Google AppEngine: More About Google Labs than You?

There’s a long history of tech companies developing there own applications because it’s cheaper long-term than licensing, especially for core applications like: email, calendaring, text processing.

I’m confident Apple employee use, iCal, and iWork in-house and those apps are cheap or free for the rest of use. Same for Sun and StarOffice/NeoOffice. Same for Google and Google Docs. One guess on who isn’t getting ongoing licensing fees for those apps? ๐Ÿ˜‰

This is not only why ‘HuddleChat’ was the first AppEngine app but also why it was pulled. HuddleChat made it obvious.

I can easily imagine this conversation at Google:

“Campfire is a great tool, we should pay for it.”

“That sounds like a lot of money for something not built here. It’ll be cheaper long term if we build a clone in-house.”

Take a look at the number of applications in Google’s Lab page. Many of them need; some form of authentication, the general look/feel of Google, integration into Googles infrastructure, to be built at Google, etc.

What a perfect candidate for an abstracted framework like Google AppEngine.


“The Google App engine may some day be worth mentioning but as of right now its nothing short of comical. Essentially Geocities 2.0.” – Tom, Tom’s TechBlog

Confirming this theory and that AppEngine is all about future acquisitions (i.e. ‘Want to increase the chances of being acquired by Google – build on AppEngine’).

“Because of the difference in technology, it can take a company anywhere from a year to three or more years to move over to the Google infrastructure and architecture.” – Nik Cubrilovic

3 thoughts on “Google AppEngine: More About Google Labs than You?

  1. How do you know that Google did GAE for themselves? It’s a company that is organized much differently than the other companies you mention-so I wouldn’t assume that’s what this is.

    As far as the quotes in your post, I guess time will tell if GAE has staying power. ๐Ÿ™‚

Comments are closed.