Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Writes Off Corel
PizzaFace writes "Microsoft resuscitated Corel two and a half years ago, paying $135 million for a quarter of Corel's equity ownership. Corel talked then about bringing its products to .Net, and even hinted that it might use its Linux expertise to port .Net to Linux. Since then, Corel gave up on the Linux business and isn't talking anymore about .Net, but is instead riding its XML hobbyhorse. So Microsoft is selling its stake in Corel to a VC firm for $13 million, taking a 90% loss on the investment."
The whole point of purchasing Corel was not to investigate Linux or any other option. Rather the goal was to kill it. Dead. Thus, eliminating any competition or furthering the prospects of important applications on competing platforms.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Considering the fact that Microsoft killed Corel (WordPerfect) for the sake of its own products, I don't think that they really care about the loss. They've made more than enough to cover the extra 90%.
Couldn't that be the real reason that they invested in the company? Microsoft always gets its fingers into the competition when they feel that they could be a threat.
That's the heart of the issue, right there. So ironic.
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
Corel is dying because their software is inferior. The only reason anybody ever uses it is because it's so dirt cheap. At Newegg, Corel office suite comes free with every purchase over $500. For a while, they were selling it for $10 a pop with free shipping.
Repeal the DMCA!
Corel was on its way to going out of business without the Microsoft money. I'm not quite sure how the investment would kill them; it just means the Corel Linux stuff got sold off a bit later (when they sold it to Xandros) rather than earlier (when they would've gone bankrupt).
.Net for its applications. It would lend credibilty to the .Net platform. And since there aren't too many major desktop application developers for Windows left (Adobe...?), Corel's an obvious choice.
What *does* make sense is wanting another major software developer to use
Not everything Microsoft does is pure evil.
Now that MSFT has been let off virtually penalty free by the Bush administration, why bother to keep propping up a "competitor". Microsoft was desparate during the trial to insure that none of the competition dropped off the face of the earth, which would have added additional fuel to the penalty phase of the trial.
Now that they don't have to worry about being punished, why continue shoring up companies like Corel? I wouldn't be surprised if they also drop their support of Apple (via Office X) for the same reason. They no longer have to prove that they're "good partners".
Frankly, after the previous round of government litigation in the mid-nineties, the same thing happened. Once they were out from under close scrutiny the loosed the dogs of war.
-David
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
Note: This is straight off the top of my head, this is opinion, but it's more of a pondering to me.
It seems that far too much importance is given to WHO is making a software, WHO is on-board (or in-bed perhaps), WHO is going to buy, WHO is shipping, WHO invested in WHO...
It seems corporate software is more about making market splashes than to provide a stable and sensible platform for future development of those projects. Money In, Money Out. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
If the companies involved aren't about making a better software industry (and to avoid argument, let's say "better" equals "more thought out, more stable for the future of software and the industry than a company"), then the products they create won't make a better industry, no matter WHO uses them.
Software has always been about HOW people use it. Not everything made was made for the largest audience, and not everything that is made for a niche audience hits its audience.
Corel was a graphics software development company (remember CorelDraw?). It was far more about real-world transferrable graphics, signs, tshirts, etc.
Why would anyone have expected it to get into Linux eventually, and even less would expect MS would ever buy into a company pushing Linux.
I'm not surprised Corel doesn't do Linux even more. I'm even less surprised that MS bailed out of Corel.
Remember back when Corel decided Java was the future, and said it would be rewriting its office suite in Java?
.NET, again threatening to port the by now rather cobwebby Corel Office to the new platform.
Then a few years later it was Linux. Asked by an interviewer whether the Linux thing was just a passing obsession for Corel like Java had been, a spokesman asserted that no, this was different, Corel was really committed to Linux.
Then they got almost-bought by Microsoft, dumped Linux and started going on about
Now that too has gone and XML is the big thing? Whatever next?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
90% loss or a $122m investment in their own products??? I think the point is that MS invested in Corel to kill it are accurate. I think many pointed this out when it first happened and predicted the demise of Corel to come...
.wpd and not .doc. But it's not because Word is superior.
Well, here it may be!
I personally prefer WordPerfect as a word processor application. I feel it is more intuitive, more versitile, easier to control, what not than MS Word. I hate Word. If not for WP I'd have died trying to write my masters thesis. MS doesn't have a superior product, they have a superior suite that most people use because it is on their machines when they get them. And hence it has become a default. WP & MS are not interoperable (and MS will keep it that way) and so WP has no chance at competition.
Sorry, I rant now. WP lost and sadly I must now resort to Word because to many of my coworkers complained about all my files saved as
Carry on.
The shortest distance between to puns is a straight line.
And, now that the anti-trust suit is over, there's no need for Microsoft to prove that they have any competitors. So, now they can dump Corel, and let them die their inevitable death.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
The death of Corel was due to Corel and no one else. They had what everyone wanted a well done office suite that was stable had been running for years on both windows and X platforms (The older versions of wordperfect had solaris binaries for instance). Even today, there is no comparision between wordperfect and koffice or even openoffice (though open office is improving). What Corel did, and I really find this unforgivable, was they got the brainiac idea to "sync" the two versions of the code base (X and window) by using wine! As a result wordperfect 2000 was basically an unusable piece of crap. It was horribly buggy and crashed so often that the corel newsgroups encouraged people to stick w/ free wordperfet 8. Corel jumped on the bandwagon (linux desktop) a bit too early and they simply fucked up on the delivery. People *WANT* a usable linux desktop. but the office suite actually has to *work*. Lets put it this way, walmart is currently selling walmart linux boxes by the droves right? How much more lucrative would it be to sell those things w/ an existing, commercial office suite thats actually been running for ages? Even businesses would find wordperfect far more usable than open office for windows->linux secretarial conversions.
In any case converting to wine was as stupid as rewriting wordperfect in java (which apparantly they tried to do). If they had gotten a decent set of coders to keep a native unix set with decent wrappers they could easily have grabbed the market. The conclusion they drew from being burned by the linux sector (i.e. non selling product) wasn't the wrong conclusion because essentially they were selling a broken, nonworking product that they had no idea how to support.
-bloo
If Corel had jumped up and down sooner about M$'s file format shit then maybe Corel would still be triving.
On the other hand, it is more likely it would have just led to M$ destroying them a bit sooner.
You guys are missing the point. Microsoft didn't kill Corel, Michael Cowpland (former CEO and flamboyant goofball) killed it. He (a) bought the Wordperfect suite after it stumbled badly with windows; (b) rewrote it all in java; (c) rewrote it all for Linux; (d) bought the Xerox Ventura suite; and (e) declared war on microsoft.
Mikie has some problems. Like god complex. And a show wife who wore slinky outfits and threw huge parties. He sent a postcard out to people with his blonde babe wife sprawled over his lamborghini.
Corel began as the first high-end graphics package provider for Windows 3.0 (actually it started with hardware, but graphics made Corel an international company).
If Mikie had kept his eye on the ball and stuck with graphics with an increasing emphasis on web and perhaps looking into media, streaming video, backends etc, it would never have gone down the rathole of wordprocessing suites.
The new CEO seems to be concentrating on graphics again. Maybe he can get somewhere.
Microsoft only became relevant because Mikie didn't stick with core competencies.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Corel's Linux products, before the Microsoft investment were great. I'm
talking about Wordperfect 7 and 8. Their Wine project had potential,
but version 1 sucked. Unfortunately they didn't stick it out and release
a 1.1 version - which would likely have ruled - due to Microsoft's
influence.
Corel Did. MS did NOT own a majority share in Corel, thus they couldn't do anything in the company without support. Corel's horrible management killed Corel. They should have just stuck with what they were good at. Instead, they jumped on (and are continuing to jump on) ev ery trendy bandwagon that rolls through the industry. Corel is irrelevant. Too bad WP is gone. I use Textpad now, but it would've been nice to have something with a few more features.
According to this post Microsoft Bails Out Of Corel, Microsoft converted their shares for sale back on Feb 22, 2001. All this means is they found a buyer. Also, for all of those that say Corel is dead, I haven't seen anything about them declaring bankruptcy. In fact, they are refocusing their efforts on what they do best, graphics. Their graphics programs have always been simple to use, and output quality images. With their new CEO, and refocused strategy, they may have a chance to recover from their Linux debacle.
from Citizen Kane:
Charles Foster Kane: You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars *next* year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place... in 60 years.
I'm not really sure what I mean by posting this, but it seems appropriate somehow.
Carthago delenda est!
Microsoft has as much of monopoly as the consumers and vendors let them. If you don't like them having so much control, then stop buying their product or supporting vendors that buy their product. That includes copying your friend's Office XP CD that he got from work.
I'm sure this will be moderated as flamebait, but the fact remains that the consumers made their choice whether they like it now or not, and there is no reason Microsoft should be punished because their marketing works too well. This is something every one of Microsoft's competitors, including Corel, needs to learn. The quality of the product means nothing if you can't market it properly. Microsoft's products are on many levels inferior to those of their competitor's, but their marketing is second to none and they will pretty much call the shots until the rest of the software industry learns how to play the game.
If the consumer doesn't like IE being bundled with Windows, let them prove it by buying and using other software. If competitors want to gain a larger marketshare, let them innovate instead of whining. It's not like they're competing against quality software.
OK, where is the proof. Every time there is a story on Microsoft/Xbox someone has to come out and say "They lose money on everything but windows/office." I don't buy that for a second. MS is huge company with lots of cash. It can afford to lose on some ventures (Xbox) but they make a hell of a lot of money on many other things. Server apps, business aps, other homes apps. MS makes a lot.
Before pushing the standard MS lines, try to provide some proof, as I have never read (becides from slashdot) that MS loses money on everything but Win/Office. I don't love MS, but I hate posts pushing "facts" which make little logical sence when there is little proof to back them up. Just becuase we may not like MS dosen't mean they don't have a lot of products making a lot of cash.
No, what Corel did, back in 95 or so was simply drop WP on all platforms but Windows and started to compete with Microsoft head to head on Microsoft's own platform. We all know how well that turned out. When Linux became a buzzword and Corel was looking for a new bandwagon to jump on, they simply couldn't produce a native version of WP in a reasonable timeframe, so they just hacked it until it ran under WINE without crashing too much. When I downloaded a trial version of WP8 for Linux, my first reaction was "are they actually trying to sell this thing?". I had the same impression about their distribution: a good start, but far, far from a finished product.
Had they kept the Unix ports going, they would have been able to provide a high-quality office suite for Linux. The last version of WP I used was WP8 (for Windows), and I certainly would have paid for a Linux version. But no, I am not interested in half-assed wine hacks.
Anyway, the story of Corel is truly sad. They were an awesome graphics company back in early 90s, but they kept making one boneheaded decision after another. This is a perfect example of how *not* to run a company.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
No, investing in Corel was just another effort to keep the "competition" alive until the whole anti-trust thing was over. Same reason MS invested in Apple and Borland.
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!