They (Google Apps, and Office) are different. People who cannot take the time to adapt to different will always find the 'other' system inferior to the one they know.
That's very specious to claim that's why someone would disagree with you, but I didn't have an opinion about Google Apps at first. It was only after spending a year using it and learning its differences and limitations that I thought it was inferior. As a software developer for 15+ years, learning new applications is not a difficult thing.
Fair enough. This is how I reason to that particular statement. My observation is that the judgment of 'superior' or 'inferior' requires a standard. In the absence of an unbiased exemplar, the first exposure and use becomes the 'default' standard. Further, that exposure tunes the work flow to minimize 'pain' which creates a pattern of behavior that achieves an objective at reduced pain (a trained workflow).
On the exposure to a new system, the combination of using the previous system as the default exemplar, and using the trained work flow that the previous system encouraged, results in the second system being rated 'inferior' to the extent that it does not exactly duplicate specific characteristics or support exactly similar workflow.
Sure, people, including myself, do find the familiar appealing. But you can't extrapolate that to assume that any/most preference for existing standards is based on that instead of an actual understanding of which standard one prefers.
It would be equally wrong and cynical for me to discount opinions for imagined reasons like, people who fit a younger or tech-friendly profile latch on to new technologies for the sake of being cutting edge, or that people in an industry that benefits from adoption of web apps would be biased towards Google apps. (Though the temptation exists.)
I don't think I've ever disagreed with a statement that stated "System A is different than System B, and I prefer {A/B} because I find it easier to use." My comment simply disagrees with adding an unqualified ranking to a system. "A is inferior", "B is superior" without some definition of an exemplar. Someone could say "Windows Office is superior to Google Apps when working on documents without network connectivity." That is a ranking, and a basis for the ranking. I can agree or disagree with the choice but I understand it.
To the extent that I could understand it, the OP argument was that it was worse because it was different. And it is that claim I disagree strongly with.
I agree with you and have often thought that this dynamic drives programmer psychology as well. It explains a lot about, e.g., programming language adoption, that is puzzling otherwise.
