09-01-2016 08:27 AM
Good question! @Robert Woods
Not everything is created from SharePoint and more often OneDrive tends to be a starting point for a document lifecycle and eventually will end up in a SharePoint team site or even in Groups! Overall for me they are the endpoints to get to the information relevant to me.
I've highlighted the key differentiators between each of the apps.
- lets you work with your personal (OneDrive) and work files (OneDrive For Business)
- access all your OneDrive files and files shared with you
- access to intranet
- quick access to your team sites and the people you work with
- to see the site activity, sites you frequently visit and the sites you follow
- share a site (subject to permissions)
- access to recent and popular files spreasd across multiple document libraries
Outlook Groups (Office 365 Groups) App:
- Easily participate in group email conversations
- Work together using the shared team OneNote's notebook
- Discover and join Office 365 Groups relevant to you
Hope this helps.
09-01-2016 08:33 AM
The purpose of groups is for getting work done together. SharePoint is one of the tools the group has. Outlook for mails, calendar for calendar, planner for tasks, SharePoint for files, pages, lists, apps, Flows, PowerApps, etc.
09-01-2016 08:36 AM
09-01-2016 08:45 AM
09-01-2016 08:53 AM - edited 09-01-2016 08:54 AM
We are working on updating the "+ Create" button in SharePoint Home to create team sites + groups. By default, New Groups you create through Outlook, OneDrive for Business, and SharePoint home will all be the same thing - a group, which includes a team site as one of its workloads. This will be released before the end of the year. Stay tuned for more details.
In time, this experience will be fully customizable, so you can tune what gets provisioned, and who gets to do the provisioning.
09-01-2016 09:04 AM
@Lincoln DeMaris wrote:
We are thinking about how to enable connecting groups to existing sites. It's a very interesting scenario - no ETA, but we're thinking hard about it. The hardest part is figuring out how to reconcile the very simple concept of group membership having access to everything in the group, and potentially very complex permission structures in existing sites.
This has to be a non-starter if you are wanting to do it automated across the board.
There are soooo many reason why every site doesnt need an O365 Group.
In our environment, I could justify a need maybe for 25% of our sites, and that is being generous. Everything else is set up with very specific permissions in mind like you said.
If there is some kind of manual way to create a O365 Group for a Site, or apply an existing O365 Group, or multiple groups to an existing site, then I could get behind that.
I would much rather migrate my stuff from an existing SP Site to an O365 Group+SP Site (as the need arose) than have billions of orphaned/not needed Groups and Sites sitting out there that I didnt want in the first place.
09-01-2016 10:55 AM
Then the question would be: Will the new Home page and the new Publishing pages "break" the branding of a team site, like the new document libraries have done?
09-01-2016 11:23 AM
Yes - the limitations of the new homepage and new publishing pages are the same as the limitations in modern lists and libraries, at least as far as branding is concerned.
09-01-2016 11:29 AM
Thanks for the answer! If that is the case, will we then also be able to disable the new home page and the new publishing pages until we are given the relevant branding / custom tools?
09-01-2016 11:38 AM
09-01-2016 01:12 PM
09-01-2016 01:12 PM
@Allan With Sørensen exactly the situation I am in now. I need all the functionality of Groups, I love them. But I use Team Sites because I need the ability to add Content Types and Site Columns specifically. Now you can add both of these to the Groups Library but.....
When a Group is provisioned the Site Collection for that Group is not provisioned until someone clicks on the Files Link. After someone click the files link then the Site Collection is spun up and you can add CTypes and Columns.
If there was a way to provision the Group Site Collection at the time the Group is created then that be be brilliant, and I can do away with Team Sites all together.
09-01-2016 01:32 PM
09-01-2016 01:32 PM
If the site collection is created at the time of Group creation, or at the time of first use, what is the meaningful difference? If it's there when you try to use it, does it matter when it was created?
09-01-2016 01:35 PM
09-01-2016 01:35 PM
Yeah it does, because I want to add Content Types and Site Columns at the time of provisioning and before members start uploading documents. I do not want users to have to click the files link to have the site collection provisioned.
At present I would need to manually click the files link then add the CTypes and Columns.
09-01-2016 01:38 PM
09-01-2016 03:06 PM
@Mark Kashman with respect to customizing the site URL mentioned in the comments of the blog post, this is not quite "vanity" per se, but a desire to keep the URLs tidy. Even when the sites are standalone and not in a site structure (where 256 path names make short URLs very important).
e.g. Team Name is Emerging Technologies and Social Collaboration
They may want the URL to be "emsc"
At least group URLs don't include @%20 in the URLs. That's a super (long-overdue) positive step for sure.
09-01-2016 11:26 PM
Great news. Could someone please clarify if and how the root SharePoint Site Collection (domain.sharepoint.com) will be affected by this, for example if its still untouched?
Will this also get group features?
09-02-2016 12:58 AM
09-02-2016 05:36 AM
09-02-2016 06:01 AM
@Joe Fedorowicz Office 365 Groups was always based on SharePoint Site Collection (i.e. top level site with one library).
The integration now expands this site into a full-blown SharePoint site as we know it. Therefore, more site ownership controls such as permissions and create other business apps, etc.
09-02-2016 06:20 AM
09-02-2016 06:26 AM
Yep, but we are now adding "Group Managers" into the mix. Are they going to live in the "Site Owners" by default? or will they just be members with permissions on the "Group" level?
09-02-2016 06:38 AM
Will changes be coming to the SharePoint Homepage so users can organize the tiles? Or at least can you have the See All View alpha sort? It's extremely challenging to locate the desired site when you're following a lot. Also, we're still looking for the ability to control the colors.
09-02-2016 06:54 AM
09-02-2016 07:12 AM - edited 09-02-2016 07:21 AM
I'd have previously described Team Sites as a 'container', designed to bring everything your team needs together in one place. This used to be a collection of standard apps or experiences built within SharePoint. I think Groups are assuming this role, but are instead acting as a container for Microsoft products built outside of SharePoint. In the process of this happening, Team Sites have effectively been demoted from a container to one of several products that sit within the new container, Groups.
09-02-2016 07:24 AM - edited 09-02-2016 07:26 AM
@Joe Fedorowicz currently the permission groups consist of owners, members and visitors. For each of the group, the group name permission object (i.e. test 3) resides in all of the above permission groups - screenshot below.
Makes perfect sense to use at least the owners and members group. We'll have await further information as how this will pan out.
09-02-2016 10:03 AM
The correct solution is to turn on metadata based navigation, and configure the most important columns as either key filters or hierarchies. That has the effect of making it really easy to create selective queries over large lists, and has built in fallback behavior for times when the user accidently selects too large a data set. The basics for setting that up can be found here: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepoint-server-help/configure-metadata-navigation-for-a-list-or...
We have extensive documentation on designing large lists here - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262813.aspx.
And finally, it's a known, common concern and the team is rationlizing how we can tackle this in the future.
09-02-2016 10:06 AM
They will continue to work, and you can switch to our default provisioning if you choose. For now, we won't enable the default team sites + groups provisioning to be extended. Today, you can build your own or use the out-of-box.
09-02-2016 10:08 AM
They will work, but they won't come from the Graph so it's a bit lesser of an offering. We default to another method to showcase site activity when the Graph is turned off. But my two cents, don't turn it off - you lose a lot of richness and intelligence across Office 365. :)
09-02-2016 10:10 AM
Each app has a main use case, and certainly some overlap in cases - or hand off from app-to-app when appropriate. SharePoint app = sites & portals access. OneDrive = files management. Groups app = interact with group conversations. The portfolio of apps is always being evaluated and adjustments of how they interact and overlap are expected. Hope that helps, Mark.
09-02-2016 10:15 AM
First main diff to consider is that Office 365 Groups creates an object in Azure Active Directory (AAD), where it can then support auth across apps more easily. Next I'd say we are using the best of all apps. For example: Calendaring and mail are best offered via Exchange Online - and Office 365 Groups uses EXO to provide the group with a shared cal and inbox; and improvement over SharePoint calendars and site mailboxes. We do use SharePoint Online for the Group's notebook, document library (Files) and now the site itself for pages, lists, subsites and biz apps. And beyond these examples, Groups brings access to Planner, Power BI, Skype for Business, etc.. with much easier integration and permisisons management. Initial thoughts. Hope it helps. - Mark.
09-02-2016 10:21 AM
First, I'd say the main differrence in how to think about it is that it is not Groups vs Team, it's Office 365 + the full power of a SharePoint Online team site. Groups is the list of members, and SharePoint is where they get work done - right alongside the ability for the group to have a shared inbox and calendar, a team notebook, group Skype ("Meet now"), etc. SharePoint Online team sites have always contributed the default document library for the group, "Files." And with this update, we more fully expose all SharePoint capabilities within the same site collection.
09-02-2016 10:23 AM
09-02-2016 10:23 AM
When you first create your tenant, you get default pooled storage for SharePoint Online, calculated at 1TB + (0.5GB * E users); so for 5,000 seats, the company would have 3.5 TB of pooled SPO storage on day one. And then you can purchase additional storage for $0.20USD/GB/month as needed.
09-02-2016 10:25 AM
No. It only removes the entry point from SharePoint home. Users, in this scenario, would still be able to create a Group from Outlook, and the end result (starting soon) means that they group gets a team site, too, alongside the shared calendar, inbox, notebook, etc...
09-02-2016 10:29 AM
Untouched, and we are working on a plan for bringing groups to existing team sites, and this would be optional.
09-02-2016 10:31 AM
09-02-2016 10:32 AM
Yes. We will first tackle configuration of the home page, and then move to enabling extensibility.
09-02-2016 10:59 AM
Office 365 Groups weren't designed to have workload components removed, and as such you cannot keep the an orphaned SharePoint site after removing its parent Group (or vice versa). There will still be ways to provision traditional SharePoint sites that are not connected to groups though.
Can you comment further on the scenarios where you would want to have stripped down functionality (e.g. just conversations and files)?
09-02-2016 01:09 PM
SharePoint does provide the ability for Site Owners to specify different permissions on resources. Office 365 Groups promises a permission model whereby all group members have access to the group’s resources across workloads (e.g. conversations, files, notebook, etc.). To deliver consistency, SharePoint site collections associated with a Group will also follow this model. So, a group (site) owner can add new permission levels and assign to new users or groups on a resource, but would not be able to remove the permission levels assigned to the group’s owners or members. We are working on delivering a new permissions management UX that will allow for group (site) owners to change the group members’ permission level from Edit to Read-only (and vice versa) but you would not be able to remove the members from resources in the SharePoint site collection.
09-02-2016 01:26 PM
@Chirag Patel These apps should all be combined into one. There is no way my end users can manage having 3 different apps for basically the same functionality.
09-02-2016 07:28 PM
09-02-2016 07:29 PM
09-02-2016 10:40 PM
Having the ability to assign read-only access is a big deal in our case and I believe many others. As much we try to be more inclusive instead of exclusive, everyone having the same access doesn't always sit right. Often we say "teams" but within those teams are different roles, responsiblities and tasks. Sometimes that team isn't always about working together on every part but more about presenting final data/assets/reports/documents/etc to others. That collateral ultimately we want to surface through the teamsite/page itself.
I really think one of the biggest issues some of us struggle with is that Groups give us great tools for the "doing" and "working on it" modes and then teamsites let us finish everything off with the "presentation" piece. The issue is that we don't always want to expose the "working" pieces to everyone. Not everyone needs to see the cake being made in the bakery, or the discussions/disagreements/chaos in the background. Teamsites are like that glass window where the cake is shown. That's the struggle most of us have is that with Groups + Teamsites, now everyone can go into the back room.
09-03-2016 12:50 AM
09-03-2016 12:55 AM
09-03-2016 06:34 AM
Thats great, but the storage upgrade to 25TB is applicable to all tenant existing? or only for new plans of O365 that i acquire?
09-03-2016 09:29 AM
09-04-2016 01:23 PM
09-05-2016 01:59 AM
by Stewart Foss on June 02, 2020
by Victor Shostak on June 02, 2020
by Martin Coupal on June 02, 2020
by Andyo_1-220 on June 02, 2020
by DC Padur on June 02, 2020
by Mark Kashman on June 01, 2020
by PamBarber on June 01, 2020