Over the past several weeks, the Horizon team has received more questions about the comparison between MS Exchange and Google Apps as a communication and collaboration platform.
Here is a presentation that compares MS Exchange and Google Apps in terms of investment, management, and administration.
There are also many user features in Google Apps that our former Exchange/Outlook users really love. I will share some of these in upcoming posts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Allen,
ReplyDeleteThe comparison you have created is truely and apples to oranges comparison for 2 reasons :
1. You are comparing an on premise Exchange environment to a SaaS solution
2. You are comparing a software license model to a subscription model
3. You are comparing Microsoft Exchange (email calendaring / tasks and contacts) to Google Apps instead of Gmail.
A still not complete apples to apples comparison but much more relevant would be to compare Microsoft Online Services (BPOS) to Google Apps
Peter de Haas
www.peterdehaas.net (I work for Microsoft)
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment (we don't get enough). You are correct. In some respects, I am comparing Apples and Oranges. But here is why the comparison holds up:
1) On-premise vs SaaS: SMBs considering upgrading their on-premise solutions are looking to see of moving to SaaS solutions makes sense. Understanding features, functions, risks, and total cost of ownership is a sound basis for comparing any two solutions. It's not about the technology, it's about the solution and how well it meets business goals and objectives.
2) Perpetual License vs Subscription is a valid comparison because SMB IT managers and service providers are making this comparison every day. I could have made this a subscription vs subscription comparison by including the cost of Software Assurance on an annual basis, but I was concerned about skewing those costs higher when OS and server SA contracts are relatively rare compared with MS Office and other apps. I kept the total cost of ownership to 3 years, because that is the general upgrade cycle for Microsoft Server products.
3. Exchange vs Google Apps ... Good Point. To compare the Microsoft solution fully to Google Apps, I should have added Sharepoint, Communications Server, and Live Meeting Server and all of the associated costs as part of the in-house solution. The reality of the market, however, is that most SMBs do not have this level of infrastructure. So if the SMB is starting with Exchange, the comparison to Google Apps starts with Exchange functionality and then covers the additional features. I point out that instant messaging, voice/video chat, collaboration, etc. are available from Microsoft with the addition of more hardware and software.
As noted in a famous article in the Harvard Business Review, the long slow decline of railroads in the United States was due to those businesses placing themselves in the "railroad" industry and not the "transportation" industry.
I am willing to concede that Exchange is in the "email industry" and Google Apps is in the "communication and collaboration industry".
I would argue that Microsoft's suite of products -- including Sharepoint, Live Meeting Server, and Communications Server -- place it in the "communication and collaboration business" as well.
Granted, cloud-based solutions -- including Google Apps -- will not be the best fit for all organizations. Evaluating options and solution, however, should be based on current environments and customer direction, not on how vendors define themselves or their products.
Regards,
Allen
PS: As for BPOS, a comparison is coming next week as we finish some fact checking.
Allen,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I have not made my point very clear. In your reply you insist on comparing an on-premise/inhouse/license based platform (partial) with a broader / SaaS based platform.
In doing so your arguments relate to this comparison and not to like for like deployment models :
1) Fully agree, therefor I do not understand why you keep insisting on comparing on-premise vs SaaS. Microsoft offers organisations choice. Deploy solutions fully on premise or onlineor a mix of the 2.
2) Again you insist on comparing a license to a subscription model. Also Microsoft provides the functionality on a subscription basis. No need to include SA or 3yr lifecycles or any other aspect of an on-premise/inhouse solution. On premise remains a valid deplyment model for many organisations and the choice for such a deployment model requires sowftare licensing + SA, etc. However this is not the only model. You can have Apples to Apples ;-)
I do understand that from a conslting perspective you need to help organisations in comparing their current environment to a new platform. However if you ignore an online solutions based on the Microsoft platform (Microsoft Online Services / BPOS) you are not making a fair comparison ;-)
3.
3) "more hard and software" ? BPOS provides all this functionality as a service ... no servers required ... again my point is you should not compare inhouse solutions vs a SaaS solution. These are different deployment scenario's with different value props and ofcourse also different costmodels. Bare in mind that Microsoft *does* provide alternative deployment scenario's which many "pure play" SaaS providers can not ...
"I would argue that Microsoft's suite of products -- including Sharepoint, Live Meeting Server, and Communications Server -- place it in the "communication and collaboration business" as well."
Do you actually mean you doubt Microsoft's solutions and capabilities in the C&C space ? really. Please check the analysis of all major analysts for more detail ..
"Evaluating options and solution, however, should be based on current environments and customer direction, not on how vendors define themselves or their products."
Fully agree. So when presenting "option" why exclude the Microsoft Online alternative ?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteAs I noted, I will be posting a comparison of BPOS and Google Apps shortly. We just need to finish the fact checking. I've also posted a comparison of Google Apps versus 3rd party hosted exchange and Sharepoint services.
For a business to evaluate options, they need to compare in-house, hosted, and SaaS solutions. They need to compare perpetual and subscription license options. Yes, the value proposition, cost models, and operating models are different. Our customers (yours and mine) are making the comparisons. Therefore, so do we.
In our assessment and presentation, the "on-premise/inhouse/license based platform (partial)" platform offers less and costs more than the "broader / SaaS based platform". I suspect that, like Google Apps, BPOS would compare favorably against in-house Exchange.
I do not doubt Microsoft's solution and capabilities in the Communication and Collaboration space. My comment on industry perspective refers to how Microsoft's legacy business model impacts its online and cloud-based service offerings. I will post on this topic separately, which should lead to another lively discussion.
When we publish the BPOS comparison, I will post the link as a blog entry here as well as on my twitter account. If there is enough interest, I will also schedule a webcast/discussion of our findings.
Best Regards,
Allen
Note to readers: You can learn more about Peter and read his blog at www.peterdehaas.net
Allen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying. I look forward to the announced analysis and will provide defenitly feedback on it
Thanks for the well written post. Really discusses the advantages and disadvantages of using Google Apps over Microsoft Exchange. I look forward to continued articles on the subject.
ReplyDeleteHi Allen,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if you do much work for google? I am looking at the alternatives for e-mail provision in an enterprise at the moment and I came accross this article which to me seem contradictory in many places.
for exacmple, you cite exchange web access as being a flaw in security only to highlight in another page that google is available from anywere with a username and password.
another example would be where you suggest that local storage from exchange is security flaw when offline access to google is only available through imap or pst files, without commenting on any of the massive flaws that any administrator could tell you are implicit when using pst file for mail storage.
I can see that this would be a viable consideration for any SME who do not have any sort of mail system or who need to do a complete replacement for some reason but the economy of scale is very different for any organisation with >100 users, particularly if they already have a solution in place that just needs some TLC or a little more resources. Having done the calculations in our organisation it would cost me three times as much to move to google for a reduced funtionality and loss of control over my systems.
I think your article could be very useful and informative in some circumstances but is somewhat biased; and for those with little understanding of what is actually involved (e.g. executives and senior management in many cases) they are using this as basis for comparing thier own solution.
Please, if you are going to write a comparison, make it more thorough or put a big sticker on it saying that it must be read by someone who already knows what they are talking about.
thanks
Karl
Karl,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry about the delay in moderating your comment, but we normally don't post anonymous feedback. You do, however, raise some interesting points.
Security: OWA vs Google Apps
The
Access to Google Apps and Outlook Web Access (OWA) both allow usernames and password based access configured with SSL for security. And 2-factor authentication services are available for both environments from third parties.
The security issues with OWA relate to the service generally being hosted inside a company's network or within a DMZ. If not configured properly, setting up OWA opens networks and servers for attacks. Security flaws in IIS and IE are well published and often exploited.
Using Google Apps minimized these issues, as external access to email and services does not require internal hosting, VPNs, or other security measures.
Security: Local Data
You are correct that PST and local data stores presents a security risk that every MS network admin needs to worry about.
Using the Gmail web interface, however, Google Apps requires no local data storage -- minimizing this type of risk.
With Google Apps, you can still use MS Outlook, Gears, or other local applications as your email client. If use, these clients pose no greater risk than a traditional Outlook/Exchange configuration.
Also, the only way to share documents in Outlook/Exchnage is to "attach and send" or to "attach and save in public folders". Both of these methods create multiple local copies of the file. With Google Apps, you have Google Docs and Google Sites, that let you share files by reference. With Docs, no local copy is needed.
To get the document library and sharing of Google Sites and the real-time collaboration of Google Docs, you need to add Sharepoint and Live Meeting servers (more $$, effort, complexity, respectively, to your Microsoft ecosystem.
Features
Relative to your comparison, I am interested to learn what you have identified as "reduced functionlity". There are functional differences between Google Apps and Exchange, so I am interested in hearing which capabilities you need and want that do not exist in Google Apps.
Cost
You noted that Google Apps would be three times more expensive. Prove it. Sanitize and publish your analysis (or send it to me off-line). We have never seen a full cost assessment in which Google Apps did not save 40% or more over in-house solutions, particularly when looking over the 3 to 5 year life cycle of each version of Exchange.
Bias
I understand your concern that our analysis is biased. It is no secret, however, that we are a strong proponet of cloud-based solutions and an authorized reseller for Google Apps and other managed services.
Google Apps is not the best solution for all companies. We have directed prospective customers to other solutions, particulary when their use of integrated communications with custom applications cannot be easily managed with Google Apps.
Regards,
Allen
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThanks for comparing Apples to Oranges. I couldn't agree more completely that in the end, this actually is NOT apples to oranges. We business owners compare all of our alternatives, and switching from Outlook+Exchange (on premice) to Google Apps (cloud) is EXACTLY the 2 alternatives we are comparing, along with a zillion other deciscion makers like myself. Right on! I really appreciate your analysis.
Thanks,
Scott Sikkema at Via Design Inc. (go ahead and google this if you would like to email me)
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback. We agree that businesses cannot limit their comparison criteria to the way in which vendors define themselves. Rather, businesses need to compare alternatives based on the needs and expected usage of the business.
Allen
PS: Our blog as moved to http://www.horizoninfoservices.com/blog