Challenging Microsoft on the Desktop
Dotnaught writes "As Microsoft moves to offer software-as-a-service with Windows Live, online companies are moving to challenge Microsoft on the desktop. In a decision that would have been seen as foolish a few years ago, file sharing and social networking company TransMedia plans to release desktop productivity apps (in conjunction with online ones) as lightweight Microsoft Office alternatives. Google, meanwhile, through its deal with Intuit, is colonizing desktop apps as it has done with browsers and search toolbars. Microsoft used to have a home field advantage on the desktop, thanks to Windows. Lately, operating system ownership is looking a lot less valuable."
I don't see how this is unique threat to M$ either. From TFA's first sentence (underlining mine): A year after the release of its suite of online integrated media-sharing and social networking applications, Glide Effortless, TransMedia is redoubling its effort to challenge Apple, Microsoft, MySpace, and Google.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
I'd love to see google or some of the others challenge M$ on their home turf and walk all over them. my money is on Google being the most likely to pull it off.
http://bi-bri.com The R.I.A.A can chew me..
I dunno, I hold more faith in OpenOffice than Google for wordprocessing, they've been at it for quite a while and have a really good product.
As for web browser, I'll probably stick to FireFox.
Problem is, google is not unknown for somewhat shady practices on occasion, and with them being in an excellent position to bias things (they are a search engine after all - ever search with "web", "internet", "net", and "browser" could have the first result become GoogleUseItOrDieWebBrowser or someting).
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Most Windows users don't understand what an operating system is or where the boundaries between the operating system, its desk top, and its application might be.
Even the ones who know they run "Windows XP" as opposed to some other version don't know what that means. They do know and use Outlook, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Visio, and Access. Why do they know ? Because they start those applications frequently and a splash screen tells them what they are running. The equivalent to the splash screen for the operating system is only shown at startup, and most people neither reboot regularly nor pay attention when they do.
My assertion is that a corporate IT department could substitute any operating system and users would barely notice as long as they could continue to use Outlook, Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Visio, and Access.
If I am right, competing with MS in the application space will be a lot harder than competing in the OS space, and we all know how successful competitors have been in the OS space.
Why I'm sticking with MS Office (97):
- It still works with people using Office 2003
- It doesn't take a registration key
- The CD is quite easy to copy for friends and family
- The built-in VB stuff is completely (safely) broken when you just run it off a file share
- It never phones home (and there's no Internet component)
- It installs in under 100MB
- If any new features have been introduced since 1997, I don't need them
- It doesn't try to figure out my advertising profile from the documents I work with
True. But with M$ itself trying to set a foothold in the webbased applications, it changes some - if not all - rules of the game.
And this is just a beginning. Earlier, due to unavaillibity of a lot of applications on non-M$ (read Linux) OS, I had practially no way of getting myself rid of XP. Now, there is only one application (Creative soundblaster music reciever driver, and sadly, I dont see them doing anything for Linux users.*). So, at least the ball has been set to roll, and appear to gather the critical mass pretty soon.
But having said that, there will always be some part of OS/Softwares which can never be ported to work with a virtual machine/browser. Take various drivers for instance.
OO is a nice proof of concept, but its moving anywhere. Its not even comparable with MSWorks or Office97, sure it has a lot of dense high tech bling here and there, but its also bloated and suffered greatly from being too much too soon.
It reminds me of Mozilla before Firefox
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
1) There are more desktop apps than just office. A lot more. It only takes one must-have windows-only app to kill the deal for any alternative OS.
2) Aside from running apps that most desktop users want, windows also works with the hardware that most users want: multi-function printer/scanner/copier things, win-modems, ipods, etc.
3) Lots of popular web site will not work correctly on anything except msie.
4) DRM & multi-media.
As much as I dislike msft, I prefer to be realistic and admit that linux has no chance of being popular on the desktop for the forseeable future.