_ , with several HTML emails open (a large thread) | and my entire inbox scrollable instantly at once. Major | view-switches take maybe 300-500ms, and its idle CPU use | sits at 0.0%, not a constant 0.4-2.5%. And it doesn't | have to reach out to a server to search, so some of that | (I'm guessing quite a bit of it, actually) is likely in- | memory search cache. That with what amounts to _two_ of | gmail 's pages open (an email thread view, and a mailbox | view, side-by-side--I only had the latter open in Gmail | to achieve this much memory use) | | Unlike Gmail and other google properties, I can leave it | open for weeks and forget it's there. It doesn't affect | overall system performance--because it's not demanding | CPU time and forcing context switches when it's not doing | anything. | | [EDIT] incidentally, has Thunderbird bloated a ton or | something? I used to use it on machines with 256MB of | memory _total_ and it _was not_ the only thing I had | open, and it was totally fine. And yes, HTML email | existed then. I was under the impression it was--thanks | to neglect, basically--still on good, old tech and the | plan to "improve" it to ditch that for bloated modern | junk was still on the drawing board. | jfrunyon wrote: | > Sure, Apple Mail uses about half a GB, too (same | mailbox as I just loaded in Gmail, even). But that's the | whole program | | Okay... Gmail is also the whole program? | | > That with what amounts to two of gmail's pages open (an | email thread view, and a mailbox view, side-by-side | | Huh? You can do that in a single page in gmail, too. | | > incidentally, has Thunderbird bloated a ton or | something? | | So has everything else. I used to use Chrome because it | was less resource-intensive than Firefox (back in | Chrome's early days, and circa Firefox 3.5)... | handrous wrote: | > Okay... Gmail is also the whole program? | | It's hosted in a browser. It gets things like HTML | rendering "for free". | | > Huh? You can do that in a single page in gmail, too. | | I've never seen that and just tried to figure out how to | do it just to see what it did to memory use. Couldn't. | Did end up sitting around 680MB of memory (spiked to | 800MB) looking at the same email thread I have open in | Apple Mail, which, notably, doesn't exhibit those crazy | memory-use spikes every time I click on anything. | | [EDIT] What I'm talking about is a fairly typical email | client 3-column layout, with folders and such in one | column, the current mailbox or folder loaded in another | (these two columns together are like the default layout | when you first load Gmail), and an email thread in the | remaining column, all open at once. I've never seen that | in Gmail, and with both ~1min of poking around their | interface and ~1min of Googling, couldn't figure out how | to get that. I can get columns 1 & 2, or 1 & 3. Not 1, 2, | and 3 all at once. | | > So has everything else. I used to use Chrome because it | was less resource-intensive than Firefox (back in | Chrome's early days, and circa Firefox 3.5) | | Same. FF went way downhill in a hurry after the 2.x days. | shadowgovt wrote: | In general, it is not. | | The people who made Gmail are either still working on Gmail, | working somewhere else, or working on a pet project because | they bought the proof-of-competence to choose their project. | Google's management structure basically doesn't have anything | that says "Hey, you were successful at X, can you work on | (thing adjacent to X)?" and incentivize the employee to do | that if the employee wants to do something else. | | There's no reason to assume the people working on Slides, | Spreadsheets, Drive, Docs, &c started particularly overlapped | (though I'm sure there's consolidation these days). Similarly | with GCloud; all the pieces of GCloud started as independent | initiatives (App Engine, Cloud Storage, BigQuery, Compute | Engine, &c). All of these started separate and only began | using consolidated resources / providing consolidated UX | frontends and APIs as they were forced to by a management | chain ad-hoc'd together after Google decided "Cloud" was a | space they wanted to do business in as an organized front. | jerf wrote: | I'd lay money it's not the engineers, but management. If | management doesn't put performance as a top-tier requirement, | there's no way to stuff enough features into a program for | something like an office suite (already half-crippled by | having to run in a browser) and keep the performance high. | It's too much work for even the engineers who care to take it | on in the cracks & edges around their other projects... it | has to be something management prioritizes. | | Seems like this is how all "enterprise-grade" software | becomes a pain to use. Usability and performance get short | shrift below getting the next 100 bullet-point-features and | before you know it the only computers in the world that can | run it decently are the developer's, where it still is | frankly only on the _edge_ of usability and far from where it | would be a joy to use. | lazide wrote: | There is another factor with enterprise software - people | build workflows around it that are business critical (think | checklists and HOW-TO guides), and taught to folks that | just want to turn the crank and get things done, not mess | around with the latest changes (in general). | | UX changes (usually what people mean when they say | 'usability) are problematic because they often require | disruptive changes, retraining people, and breaking | someone's business for awhile if they can't know this is | coming and stage it out properly. That is a good way to | lose customers. | | Performance improvements over unlocking some major business | area with a feature are not as high priority - because an | extra .5% in cost to an existing customer is usually not as | important as unlocking another 10% of sales. | | Over time it can of course kill the product if not | addressed. It's easy to see how the incentives lead people | there though. | | And for an enterprise, they already pay people to do things | they aren't excited to do every day - why should they care | the software is motivating when people already clean | toilets, deal with retail customers, and mop floors without | any of those being exciting either? As long as it works, it | works. | jerf wrote: | "why should they care the software is motivating when | people already clean toilets, deal with retail customers, | and mop floors without any of those being exciting | either?" | | Efficient. I'm not looking to enterprise software to | provide personal affirmation in life, but if it takes me | 5 minutes of staring at loading screens to do something I | ought to have been able to do in 15 seconds, that's that | much lost productivity, and it multiplies over days, | months, years, and across employees. | | Moreover, while supermegaultra performance tuning may be | expensive, many performance improvements can be had for | much less than the cost of time they are losing people, | and many others can be obtained relatively cheaply if | they are simply something that is kept in mind at all | parts of the design process rather than completely | ignored until it can't possibly be ignored any more. To a | large degree, I'm not asking for these companies to make | a moon shot to make me slightly happier... I'm asking for | them to pick the freaking low-hanging fruit that is right | in front of them, and, ideally, to do so on an ongoing | basis. Computers are pretty fast nowadays, you don't | really have to try _that_ hard to put something on the | screen in less than 30 seconds. | lazide wrote: | For sure - but you're still thinking about it from the | using side, not the purchasing/management side. | | We all know how dysfunctional management can be, and IMO | this is more a symptom of the disconnect between | management and the employees resulting in bad business | performance. | | It's clear whoever is doing the purchasing either doesn't | care, doesn't know, or has to pick the option due to | another checkbox somewhere they can't control. The people | who know have no control over the tools they are using. | | It's amazing how pathological organizations can be. | [deleted] | renewiltord wrote: | In all genuineness, I have no clue what they're doing. I won't | touch this shit with my personal Gmail account because I just | know it has some one-way door built-in. Something like "You | signed up for Workspace and now you can't use your Google Home! | Hurray! Oh, you want to downgrade? Okay, you lost all your email! | Hurray!" | | I'm just glad I make enough money that I can keep my GSuite and | my personal separate. The one mistake I made is paying for this | Google One shit which I don't know what it is but I'm too afraid | to let it go in case they delete all my photos and email. | | Literally the most half-assed platform of all time. But the | features are so good I'm pretty sure I'm paying three times for | them and not upset. It's the risk of losing the data that scares | me. | headmelted wrote: | Not for UK users | | Which sucks, because thats the only way to get Google Voice, | which we still dont have here outside of Workspace. | xibalba wrote: | So can I stop paying for my 1 user business account now? | easton wrote: | They seem cagey about whether or not the individual plan will | have custom domains or support. That'd probably be the | dealbreaker for everyone with single-user business accounts. | | (Unless you're like me and still have grandfathered unlimited | storage). | flatiron wrote: | which tier are you that you still have unlimited? i was on | the $10 tier (which went to $12) and then i got a nasty gram | a while ago and upgraded to the $20 tier, i 100% only use my | account for the unlimited storage. | ericwooley wrote: | I just set it up to forward all emails to my Gmail account | instead. Works great, and it's free. | markstos wrote: | The announcement could be clearer. | | Groups could already sign up to pay for Google Workspace, that | doesn't change. | | Individuals could also sign up for Google Workplace group account | that only a single person would use or use a lot of features in | their individual account. | | The announcement could be more straightforward about what's | actually changing. | deckard1 wrote: | Interesting. I was just looking for a way to route my domain | email to Gmail. I then went down the rabbit hole of G Suite and | discovered G Suite grandfathered accounts from back when G Suite | was free for anyone with a Gmail account, I guess? Somehow I | missed that period of time. My GMail accounts predate G Suite but | are not on any G Suite plan. | | In any case, I wasn't going to pay Google $72 a year just to get | a trickle of email. I signed up for the Zoho free plan and I'm | starting to wonder why I stuck with Gmail so long. It's making | Gmail look like it's from 2004. Granted, the free plan you can | only use their web app or mobile app. But it's like $12 to step | up to a full plan with POP/IMAP I think. | morpheuskafka wrote: | Apple just announced that iCloud+ will include custom domain | support later this year, wouldn't be suitable for teams but | might be a nice choice for individuals. | personjerry wrote: | What the hell does this announcement actually say? Is this just | Gsuite? Are they introducing a lower price tier? What is the | pricing? How do existing customers transition? | | The rebranding from "Google hangouts" and "Gsuite" to "Google | Workspace" and everything inbetween I have to say has been a | tremendously terrible marketing job, given the talent of the | people at that company. | derefr wrote: | Judging mostly by the presented visual evidence rather than the | PR-speak, I _believe_ it says they 're merging Gmail, Google | Docs, and Google Hangouts into a single tightly-integrated SPA | with a top-level Slack-like groupware layer to navigate it all. | Insofar as a "Google Workspace" is a thing like a "Slack team" | or a "Discord server", it'll probably also be internally | modelled as a GSuite org. | | Again presumably, the GSuite Admin Dashboard would thus likely | be integrated into the SPA as well (i.e. this SPA would now | "be" GSuite) -- but for the people only paying for a Google | Workspace, not a GSuite org, they'd probably see a version of | the GSuite Admin dashboard where most of the more complex | functionality related to domains / group policy / etc. is | hidden, with the stripped-down version matching something more | akin to a Slack team's admin panel: user management, group | management, storage management, and app/integration management. | sporkland wrote: | I was hoping it was a bundling of apps/data/content along more | task/project/team/org lines as opposed to the very user-centric | organizational structure. | | Sadly for me, it seems like a re-brand like you said. It also | seems like they may be planning on evolving the communication | suites Email, Chat, Video Chat, to be a more integrated | experience a la Microsoft Teams or Front? | londons_explore wrote: | Is this the start of curtailing the free google suite of apps? | | Will google Docs suddenly be limited to documents no longer than | 3 pages or 3 collaborators unless I pay for a subscription to | "Google Workspace for Individuals"? | sascha_sl wrote: | The blog post seems to be aimed at individual businesses. | srs_sput wrote: | Anyone want to start a betting pool for when Google Workspace is | killed? | easton wrote: | It's a rename of GSuite, so a long time? They'd have to kill | Gmail and Docs and like 50 other things first. | Hamuko wrote: | They can always kill the free tier like they did for Google | Apps for Your Domain's free tier (to which I'm still | grandfathered into). | sofixa wrote: | > They can always kill the free tier like they did for | Google Apps for Your Domain's free tier (to which I'm still | grandfathered into). | | So they didn't kill it if they grandfathered everyone in? | I'm also on a grandfathered free Google Apps, and i'm happy | not having to pay for it. | cbarrick wrote: | Google Workspace is just a rebrand of GSuite, right? It's | unlikely to be killed off. | gerbler wrote: | It's also a paid service with many customers, so likely to last | a long time. | sascha_sl wrote: | Unlike all the other things Google kills, this one has an | actual SLA and a ton of customers with enterprise agreements. | | Oh, and it's very interconnected with GCP. | runnerup wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27497207 | | 'dang: | | > All: please don't post shallow, reflexive reactions to a | story like this, even if you're sure you're right. Such | reactions are 100% predictable (e.g. see | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27497174), and | predictability hurts more than rightness helps [0]. Predictable | discussions are tedious and invariably lead to worse--for | example, tedious discussions turn nasty because that's the only | thing the mind has left to amuse itself with [1]. | r0m4n0 wrote: | Came here to see a google article's comments, to explicitly | see if an extremely predictable comment would still be here | as it always is... Alas it is. | dqpb wrote: | First time, shame on you. Second time shame on [censored by | dang]. | jjcon wrote: | IMHO continually calling google (and their employees that are | on HN) out on their BS is a net positive even if their BS is | starting to get repetitive. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-14 23:00 UTC)