Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Challenging Microsoft on the Desktop

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the scaling-the-mountain dept.

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."

32 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Is this new? by andrewman327 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I really fail to see how this is a new advancement. The only real news that I see here is that some of these programs (OoO, Linux) are finally mature enough mature enough to challenge Microsoft. Haven't there always been other providers of desktop applications?


    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.
    1. Re:Is this new? by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not about "advancement", it's about balance coming back to a market that Microsoft is seem to dominate (inevitably).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Is this new? by prelelat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason its a threat to microsoft is that the applications are becomming web based(or multiplatform) and less OS dependent. Where 3 years ago you had to have the OS that the software was made for its now run on a server where the software is run on. So say word was web based you would be able to use word in OSX, Linux, Unix, Windows. This means big problems for Windows as an operating system if it caught on. I really doubt it would change the industry over night, but I can see why someone would be saying it might.

    3. Re:Is this new? by omeomi · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've never had any problems opening documents from newer versions of Word. To the best of my knowledge, they haven't changed the file spec at all since 97.

      --
      ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
  2. Online apps by insomniac8400 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is not a chance in hell I would use an online app for something that runs fine on my local pc. Why add an unneeded security risk?

    1. Re:Online apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because every now and then vendors decide it's time to try and make desktop systems into dumb clients again and they need another kick in the ass to remind them of why it's a stupid idea.

      Fear not. This too shall pass. Just like it did the last three times somebody tried it.

      Actually, to be fair, online applications do make sense in a controlled environment such as a workplace where you can deliver a basic windows system and apps on-demand from any platform of your choosing (read: Citrix) to a group of people who don't need any control over their systems (the typical office worker). It's just that sometimes vendors get it into their heads that EVERYTHING should be like that and they try to push it, fail, and get fired, leaving the next batch of marketroids and accountants to come in, eventually develop this "novel" idea, and repeat the entire process again.

    2. Re:Online apps by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is not a chance in hell I would use an online app for something that runs fine on my local pc. Why add an unneeded security risk?

      There are four main advantages:

      • Free and free upgrades - You don't have to worry about paying for this or keeping it up to date especially if you use multiple different computers.
      • Accessible anywhere - you can work on the same files at home, work, the library, your cousin's house, school, or anywhere else without bringing a laptop or constantly transferring it to a disk.
      • Reliability - Network services have real redundancy. If your hard drive dies, you might lose all or some of your work, depending how good your backups are (most people have none at all). If your house burns down, you might lose it all. Having it stored remotely in multiple physical locations is safer.
      • Collaboration - With an online service you and a friend can both work on the same documents easily. With the right software, you can both even edit the same word processing doc simultaneously, with multiple insertion points/cursors. It is fun and useful.

      For the most part, I agree that I won't be using these services and my company sure doesn't want me collaborating on work projects that get stored by a third party. My backups are good enough and I already host my own server on my workstation when I collaborate on documents (SubEthaEdit). This might, however, make sense for others I know who like to casually collaborate or who know how to use a Web browser and Web mail and don't want to be confused by anything else. To some people, the Web browser is the only application they really run. This might be fine for them and they don't care if someone else steals the Senior Citizen Arts and Crafts schedule, or the erotic sci-fi short story they are co-editing with their old college buddy.

    3. Re:Online apps by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reliability - until your network connection goes down. Then it's pack up your computer and track down another connection.

      True enough, though those are different kinds of reliability. One is the whether your document will be accidentally destroyed and the other is whether you will be able to view/edit it at any given point. There are a lot of drawbacks to office applications as services as well, although in truth I hope all office suites or operating systems begin offering a remote server mode so that I can access the same data and applications from remote terminals. I still am in locations without internet access enough that I'd be unwilling to lose the ability to edit files locally, even without the privacy considerations. I'm also not to keen on having access to my half-finshed book DDoSed by some punk botnet operator.

    4. Re:Online apps by Digicrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Online apps are being developed with a lot of advantages over locally running applications, however only one of them can't be duplicated in a conventional application--network file storage of your files.

      The only advantage to online applications is being able to access your files from wherever you are, from any computer that you choose. This is not however a feature that everybody needs, or that we need for every file. If you do use multiple computers however, it can quickly become frustrating maintaining synchronized copies of your files between systems, or keeping track of which computer has the latest version saved on it.

      Instead of making an entire application online, they should simply provide the online file storage capability with a plug-in to easily integrate (synchronize) its usage into the productivity application of your choosing. Be that service premium or advertisement based (hmm, seeing an ad to open your own essay . . . ) it would make much more sense than an entire online office suite.

      As with anything else, the minimalist approach is needed to maintain security with any network file system. Only place those files on the network (file server, online office app, w/e) that you will actually need to access from multiple places, and where possible limit access not just by password, but to known computers as well. Using an online app indiscriminately (or exclusively) for saving and editing all of your files is just asking for trouble.

      Online applications do have their uses, but do you really want to be dependent on a network connection to finish writing that paper? For example, if your away from home or on campus and don't have an active connection for your laptop. On the other hand, being able to press open/save and having the file (if you choose) automatically synchronized with a network server iff your online could be invaluable.

    5. Re:Online apps by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Informative
      Online apps are being developed with a lot of advantages over locally running applications, however only one of them can't be duplicated in a conventional application--network file storage of your files.
      Assuming you have access to a network location to do the storage, its fairly trivial to have network storage of files from a desktop application. What you lack, typically, is guaranteed software with which to access that store from just about any standard browser, which ias the real advantage of online applications.
    6. Re:Online apps by Digicrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not so easy to have network storage of a file from within an application outside of your local network without using external tools. My point though, is that allowing a service, like Google, to provide that network storage and tools to synchronize it, would be more convenient than maintaining your own file server (and more economical then keeping an extra computer on 24/7 just to serve files), and more useful than a full online application (not to say that the two can't co-exist).

      If you save your files in a standard format, just about every computer has some file to access it (albeit to varying degrees of functionality).

      The problem with online applications is that if your dependent on them, then your out of luck if something happens to your network connection. Even with Google Calendar, when I'm on the wireless network on campus sometimes parts of it become unusable because of a weak connection. Remote file storage allows you to just retrieve the data once, regardless of the quality of your connection, and allows you to cache your file/changes locally if your connection drops.

      Online applications cannot provide this functionality. The various google apps autosave a lot to minimize loss of data, but if your connection drops, you can't really continue working with the data you already have downloaded.

    7. Re:Online apps by someonewhois · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Free and free upgrades - You don't have to worry about paying for this or keeping it up to date especially if you use multiple different computers.
      What prevents these services from cutting you off from your data and requiring you to start paying monthly charges to use it plus an $400 "sign up fee", effectively holding all of your data for ransom?
    8. Re:Online apps by CommandNotFound · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reliability - until your network connection goes down. Then it's pack up your computer and track down another connection.

      True, but for more and more people, if their Internet connection is down, you might as well throw the machine away. Other than typing papers for school, what non-Net things do people do anymore other than play games (which are now network-dependent such as WoW)? There are still the Quicken hold-outs, but now that all banks offer online service and everyone takes debit cards, what's the point of balancing a checkbook on the PC?

      At work, if the LAN goes down, again, the PC is basically a paperweight. No email, no CVS/Subversion/etc, no server shares, Windows freaks out with pauses here and there. A LAN outage usually causes such a fuss down the hall that even if you happen to have the necessary files open for local editing, you can't concentrate.

      Now fast forward (n) years when Net reliability is as good as/better than telco service, and you're getting 10Mbit speeds regularly with low ping times. At that point, RDP or NX services are really nice to use, assuming AJAX doesn't continue to expand. No spam in your web or remote email client. No viruses in your word documents. Gigs of storage available from anywhere, and easily shared with others. I think once that type of computing becomes normal, it will be hard to imagine going back to a world where all your data was "trapped" in a box in your house, and you couldn't just log in anywhere in the world and work with your stuff or share/edit/view it with others.

  3. OS owneship by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >>Lately, operating system ownership is looking a lot less valuable.

    This could not have been true-er. First, I substituted MS Office with OpenOffice*. After Google came out with spreadsheet and document solutions of its own, I do not even use OpenOffice anymore. What more, it does not matter anymore if I am on Windows XP or Ubuntu or Suse - as long as I have a relatively mainsteam browser with me, I am good to go.

    *I am talking about my home environment where I do not user "Office" applications that heavily, and online solutions available to me satisfy ALL my needs.

    1. Re:OS owneship by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  4. Re:I cant wait to see how the compare... by jimstapleton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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"
  5. It has been MS office more than Windows for years by EMB+Numbers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  6. I Smell a Dot-Bomb 2.0 by mpapet · · Score: 4, Informative

    I find it hard to consider this seriously when the CEO's bio reads:

    "Mr. Leka established strategic partnerships with industry leaders including Apple Computer and Microsoft and throughout the HealthSCOUT Syndicated Network of over 3,000 sites (e.g. Yahoo, USA Today, NBCi, iWon, Juno, AT&T, Prodigy). Previously, Mr. Leka was a co-founder and Executive Director of The Fultz Foundation in Washington, DC where he was instrumental in securing funding from the George Soros Foundation and USAID among others. Mr. Leka developed and directed various international projects focused on business development and management training including telecommunications and the internet." http://www.transmediacorp.com/about/board.htm

    Sounds like he's successful at shaking money out of wealthy people's pocket because http://www.fultzfoundation.org/ is little more than a placeholder and the dot-bomb marketing speak is so 1998.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  7. Re:huh? by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2

    Right. Developers have an incentive to write their apps to the API that has the most installations. Users have an incentive to purchase and install the OS that has the best applications.

  8. Re:It has been MS office more than Windows for yea by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    Many vendors could easily out-do MSFT in application space. MSFT did not get its marketshare and lead by simple technical superiority of its product or coding skills. It got it by better business tactics. Infact every flag ship product that is minting money for MSFT started out as a pale copy of some other better program. WordPerfect, QuattroPro/Lotus, Harvard Presentation Graphics, Dbase/Foxbase etc. Then the marketing muscle, clever tricks to prevent interoperability, agreements with vendors to throttle competition and naivity of its user base that confused interoperability with PC-compatibility got MSFT the market share and lead. If the OS advantage is removed and the playing field is leveled by demanding true interoperability and compatibility to standards, (standards not wholly owned and manipulated by MSFT) you will see what other vendors are truly capable of.

    The key is Open STANDARDS. Do not confuse it with Linux/Mac/Unix or Open Source or Free Software or Gnu or GPL. If the users demand true portability of their data and their applications the playing field will be leveled. My docment, my macros, my scripts are mine. I want them to work whether I choose to run MSOffice or OpenOffice. Only when owners of the data assert their ownership and refuse to be locked into a particular vendor's format the playing field will be level.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  9. Finally! by carrier+lost · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lately, operating system ownership is looking a lot less valuable.


    Yay, Netscape!!!

    Oh. Wait...

    MjM

    --
    XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
  10. Why I'm sticking with my MS Office (97)... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Why I'm sticking with my MS Office (97)... by thedrunkensailor · · Score: 2, Funny

      weird, those are same reasons that i only run windows 3.1

      --
      i support the right to offend.
    2. Re:Why I'm sticking with my MS Office (97)... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      Tried - can't do it. OpenOffice is a relative resource pig. (Office 97, designed for Windows 95, if nice and fast on a modern Windows OS.) Also, I stopped sending relatives to OpenOffice once they started working with multiple docs with images. The webpage-ish "save all files NEXT to the doc" was cute as long as they didn't want to transfer files or navigate folders, but you know how people are...

  11. Re:I cant wait to see how the compare... by hpavc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  12. They just admited it... by thorkyl · · Score: 2, Informative

    There will be no more operating systems on users machines...

    You will boot flash memory
    Your machine will go to MS
    Your machine will then run what MS thinks you need
    Your machine will tell MS where you went and what you downloaded
    Your machine will tell the NSA where you went and what you downloaded
    Your machine will stop error when your isp has a hickup

    Your machine has MS

    --
    Stupid people should not breed

    --
    -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  13. Re:I cant wait to see how the compare... by baadger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "OO Writer tries to do everything on all platforms, and it became heavily bloated"

    What about Abiword?

  14. Let me tell you.... by CdBee · · Score: 4, Informative

    I keep my car service schedule in Google Spreadsheets so my mechanic can log in and see when core parts were last changed or maintained. I use Writely to compose blog posts and note down useful information for later retrieval. I use Google Calendar so I can add events whenever I get a message rather than just at home. Thats what Onlline apps are for. use-anywhere.

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  15. Re:I cant wait to see how the compare... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd prefer FCKEditor on a simple web page than OO Writer. OO Writer tries to do everything on all platforms, and it became heavily bloated.

    I don't mind OO writer, but I can see where others might. One thing I'd like to see that might help mitigate that kind of bloat is something like the system services on OS X. They've added spell checking and a dictionary/thesaurus that can be accessed by any application and a grammar checker is supposed to be built into Leopard. I also use a more comprehensive collection of online dictionaries, some macros and scripts, quick language translations, automated bibliography citations, and statistic summaries (word/page count etc.) on a regular basis. Since they are implemented as services rather than built into every program, I can add them or not add them for a given program without any bloat and build up a custom toolbox with just the features I need. Don't need a quick translation to/from german? Don't add it to your services. This sort of customizability goes a long way towards removing the bloat while still letting any given user have the features they want or need and keeps you from having to rely on multiple implementations of the same thing for different programs (I taught my dictionary that ICMP is not a misspelling in InDesign... I don't want to have to do the same in Vi, Pico, Word, TextEdit, Photoshop, Safari, etc.).

  16. Article is meaningless, msft has same stranglehold by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  17. an egg might have just been laid by Monsuco · · Score: 2, Informative

    I often hear of the Chicken and the Egg analogy used to explain why companies don't develop software for Linux. Perhaps this is the egg being laid. Trueth is, web apps, even those made by MS are good for Linux because they are always cross platform. Not to mention the fact that over the past few years linux has gone from being a difficult to use OS with little software avalible to it to becoming a high powered, easy to use OS with thousands and thousands of apps avalible for it. Years ago, I wouldn't have been able to play music, read office documents, browse SMB shares, watch DVDs, dial in a modem, use wifi or possably even print stuff. Now that is easily accomplished. Open Office, Gaim, Firefox, VLC, Libdvdcss2, and thousands of other programs have helped linux beyond belief. Interestingly enough, FOSS and open standards are actually helped by being used by people on Windows and Mac. Take Open Office, if more people use it, ODT gets more popular. Firefox has been a huge example of this. When I started using FF nobody seemed to support it because it had a low market share. Once it gained market share most web sites started to support it. Because FF is natively on Lin and Win it helped lin to have more people support a nonIE browser. Keep in mind, unlike windows, Linux is noncommercial. Linux doesn't need the desktop market to servive. It doesn't need to be good enough for you and me. It needs to be good enough for those who write it. This may sound bad, but it is actually good. It means it will give us a realistic chance to develop and we can't go out of buisness. In adition to all the Web apps, native ports, and alternativeware, we have wine. Wine can run most windows stuff pretty well and it is a nice option to have. It also helps people port software to linux.

    --
    The Gospel according to lolcat
  18. The market. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The bad reputation they would create would kill them commercially.

    And lets not even mention lawsuits.

    Well, what the heck, lets do it: lawsuits.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.