4 ms·

I'm sort of confused about the annual management / support fee. Sounds like this would be a cool accessory that would require G Apps and therefore bring startup

by and0 9y ago

I'm sort of confused about the annual management / support fee. Sounds like this would be a cool accessory that would require G Apps and therefore bring startups into the ecosystem. Why charge support for something so expensive that also requires G Suite for every user in the first place? Why isn't the functionality just linked directly into some G Suite OneNote equivalent? I feel like that fee would really kill the appeal, if I were hunting for something like this. Also, I'm assuming there would be a support fee for each device?

anderiv 9y ago
There is precedent for an annual fee: they charge one in addition to the purchase price for their Chromebox for Meetings device as well.
casca 9y ago
Any form of collaboration like this requires something server-side that needs to be maintained so an annual fee is not unreasonable. The Microsoft Surface Hub uses Skype for Business so would be backing into an Office365 SAAS account and the Cisco one requires a Cisco Collaboration Cloud one which the only price I can find is CAD3547.99[1] [1] https://www.cdw.ca/shop/products/Cisco-Spark-Board-subscription-license-1-license/4547717.aspx https://www.cdw.ca/shop/products/Cisco-Spark-Board-subscript...
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  But I think the point is you need a Google suite account. So how much more server-side are we talking about here? Enough worth killing sales for?
sowbug 9y ago
This quote: | This kind of product will often be expected to be used for 5+ years and the dependency of a non-core service from Google could affect that. Is related to this quote: | I'm sort of confused about the annual management / support fee To spell it out more, here's an apt passage from Stratechery <https://stratechery.com/2017/wannacry-and-the-power-of-business-models/> https://stratechery.com/2017/wannacry-and-the-power-of-busin...: | This is exactly what is necessary for good security: vendors need to keep their applications (or in the case of Microsoft, operating systems) updated, and end users need to always be using the latest version. Moreover, pricing software as a service means it is no longer a capital cost with all of the one-time payment assumptions that go with it: rather, it is an ongoing expense that implicitly includes maintenance, whether that be by the vendor or the end user (or, likely, a combination of the two).
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Keep in mind that this is the same outfit that completely botched the rollout of Wave. They KNEW it was a product dependent on the network effect, and instead they drank their own Kool Aid. Simply further proof Google is an algorithm company that dreams electric Apples. Helen of Troy has no fear of Google. None.
- sigacts 9y ago
  Wave was announced in 2009, and though it was not successful, it's feature breakthroughs led to realtime collaboration in Google Docs. Innovation is not a linear convention. In your warped exegesis of the world, Apple didn't launch the Newton and Microsoft never pushed the Zune.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    You're confusing the product with the rollout / marketing. Wave obviously needed network. So what was the point of limited invites. Imagine this. I want to have a group chat - a la Slack - and 9 team members are able and one is not. Guess that happened? No Wave use. The point is simple. The history of stupidity, shite customer service and abandoment is there...Google is not - yet? - a world class product company. Innovation is not the issue. Execution is.

by and0 9y ago

anderiv 9y ago

There is precedent for an annual fee: they charge one in addition to the purchase price for their Chromebox for Meetings device as well.

casca 9y ago

Any form of collaboration like this requires something server-side that needs to be maintained so an annual fee is not unreasonable. The Microsoft Surface Hub uses Skype for Business so would be backing into an Office365 SAAS account and the Cisco one requires a Cisco Collaboration Cloud one which the only price I can find is CAD3547.99[1] [1] https://www.cdw.ca/shop/products/Cisco-Spark-Board-subscription-license-1-license/4547717.aspx https://www.cdw.ca/shop/products/Cisco-Spark-Board-subscript...

chiefalchemist 9y ago
But I think the point is you need a Google suite account. So how much more server-side are we talking about here? Enough worth killing sales for?

sowbug 9y ago

This quote: | This kind of product will often be expected to be used for 5+ years and the dependency of a non-core service from Google could affect that. Is related to this quote: | I'm sort of confused about the annual management / support fee To spell it out more, here's an apt passage from Stratechery <https://stratechery.com/2017/wannacry-and-the-power-of-business-models/> https://stratechery.com/2017/wannacry-and-the-power-of-busin...: | This is exactly what is necessary for good security: vendors need to keep their applications (or in the case of Microsoft, operating systems) updated, and end users need to always be using the latest version. Moreover, pricing software as a service means it is no longer a capital cost with all of the one-time payment assumptions that go with it: rather, it is an ongoing expense that implicitly includes maintenance, whether that be by the vendor or the end user (or, likely, a combination of the two).

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Keep in mind that this is the same outfit that completely botched the rollout of Wave. They KNEW it was a product dependent on the network effect, and instead they drank their own Kool Aid. Simply further proof Google is an algorithm company that dreams electric Apples. Helen of Troy has no fear of Google. None.

sigacts 9y ago
Wave was announced in 2009, and though it was not successful, it's feature breakthroughs led to realtime collaboration in Google Docs. Innovation is not a linear convention. In your warped exegesis of the world, Apple didn't launch the Newton and Microsoft never pushed the Zune.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  You're confusing the product with the rollout / marketing. Wave obviously needed network. So what was the point of limited invites. Imagine this. I want to have a group chat - a la Slack - and 9 team members are able and one is not. Guess that happened? No Wave use. The point is simple. The history of stupidity, shite customer service and abandoment is there...Google is not - yet? - a world class product company. Innovation is not the issue. Execution is.