Forbes Grades Google – IM Key to the Future?
Perhaps I am obsessed with Google, but it’s hardly a rare affliction in the techie world. I think it’s a combination of factors: 1) that Google has the track record for game-changing technology (search, webmail) 2) that I believe IM/EIM/Chat is ripe for a game-changing product and 3) that Google is so ultra-secretive about what it’s working on, never announcing a product in advance of its (beta) release.
Well, I got a chance to feed my intrigues today by this article in Forbes – Google Boosts Its GPA. The theme is that Google must diversify out of search in order to maintain its growth trend. I’m probably more optimistic that search and its near-derivatives can sustain Google for a long time (how long has Microsoft survived on Windows and Office, or Oracle on databases?). But anyhow, at least Forbes seems to agree with me in pointing to “Apps for Your Domain” as the most promising future product line. Google Talk is a core component of this offering. If they realize the potential of persistent group chat and create a Google-elegant offering in the space they will certainly change the game. I for one hope they do (note: I think this will benefit existing IM vendors, if they play their cards right).
Graham
If the solution exists and can be deployed effectively, why would it change the game if Google implemented it (it being persistent group chat, which you point out exists today)?
The trend in IM and Chat applications is for more deployment (for many reasons, not the least of which is compliance and then internal application integration, as you well know), with hosted services for federated “chat channels” to access external communities being talked about but not yet implemented. Now if they were to want to work with vendors who are providing these applications and federate their chat to enterrpise deployments, I can understand the benefit. But, I’m not yet sure there is a consensus on what is required of hosted chat rooms, though I agree with you about their value. There is at least one provider today (Reuters) that has a hosted offering and it appears to be unsuccessful. Maybe that’s because they don’t federate chat rooms (i.e. they are a closed chat system), they only federate IM, but now everyone does 1 to 1 federation. So maybe the key will be its open policy for chat room federation, and the partnership with enterprise vendors that support it…not that it’s “hosted”, or implemented by “Google.”
There’s a need for both enterprise deployments and hosted, federated solutions, working together, to make true collaboration an inter-company experience.
At Tangler we’re having a go at rewriting the book on IM/Groups/Discussion and the web. We’re still in private beta at the moment but if you (or readers) drop me an email (marty at tangler.com) I’d be happy to send an invite.
Hey Martin – thanks for the tip, sounds like an interesting project. I’ll send you an email to sign up for the beta.
Nick,
Thanks for the comment and for the opinion. I agree that there will be both hosted and deployed IM and chat – as there is for email – for the foreseeable future. I think there are a number of small companies, Parlano very much among them, that understand the value of IM and chat in the enterprise. What I perceive is that as of today, IM (much less chat) is not nearly as ubiquitous as email in the enterprise. A company like Google has the reach to get IM and chat rooms the visibility to have them considered as legitimate, indeed as mission critical, as email is today. But then again, Google was a startup not so long ago, so maybe Parlano can be the game changer who brings enterprise chat to the masses…