Agreed with the premise of title. I think Vedica Kant does a more comprehensive job laying out where Reliance comes from & how it was shaped in her substack newsletter two-parter:
Just because Google Cloud doesn't break out its revenue, doesn't mean its a sign of trouble.
It makes complete sense, they're obviously in the third position. Why put additional shareholder pressure that can put an enterprise in a position where they're incentivized towards short-term gains vs. the long play that this is..
Because SaaS isn't cloud computing. SaaS is essentially a fully available software application that you don't run on your own machines.
There's similarities, but key differences that you can easily look up to better understand. Hence part of why most aren't huge fans of including O365 to claim Azure's bigger than AWS.
If the claim is that Azure is generating more revenue than AWS, then yes I would say that is misleading.
If the claim is that Microsoft's cloud revenue is bigger than Amazon's, I would assume that includes Office365. Office365 isn't just Word and Excel on the desktop, it's Outlook, Dynamics CRM, Sharepoint, Teams, etc.
That seems more like an entrenched opinion that you've continually looked to reaffirm instead of opening your perspective.
First, serious work & powerpoint? Really? Yeah in an enterprise organization that's largely stuck doing what they've been doing because it's worked - sure, but that's not a technology issue, it's a culture issue.
For example, Google Sheets covers 80-90% of the use cases for Excel. But that's not what you should be comparing. A lot of what folks use spreadsheets for to do complicated calculations, have built lengthy, stitched together macros to automate processes, etc. would be much better in many cases to consider a completely alternate approach.
i.e a data warehouse, hey use a service like BigQuery that requires minimal adminstration and requires users to really only have SQL knowledge.
In order to effectively work across a large organization across different functions, product lines, etc., you have to remove every point of friction that prevents collaboration, etc. Desktop Office is great for individual work, but in today's dynamics, it really seems like you put a ceiling on productivity by sticking to it.
Business users are not going to learn SQL. They're not going to move all their data into the cloud, setup access, manage resources and spend money to run queries that take a few seconds on their laptop. They're not going to use 20 different services to break out scratch work, analysis, charting, and BI from what runs in a single portable file that they can manage and backup and extend in unlimited ways from meeting to meeting.
There are billion dollar businesses that run on Excel, and many workers in all kinds of industries live in it all day because nothing else comes close. Those macros and automations are what empower them to get things done and drive business forward instead of worrying about the "right way" to do something.
This perspective that they're all naive and should use better tools just fails to understand how people actually work, and explains why G-Suite as it is today will never beat Excel.
I used Excel for several years, mostly doing development work for financial services companies. I now work at a small/medium-size tech company that uses Google Sheets. Sheets is fine for most of the things we need to do, but our needs are modest. Sheets' overall functionality pales in comparison to Excel, and it often feels laggy even on a good network.
The finance companies I mention above also had data warehouses, but that's a completely different use case and not what Excel is used for. It would not work as a replacement even if everyone knew SQL.
That's a good rule of thumb to have as a guideline. I wonder as a start-up that obviously has to balance trade-offs, but how do you prioritize hiring customer success folks vs hiring sales folks.
Especially with enterprise customers - ultimately, each can be as productive a pipeline, even moreso long-term, than an individual salesperson.
To be fair, "the licensing isn't completely miserable like their other product" isn't exactly a selling point.
My two cents from what I've seen (note mainly see GSuite sie of things).. You can get much more productivity & actual collaboration with G Suite, dependent on a few factors.
One, there has to be total buy-in @ the executive level because you most likely need to completely re-think how work gets done across every function. Often, we do what we've been doing and don't see the full picture because of that existing perspective.
So that requires a legit G Suite partner to help execute change management as for O365 I imagine. It's not so much a risk unless you do it for the wrong reasons; They've done it enough times to have a proven migration formula. Saving licensing costs for example should be on the bottom of your considerations because that more or less evens out and becomes irrelevant.
https://hind.substack.com/p/reliance-origins
https://hind.substack.com/p/from-oil-to-jio