Why Does Capgemini Need An Agreement With Google To Push Google Apps?
from the just-wondering... dept
The media is having a field day with the news that IT consulting firm Capgemini has come to an agreement with Google to push Google’s online apps into enterprise customers. It’s true, as many of the stories point out, that this is a huge win for Google, and is likely to help increase adoption of its apps within the enterprise. However, what’s not clear and not explained is why the two companies needed an agreement first. As the article notes, it appears that there were financial considerations in the agreement as well. If anything, this should call into question Capgemini’s impartiality in recommending apps to its customers. If Google Apps is the best solution, then shouldn’t Capgemini support it with or without an agreement? Waiting until the two companies have an agreement (and announcing that fact) just makes it sound like Capgemini’s recommendations are going to be based on who paid them some money, rather than on what’s the best solution for customers.
Filed Under: google apps, saas
Companies: capgemini, google
Comments on “Why Does Capgemini Need An Agreement With Google To Push Google Apps?”
i think this is pretty standard, isn’t it? it’s a good way to formalize an “everybody wins” arrangement. google pays capgemini to spread its product, so (a) if an organization wants to implement google apps, they will go to capgemini, and (b) if capgemini is going to implement it, it makes sense for both google and cg to profit from that arrangement.
when i had to get braces as a teenager, my dentist referred me to an orthodontist. no doubt he got a taste of the resulting profits. makes the world go round.
Re: Re:
My mom is a dentist, and she refers people to orthodontists, but she certainly doesn’t get a cut of those profits. The orthodontists do admittedly offer us free care, but that is a single flat compensation, and not dependent on how many people she directs their way.
If they did give her a payment for each case, I at least would see that as a corrupting influence. At least by giving payment in kind, if everyone does this she is encouraged to refer people to the best orthodontists, rather than those with largest profit margins.
Welcome
Waiting until the two companies have an agreement (and announcing that fact) just makes it sound like Capgemini’s recommendations are going to be based on who paid them some money, rather than on what’s the best solution for customers.
Welcome to Corporate Back Scratching 101.
Capgemini is also a Microsoft Gold Partner, so does that automatically make them biased towards Microsoft???
Here is why
Because Most of google’s services fail, and some even get cancelled. You cannot push into enterprise something that is getting cancelled in the next year.
Projects that pretty much went nowhere, but alive:
Froogle
Google Base
Google Checkout
Google Answers (dead)
Google Video (paid version cancelled)
Google Groups (didn’t turn up to be what everyone hoped)
Google Pages “”
Google Finance
Dodgeball and many other random acquired projects.
YouTube will be forgotten and turned into a small video-blogging niche site within 3-4 years, if the real content owners will do the right thinng and pull all non-user-generated content off it, and liscence it to Joost.
Like consulting companies don’t do this already?
CapGemini? Google must not have been able to find any other consulting company to sign on.
Duh?
Mike – don’t be naive – they’re not independent anymore than any of the consulting crews are. That went out the window around 2001 when they all realised there was no point in competing with themselves. In the releases, there’s plenty of talk about their Microsoft relationship as well.
NO ONE thought Capgemini was impartial. Honestly.