Microsoft Office 365 - hot or not?

The following video from Microsoft details how powerful Office 365 network is and how it aides in collaborating across people working in businesses in different parts of the world...pc to pc message capabilities.

The question is how effective, productive, and user-friendly it really is? In other words, is it hot or not? Check out the video.

Microsoft Office 365

News related story about whether the software is hot or not.

NEWS FOCUS: Microsoft Office 365 - hot or not?

Cloud version of Office sparks a mixed reaction from the channel
www.arnnet.com.au...

"Microsoft’s cloud version of Office has sparked a mixed reaction from the channel, with passionate views emerging around Telstra T-Suite’s exclusive role in the distribution chain along with concerns over higher prices set for Australian customers.

Hosted in Microsoft’s Singapore datacentre, the utility service includes Office (productivity), Exchange (messaging), Sharepoint (document collaboration) and Lync (instant messaging and presence) on a monthly bill.

There are a number of plans, ranging from the small business plan (for up to 25 employees for $US7.99 a user per month) to the enterprise plan (which sells for $US45.10 a seat per month).

"
-----------------------------------------------------------
^That's quite an expensive plan! Is it really worth the $$$ amount to pay for it? Has anyone here registered for this Office 365 account, and if so, how much are YOU paying per month?
------------------------------------------------------------
"Calling Office 365 a “disruptive technology”, Ovum analyst, Kevin Noonan, said the latest technology signals both good and bad news for the channel.

“There is a downside for the channel – it’s harder for resellers to insert points of differentiation because it is a standardised system,” Noonan said.

For some, however, the fact you can’t “tinker with the software” is a good thing, he said. Given it is a “one-dot-zero” release and “far from perfect”, there was still a lack of flexibility in Office 365’s functionality compared to other made-to-measure information and collaboration infrastructures

---------------------------------
^ so I guess each business is different so you wouldn't be using all of the features that come with the software. Does that mean you would still be billed the full price for the entire software if you just use some of its features???
--------------------------------=
Eyeing selling opportunities, he said the channel should become “enablers of service” or “SMB architects”, assessing a customer’s overall IT infrastructure and sorting through the licensing and integration issues of other in-house software.

“Do these stay downloadable or can they also go to the cloud?” Noonan asked.

HubOne’s CEO, Nick Beaugeard, said the cloud integrator and developer is already seeing huge selling opportunities, and the ability to offer additional managed services on top. The company recently clinched a “whopper of a deal” with Global Yellow Pages in Singapore for the migration of Office 365 out to its SME customers.

Getting 400 orders per day thanks to the latest deal, he said the marketplace has matured since the original Business Productivity Online Suite (BPOS) release, and is now ready for cloud computing solutions.

“The technology is no more disruptive than BPOS was – apart from the fact that we’re seeing huge uptick in demand,” Beaugeard said. “BPOS demand died off as customers were all sitting waiting for Office 365. BPOS 2007 edition had limited functionality; Office 365 has far more parity with an on-premise implementation.”

Recognising the channel angst surrounding the way to market, he said the Telstra connection is not an issue. To be able to sell the technology, he said Microsoft partners had to sign two documents: The Microsoft Online Services Partner Agreement; and the Telstra Online Services Agreement.

-------------------------
So now Bill Gates gets you sucked into 2 contracts. Wow, so if you don't like the service half way through your business is finished and you have to pay huge monthly bills. Make sure to read the agreements carefully, if you dare
--------------------------
“It makes resellers a Telstra dealer for T-Suite,” he said, adding traditional resellers could “nail it".

Like Beaugeard, ICT Distribution managing director, Ben O’Leary, sees enormous opportunity for the channel.

“Resellers can configure up and quote an entire solution, not only Office 365 but also the broadband pipe, the phone system, the laptops and PCs,” O’Leary said. “It is not just the software itself, but the entire proactive management of the network.”

The distributor, which deals with 1700 resellers , suggests partners look to peddle migration services.

“There’s still a lot of work with migrating a customer to Office 365,” he said. "It’s not a question of rolling out Office 365, you flick a switch and then you’re done. There are big decisions when deciding on which piece of the network goes to the cloud. You have different phone systems, different providers of broadband, a number of PCs that need refreshed, along with a server upgrade and new backup solutions.” Pain points emerge

-------------------------------
^ so it seems that there are more implications with just purchasing the new cloud computing software...it goes down to the server you are using and phone systems you have. What costs are associated with server upgrades and refreshing of computers. I think they are saying that you need the more expensive product and service on the market to be able to use this "powerful" new technology?
-------------------------------

Despite the success stories channel angst remains. The biggest pain point for UberGlobal appears to be Telstra’s involvement, according to UberGlobal CEO, Michael McGoogan. “No reseller will make a brass razoo from Office 365 until Telstra loses syndication exclusivity,” he said.

“The pricing seems to be out of whack compared to the US. The US mindset for price is a lot more price sensitive than the Australian consumer. Australians tend to realise value more, but in saying that, people are still asking why is it costing more? I’ve heard rumblings where people are looking at buying it overseas in order to cut Telstra out of it."
------------------------------------------

Well, there you have it technology and computer geek ATS members! Seeing as I posted an article relating to XP being discontinued in 2014 earlier, now we need to look ahead into the future of other software. Do you think Office 2007 will be discontinued down the road where everyone will need to have an online account to use future versions of Office like the 365 software? Thoughts welcome. Thanks,

The price per month on that technology is peanuts compared to many pieces of technology. I'm honestly amazed that Microsoft is selling it for that cheap.

As for cloud technology, I am skeptical of it on a security front. My understanding is that the very nature of the cloud system gives it many more vulnerability fronts. Add to this the relative newness of the technology and the fact that its been released by Microshaft...yeah I'm highly skeptical.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


There are free open source tools that do all the above... why pay m$ (or satan) for any of it?

People should be moving away from windows alltogether imho and start donating to free tools and operating systems!!!

And no.. im not some linux user on my high horse... i am in charge of IT for large company in Australia.. and I simply cant wait to shake away all of our links to m$.

The problem is tho.. that everyone knows windows already.. its a comfy old shoe and most people cant bare to squeez into a flashy new pare made by someone else.

I assume that youve seen the leaked version of windows 8? or videos of? Well.. they have ripped off many ideas from free open source developers.. the 3D interactive boxes etc... all rip off's from the beryl project and compiz fusion project... meh.. i could rant about Bill Gates fails but hours.

Thanks for posting it here tho so i could whack in my 2$'s worth!

reply to post by Skywatcher2011


I think in general it's a good idea and cloud computing is only going to grow.

However i dont think it was wise to let Telstra handle it under there T-Suite of software. They barley market any of the T-suite software and most people including small to medium business dont even know any of the T-suite exists.

I know as i used to work for Telstra Business.

It was hard enough to sell 'MS CRM' or 'Work etc' along with security and accounting software. People have enough problems with Telstra as it is.....

I just want to add that CRM and even MYOB Client Connect already offer cloud services and connectivity between different parties for collaboration, conferencing and sharing.

reply to post by w3nd1g0

People should be moving away from windows alltogether imho and start donating to free tools and operating systems!!!

Free and open source has its place. Not in the business world - which is where we are talking about, here.

The issue revolves around support and liability concerns. When you run into a bug in Fire Fox - you may or may not report it, but simply wait for a patch or point-release to resolve the problem while learning to work around it. It is an inconvenience to you - but it's not likely anything critical to your functions on the computer.

When the software running your exchange or domain server hit a bump - you can't afford to wait two months for a point release patch. You've got business to do and customers to serve.

The money being paid here isn't going to develop more software - it is to provide support and technical advisers in the event something goes wrong and to fix the problem. Entire teams of people work to support a single large business or contract out to several small businesses.

There's really no advantage to going to 'free' platforms from the perspective of a business, as no software is free. They will always have to contract local and manufacturer support - regardless of what operating system they run, what office suite, etc. The only advantage open-source software suites have is that they allow small teams to make in-house builds to tailor to their market segments. That also is a disadvantage as they are end-game responsible for the stability and security of their customized builds. They must have the skilled and experienced staff necessary to provide the 'last line' of support if they wish to be successful.

Hence why most businesses feel more comfortable going with commercial software. At the end of the day - they have a contract with Microsoft, or Adobe, or whomever, to get their computer systems up and working - even if their local geek squad equity had to call no-joy.

And no.. im not some linux user on my high horse... i am in charge of IT for large company in Australia.. and I simply cant wait to shake away all of our links to m$.

Then I'm sure you understand exactly what I'm saying.

The problem is tho.. that everyone knows windows already.. its a comfy old shoe and most people cant bare to squeez into a flashy new pare made by someone else.

It's not a problem for people to use a system they are accustomed to. Do you have any idea how much time is spent in 'your' IT department answering questions about how to do simple tasks - such as finding a program that does -not- have a short-cut on the desktop? You'll cripple your telephony system if you stick everyone with a new operating system.

I assume that youve seen the leaked version of windows 8? or videos of? Well.. they have ripped off many ideas from free open source developers.. the 3D interactive boxes etc... all rip off's from the beryl project and compiz fusion project... meh.. i could rant about Bill Gates fails but hours.

... You would prefer Windows still looked like 3.1 for Workgroups?

I mean... really - take a look at the string of silly you just posted.

I find it somewhat funny that proponents of "free and open source" programs get upset over the fact that some big-name developer "stole the idea" from open-source programs intended to promote the free exchange of ideas and improvements.

It's one of the largest testaments to open-source programs like FireFox, Open Office, etc that the ideas making their emergence in those programs later become incorporated into retail programs. That is exactly what the Open-source initiative is all about - improving things for everyone. Never used Fire Fox? You still benefit from the tab system that it popularized in versions of Internet Explorer and retail browsers.

I like FireFox - I use Open Office. I also use Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer. FireFox is not intended to compete for market share. Nor is any other open source program. To get caught up in that is to miss the point of open source - and something I find quite insulting to the cause, to be blunt.

what a load of crap?!? Open source has no place in the business world? Are you joking?

There are lots of businesses who have moved to openBSD, freeBSD, different flavours of linux... where the hell have you been living or working?!?!?!

free operating systems which run faster and more efficiently.. dont have to worry about virus's, are generally more secure.

I cant beleive that you assume that m$ and apple are the be-all and end-all of business computing.. that is sad as you will always be praying and paying to bill gates... very sad indeed.

In fact... mr gates is so scared of the fact that he is quickly losing more and more of his market share to free operating systems.. the m$ has been running its own linux dev team to try and bring out "paid" software for the free market.

Why bother... when you have the use of the Wine emulator or even vbox if you have 1 or 2 members who simply cant move away from the m$ completely.

To say that m$ and apple are the ONLY ones capable of doing the job just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject and the tools readily available for free.

most "decent" sys admins know bsd/unix variants/linux very well indeed... the end user need not know all of this.. that is what sys admins are for.. also companies like canonical are for exactly that reason... and still much cheaper than m$.

Why the hell would i want the interface to still look like 3.1?!?

M$ makes the system "simple" for the "lay person"... funnily so do the many windows environment providers out there at the mo... such as gnome, kde etc.. all very simply to use.. most windows users never tinker with back end of there system.. so why assume that users will always run into technical issues with other OS's.

meh

reply to post by w3nd1g0

what a load of crap?!?

Wrong way to respond to me.

There are lots of businesses who have moved to openBSD, freeBSD, different flavours of linux... where the hell have you been living or working?!?!?!

Apparently your understanding of computer network systems is about as lacking as your temper.

There are plenty segments of the market using commercial versions of Linux, as well as several freeware operating systems and programs. These programs are used when their customizable nature is beneficial to the goals - IE - a lot of custom computer platforms utilizing distributed processing or atypical processing structures.

The problem is, like I said, you end up needing an entire staff dedicated to servicing these 'free' and/or custom builds. This is often not cost-effective by comparison to contracts available with local network installation/maintenance companies and their constituent software contracts.

When you have a run-of-the-mill IBM standard workstation and want it to connect to the several dozen other workstations and servers you have running in your corporate office - you just want the system to do what you need it to do and not give you headaches or break the bank.

free operating systems which run faster and more efficiently.. dont have to worry about virus's, are generally more secure.

What IT company hired you, again? Dump the stock - they won't last long.

Freeware/open source are not any more or less secure on average than any other program or operating system out there. The difference is the target - there's not safety in numbers when it comes to network security. The more people use FireFox for their financial transactions, the more exploits, viruses, and problems we will see with FireFox. The only difference between the team developing FireFox and the team developing a proprietary browser rests in whether or not the process is considered "open." The open-source feedback forums are little different from the proprietary feedback forums, in general.

I cant beleive that you assume that m$ and apple are the be-all and end-all of business computing.. that is sad as you will always be praying and paying to bill gates... very sad indeed.

Where did I ever say that?

Where the open-source programs have taken hold in the business sector, it is usually at the hands of local business endeavors that customize their own build and sell it to local businesses with a service package. That's no different than what Microsoft does.

The only difference is that the whole of Microsoft's operating system is proprietary whereas the local company uses an open-source base and has merely developed a proprietary build of the open-source software (which is then sold with a service package - just as Windows is).

In fact... mr gates is so scared of the fact that he is quickly losing more and more of his market share to free operating systems.. the m$ has been running its own linux dev team to try and bring out "paid" software for the free market.

I'm not really sure why that's such an issue. It's an open source project - Microsoft is participating in the effort to make that software better.

There's a number of reasons why this makes sense - from a network standpoint, creating Linux programs, builds, and interfaces that improve reliability between Linux and Windows platforms makes decision to add in Windows workstations or servers a transparent one. From a different angle - working to improve the security of Linux builds can help in keeping their own operating system more secure (there are more than a few malicious programs that will transmit via any OS while only affecting one).

Windows hasn't really ever been strong in the server market, to be honest. That was Unix territory and Linux has since succeeded it. Microsoft has always had its strongest market in the IBM workstations - which later became the dominant home computer platform - and has given Windows dominance in that market, as well.

The reality is that Windows will never take hold too well in the server market because of the nature of servers - and Microsoft knows this. Their target is the small business server, for the most part.

To say that m$ and apple are the ONLY ones capable of doing the job just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject and the tools readily available for free.

Again... where did I say this?

I do say a lot, and I sometimes lose track.

most "decent" sys admins know bsd/unix variants/linux very well indeed... the end user need not know all of this.. that is what sys admins are for.. also companies like canonical are for exactly that reason... and still much cheaper than m$.

This is true in the case of -servers-.

Not in the case of -workstations- - which is typically where Microsoft Office is used... well - that and home computers. Which is exactly what this Office 365 program is targeted at - you can access your workstation from your home computer (along with a bunch of other things). No - it's not new. No - it's not unique to Microsoft.

This is also exactly how Microsoft beat Apple - "back in the day" - by focusing on the corporate environment where computers were used the most, people bought computers at home to 'work from home' (because that's mostly what people used computers for - consoles and arcades were what you invested in when you wanted to video game). That solidified IBM's standard as the home computer. Which was odd - because I grew up at school on Apple computers (Apple's marketing strategy was a little more subversive) - though I always preferred to mess around on the CAD programs my dad had on the computer at home. That little 486 was something else.

Why the hell would i want the interface to still look like 3.1?!?

Because you seemed to take issue with the fact that Microsoft has incorporated user interface concepts from open source projects. Care to rationalize that in a manner that won't make me laugh?

M$ makes the system "simple" for the "lay person"... funnily so do the many windows environment providers out there at the mo... such as gnome, kde etc.. all very simply to use.. most windows users never tinker with back end of there system.. so why assume that users will always run into technical issues with other OS's.

Now you're getting even more over-the-top.

You're going to pay a team of people to set up a computer network (or overhaul an existing network) with an operating system that is 'free' and comes with no support package but what your network contractors can provide. Then you're going to have them install other programs to make it look like Windows - so your user-base doesn't know the difference (unless, of course, it has some problem with one of a thousand different pieces of software out there).

... Why not just buy Windows?

You look at it from the perspective of someone who gets to coddle and pride over a single computer setup - or -maybe- a small network of less than ten computers.

When you have 30+ workstations with 2 satellite offices or just don't have the money to pay a network technician to sit and coddle your system and its users - you don't want the headache of finding out there is a compatibility issue between your 'looks like windows' and the program you need.

You have to understand what Microsoft brings to the table for companies. Are they the best? That is going to vary from company to company and system to system. And there is more to every system than just the software and hardware that runs on it.