If memory serves correct, Yahoo! made a big push a few years ago to get people to "petition" their app security geeks to allow them to have IM, and that, I believe, fell flat. Somehow, in the corporate world, good intentions for software on an enterprise scale have a bit of trouble getting to the right decision makers. I think Google's future plans (Web OS & office suite) might not get too far past the "bee-ta" stage.
Incidentally, I was on the team evaluating IM for my company, and only one other person on the team was an active IM user. Aside from ease of implementation and features, the one most important thing they were looking for was control of the interface and access to everything everyone was writing. Do you think Google's going to give the corporate app spooks and auditors full access?
I'm not a big fan of Google desktop efforts, I think that the privacy implications are not well understood and third-party privacy control protocols (how you would deal with my privacy constraints) are non existent in anything but theory.
Today I received an interesting statement from our information security manager: we're not to use Google desktop due to its remote mirroring and the possibility to switch this on "by accident". I'm not arguing that this is a very broad-brush approach (it is), but it does raise another question:
Most of us use computer at work, and most of our computer use is at work (I spend 80-90% of my online time at work). If companies forbid Google service for security risk (e.g. desktop, word processors, etc.); How well did Google do its business modeling, surely the objective of a company is to reach a broad audience, their current tactic seems to exclude a large part of the population.
-Xabra

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic