The Web 2.0 Office Suite

Joe Gregorio

This article on eWeek, with the hyperbolic title of "RIP: The Web 2.0 Office Suite", if you ignore the title, and all the content, actually has a rather interesting pie chart. Now I know nothing of the validity or methodology of the data gathered, but for the sake of argument let's presume it is correct. Mr. Wilcox tries to use the data to imply that on-line office suites are dead. The data does show that 94% of those surveyed have never used an online office application, with 73.2% never even having heard of their existence. On the other hand, if you do a little math the data also shows that of those that actually did use an online office suite 70% have continued to use it in one form or another, either in conjunction with, or totally replacing, their desktop office suite.

I'm personally using Google Docs quite a bit, for the odd little doc or list I need to create. Wasn't a big office user before, though. Did use Word a little. Haven't used it at all for anything like that, since starting to use Docs.

For work-related stuff, there's no avoiding PP. Unfortunately. I recently did a paper in a wiki that someone else might well have done as a PP. But I'm the exception rather than the rule. The big killer with online office docs at work is that they need to be homed inside the firewall. That'll happen, as we see open source competition in the "online office" space. Whack of JS connected to an interface that supplies a bag of bytes for a filename and operations called GET and PUT. Perhaps Google would like to donate the current Google Docs JS code to such an effort?

Posted by Patrick Mueller on 2007-12-20

That is an interesting pie chart. I wonder if he generated it using the Google Charts API.

Posted by Gordon Weakliem on 2007-12-20

Patrick,

Some of the parts, like diff-match-patch, are already public.

Gordon,

I doubt it, a Google Charts version would something like this:

Not that I like pie charts, they're usually awful at carrying information. A simple bar chart would have sufficed:

Posted by Joe on 2007-12-20

comments powered by Disqus