Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Microsoft: Office Format War Over

   (Mar 13, 2007 - 6:40 AM)

   >> So your problem with Microsoft is that they want to make money?
   
   How Microsoft goes about their business is their decision. If Microsoft was not the monopolist (someone else was), Microsoft would most likely want open standards (to maximize their profits as a small fry).
   
   So as a user, I can go with the monopolist that is trying to do what they do best to maximize their profits, or I can go with the rest of the industry that is doing what they do best (ie, based on their options) to maximize their profits. Naturally, I am going to go with the industry.
   
   Then there is the added incentive that not everyone requires megaprofits as incentives to produce software. In particular, the various FLOSS products that continue to be free to acquire and come with source code so that anyone can clean up the dirty laundry are on the side of ODF. Guess what? I'm on the side of ODF.
   
   Like I said, what Microsoft does is their choice, but with them making the choice to maximize their profits by insisting on lock-in, I make my choice quite easily to shun them for ODF-competition.
   
   It's elementary. I have no problems maximizing my profits either.
   
   >> They won't allow themselves to latch onto a format someone else could change on a whim, leaving them to play catch-up.
   
   Not exactly. The only way this happens is if someone effectively monopolizes ODF. Because it is an open standard, the problem for Microsoft isn't that they would be playing catch-up. The "problem" for Microsoft is that they wouldn't start off with a huge lead on everyone else. Fair playing fields stink when you are accustomed to having it all.
   
   >> Any company in the world wants to maintain control of the way they do things.
   
   Yes, but unless you are God, you have to deal with reality, constraints, and compromises.. or at least that is typical of businesses.
   
   >> Anything else puts your business in someone else's hands.
   
   Then I guess everyone's business is in someone else's hands. .. like in the customer's perhaps (among other hands).
   
   >> Interoperability is *great* for free software, Expecting it in commercial software does not make any business sense.
   
   Yup. When Microsoft slips a little from their tower, they will fall all the way because anything less than virtually complete control is not worthwhile for them.
   
   Writing software can be enjoyable (it's hard to explain this to someone that doesn't already see it... just like many people enjoy writing music or making movies or flying planes etc). Many people have found ways to make a living and yet contribute to Openoffice.org. Heck, many contribute as part of their daily work working for someone else, for themselves, or even for Uncle Sam. It's irrelevent whether or not Microsoft sees this. As a consumer, I want the very best deal I can get. I want the very decent free stuff that has lock-in built out. It gets no simpler than that. Too bad for Microsoft, but I am not going to pay and paint myself into a corner, with all my data in jeopardy, just so that Bill Gates and friends can feel that their jobs are bringing in the level of income they find acceptable. It's just not going to happen.
   
   Instead of paying to get a base product only and further to then have my data be at the whims of Microsoft's future business goals, I'd rather get the base product for free and then pay to get something extra based on my own desires. That is how many open source people make their money, by serving me to add extra value to the base product in order to address my specific wishes. This is a superior end user offering than anything Microsoft has. Or at least these are my views. Feel free to buy Microsoft if you want.
   
   [I didn't mean to neglect this thread and reply so late.]

2. Comment - Microsoft: Office Format War Over

   (Mar 7, 2007 - 3:42 AM)

   >> Realistically...
   >> Microsoft has the majority of the market. Others saying they should conform to a standard when they are the standard in creating documents? Wow.
   
   I think the ODF side is saying that ODF is a document format that, unlike OOXML, is likely to result in competition and lower prices, more choices, etc, for the end user. Documents will be readable 50 years from now. OOXML has a lot of stuff whose documentation remains locked within Microsoft. It's a no brainer, if you value access to your data years into the future, to use ODF as the format for archiving.
   
   This is a very simple thing. The problem is that Microsoft denies the above or at least tries to avoid that conversation.
   
   Anyone is free to continue to buy Microsoft products.
   
   >> My thought is...
   >> If you only use 10% of the features and don't understand the rest of what WXP/Vista/Office200x are doing in the background you will complain and complain. When you do finally understand even 20% of the rest, you will start to appreciate the products.
   
   That is exactly my thought with regards to Linux. My question to you is how did you figure out what Vista is doing if Microsoft releases almost no really serious documentation concerning what Vista is "really" doing?
   
   >> Define Irony...
   >> Microsoft post compromises with competitors to promote standardization -- 10 posts majority of which are complaints.
   There is an article on BetaNews about security holes in Apple's Quicktime -- 1 post, not negative, just concern.
   
   I guess more people challange Microsoft's statements than the security alert.

3. Comment - Microsoft: Office Format War Over

   (Mar 7, 2007 - 3:12 AM)

   When it is all said and done, people will wonder why they need to upgrade yet again to a host of new (expensive) Microsoft products when the old stuff still works fine and there are so many other options out there that are less expensive and work and ...oh,oh, these other applications can't handle OOXML because it is still proprietary. Chucks!
   
   It may be more cost-effective to simply politely ask your partners to save to ODF when exchanging documents so that you don't have to upgrade your entire software system.

4. Comment - Microsoft: Office Format War Over

   (Mar 7, 2007 - 3:03 AM)

   The main point of the 100% compatibility discussion is that adopting OOXML means an overhaul. New apps must be bought and tested, new code must be written, new a lot of things must be acquired in order to deal with the new "100% compatible" format. This all means lots of dollars to Microsoft and is a continuation of what they do every few years. With ODF, you can stay put with your applications until you find *you want* to upgrade (and OpenOffice.org is one option available that is free of cost if that is desireable), even if it is much after *Microsoft wants* you to upgrade.
   
   For many companies it makes sense to have free quality readers for many employees, free office suites (to read and write easily) for most others, and keep the high-priced stuff only for those that really need it. This means that a lot of money can be saved if you have a large organization because you only need to acquire what you need from the vendor most suitable when you need it. That is ODF. That is not OOXML.
   
   Here is a related link:
   http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/2110

5. Comment - Microsoft: Office Format War Over

   (Mar 6, 2007 - 10:27 PM)

   To clarify a point then, Microsoft likely has other goals besides "eliminate competition;" however, they are willing to diverge from any standard anytime and keep their divergence secret. The justification is because they can make more money that way.
   
   Their stuff could have been added within the framework of ODF. That they chose not to do so was because their goal is not interoperability (to reduce vendor lock-in control) as is the goal for ODF, but to maintain as much control as possible over any so-called "open" standard. Microsoft's standard was designed from the ground up to give an edge to one group, Microsoft corp. ODF was designed to a large extent to give control to one group, the end user. The latter also benefits any potential Microsoft competitor because it puts them on a more level playing field with Microsoft.
   
   I think what makes Microsoft particularly a company whose products you want to avoid is the tremendous leverage they have built up. As the various antitrust trials have shown (as well as numerous lawsuits), Microsoft is very willing to exploit their leverage to stop competition. This is illegal in a lot of places, btw.
   
   Also, it would be interesting to know why Microsoft doesn't reuse all of the standards that are open and currently exist in many places througout OOXML. Instead they redevelop the wheel using their terminology. While I understand that their newest standard is probably the closest to what they used in house for the .DOC&co formats, this is reason to shun their standard as a standard meant for interoperability. It's like if I come up with a set of rules that is different from every standard out there in say the electrical industry and then expect the world to stop building and designing their products as they always have in order to get the same functionality but using my books this time. This makes no sense from the point of view of market participants and keeping competition alive. That Microsoft gets away with it is because of their leverage and because it is much easier to start anew when you use software vs tangible stuff (eg, the converter from Doc to OOXML has no counterpart in the material world). Also, Microsoft currently sort of owns the office suite market. If they didn't, their standard would almost be guaranteed to go nowhere.
   
   A major Microsoft motivation (as I see it) is for them to take the poll position on all their competitors who have been working together to come up with ODF, a standard for interoperability, and they would set the pace of the race because of their internal knowledge of (proprietary) secrets no one else has. Another equally important motivation is to make it easy to charge royalties on potential patent threats. ODF is free of this. See either of the following pages:
   http://www.groklaw.net/a...story=20070123071154671
   http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
   
   Without a doubt Microsoft is not in a position to want to give up anything that isn't taken from them. On their way to maximizing profits they will continue to leverage everything they have to maintain the powerful monopolies so they can dictate as many terms as possible to the consumers. Maximize profits is the game they play arguably better than any existing company.
   
   As a consumer, if Microsoft is maximizing their profits, if Microsoft is maximizing their hold on me, if they are dictating terms to our agreements that are greatly in their favor, then I have to consider myself psychotic to stay with them any longer than "necessary."