
UC Berkeley chooses Google apps over office 365 based on this analysis - davidacoder
http://technology.berkeley.edu/productivity-suite/google/matrix.html
======
heyrhett
The report says this:

Limitation of Liability:

"Google does not limit their liability in regards to its confidentiality
obligations and includes Customer Data in definition of Confidential
Information. Google is responsible for any actions of its employees and
agents."

"Microsoft caps its liability for "free" services at $5K including any damages
related to Institution Data short of Gross Negligence or Willful Misconduct."

Google is far superior.

But <http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/user_terms.html>

says this: "YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE AND PARTNERS SHALL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ..."

Am I looking at the wrong TOS?

~~~
lambda
Yes, I think you're looking at the wrong terms of service; you're looking at
their ordinary end user terms of service, not their educational terms of
service. The educational terms of service,
[http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/education_terms.htm...](http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/education_terms.html)
say:

> 12.2 Limitation on Amount of Liability. NEITHER PARTY MAY BE HELD LIABLE
> UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN THE AMOUNT PAID BY CUSTOMER TO GOOGLE
> DURING THE TWELVE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO LIABILITY. > 12.3
> Exceptions to Limitations. These limitations of liability apply to the
> fullest extent permitted by applicable law, but do not apply to breaches of
> confidentiality obligations, violations of a party’s Intellectual Property
> Rights by the other party, or indemnification obligations.

So, they put a cap on liability of how much they've been paid in the past year
(which in most cases for their educational program is nothing), but do not
limit liability for breaches of confidentiality obligations.

~~~
heyrhett
I wonder if UC Berkeley is confusing "confidential obligations" with
"confidential data".

It doesn't seem like google is saying, "if we lose an email, and it costs you
a million dollars, we're liable for it".

From this section: "Confidential Information.

5.1 Obligations. Each party will: (a) protect the other party’s Confidential
Information with the same standard of care it uses to protect its own
Confidential Information; and (b) not disclose the Confidential Information,
except to Affiliates, employees and agents who need to know it and who have
agreed in writing to keep it confidential. Each party (and any Affiliates,
employees and agents to whom it has disclosed Confidential Information) may
use Confidential Information only to exercise rights and fulfill its
obligations under this Agreement, while using reasonable care to protect it.
Each party is responsible for any actions of its Affiliates, employees and
agents in violation of this Section.

5.2 Exceptions. Confidential Information does not include information that:
(a) the recipient of the Confidential Information already knew; (b) becomes
public through no fault of the recipient; (c) was independently developed by
the recipient; or (d) was rightfully given to the recipient by another party.
"

It sounds like what Google is really saying is, "If we make some kind of
secret deal with your organization, you better protect that secrecy as well as
you protect all of your confidential information, or there is no limit to how
much we can sue you for the breach."

~~~
johntb86
But see the definitions: "Confidential Information" means information
disclosed by a party to the other party under this Agreement that is marked as
confidential or would normally be considered confidential under the
circumstances. Customer Data is Customer's Confidential Information.

~~~
pdk
Does anyone know what this switch implies for Patriot Act information
requests? I had heard that the UC puts up some resistance to the FBI when
asked for user data, and that Google does less so.

------
jcampbell1
It strikes me as accurate. Google apps is better for mail, and Microsoft is
the cats ass when it comes to calendaring. If you are the secretary who must
schedule 20 execs for a meeting the first Wednesday of every month, then there
is nothing better than Outlook/Exchange.

Thank god I no longer live in a world where I am tied to my calendar. As
google gets bigger, google calendar will get better, and the worse it will be
a place to work. Understanding the need for a great calendaring app requires a
company that has lost its soul.

~~~
sliverstorm
Does Google really make its employees depend on Gmail and Gcal?

~~~
m0th87
Yes, they do. But that shouldn't be surprising.

~~~
sliverstorm
Well, I mean I know they are Google and all- but I can't imagine Gmail and
Gcal supporting a corporate user very effectively. I use it for my personal
stuff, but I am extremely appreciative of Exchange at work.

~~~
jrockway
Calendar seems to have a similar featureset to that of Outlook. You can put
appointments on other people's calendars and you can schedule rooms, anyway.
And, at Google, the conference rooms have motion sensors that allow the room
reservation system to "garbage collect" unused rooms. (You also get an LED
indication of whether or not you'll be running into someone else's time if
your meeting runs late. Gotta love the hardware support!)

~~~
furyg3
Who makes these devices?

~~~
tonfa
Googlers?

Edit: maybe that? <http://code.google.com/p/radishdisplay/>

~~~
deserted
Actually that's the code for an older 20% project:

<http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/articles/radish.html>

------
moontear
The "analysis" seems to be strongly favoring Google products in the
Email/Calendar Cloud/Local Solution section.

\- Integration with Collaboration Tools: SharePoint Online is all about
collaboration. As they want to continue using Microsoft Office, there is no
better way (at the moment) than SharePoint. Google's cloud connect Add-In for
Office is the first try at this, but it is still rather ugly (who wants a
large bar on all documents, what about using the ribbon?) They also misspelled
Lync, which is the Google Talk of Microsoft, goes much further than GTalk and
integrates in ALL Office applications. You can chat with the people currently
editing the same document you are editing on your local computer.

\- Ease of Tools Development: "Google has a more robust and documented API" -
NO, simply not true. "aligned with the skillsets on campus" is a valid
argument. But saying it is easier to develop for Google products than for the
MS stack is a stretch.

\- User Familiarity: They say, that they use MS Office. Familiarity therefore
is high with Office 365.

------
redwood
Glad to see Cal quitting MSFT. Perhaps they're looking for a donation from
Schmidt (alum). Gates hasn't given to Berkeley afaik while he has to Stanford.
Yes I acknowledge this is a cynical perspective but perhaps makes sense
considering public universities are so strapped for cash while privates keep
on getting donations.

~~~
tikhonj
On the other hand, they just signed a contract providing Microsoft licenses to
all the students, which is unfortunate. Earlier they did the same with Adobe.
This is their solution to lowering costs--lets provide Microsoft and Adobe
products to everybody! I, naturally, disapprove, but that has never
mattered...

~~~
rbanffy
Their students are smart. The'll figure out there are better solutions.

And having seen how not to do it is also an invaluable lesson. ;-)

(Burn, karma, burn)

~~~
tikhonj
I don't think most of the people taking, say, a class on Nabokov will complain
much about needing Microsoft Word. In fact, I suspect the only inconvenienced
person will be the lone EECS major using Linux (me :)).

As long as professors want hard copies, it won't be an issue. (Using MLA
format with LaTeX is really, really easy.) However, some do expect digital
copies for whatever reason. I've seen them ask for docs uploaded to the
internal class website system, which is itself pretty horrible. I just hope I
don't have to deal with it--even opening LibreOffice is more annoying than one
could hope.

~~~
rbanffy
It could be worse. The class website could be a Sharepoint portal.

------
jroseattle
I've always found these large organizational analyses to look completely sound
and well-reasoned on paper, yet never really align with reality when
deployments start going up.

IIRC, the City of Los Angeles did a similar evaluation, yet they shuttled a
migration to Google due to security concerns.

In less-public implementations, I've seen planned migrations from MS to Google
Apps dropped after pilot tests, mostly due to user complaints about usability.

I don't fault MS or Google in any of these areas, but rather those conducting
the analysis.

~~~
dminor
> IIRC, the City of Los Angeles did a similar evaluation, yet they shuttled a
> migration to Google due to security concerns.

Actually most of the city is using Google Apps and the contract has been
renewed. The LAPD decided it wanted additional security and hasn't migrated
yet.

~~~
kenjackson
To be clear it's more than just the LAPD. From
[http://informationweek.com/news/government/cloud-
saas/232300...](http://informationweek.com/news/government/cloud-
saas/232300646)

 _The amendment will remove the LAPD, portions of the city attorney's office,
the Los Angeles Fire Department, Department of General Services, and
Department of Transportation from the contract_

Only a little more than half of the expected number of users have been
migrated.

Still a nice win for Google, but also a cautionary tale.

~~~
sunchild
So what are the excluded departments using? Hosted Exchange? I'm going to go
out on a limb and assume that whatever solution they're using isn't any more
secure. Even if you host your own mail servers inside Fort Knox, and hire and
vet everyone who goes near those servers, you still have all the same
trustworthiness problems.

On the other hand, I'm probably missing something there, since Google somehow
failed to convince them to stay on board.

------
cyrus_
Seems that they found Google to be a better end-user experience for email and
for casual calendar users, but Microsoft won out on power calendar users and
in terms of legal/compliance issues. Doesn't seem clear to me why they chose
Google here -- costs?

~~~
Karunamon
Notice the priority column at the far left. Legal and compliance issues were
ranked far below integration.

------
gammarator
Glad they're changing: the homegrown Calmail system had ~5 consecutive days of
downtime this November alone.

------
colton36
I am surprised they haven't evaluated the office apps that are associated with
the suits. As a long time Google Docs user, I was stunned by how superior the
online version of Excel is to Google's offering.

~~~
nhebb
They're not migrating the other apps. From the FAQ [1] - _Q: Is Microsoft
Office being replaced by Google Docs? A: No, Microsoft Office will continue to
be a desktop standard at the University. ..._

Nice Freudian slip, btw.

[1]
[https://kb.berkeley.edu/jivekb/entry.jspa?externalID=2980...](https://kb.berkeley.edu/jivekb/entry.jspa?externalID=2980&categoryID=107)

~~~
tikhonj
It's really unfortunate that they insist on using Microsoft office. Happily
the rational departments--the ones I usually deal with :)--don't expect office
docs, but I wouldn't put it past my future literature (or whatever) professors
to expect them. And that would suck.

------
richardburton
I am Google Apps addict but they still don't have a web-based Excel-killer. I
think that when bankers and corporates start using Google apps to build their
financial models then Microsoft should worry.

~~~
chollida1
This is true.

I've seen entire hedge funds run on excel sheets. Our traders do alot of
trading right out of excel sheets with custom C# addin's.

~~~
jrockway
This is not the intended use case for Excel. Rather, it's a product of 10
years of bad decisions leading to more bad decisions.

(Someone I work with created a "market data bus" using Excel. It had the side
effect of preventing Outlook from receiving email while it was running, so you
had to have two machines if you wanted to read email AND get market data via
this method. Now that's shoddy software engineering.)

~~~
chollida1
> This is not the intended use case for Excel. Rather, it's a product of 10
> years of bad decisions leading to more bad decisions.

This is true :)

------
tldrtldr
I think they got it wrong, Google offerings SUCK (REALLY BAD) when it comes to
collaboration. In a large organization like UCB, I wonder why they don't use
any collab tools?

"Both Google/Microsoft offerings were NOT reviewed"

"These applications were not extensively reviewed during this process, but are
already used in other departments for teaching and learning purposes."

"Office 365 comes with its Office online apps and the option of deploying
SharePoint Online and Lync* (which were not reviewed)."

I want white-boarding in GMAIL!!!

~~~
andreaja
Isn't this a red herring? They stated they were evaluating Email/Calendering
solutions.

~~~
tldrtldr
Sure. I am just frustrated with Talk/Docs. Talk, a bare minimum IM client.
Docs, are we in 1999?

------
centur
Huh, there is some points to check : Points 2.Location of Data 3.Data
Management and Transfer

have exact same description (copy-pasted?) but have different advantage
results.

For 2.Location of Data advantage goes to "Microsoft (slight). Google has more
qualifications on U.S. data storage obligation in minor respects."

For 3.Data Management and Transfer it suddenly become "Draw"

------
mbreese
At least they aren't doing what Indiana University did - use both and let the
students decide which system they want to use. Now they can choose between
Imail (Microsoft) or Umail (Gmail). But on the administration side, IU is
still pretty much a Microsoft shop though with the faculty having an Exchange
setup.

------
rafadc
This should teach you: "do an analysis before choosing" ;)

