- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Microsoft fights bid to drop Office software
|
|
|
Comments (23)
Après moi, le deluge
But it's NOT "dropping Office software"!
It's not even "Dropping MICROSOFT Office software". It's just "dropping software that does not support a portable open standard". Which Microsoft could quite freely implement in "Microsoft Office" without anybody else's permission, even.
If they didn't have so much invested in preventing themselves from playing well with others by using their bastardized version of the OASIS format instead of the standard one...
Well, they are admitting the value of their company rests in their secret closed formats, and not in their closed secret software.
Apperently, the value of not having an OpenDoc im/export filter is greater than the Massachusettes deal.
They have understood the only drawback of OpenOffice is the conversion between closed MS and open formats, and if there was a filter, the only drawback of OpenOffice would be gone. Even more, if there would be an export filter for OpenDoc in MSOffice, since MS-Office is going to read (support) al previous MS-Office formats, MS-Office would be a great tool for converting all your old Office-documents to an open format, after which you'd never need MS-Office anymore. I think that's there biggest fear, since somebody with only one MS-Office license could convert millions of documents if MS-Office had an OpenDoc export-filter.
I think we'll have to wait for the rest of the world, only if more countries support the Massachusettes policy, both losses could be more equal.
I'm willing to bet money that Massachusetts backs down on this one, probably at the last minute.
MSFT's bankroll is just too darn big, and people are just too darn corruptable, for something as idealistic as this to happen.
MSFT's bankroll is just too darn big, and people are just too darn corruptable, for something as idealistic as this to happen.
And should they back down, the publicity right now would have some interesting ripples. Who knows what side effects we'd see? Could range all over the place.
A couple of points:
1. This IS Massachusetts. That increases the chance that they will stick to to their guns. It is a lovely state, with lovely people, but...a bit prone to stick to whatever looniness they deem important. OpenDocument is not loony, but that stick-to-it-iveness is a good thing here.
2. It seems unlikely that, in the home of MIT, Microsoft techies will be able to make a convincing and un-rebutted case.
3. If the Mass folks are remotely serious, they glom on to the FEMA web site fiasco. It's apples and oranges from a technical point of view, but it's the same thing philosophically: Some government functions are too vital, especially in times of emergency or other special need, to be restrictive in any way.
4. People tend to over-estimate the power of corruption in a democracy. I live in the Chicagoland area. We know corruption. We're good at it. The federal government must train all its new prosecutors by sending them into Chicago to send up corrupt officials. It's almost like shooting fish in a barrel.
However: You collect perqs, make friends rich, and enjoy special attention only so long as you have the power to do favors. If people want something badly enough, you have to deliver it or lose the bling.
1. This IS Massachusetts. That increases the chance that they will stick to to their guns. It is a lovely state, with lovely people, but...a bit prone to stick to whatever looniness they deem important. OpenDocument is not loony, but that stick-to-it-iveness is a good thing here.
2. It seems unlikely that, in the home of MIT, Microsoft techies will be able to make a convincing and un-rebutted case.
3. If the Mass folks are remotely serious, they glom on to the FEMA web site fiasco. It's apples and oranges from a technical point of view, but it's the same thing philosophically: Some government functions are too vital, especially in times of emergency or other special need, to be restrictive in any way.
4. People tend to over-estimate the power of corruption in a democracy. I live in the Chicagoland area. We know corruption. We're good at it. The federal government must train all its new prosecutors by sending them into Chicago to send up corrupt officials. It's almost like shooting fish in a barrel.
However: You collect perqs, make friends rich, and enjoy special attention only so long as you have the power to do favors. If people want something badly enough, you have to deliver it or lose the bling.
PS -
Not to mention risking time in the Big House.
Not to mention risking time in the Big House.
I hope dinotrac is right.
If he's not, Mass will get a nice discount from MS anyway.
But which American taxpayer is interested his money is going to a company which was convicted for monopoly abuse, has billions on its bank accounts, and is leaded by a jumping monkey? And all this while Bush says he needs $200 billion for New Orleans and Mr Greenspan is saying the country needs cutbacks?
I always thought Mass was like a technology 'leading' state (because of the MIT), but by cowardly backing of, they would degrade themselves to conservative followers with mouths far bigger than their brains.
A soccer club in my country has a nice 'clubsong' which I'd recommend to Mass:
"No words, but deeds".
Golden Opportunity
MA State should take advantage of the complaint that MS submitted to Governor Mitt Romney and discredit MS once and for all.
Of course, after Kriss presents the advantages of OpenDocument format, he could turn the table around and challenge Yates to substantiate his claims.
If OpenDocument and OpenOffice are immature like Yates openly says, MS should be more specific and backup their claims.
If OpenDocument and OpenOffice are lacking features or capabilities, MS should demonstrate those.
If OpenDocument and OpenOffice are cheaper than MS Office, MS should show their Dollars and Cents.
One thing should convince the governor is the millions MA will save since OpenOffice is free and can replace MS Office without any problems.
MS for sure will come up with some which they consider important, but to MA State they are irrelevant and most probably didn't use, will never use, or don't care about.
MS doesn't have any proof and all their claims are subjective. Discrediting MS is a major PR blow.
Of course, after Kriss presents the advantages of OpenDocument format, he could turn the table around and challenge Yates to substantiate his claims.
If OpenDocument and OpenOffice are immature like Yates openly says, MS should be more specific and backup their claims.
If OpenDocument and OpenOffice are lacking features or capabilities, MS should demonstrate those.
If OpenDocument and OpenOffice are cheaper than MS Office, MS should show their Dollars and Cents.
One thing should convince the governor is the millions MA will save since OpenOffice is free and can replace MS Office without any problems.
MS for sure will come up with some which they consider important, but to MA State they are irrelevant and most probably didn't use, will never use, or don't care about.
MS doesn't have any proof and all their claims are subjective. Discrediting MS is a major PR blow.
> Discrediting MS is a major PR blow._
They are doing a perfectly good job at that themselves... some things have changed. After Katrina, e.g.... did you read the Groklaw editorial?
Yes, I agree, they are doing a pretty good job and deserve a big kudos. But to me, when it comes to discrediting MS, it is never enough until MS is flat on its face. Don't you agree!
Abe: until they are broken up, they will always be a monopoly and they can only behave as a monopoly. Restraint of trade is the modus operandi and doesn't this 15 page memo covered to the government a perfect example attempting restraint?
BTW, copying Mitt was a reminder of "M-O-N-E-Y"!!!!
They're reminding him of their contributions and the contributions of their employees.
BTW, copying Mitt was a reminder of "M-O-N-E-Y"!!!!
They're reminding him of their contributions and the contributions of their employees.
Tom,
You bring up a good point about the reminder, I didn't think of that. It must be my trusting attitude!!! I hope the very very short memory of politicians will kick in!
About the break up, I am not too much in favor of. I don't like, and I don't know if I can trust the government to be involved in such issues. Breaking up the monopoly is not a permanent fix, the chunks can always work something out and be as bad as one big monopoly. We are talking about very clever and sleazy people here. I would rather see the monopoly brought down by the consumers. Like they say "The bigger they are, they heavier they fall". Once it is down, it will be very difficult to get back up especially when the consumers have a good alternative. MA decision could be the beginning of the end.
About the break up, I am not too much in favor of. I don't like, and I don't know if I can trust the government to be involved in such issues. Breaking up the monopoly is not a permanent fix, the chunks can always work something out and be as bad as one big monopoly. We are talking about very clever and sleazy people here. I would rather see the monopoly brought down by the consumers. Like they say "The bigger they are, they heavier they fall". Once it is down, it will be very difficult to get back up especially when the consumers have a good alternative. MA decision could be the beginning of the end.
Let's see the extent of the Governor's internal fortitude.
With regard to breaking up monopolies - it's the only way you can ever stop them. History provides many lessons in that regard. For example, many people have the false notion that the 13 colonies that made up the US fought the British. In fact, we found the British East India Company. That company was so powerful a monopoly it took over the government of England and ran it.
When our government breaks up monopolies, it has kept the parties separated and that you can verify.
In this case, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer would have to retire.
Market forces have not shown success with monopolies. Armed struggle has.
It's just an area with which I have some familiarity. Our government needs to break them up or at least tie them up in litigation for an extended period of time - like eight years or so.
With regard to breaking up monopolies - it's the only way you can ever stop them. History provides many lessons in that regard. For example, many people have the false notion that the 13 colonies that made up the US fought the British. In fact, we found the British East India Company. That company was so powerful a monopoly it took over the government of England and ran it.
When our government breaks up monopolies, it has kept the parties separated and that you can verify.
In this case, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer would have to retire.
Market forces have not shown success with monopolies. Armed struggle has.
It's just an area with which I have some familiarity. Our government needs to break them up or at least tie them up in litigation for an extended period of time - like eight years or so.
I see that you are hopeful that the government will break them up. I hope so too but I am not so sure.
I think FOSS will soon have the equivalent of armed struggle power. It might not coming from the US alone, but from every where in the world. It all depends on the mobilization of the FOSS supporters and advocates.
I think FOSS will soon have the equivalent of armed struggle power. It might not coming from the US alone, but from every where in the world. It all depends on the mobilization of the FOSS supporters and advocates.
Tom --
What the heck are you talking about?
Market forces are pretty effective against many monopolies.
Think railroad monopolies.
Even think OPEC. The oil embargo of the 70s fell apart as gas prices got high enough to encourage cheating. Even recent spikes in oil prices aren't enough to bring inflation-adjusted prices anywhere near 70s levels.
Remember when the Big 3 automakers ruled the American market? No more.
Still in the US, think about Network television, which used to command huge audiences, but now competes with cable and the internet. Heck, the internet as serious competition for eyeballs didn't even exist ten years ago.
Now think Microsoft.
It really only has one monopoly -- the pc desktop, expanded to include Office. It used to have an effective browser monopoly, but Firefox has clobbered that. It tried to leverage its monopoly power to gain similar power in mobile phones and video games. Last I looked, phones are a washout and Xbox loses money.
It tried to leverage its desktop monopoly into the server room, but Linux has absolutely killed its plans. Sure, there are a lot of brand M servers out there, but they can't control the market and can't set prices as they please. As to web servers, M is definitely a second tier player.
The appearance of desktop and server hardware with no OS or with an alternative OS further underscores how much M's position has weakened. M was able to kill BeOS simply by telling resellers that they couldn't sell dual-boot boxes.
M definitely has money and clout, but so do Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle and others. Besides that, big companies to whom Microsoft and the aforementioned vendors sell face bottom-line pressures that are not consistent with monopoly pricing. When everybody is being gouged, you can live with it. Nobody is getting an advantage over you. That changes when your competition can decide to take the less expensive way out. All of this bodes ill for M, no matter how much clout they have.
What the heck are you talking about?
Market forces are pretty effective against many monopolies.
Think railroad monopolies.
Even think OPEC. The oil embargo of the 70s fell apart as gas prices got high enough to encourage cheating. Even recent spikes in oil prices aren't enough to bring inflation-adjusted prices anywhere near 70s levels.
Remember when the Big 3 automakers ruled the American market? No more.
Still in the US, think about Network television, which used to command huge audiences, but now competes with cable and the internet. Heck, the internet as serious competition for eyeballs didn't even exist ten years ago.
Now think Microsoft.
It really only has one monopoly -- the pc desktop, expanded to include Office. It used to have an effective browser monopoly, but Firefox has clobbered that. It tried to leverage its monopoly power to gain similar power in mobile phones and video games. Last I looked, phones are a washout and Xbox loses money.
It tried to leverage its desktop monopoly into the server room, but Linux has absolutely killed its plans. Sure, there are a lot of brand M servers out there, but they can't control the market and can't set prices as they please. As to web servers, M is definitely a second tier player.
The appearance of desktop and server hardware with no OS or with an alternative OS further underscores how much M's position has weakened. M was able to kill BeOS simply by telling resellers that they couldn't sell dual-boot boxes.
M definitely has money and clout, but so do Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle and others. Besides that, big companies to whom Microsoft and the aforementioned vendors sell face bottom-line pressures that are not consistent with monopoly pricing. When everybody is being gouged, you can live with it. Nobody is getting an advantage over you. That changes when your competition can decide to take the less expensive way out. All of this bodes ill for M, no matter how much clout they have.
You're thinking of Oligopolies - not monopolies. And indeed market forces and technology have broken oligopolies up througout history.
Microsoft is a true monopoly with all the check markets in the right boxes. Standard Oil and the Bell Systems also stood as monopolies. Bell had 1500 competitors and still owned 99% of the market and controlled the lines its competitors needed to function.
IBM was also a monopoly and the government's edicts allowed market forces to eventually pound it. David Boise defended IBM in its last DOJ action and then worked for the DOJ against MS.
Here's the interesting thing, even into the early 1990's IBM produced and marketed around 95% of all PC hardware. But heavy sanctions effectively broke up IBM.
That's the kind of action, I believe, needs to take place with Microsoft.
In the last 90 days they have been declared - "The Blackberry Killer" and now "The Firefox Killer". They were the "Real Networks Killer" too.
Don't killers usually wind up on death row?
We need a new sheriff.
Microsoft is a true monopoly with all the check markets in the right boxes. Standard Oil and the Bell Systems also stood as monopolies. Bell had 1500 competitors and still owned 99% of the market and controlled the lines its competitors needed to function.
IBM was also a monopoly and the government's edicts allowed market forces to eventually pound it. David Boise defended IBM in its last DOJ action and then worked for the DOJ against MS.
Here's the interesting thing, even into the early 1990's IBM produced and marketed around 95% of all PC hardware. But heavy sanctions effectively broke up IBM.
That's the kind of action, I believe, needs to take place with Microsoft.
In the last 90 days they have been declared - "The Blackberry Killer" and now "The Firefox Killer". They were the "Real Networks Killer" too.
Don't killers usually wind up on death row?
We need a new sheriff.
Oligopoly, Monopoly -- it's the same law, same economics, same forces at play.
The only kind of monopoly that can truly survive forever is one that controls a vital resource for which there is no substitute. At that point, the army comes in and takes it away.
The only kind of monopoly that can truly survive forever is one that controls a vital resource for which there is no substitute. At that point, the army comes in and takes it away.
Huh?
Oligopolies and monopolies are the same? Aren't PC's a vital resource?
The reason we have the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is because monopolies are basically impossible to crack.
Oligopolies and monopolies are the same? Aren't PC's a vital resource?
The reason we have the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is because monopolies are basically impossible to crack.
>The reason we have the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is because monopolies are basically impossible to crack.
The reason we have the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and the Clayton Act, too) is because monopolies and oligopolies who abuse their power have a negative impact on the economy and the overall health of the nation.
Simply being a monopoly or oligopoly is not enough. This is easier to see in the case of an oligopoly because an oligopoly requires some cooperation to unfairly shut out competition --usually in the form of price-fixing. However, a monopoly is perfectly legal so long as it does not abuse its monopoly power. Of course, they all do. It's hard to avoid. Most monopoly abuses would be considered simple hardball business practices if practiced by a non-monopoly. Monopoly power makes the practices intolerable.
None of this has anything to do with whether market forces will eventually curb the monopoly.
The reason we have the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and the Clayton Act, too) is because monopolies and oligopolies who abuse their power have a negative impact on the economy and the overall health of the nation.
Simply being a monopoly or oligopoly is not enough. This is easier to see in the case of an oligopoly because an oligopoly requires some cooperation to unfairly shut out competition --usually in the form of price-fixing. However, a monopoly is perfectly legal so long as it does not abuse its monopoly power. Of course, they all do. It's hard to avoid. Most monopoly abuses would be considered simple hardball business practices if practiced by a non-monopoly. Monopoly power makes the practices intolerable.
None of this has anything to do with whether market forces will eventually curb the monopoly.
Microsoft was NOT in the "consortium"
>The OpenDocument format was created last spring by an industry consortium >that included Microsoft, IBM Corp., and others.
IBM, Corel, Adobe, Boeing, KDE, Sun, and others joined. Microsoft chose not to participate, but later Microsoft complains OpenDocument is not good enough.
IBM, Corel, Adobe, Boeing, KDE, Sun, and others joined. Microsoft chose not to participate, but later Microsoft complains OpenDocument is not good enough.
Microsoft is a member of OASIS. That may be the point of confusion.
True, but only with the capacity of a secret agent (spying, sabotage)!!!
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Re Louis XV: "The quote, "Après moi, le deluge" is attributed to him. Roughly translated, it means "After me, the deluge". On one hand it demonstrates a keen understanding of what was about to happen. But, more realistically, this quote is most often used to show how Louis XV, even though he knew what was to happen if the current system did not change, steadfastly refused to make the tough decisions required to bring about that change. Knowing that he could hold on to position and power throughout his reign at least, he ran the French monarchy essentially into the ground. It demonstrates the highest level of selfishness as a leader, focusing only on what happens during the leader's own tenure and caring nothing at all about what comes after. This is unfortunately true of many politicians and leaders of countries." http://www.tomorrowtoday.biz/leadership/apres_moi,_le_deluge...