UC Berkeley chooses Google apps over office 365 based on this analysis

The report says this:<p>Limitation of Liability:<p>"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."<p>"Microsoft caps its liability for "free" services at $5K including any damages related to Institution Data short of Gross Negligence or Willful Misconduct."<p>Google is far superior.<p>But <a href="http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/user_terms.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/user_terms.html</a><p>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 ..."<p>Am I looking at the wrong TOS?

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.<p>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.

The "analysis" seems to be strongly favoring Google products in the Email/Calendar Cloud/Local Solution section.<p>- 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.<p>- 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.<p>- User Familiarity: They say, that they use MS Office. Familiarity therefore is high with Office 365.

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.

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.<p>IIRC, the City of Los Angeles did a similar evaluation, yet they shuttled a migration to Google due to security concerns.<p>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.<p>I don't fault MS or Google in any of these areas, but rather those conducting the analysis.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?<p>"Both Google/Microsoft offerings were NOT reviewed"<p>"These applications were not extensively reviewed during this process, but are already used in other departments for teaching and learning purposes."<p>"Office 365 comes with its Office online apps and the option of deploying SharePoint Online and Lync* (which were not reviewed)."<p>I want white-boarding in GMAIL!!!

Huh, there is some points to check : Points 2.Location of Data 3.Data Management and Transfer<p>have exact same description (copy-pasted?) but have different advantage results.<p>For 2.Location of Data advantage goes to "Microsoft (slight). Google has more qualifications on U.S. data storage obligation in minor respects."<p>For 3.Data Management and Transfer it suddenly become "Draw"

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.

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