SharePoint, Google Sites and Data Liberation

Last week saw another round of the Google vs. Microsoft rivalry, which by itself is hardly surprising. References to the turbulent relationships between the two simply impose wartime metaphors, even if you get down to something as distanced from belles-lettres and figures of speech as plain factual reporting. In fact, some of the belligerent vocabulary makes up the terminology inventory utilized by the parties themselves. Examples are not really hard to come by – take Google’s Data Liberation Front for instance. If you don’t like your data stuck in a proprietary system of any kind, argues Google, why not move it in and out of Google-provided services as you please. It’s not quantum physics to decipher the Data Oppressor’s identity, by the way, and the latest news from Google has been logically perceived as a go at chipping a chunk off the major feather in the Oppressor’s cap, also known as SharePoint.

The latest report from the Front is the emergence of Google Sites Data API that can be used to liberate data from ECM systems like MS SharePoint or Lotus Notes and even, some believe, the respective vendors from their customers. However, many analysts just don’t see the latter happening. This round of the “Google the SharePoint killer” talk is all the same lukewarm and does not add substance to the discussion. In fact the subject was pretty much exhausted at the point where the Google Sites service was a brand-new announcement.

The overall conclusion made back then and continuously confirmed now is that in managing corporate collaboration, Google just doesn’t have it, just like Microsoft does not seem to have it in search. Google Sites (a reincarnation of the slick Jotspot wiki service) are unable to live up to too many requirements for sizeable enterprises to even consider the options they offer. The thing is that having data trapped in something you exercise control over is way less scary than letting your data roam free and subsequently finding yourself locked out of the very things that keep the business intact. However, I do not mean to debunk Google’s “live free” effort – for moderately-sized business, a quick and low-cost startup is a valid option that may turn out critical to their operation.

The bottom line I would like to draw here is that there’s no point in reading too much into developments that are not even in sight and won’t be there in the foreseeable future. Different companies are good at different things, and their trying to dent each other’s armor will hopefully make them more flexible.