If I wasn't so backlogged in my reading, I would have seen and made reference to this in my earlier post about Sun and Google's vague partnership. Information Week has what could be considered almost a response article to the Sun/ Google partnership article: "Coming From Microsoft: 'Hosted Everything'" The interesting quote is at the end of the article, on page two:

When asked which other products and services Microsoft would host, another Microsoft insider said, "Everything. Hosted Office. Everything hosted." - Information Week, "Coming From Microsoft: 'Hosted Everything'" Oct. 26, 2005

Now, in my mind, Microsoft sometimes plays another role that we see in "old guard" companies, opposite to what I read into Schwartz's comments last week: That of the behemoth company still trying to look like a hyperactive startup. But every master plan that Google doesn't have, Microsoft has twenty that regulate every decision they make. In any case, Google and Sun should watch out. And if they plan to repurpose StarOffice for the web, "leak" it now because Microsoft knows how to hype.

A few weeks ago, I was skimming through Information Week when I ran across an article entitled "Office Politics: Google-Sun Alliance Squarely Targets Microsoft." (Click the title for the electronic version) In that article, Sun president Jonathan Schwartz said something that I found interesting:

"'Working online is great for E-mail or writing a blog, but not for writing a Ph.D. thesis.'"
- Information Week, "Office Politics: Google-Sun Alliance Squarely Targets Microsoft," Oct. 10, 2005

Really? I can think of a couple of web-based document editors I wouldn't mind using to write a Ph.D. thesis. But I'm not crazy enough to write a PhD. thesis. Isn't enabling this kind of historically client-server technology (partially) what the AJAX craze is all about? Why would Sun say such a thing in an article that highlights their partnership with a Web 2.0 pioneer? I think the sentence before the quote explains why:

"Sun itself gave up on developing a Web-based version of StarOffice years ago."
- Information Week, "Office Politics: Google-Sun Alliance Squarely Targets Microsoft," Oct. 10, 2005

If they gave up years ago, I don't blame them. Years ago was back when the web was merely a hypertext system and commerce-enabler. Years ago, no one save Netscape and a few yahoos ever said "the web is a platform." Sun's "we've tried that already" attitude, with a disregard to how the web has changed since they abandoned StarOfficeOnline, is exactly the reason why the "old guard" software companies are falling behind. Sun should rethink their approach because packaging the Java Runtime Environment with Google Desktop isn't going to do anyone any favors. Personally, I hope that Sun's partnership with Google means that they are rethinking the StarOffice initiative and that their comments are just a smoke-screen.

I know I'm jumping on the blogosphere (One electroshock for me for using a buzzword) bandwagon for bringing this up, but I think I have a point about GoogleTalk unrelated to the common chatter.
For you Skype purists out there, I know that Google Talk is essentially Skype-lite. I'm only partially excited about Google Talk because of how clean and clear the voice features are. I'm also excited because it's basic, clean and uncluttered. I'll let the screenshots speak for themselves.

Here's MSN Messenger:

And Google Talk:

In a day and age when Microsoft keeps adding tabs to messenger and cluttering the interface with winks, nudges and skins, Google Talk makes me smile. Now I know this is a Beta, so we may see clutter eventually. For now, I'll enjoy simplicity while I can. Now that Google is public and no longer the anti-Microsoft, it's not surpising that They're giving Microsoft a run for its money as the big bad wolf. BTW, you need a Gmail account to use this tool, so if you don't have one, email me. I've got plenty of invites to share.

Let me ask you a question: What do you expect from a double-click of your left mouse button? (One-button mouse users and Mighty Mouse devotees are excluded from answering) Your answer is probably "It depends on where I am and what I'm doing," right? A double-click on your desktop or in explorer will open a file. In quick-launch it will restore a minimized application. Many other applications perform functions that are designed along the context of the application. And that's a valid answer, so let me refine the question: In an interactive map application, what do you expect from a double-click on a point on the map? Since this isn't a chat room, I'll just have to answer for myself: (If you have a take, feel free to throw in a comment) When I double-click on a point on a map, I want the application to center and zoom. I used to think that I was the only one that felt that way because Google Maps (Pictured below) doesn't do that. It simply centers the map, then I have to click on the zoom-bar to get more detail.

Once I used MSN Virtual Earth, though, I realized I was not alone in expecting the double-click to center and zoom because it does actually that.

My point is not that I prefer Virtual Earth over Google Maps. (I'm not ready to make that call yet because I've been using Google Maps since day 1 and I'm trying VE alongside it for comparison.) I'm also not suggesting that my expectation is the one that Google should have yielded to.

My point is that, sometimes, two sets of usability tests on the same application can sometimes yield drastically different results and lead to different conclusions. I know that Google and Microsoft extensively UT their software. The irony of it is that, in the world of User Experience, there are no answers that meet the needs of 100% of your users (There must be someone out there that honestly expects for a double-click on a map to show him his house), so we seek to find answers that satisfy either a majority or 70-80%. Such is our world.

And in this case, Microsoft and Google appear to have each drawn from a different 80%.

Google Maps, MSN Virtual Earth, User Experience