Slashdot Mirror
Stuart Cohen Predicts Office for Linux
wysiwia writes "Stuart Cohen, CEO of OSDL, said during an interview with vnunet.com at the LinuxWorld conference in San Francisco that it's 'inevitable' that Microsoft will release a version of Office to run on Linux within the 'next couple of years'. But when one reads the OSDL survey about the 'Top inhibitors of Linux desktop adoption' this 'next couple of years' might mean quite a long time. This leads to the question, has Stuart Cohen read his own survey and how does he overcome these inhibitors so MS really will think about MSOffice for Linux." I think the bigger question is 'In reality, how likely is Office for Linux?' I'm not sure that I agree with his assumption.
Office will become irrelevant. ODF is going to become the digital equivalent of paper. Universally readable, that'll remove the requirement for Office in a single stroke.
which is good btw, we'll see some real competition in that segment again.
Deleted
...and you'll know how serious any Microsoft announcement about software for Linux is.
/. had the announcement of WMP for Linux (which I, correctly I believe, posited that it was both vaporware and a strategic announcement to get content providers away from RealPlayer, then the only DRM system that officially supported Linux).
3 or 4 years ago,
This one makes even less sense, as there's no target, no commercial enterprise that has a potential market for office for Linux (OO is free and if OO didn't come out, the Gnome office suite would probably have gotten more development and attention). Nobody has the potential in the Office suite to use Linux as a means of saying "we're better than Microsoft" to any content providers providing proprietary material.
So unless its going to be part of a larger "patent scare" program Microsoft might pull (they've been holding THAT trump card on Office apps for years), I don't see the point.
And if there's no point, there's no truth to it. Nothing Microsoft does it does without a specific competitor in mind, and there really is no competitor here.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Why would you first install a free OS to later add a paying Office application ? my answer would be : only in a very small number of cases. So potential sales for this MSOffice4Linux are small ... not attractive for MS.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Here is a cut and paste from my comment then:
>>> Who will use this?
One of the primary arguments by the PHB's in my company against Linux on the desktop is Microsoft Office. Do not pretend it isn't a big deal.
I like to ask folks who are rigid about sticking with MS Office what features they use and/or in their minds really make MS Office stand out. Normally there's not much of a response beyond things along the lines of "it's what I'm used to", "I can open documents other people send me", etc. Personally, I think a majority of non-technical people really don't care what Office-style product they use, and are much more concerned about whether they are using the software that "everyone else is using". And granted, there are people that actually use and utilize specific features in MS Office, but if those were the only ones who actively purchased MS Office, I don't think it'd be considered the de facto standard of Office applications.
Just my 2c.
RFC2119
This will never happen for the same reason it hasn't been done up to now - If there was M$ Office available for Linux, why would anyone need to buy M$ Windows... - M$ knows this and won't enable a competing operating system to impeed their operating system market share. The only reason they make a version for the Mac is because of legal arrangements between the two companies, and that agreement is most likely to be ended within 5 years as Apple develops their new productivity applications to replace the current M$ Office applications that continue to stagnate on the Mac platform. ODF is a contributing factor, but it'll be awhile before that takes hold in corporate America and thus becomes the new defacto standard.
Micro$oft's Office for Linux? Please don't take me wrong, I would never use it, I have OpenOffice.org and many other fine Open Source Application. But imagine all that companies spending money for MS Office _AND_ MS Windows licenses. Now they finally can switch their OS from Windows to Linux because Office is the most important application for them. As a result, I don't think that MS will develop a native Version of MS Office for Linux.
Who will use this?
Business users. If migrating the business desktop to Linux gains enough traction MS will have to do it to keep at least some revenue stream from those customers. The other incentive that's been growing lately is government desktops. Unlike Apple users, individual Linux users are not likely to pay for MSOffice - but an IT department is a different kettle of fish.
As long as the lack of MS Office is an inhibitor to the use of Linux, MS will not release it. If the war is lost and Linux is being installed on desktops everywhere regardless of Office (don't hold your breath) then MS will cut their losses and try to get a revenue stream by selling software for it, including Office. Until then, the more barriers to entry Gates can put up the happier he will be.
The amount of dependencies that would need to be ported before porting office itself would be prohibitive.
Exactly. That's also the reason why there will never be a port to Mac OSX either.
In my opinion I doubt that the development effort to bring Office to Linux desktops is worth it for Microsoft.
Costs:
Programmer effort including learning/using libraries that I doubt MS programmers have lots of experience with.
Potentially making Linux a more viable-looking desktop OS alternative to Windows
Potential added complexity to the codebase
Benefits:
Miniscule amount of sales to a small market
Improve their image of working with non-MS technologies
It just doesn't seem like they have a lot to gain from doing this...
Actually, IIRC, the Mac OS version of Office is really more or less a separate product. They don't share much of a codebase at all (according to something I read long ago that I can no longer attribute or back up).
If there were ever to be an Office on Linux, my money would be on it being a port from the OS X Office, not the Win32 Office. I don't know which OS X API they've used, but such a port would still have at least some aspects of a simple Unix-to-Unix port.
A foolish inconsistency is not excused by a reference to Emerson.
In order for this to become reality, there needs to be a clear business benefit to Microsoft.
If Office is about the only thing keeping people on Windows (and you can bet Microsoft won't willingly give up that monopoly), then a port has no benefit.
Let's look at this from the reverse perspective: benefit to Microsoft customers.
You can get Microsoft site licensing for just Office (on the assumption that you'll be buying every PC with an OS license anyway and you pay for any upgrades individually as and when).
Where is the business benefit in me shifting all desktops to Linux if I intend to maintain a Microsoft site license? Because I bet you anything you like a Microsoft site license which includes "Office (Linux Edition)" would be more expensive than the "Office for Windows" equivalent. And I'm still stuck with all my data in a proprietary format.
Most organisations following a desktop Linux migration have been either to save money or (more commonly) to avoid having to store data in a proprietary format. Licensing Microsoft "Office for Linux" would eliminate both of those benefits.
With MS Office, the format changes on a regular basis. There are already doc format files which are almost impossible to read, even on Windows. Governments, multinationals may want data to remain readable for the forseeable future, you don't get that unless you are using a standardised document format.
Mmmm, also switch platforms. With doc, you are locked into a monopoly, which is frankly a dumb place to put yourself given an easy alternative.
Deleted
>>> Who will use this?
One of the primary arguments by the PHB's in my company against Linux on the desktop is Microsoft Office. Do not pretend it isn't a big deal.
I've heard much the same myself. Now, on the one hand,
1) If there was MSOffice on Linux, more people would migrate to Linux, while paying for MSOffice, causing revenue gains for MS.
2) Yet, currently, those people are paying for BOTH Windows AND MSOffice licenses.
So this would be a net loss for MS. However, on the other hand,
3) People presently migrating to Linux use either Crossover Office - thus paying for an MSOffice license - or use Openoffice.
4) Now, the ones that would buy MSOffice were it available on Linux are, I conjecture, mostly in the camp of those using Crossover Office - i.e., ALREADY paying for an MSOffice license.
So, assuming my conjecture is mostly right, there seems to be no upside for MS to release MSOffice for Linux. There is one other possibility, however:
5) As TFA states, releasing MSOffice for Linux may cause development of OpenOffice to stall (before it gets good enough to steal market share on Windows).
Besides lowering prices of MSOffice, this seems to be the only way to fight back at OpenOffice. Perhaps for that reason alone, it actually might be a smart move on MS's part.
His logic is that because MS created an Office for Macintosh, therefore it will create a port for Linux. But Linux operates in a different space with a different user base than Macintosh. Further, Microsoft's relationship with Linux would have to be more similar to Microsoft's relationship to Apple for this to be a valid analogy.
I think a better analogy would be to compare SQL Server Express to MySQL and PostgreSQL. SQL Server was and is an expensive technology but Express is free. Why did MS do that? To compete with Open Source DBs. I believe it is more likely that when Open Office acquires a sufficient fan base to worry Microsoft they will either slash the price of Office or else release Office Express or some such version that is meant to compete ON WINDOWS with the Open Office space.
IOW, it is just as valid to assume that MS will create a WINDOWS variant of Office to compete with Open Office than it is to assume that they will create a LINUX version to do so. And, I think, more likely.
You have never seen how Office is used in a corporate environment. You haven't seen how extensively VBA is used and how people have built mission critical apps in Excel and Access. I'm not saying its a good thing, but replacing these apps is going to take over a decade.
-b.
Who will use this?
I would. In a heartbeat. And the small office that I am setting up for a client this week, they'd use it too. In fact, I'd put them all on Linux today if I could assure my client he could easily get temps and office workers who wouldn't have problems (genuine and imagined) with OO, but I can't.
These people aren't fourteen years old, they don't "hate Microsoft," they just have a job to do and want to do it with reliable and familiar tools. Linux works just fine on the desktop, and I'm happy to recommend it and install it, but outside of geek-dom no one cares about the OS. It's all about the applications.
Microsoft releasing Office for Linux is the greatest thing that could happen to Linux. That's why I am skeptical they will do it...
Several others have mentioned the very real problem of distro choice. Because each are different, is Microsoft going to support every one? If not, which ones? Certainly Red Hat and Novell's SUSE make sense, but although that addresses part of the problem it still doesn't resolve the greater concern of providing "MS Office for Linux".
:-)
In my opinion, while I fully support the wide range of distro's, they do nothing but hinder the real viability of Linux in a business environment.
Here's a prognostication:
Microsoft Linux: A "standardized" (yeah... I know... I'm laughing too) distribution that commercial software vendor can "count on" when converting apps to the Linux platform. Sure, it will be bastardized some, but if Microsoft handles this correctly they could end up competing very nicely. For example: (1) directly running Windows binaries, making the Wine compatibility layer unnecessary, (2) certifying applications and support, and (3) recognized branding. After all... "no one get's fired for buying Microsoft".
It would take some of the revenue away from XP, but thefirst item, though, would kill many of the questions surrounding Windows versus Linux in the workplace. Both OS's could run the same binaries. Heck... Microsoft could even port the Vista interface to Linux. User's wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the difference. The ability to run Windows *and* Linux-based open-source apps on the same box would be a win for everyone.
Thoughts?
I don't think many people "get" how MS is built as a company.
Rarely have I seen another company whose products are so heavily interlocked and relying on each other. MS doesn't sell individual products, it sells building blocks of a "microsoft world". I still think Gates' dream is to run everything in your house, office, etc.
MS Office is built heavily on MS Windos. There's even a whole secret API especially so that MS Office can beat competing products. Windos, in turn, sells mostly (in the corporate environment) because of Office. Exchange/Outlook are so common because they "fit into" the landscape, and are integrated heavily with both.
The Xbox is boosted by the fact that it uses largely the same APIs (DirectX) as the Windos PC.
Even the other MS hardware - keyboards, mice, etc. - have special support in the OS. There's hardly any product in the MS portfolio that is not supported, helped along or built upon by half a dozen others.
So will MS ever take one of their products out of its natural environment and move it somewhere else? They've tried here and there - IE and Office on the Mac, for example - and none of that works so very well. IE for Mac is dead. Office on Mac is still around because a trial version ships with every new Mac and due to its dominance in the corporate environment. But on the Mac it's just another application.
Office on Linux? Don't think so. They're not going to give corporations any reason to switch away from Windos, because who knows what's next? These hippies might think about replacing Exchange with something much better and cheapter next!
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Having Office available didn't help Apple make it in the corporate world. I expect you would see the same bug ridden, slightly behind version that you see on Mac OS.
They might port Office to Linux, but like apple, they'll forego creating or supporting a decent VBscript parser. And that's what all these businesses want. Never mind that it's impossible anyway, since all of these scripts will be full of hardcoded paths like 'C:\Program Files\myapp\some path I thought was cute.ini' that no UNIX will eat.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
OOo is NOT a viable Office alternative.
I converted my mother's Office suit to OOo about a year ago. She doing bio research so her documentation is mostly spreadsheets and your regular documents. She never ever once complained that OOo couldn't do something Office could. Let's face it, the common mortal doesn't use all features of Office, infact they use only a small subset of features.
When all you need are bold, italic, paragraphs, insert a picture here and there, simple formulas and whatnot. Why would one need Office?
This seems to pop up on our beloved /. every couple of years or so. Personally, I would LOVE to see Office on Linux, and I think it's in Microsoft's best interest to put it out there, but I doubt it will happen. It appears they've developed a myopic, RIAA-like fixation on propping up their current market without preparing adequately for the next one. Sure they have a 90%+ marketshare of the desktop, and finding a computer without Word is almost as hard as finding a TV without satellite or cable, but that's now. OpenOffice is making inroads into that market. Google is doing an end-run around the whole market by releasing Writely and Spreadsheets. Apple has their own office products. Adobe wants to make Powerpoint irrelevant by using flash for presentations. All it would really take is for one or two of those ideas to catch on to see Microsoft lose a fair amount of money.
Eventually, someone at Microsoft will realize that Linux / *BSD / *NIX WILL cut into their server market, and to a lesser extend the desktop market, and there is NOTHING they can do to prevent that. So long as Microsoft exists, there will be people on Slashdot bashing it, and they will hook a wi-fi card to an abacus before booting a windows box. The dumb thing to do, which what Redmond is doing now, woul be to ignore them, or worse villify them in some way as being communist or anti-American for not wanting to shell out large amounts of cash for an OS and software. The smart thing to do would be to finding markets where they can reach them. Office on *NIX would be one way to do that.
We know Office will run on *BSD. It's already running on Mac OS X. One would hope that it would not be impossible to run Office on Linux. I would like to think that there are at least a few geeks on the Office team that got loaded on half-caf double decaf expresso lattes with a twist of lemon and have ported it just to see if it could be done. Only time will tell.