Re: Microsoft to completely open up Office???


ZnU wrote:
> In article <1132731137.734509.264620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Super Spinner" <Pepe.Smythe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > > In article <1132623671.748146.152370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > "Super Spinner" <Pepe.Smythe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > James Davis wrote:
> > > > > http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+standardize+Office+formats/2100-1012_3-
> > > > > 5965
> > > > > 443.html?tag=nefd.top
> > > > >
> > > > > According to this article, Microsoft will completely standardize and
> > > > > open up Office, meaning any third party, like Wordperfect, could make a
> > > > > completely 100% compatible application. Openoffice.org programmers
> > > > > won't have to spend 1000s of hours trying to reverse engineer the file
> > > > > structure of an Office document.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I have to give Microsoft credit here. They would truely be playing
> > > > > fair. It seems to me like they are giving away their monopoly, because
> > > > > sales of Office are based on having to be compatible with Office, and
> > > > > perhaps Microsoft now believes its own bullshit about being innovative.
> > > >
> > > > >From what I've seen of Office 12, it makes Open Office look like the
> > > > antiquated garbage that it is. Hell, even Pages makes OpenOffice look
> > > > like outdated crap.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, you imply that Microsoft's openning its formats will screw
> > > > themselves over because they'll have to compete on technical merit
> > > > rather than file format compaitibility. Well, the reverse is in fact
> > > > true. OpenOffice has only been making the meager strides that it's
> > > > been making because it has an "open" file format. Now that both
> > > > Microsoft and OpenOffice.org will have open formats, it's OpenOffice
> > > > that will have to compete on merit rather than on just having an open
> > > > format. Good luck with that one, you'll need it.
> > >
> > > But OO.o could very well see a *lot* more interest now that the
> > > possibility of full MS Office compatibility is on the table. That could
> > > lead to some serious additional investment in its development. Or other
> > > alternatives (commercial or open source) could spring up in response to
> > > this move. This opens the door for real competition in what is perhaps
> > > the largest single desktop software market segment in the world.
> > >
> > > Moreover, consider that while OO.o might be somewhat more limited than
> > > MS Office, a *huge* number of Office installs are used for basic word
> > > processing, sometimes basic spreadsheets, and nothing else, just because
> > > Microsoft's file formats are the de-facto standard. It's not hard to
> > > imagine e.g. Dell bundling OO.o with their consumer and small business
> > > offerings, and a lot of people just never bothering to buy MS Office.
> > > It's not too hard to imagine that to maintain market share, Microsoft
> > > will have to offer free versions of Office (perhaps with the enterprise
> > > features removed) at some point in the next couple of years.
> > >
> >
> > 1. Dell already bundles WordPerfect Office with their computers (they
> > bundle MS Office for an extra fee), so OEMs are already bundling other
> > office packages. BTW, it'll be WordPerfect Office (and Lotus
> > SmartSuite) that get destroyed by OO.o before MS Office. As for Macs,
> > does Apple still bundle AppleWorks with iMacs? (I've not checked what
> > comes with iMacs in a few years.) If so, then Mac Office is already
> > competing with that free bundle. Nothing new here.
>
> What will be new is full, native Office compatibility. That's a big deal.

You misss your own point. You call Office a "premium" product for
which most people don't use its "premium" features. But those very
people also don't bother using OO.o's "premium" features either.
WordPad and TextEdit perform the "basic word processing" required for
the masses. I predict that the next version of WordPad that's included
with Vista will support the Office12 format. (Even though the current
version of WordPad only supports RTF and ASCII, the previous version
supported Word6's binary .doc format (that format became outdated with
Office97 so it was dropped from WordPad in 2001 when XP was shipped)).
I also predict that Mac OSX's TextEdit will support Office12 format (as
Tiger's TextEdit already supports Word2003 XML). Both of these apps
are free, bundled, perform the "basic word processing" that the masses
require, in a light-weight package, and support the Office12 formats (I
predict). Given that, why would anyone bother using OO.o? They can
just use WordPad and TextEdit.

>
> > 2. If people want "basic word processing" Windows already comes with
> > WordPad and Macs already come with TextEdit, both of which have
> > everything you need for "basic word processing" (using RTF). Hell, I
> > wrote all of my college essays using MacWrite in the late 80's; WordPad
> > and TextEdit would've more than sufficed for the "basic word
> > processing" that I required, and that most would require today. The
> > point being that MS Office already competes with free "basic word
> > processors", and has been doing so for years, OO.o or no OO.o.
>
> See above.

You see above. OO.o offers nothing for the masses that TextEdit and
WordPad don't.


>
> > 3. Microsoft sees that Office software of the kind that OO.o provides
> > ("basic" funcionality) is becoming a commodity.
>
> Yes, exactly. What they may not understand, though, is that MS Office is
> treated as a commodity by many of its users, or will be once
> compatibility is taken for granted. Microsoft seems to think they can
> continue to dominate this market by building a better product, but what
> they don't understand is the fact that "good enough" is good enough for
> 90% of users if it's cheaper, and OO.o will be good enough.
>

TextEdit and WordPad will be "good enough" in a way that's better than
OO.o (e.g. lightweight).

> It's rather ironic that Microsoft doesn't understand this, given that
> this is a reasonable summary of how Microsoft has historically dominated
> markets in the face of technically superior competition, but there you
> have it.
>

You admit that Microsoft sees that "basic word processing" (and perhaps
other "basic" office stuff") is becoming commodity, but then claim that
they don't understand that? Microsoft is going to kiss off the "basic
word processing" revenue because they know that that revenue stream
will dry up. They're going to concentrate on the enterprise (looks
like you snipped the section of my post regarding that market), where
they kick OO.o and every other suite's ass.

Microsoft didn't always enjoy the dominant position in the "basic"
Office market, and they know that they won't always enjoy it
henceforth. Or do you think that you're so much smarter than they?
;-)

BTW, it's sad to see a Mac guy such as yourself advocate "good enough".
:-(



> [snip]
>
> > I agree with you that Microsoft will create a low cost or even free
> > version of Office that's dumbed-down to OO.o's level (except it'll
> > still blow away OO.o when it comes to UI; nobody in their right mind
> > would use OO.o except those with an anti-M$ agenda or those to whom OSS
> > is a religion).
>
> I think you're wrong. I think at the level most users work at, the UI
> differences aren't so significant. It's like I've pointed out many times
> in the Mac vs. PC debate; a Windows user who never interacts with the
> operating system except to launch apps from the Start menu and
> occasionally click his way through an installer is not going to
> recognize OS X's usability advantages. Well, the same thing is true
> here. People who just perform basic word processing tasks are not going
> to recognize what makes MS Office better than OO.o.
>

They won't recognize OO.o as being superiour to WordPad or TextEdit
either.


> [snip]
>
> > A second final point: What will OO.o mean for iWorks? Will Apple
> > continue to develop Pages, Keynote, and whatever spreadsheet app they
> > may be working on if OO.o is free?
>
> Probably. Creating really slick proprietary apps to work with open
> formats is one of Apple's big things these days. This is essentially
> what most of the iLife apps are, when you get right down to it.
>

Why would a user use non-free Pages over free OO.o, given the logic you
used above (assuming that the Mac version of OO.o gets its act
together)? And please provide a reason that would not just as easily
apply to why one might use Office12 over a free package.

> > If they don't continue to develop iWorks, that'll reduce the software
> > solutions available to Mac users, which would be a shame. Who knows,
> > maybe OO.o would kill of MS Mac Office as well, so Mac users only
> > have OO.o available as an option. This won't happen anytime soon,
> > because the Mac version of OO.o is utter trash, so I've been told.
> > LOL
>
> --
> "It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
> them out of harm's way."
> -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Microsoft to completely open up Office???
    ... >>> Microsoft and OpenOffice.org will have open formats, ... then Mac Office is already ... > everything you need for "basic word processing". ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Word 2008 - does it do right-to-left text
    ... Perhaps the Word designers recognised that Mac's TextEdit could already do ... "Office on Mac simply doesn't support Unicode at all, as far as I can see. ... Microsoft continue to refuse to do a major rewrite we are as I said stuck ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • Re: the annoying case of the disappearing custom icons
    ... The problem is that you're removing the .rtf suffix, ... The way to work around this is to create an alias of the document, ... i opened another TextEdit Document and Copied and ... that The Mac would identify documents and files by 'hidden' tags ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: Apple hiring $MS programmers?
    ... This is one obvious area where a Mac application is not ... Plain Text to RTF. ... I would agree that TextEdit doesn't _quite_ seem to be ... to impose my own preferred formatting. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: Loss of paragraph formatting in Word
    ... That's what you get in TextEdit, ... Mac OS-style is traditionally carriage return. ... Windows has carriage return + line feed (CRLF). ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)