Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Office Faces British Invasion
jdkane writes "CNet reports that a small British software maker, Ability, plans to challenge one of Microsoft's most profitable markets by selling its low-cost package of productivity applications in North America.
Ability Office faces competition from Corel's Word Perfect, Sun Microsystems' StarOffice package and OpenOffice, it's free, open-source sibling. None of these products have captured a significant share of the market from Microsoft's Office.
Does anybody have any hands-on experience with the Ability Office suite, or are there any general speculations as to why this move will make a difference in the office software market (if not just for the bottom line of the software company)?"
A new alternative would be great, but what is going to happen when MS office starts including buit in DRM on its .doc files? Hopefully some of this new software will start to bring people away from proprietary systems like this.
People want to use at home what they use at work. MS Office is the "standard" for corporate America. When people change jobs, employers and the employee do not want to have to learn something new. A "standar" like MS Office offers certain benefits like this that are difficult to overcome, even given cost concerns.
Then, you have the educational dimension as well. Schools don't want to have classes for both. These days, community colleges are filled with people seeking Office certification (MOS/MOUS certification). Some companies and employees value these certifications. Schools play to that market and won't offer 2 totally different word processing courses. Too expensive. They cater to the market.
These factors are complex and difficult to overcome. Don't just scream "Stupid CEO! Office is too expensive!" before you understand all of the factors.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
If StarOffice, with Sun's clout behind it, can't make a dent in the MS Office monopoly, what makes anyone think a tiny house like Ability will be able to. So long as MS keeps its licensing fees just below the threshhold where it becomes worth it for an enterprise to switch (and retrain a huge number of people, and deal with the % of files where the formatting won't transfer cleanly, etc.), the biggest competitor for Office 2003 is Office 2000.
It only runs on Windows. And its interface, which the manufacturers coyly call "industry-standard", is a Microsoft Office clone.
I wish them luck, but I have to wonder when people are going to realize that the way to challenge Microsoft is not to try to be Microsoft. Any product (yes, this includes a lot of Linux software) that slavishly imitates Microsoft is going to be written off, with some justification, as an inferior knock-off. IMO the M$ Office interface is a lousy one; how 'bout trying to write something better, guys, and see how that does? And while you're at it, make Linux and OS X versions -- in fact, try starting in those markets first. Yes, the pool of potential customers may be smaller, but there's no 900-lb. gorilla to compete with. I can almost guarantee that a fast, cheap, reliable, feature-rich office suite with a good non-M$ interface on those platforms would rapidly build up a dedicated customer base, and provide the company with a solid US revenue stream and name recognition while they get ready to tackle the Windows monolith.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Open Office is attractive, not because of the cost, but because it does not lock people into closed vendors and closed technologies. IMHO the whole goal is provide an escape to the abuses of copyright and EULA's. Offer people a way out, and they will come. They did with Linux.
IMHO we are looking at these packages in the wrong way. Instead of looking at them as a competitive alternative to Microsoft, we should be looking to them as a transitional tool to get people over to free (not as in beer) standards and software.
I don't understand why they don't just embed SQLite in OpenOffice. SQLite is public domain, so there aren't any problems from licenses, and it runs great. It's got a few minor problems, but they are only minor problems. And, OpenOffice already has the hooks for a database, you just need to set up a server, which is stupid.
OpenOffice rocks. The new 1.1.0 is even better, since now you can make PDF files. Anyone paying $500 for Office XP needs to visit Openoffice.org.
I use OpenOffice at home. I won't use it (or recommend it) at work. MS Office exposes components that are used in many of our applications. Click a button in these apps, and your data is in an Excel spreadsheet open on your screen, or your customer list has just been pushed into Word, ready for your mail merge. Sure, I know how to do all of these things without the whiz-bang one click, but most of the users don't. Even if they did, why should I reduce their productivity by making them configure an export, run it, then import the text file into StarCalc?
One of the benefits that Microsoft gets by being the market leader is that software is written for it. StarOffice/OpenOffice has a large hurdle to overcome there.
Ok, so i should have defined my statement more, its not the database backend that is the problem. ( i know about its hooks for external database servers )
Where are the forms, reports, etc in OO that a common user can get too and use as easily as they can with MSAcess? Remember they have ZERO training... they are not IT people..
Until then, its not a replacement for MSOffice ( plus we aren't even discussing the missing component of *integrated* groupware. )
Don't get me wrong i would prefer to give people an open alternative. but OO is not ready to **replace** MSO...
Nor is KOffice..
But they ARE getting closer..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Don't forget that you can use ODBC to a real sql server + use SQL statements to get data back.
( true that's beyond the group of users I'm taking about, but you get the point I'm sure )
Also jet isnt really 'just using excel'.. its a bit more complex then that. ( though agreed its not as complex as a 'real' data server engine )
But my main point was the reports and data forms that Access provides *easy* access too. Something that a untrained user can work with and get something useable out of and not be stuck with just a spreadsheet of raw data...
No its not efficient, nor the best solution out there. But for a person with no training it is the best choice for them. And that is, like it or not, 99% of the business software target market.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I can't see it winning many points in an business environment, but it's well-pitched for the home Windows user.
Good enough to stop people just pirating MS Office or the more tech-savvy taking OpenOffice for a spin? Possibly not. Ability need to work at getting OEMs to bundle.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
There is no "standard" MS Office. Do you mean Office 95? Office 97? Office 2000? Office XP? There are many fundamental differences between these versions, both in terms of user interface and functionality, for example MS Access has been a major headache in terms of database and code upgrading between Office versions.
Every few years an organisation is going to have to retrain its staff, whether or not they stick to MS Office. Any school or collage who teaches or trains for a specific Word processor or spreadsheet is wasting time and resources. I have often found that MSOffice training *reduces* the flexibility of users. Untrained and novice users seem to switch easily between different types of word processors, whereas trained users expect buttons in specific places etc.
Well said. Basically, the monopoly position of Microsoft Office (at better than 90%) means that using it is mandatory for anyone who interacts with the rest of the world, no matter how overpriced it is, or how much cheaper or equally functional the alternatives are. These days, if you want to submit your schoolwork electronically, it must be in Microsoft Word format to be accepted. If you want to be able to depend on using electronic documents and forms from businesses and government agencies, you'd better have Microsoft Office. The ability of competing products to read and write Microsoft Office formats is a lucky historical accident that will not be repeated -- for one, reverse engineering the formats is now illegal under the DMCA, so when Microsoft changes them again, the competitors will be SOL. Then there is the issue of needing to interact with Office 2003's DRM system. It is a safe bet this won't be legally possible either. Of course, even the current level of compatiblity provided by Office competitors is not perfect and fails when you need the more advanced features to interoperate. As I've said before, THE GAME IS OVER and has been since the DoJ rolled over. MS owns the computing world and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Open Office and other "competitors" will continue to exist in very minor niches (under 5% of the market), but they have no chance of significantly replacing MS Office and will be very lucky if they are even able to exchange documents with it very shortly.
Did you not notice that little six year long antitrust suit between the US Government and Microsoft? Or the one with IBM? Or the one with AT&T? Or Standard Oil?
Did FOX not mention the various petty trade limits and taxes in place between the U.S and pretty much everyone else? Oh what am I saying, of course they didn't.
Everything is fine, Patriot. Be happy!
Soon, I expect to hear people dissing Ability because it's commercial. This is counterproductive, however - even if it's not OpenOffice, it still brings diversity, which brings tolerance. Besides, there is a Linux/WINELib port. (www.uk.ability.com isn't Slashdotted yet.)
Litigious bastards
I use MS Office on the Mac. It has a "printer" driver that outputs the doc to PDF which is actually incredibly useful. IMHO you should never be sending Office documents to third parties since a) they might not have MS office, b) you might have a macro virus, c) Office documents can contain remnants of text from other older versions of the doc, d) it gives you better control over who is able to modify the docs.
Some of these arguments will not apply to Open Office, but think about sending an Open Office doc to a customer who uses MS Office. Either they have to get Open Office to read it or you have to convert it to MS Office format which means having at least one copy of MS Office to check it looks OK. Or you could use PDF. Everybody has Acrobat reader (or equivalent).
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Eventually I doubt there will even be an install of office, but instead an office "server" comprised of services between sql server, sharepoint, exchange, drm, and other services.
Just a thought.
The main reason no office suite has seriouly challenged MS Office is that none can truly run on both macs and PCs. Sure, AbiWord and OpenOffice can run on mac under X11, but only the geekiest would ever use an X11 app on a mac to write a business letter or term paper. Many companies, universities, and government agencies use both macs and PCs. It would be unwise for such organizations to consider using an office suite that does not run well on all their computers. Also, in order for an office suite to catch on, it needs to work both in the home and at the office. I will personally never use anything but MS Office as long as it does not suit *all* of my Officeish needs, at work and at home. Apart from the hapless AppleWorks, I have seen no would-be Office substitutes that have really marketed toward home users. What needs to be done: 1) {Open/Star}Office, AbiWord, and I guess Ability need to have fully functional, aesthetically pleasing MacOS ports, not just hacked up porting jobs. 2) Someone needs to package these products with Macs and PCs intended for the home market. Until both of these happen, no one will seriously challenge office.
Actualy it was in C, and outperformed
the assembler-based competition in most areas,
entirely due to careful algorithm choices.
Surprisingly enough, the cool platic
case cost less than the cloth-bound manuals
of the day, as you could press it in
thousand-unit lots.
(I'm biased: I did the filesystem code)
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net