Slashdot Mirror


Dropping Linux Helped Restore Corel Profitability

basotl writes "Newsforge is reporting that Corel attributes part of its financial comeback to dropping Corel Linux and its Linux office suite. Though they are not currently offering products for Linux, they are interested in prospect in the future." From the article: "Looking back, Brown describes the decision to drop Corel Linux as 'a successful strategy for Corel and an early step toward the refocusing of our business. At the time we knew that Corel's core focus was moving away from the operating system to concentrate more on our application offerings, and this would almost certainly have an impact on the level of service we could afford to customers and users of Corel Linux.' Nor, as a company struggling to regain profitability, was Corel inclined to try to develop the GNU/Linux market by continuing to support WordPerfect for Linux."

18 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Come again? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was a Corel Linux?

    1. Re:Come again? by peeping_Thomist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't you remember the Corel Linux informercials? A half-hour informercial extolling the virtues of Corel Linux and explaining how Corel was setting up the perfect alternative to Windows.

      I'm not making this up. If I recall correctly it ran many times on ZDTV back in the day. That and the Cue Cat one were my two favorite dotcom bubble infomercials.

      --
      Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
  2. N.B. This isn't anti-Linux... by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its saying that a company with desktop applications isn't going to make a profitable business selling those applications on Linux, nor should an application company sell its own OS as a core focus (they aren't big enough to be MS).

    Sensible chap.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  3. Re:Not really surprising by tacarat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Corel Linux just really seemed like a "me too" product and it never seemed clear why it existed.

    I think they were doing it for the same reason everybody else was. If you got decent enough traction started with your distro, you were in a better position to start charging decent rates for support and such. Suse and Redhat had better luck, and there might not be as much room for competition at that level as we might think (at least, not at certain profit ranges). As for the word processor, I think they were hoping to bring a relatively mature software suite to market to compete with the OSS projects that were there. Considering that MS was (and is) likely to never bring Office to linux, it seemed like a good idea. I'm curious how this will pan out in the future. Open Office is improving and is still free. It might not be worth the effort if they're not swift enough or make the feature set a slam dunk over OO.

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
  4. Microsoft's meddling by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, Microsoft had nothing to do with it when they threw money at Corel, and when Corel stopped making WordPerfect for Linux, they promptly divested. /cough/spit/

    Corel Linux was a mistake, when they could have simply continued to sell WP for Linux (I still have the boxed set for 8.0!). It's not like they didn't have an existing code base that worked in X.

    As much as I like WP, if they come up with yet another Wine based WP instead of native, I and a lot of others will simply stay away in droves.

    --
    BMO

  5. Article is a schill of Microsoft. by NRAdude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does none remember that Corel was bought by Microsoft? Does Microsoft not have a controlling-interest in Corel process and operations? So they dropped their Linux offers and claim to have regained value, yet have not the common courtesy to refer to Linux as a service-oriented technology? Sure Linux is a liability if the company doesn't use it for a profitable purpose. Business-101 isn't what Corel needs, because it is evident propoganda Microsoft directs through its subsidiaries it buys into. This is no different than how Microsoft inducted SCO to harass and issue false titles and false claim to Intellectual Property owners in competition.

    --
    without prejudice
  6. Corel Linux -- Xandros Linux by Burz · · Score: 4, Informative

    From what I've heard, Xandros has been profitable the past couple years. They just released Version 4, Home Edition last week and a server product a few months before that.

    Corel had not only a Linux distro, but also their WordPerfect Office and Photopaint Linux apps as well. These apps are not sold or supported by Xandros.

  7. WTF? by bky1701 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have a Corel icon?

  8. Re:A Wine-based version ... by masklinn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just go back and look at the discussion about Google's Picasa here at Slashdot. No sensible person is satisfied with it, all it achieves is showing Google's incompetence to produce real Linux applications. Releasing a Wine solution just shows that Google capitulated from being able to build ordinary Linux applications.

    It's more like they don't care that much about linux for these kinds of applications.

    If they were utterly unable to produce "real" linux applications, they wouldn't have released Google Earth 4 on Linux, and it wouldn't run better than in Windows.

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  9. Oddly Enough... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Corel dropping their Linux distro also improved the average quality of Linux distros! Everybody wins.

  10. Re:Not really surprising by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Corel was, for years, led by Michael Cowpland. An interesting fellow, he seems to always be looking for the "next big thing".

    So here he was, director of a vendor of commodity products, (mostly, Word Perfect and Corel Draw!) looking for the next big market surge. Corel didn't have what it took to catch any "next big wave".

    But, they kept trying anyway. Remember when Corel was going to port a Java-Office suite?

    But, in any of these efforts, it doesn't seem that Michael was willing to "put out" what it took to finish it all the way through. The Java-Office turned out to be buggy, and terribly slow. The Corel Linux was pretty, but buggy. I tried it, and liked it at first, but usability problems plagued Corel Linux, so I only ended up using it for a week or so before switching back to RedHat. (and never looking back)

    Of course, it worked out well for Michael - he lives in lavish luxury - but Corel sank like a stone in kerosene.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  11. What would really help Corel... by Vo0k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...if they released Corel Draw for Linux.
    Inkscape doesn't live up to the needs of the market. There is simply NO good vector drawing program for Linux. Meantime there's a great office package and lots of distributions. Corel can't hope to make much profit with such a competition, but pushing Corel Draw they would pretty much leave the others behind.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    1. Re:What would really help Corel... by Haeleth · · Score: 4, Informative
      What exactly does Inkscape not do that makes Corel draw irreplacable in your eyes? (That way I can get it added ;)

      Well, first and foremost, some flipping documentation would be nice. When I go into the "Help" menu in Inkscape, I get a basic keyboard reference and some links to online tutorials. What I want is a reference that actually describes the options and tools available.

      Okay, so here are some random features I use every day in CorelDraw that Inkscape appears not to provide:
      • Multi-page layouts (to be fair, Illustrator also lacks this feature)
      • Support for vertical Japanese text. (Inkscape claims to support this, but fails miserably to position punctuation correctly.)
      • Ability to export to TIFF (in CMYK) and JPEG.
      • Ability to convert vector objects to embedded bitmaps.
      • CMYK support.
      • Pantone CMS support.
      • Any colour management support at all, in fact.


      I can't be bothered to look further, as it's already clear that it does not even come close to satisfying my requirements at this time.

      Which is really not surprising, because Inkscape's own developers have made it perfectly clear that they are not interested in competing with CorelDraw and Illustrator. They are setting out to make the best SVG editor for Web graphics, not to compete in the commercial publishing world. I don't know why people are so desperate to make out that the program competes in markets it's not even intended for.
    2. Re:What would really help Corel... by Haeleth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Replying to myself = bad, sure, but I think I must clarify what I meant when I said Inkscape does not support CMYK, before some fanboy tells me about the CMYK tab in the colour selection dialog box.

      Try using that tab to specify the standard colour Pantone DE 321-3 C (C60 M90 Y100 K30). I can't. It keeps changing the values I've already input. This is, so far as I can tell, because Inkscape stores RGB internally and does not even attempt to support any other colour model; so when I input a CMYK value, it converts my input to RGB, then converts it back to CMYK to show me. Oops, it's not a clean round-trip conversion. So some perfectly standard colours are completely impossible to specify in Inkscape.

      This alone makes Inkscape completely useless for anyone working for print rather than the screen. Equally, it's not a problem in the slightest for anyone working on web graphics, which is why it's not a problem with Inkscape at all, because Inkscape is aimed at the web market not the print market.

  12. They lost the train by zarlino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With Free applications getting better and better the chance to sell word processors and graphics applications on the Linux platform is vanishing. Corel Draw and Word Perfect could have made a big difference years ago, but now they are irrelevant. Corel (and also Adobe) failed to acquire a profitable market. Now it's the time for audio applications, but I suppose ISVs will wakeup in a few years just to find out there is already some open source Cubase-killer.

    --
    Check out my cross-platform apps
  13. Re:Not really surprising by telso · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the Wikipedia Article: He survived an investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission

    Uh, that depends how Wikipedia defines "survived". If it's defined as being reprimanded and fined (with his holding company, for only half a million dollars) for insider trading, then yes, I guess he did "survive" it. This slimebag's questionable trading right before the stock tanked caused Corel (and it's nice WordPerfect Suite) to be hampered for years. To quote the OSC:

    Mr Cowpland is before the panel because of an egregious error in making a trade without disclosing knowledge of a material fact. [...] This panel however, is of the view that, had this conduct taken place after the amendments to the Ontario Securities Act in April 2003, [...] the sanctions ordered by this panel may have been much more severe.

    [...]

    [64] The respondents will pay $500,000 to the Investor Education Fund.

    [65] Pursuant to section 127(1) (8) of the Act, Michael Cowpland is hereby prohibited from becoming or acting as a Director of a reporting issuer for two (2) years from the date hereof.

    [66] M.C.J.C. Holdings Inc. [Cowpland's holding company which he sold his shares from] and Michael Cowpland are hereby reprimanded.

    [67] Pursuant to Section 127(1)(2)(a) and (b) of the Act, M.C.J.C. Holdings Inc. is ordered to pay $75,000 to the Commission in respect of a portion of the Commission's costs with respect to this matter.


    Time to insert another {{dubious}} into Wikipedia :(

  14. Corel was floundering -- Linux wasn't the problem. by Yaztromo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Corel's problem was that it lost pretty much all focus somewhere around the mid 1990's. Their strength was with CorelDraw, but by the mid 1990's they were trying to sell a mini Linux computer called the NetWinder (I remember playing with one of the developer units -- they were actually pretty slick little machines, which IMO weren't matched until Apple released the Mac mini), bought out WordPerfect, tried their hand at a pure Java Office Suite, and tried their hand at their own Linux distro. In effect, they had no sense of cohesion -- they seemed to be trying their hand at any crazy project that came around.

    Linux wasn't the problem. Linux just happened to be one of the many things they played with during this time. At the same time, they let their original core business stagnate, allowing other competitors in the graphic software business to catch up and surpass them while they wasted resources on all of these other projects.

    Part of the "problem" to my mind was Corel's original intent: to be Michael Cowpland own personal research labs ("Corel" == "Cowpland Research Lab"). From a technology standpoint I have to applaud them for the things they tried to do -- the Java Office suite wasn't as bad as many people made it out to be (the beta generally ran well on my OS/2 box at the time), and could have been a vehicle which could have (and I suspect did) push improvements in Java's areas of deficiency at the time. The NetWinder was a really slick and ultra-portable Linux computer that ran on an ARM processor (we had one of the development units at an ISP I worked at in the mid 90's that we were thinking of selling as co-located servers; sound familiar?). Their Linux distro was decent and capable. But in the end they spread themselves too far, and couldn't really find (or build) markets for these products. Their core business got chewed up by the likes of Adobe, Microsoft already had a lock on the Office and OS segments, and in the end only hobbiests were interested in an ARM-based Linux computer that had limited natively compiled software available for it (you often had to build the software you wanted to run that wasn't included with the system yourself, at least in the early days -- great for hobbiests and techies, but not exactly a recipe for mass-market appeal. However, I am still of the opinion that the NetWinders failure was really that the concept was ahead of its time). And a Java-based Office suite didn't interest much of anyone from a commercial perspective (although many of the parties involved in the push towards thin clients were very interested in the outcome of code of this sort, and I personally think that it's only a matter of time, although in the end AJAX may be a better solution than Java (ref: Google Spreadsheets)).

    Linux just happened to be one of Corel's targets. I don't think Linux itself had anything to do with Corel's problems -- it just happened to be one of the things that distracted them from their core business, and never did in any way that earned them any real market distinctions. Corel's problem was a lack of focus and spreading themselves way too thin while virtually ignoring what made their mark on the industry in the first place, allowing their competition to surpass them.

    Yaz.

  15. Re:A Wine-based version ... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Any Wine application is still an ordinary Windows application following the Windows design and UI guidelines.

    This isn't correct. I didn't work on the Picasa port very much but had access to its internal development for a while. I can't give many details for all the usual reasons, but I hate to see Wine trashed like this in public.

    The first thing you should know is that we did actually have a GTK2 based version of Picasa up and running at one point. I wrote a bunch of patches to give it some simple native UI that followed the GNOME HIG. It was still running on top of Wine but had some dialog boxes/windows and the file picker using GTK2 and not Wines own versions. In the end it didn't make sense to roll with that for this version, but there's no fundamental reason why a Wine based app should look or feel different to a native app. If you want to port your app to Linux and have it look and feel like the most native open source program there is, it can be done. Just ask for it. Most of the programs ported using Wine don't have this because, well, the companies paying for the work didn't really feel it was worth the time and cost.

    Just go back and look at the discussion about Google's Picasa here at Slashdot. No sensible person is satisfied with it, all it achieves is showing Google's incompetence to produce real Linux applications. Releasing a Wine solution just shows that Google capitulated from being able to build ordinary Linux applications.

    This is clearly not true, many people have written positive reviews of Picasa for Linux. Remember that this is an app that largely uses its own UI toolkit anyway, so it doesn't look native on any platform, not even Windows. It certainly has nothing to do with "incompetence" - the fact that Picasa has far, far more OS-dependent features than Google Earth was a big reason, so a lot more time would have to have been spent rewriting its features like screensaver/movie creation, blog integration, photo upload, file monitoring, and probably more I've forgotten. Picasa does a ton of stuff. Google Earth was also already based on Qt whereas Picasa was not.

    The sad truth is that Win32 is so deeply embedded in most apps that they will never be natively ported. Ever. Once you have seen the code to many well established commercial/proprietary apps, you will accept this fundamental truth and see things in a different light. To be portable, an app usually has to be written that way from the start or a huge amount of work will be involved to make it so later. Work that is hardly ever economic to do.

    It's for this reason that Wine is crucial. It got a bad rap due to the very old WordPerfect port but that was then and this is now - modern apps that run on a commercially supported Wine (most of which are not consumer apps so you won't encounter them) are rock solid and fast. Usually they don't look native because rewriting the entire GUI of a complex scientific application or internal accountancy package just makes no sense at all. But again that's not some fundamental thing, it's just a matter of economics.