Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wanted To Drop Mac Office To Hurt Apple
Overly Critical Guy writes to mention that more documents in the Iowa antitrust case have come out. This time, it's revealed that Microsoft considered dumping the Mac Office Suite entirely in a move to harm Apple. "The email complains at poor sales of Office, which it attributes to a lack of focus on making such sales among reps at that time. It describes dumping development of the product as: 'The strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately.' The document also confirms that Microsoft at the time saw Office for the Mac as a chance to test new features in the product before they appeared in Windows, 'because it is so much less critical to our business than Windows.'"
The problem with this is that if nothing else, Microsoft is good at making money and the Microsoft Mac Business unit is quite profitable, with Office as one of their biggest revenue generators. On the other hand, that has never hurt Microsoft when they felt that losses in revenue in one area would be made up for in another area if they cancelled development for a competing platform. Just look to the cancellation of Halo development for Macintosh and Linux after they bought Bungie.
However, it is an unfortunate reality of the software business, no matter how the consumer may benefit. When it comes down to it, companies are interested in making money and they have to balance the needs and desires of the customer along with their requirements of making mo' and mo' money. Just look to insurance companies, right? They are not in business to provide health care insurance or to cover your medical bills. They are however in business to make money. Don't ever mistake the two or conflate their motives.
That is not to say that there are not companies that have motivations that are geared towards the consumers of their products. On the contrary, I feel that Apple has done a pretty good job over the years of balancing ethical behavior with making great products that will keep their customers happy, but even they have, on occasion screwed up, sometimes spectacularly.
I guess the most impressive thing to me about this is the continued flood of documents that have come out of the anti-trust trial that was dumped after the current POTUS entered the White House. These documents show an amazing culture of not just intense competition, but also one of dishonesty, dishonor and patently illegal behavior. I remember the case being dropped, but how could it have gone so wrong and how much more is there to find?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Really, is there anyone who has used Office on the Mac and knows anything about Micro$haft who hasn't thought this?
If they really wanted to harm Apple and it's users, they'd port Clippy to Office:Mac and enable it by default.
That's why kids... we have Open Source projects like Linux and Open Office.
Y
Why wouldn't they want to harm Apple? They're competitors! Why is this news?
no, thats not really the _why_
Dropping MS office for the Mac could hurt MS Office for the PC long term - Why?
Apple might consider including OpenOffice.Org then advertising it:
Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac,
PC: and I'm a PC
PC: So what is that your doing
Mac: Oh, just some office stuff, you know, spreadsheets, documents, presentations
PC: I can do those too
Mac: Yeah, but I don't use your monopoly expensive as shit software, I use this free one which is actually better. It doesnt try to format shit I don't want. Oh, and it's free and works on a PC too. You should try it.
PC: Hey you're right! This OpenOffice.org is the shnizzer! All the PC users should download it from www.openoffice.org right now!
(Ducking out to dodge the thrown chair )
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
When you're on a Mac, you'll want to make it NeoOffice/J.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Microsoft removed the coart case documents after it was settled.
I'm just wondering if anyone has posted them back up again.
February 7, 1997 - Steve Jobs returns to Apple
June 27, 1997 - Bill Gates sends email explaining threats made to Apple of pulling the plug on Office for Mac.
August 6, 1997 - Apple and Microsoft announce $150 investment of Microsoft in Apple.
What happened between June 27 and August 6?
Of course they found emails saying this. It's blatantly obvious to any armchair strategist. The only way you wouldn't find an email somewhere in the MS vault saying something anti-competitive is if the entire organization had been coached not to use this type of language. In fact, this is how corporate America operates today. Employees at market leader companies are specifically taught not to use phrases like crush, damage, etc when refering to the competition in electronic communications. It's perfectly fine to advocate these types of tactics in verbal communications, though.
Everyone these days knows enough not to say anything incriminating in emails, but rather to save it for face-to-face meetings.
Apple creates commercials that portray the Mac as a jeans-clad hipster and a Windows PCs as a balding lame-o in a suit. They believe it will harm Microsoft. News at 11.
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
Given the flakiness of connecting Entourage to an Exchange server, where I could get all my e-mails but not send anything (?!) I just stopped trying.
Having half-working software is far worse than none at all.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Apple did the same thing when it bought Emagic, cancelling development of the Logic digital audio workstation for Windows. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to switch to Linux's free alternatives, even when they're less user-friendly.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
It's been rumored for years that Microsoft was going to dump the Mac version of office. When MS bought out Connectix, thus acquiring the Virtual PC line of products, I remember seeing alleged quotes from Bill Gates that MS was going to stop Mac Office development and just ship VPC with a Windows version of Office.
Ironically, Microsoft Excel was released for the Mac in 1985 and didn't arrive on Windows until 1987, while PowerPoint was first released on the Mac in 1987 and not released for Windows until 1990. (Admittedly, PPT was originally developed by another company and then purchased by MS.)
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
August 6, 1997 - Apple and Microsoft announce $150MIL investment of Microsoft in Apple.
Two reasons. First, it's Office. I needed Office in school, so I used Office. Now that I don't need to do that kind of stuff on my laptop/home computer I wouldn't buy Office.
Second, Office for Mac is really very nice. I have Office 2004 on my Mac (version 11). I've got to say that I like it's interface WAY better than the Windows versions of Office I've used (up to XP, I haven't had much chance with 2k3 or the newest one). It's really a very nice program. If it wasn't from Microsoft, I think it would still sell very well.
I've also heard of them using the Mac version to "test" things. I think the UI that I like so much (the floating pallets on the right side) was probably a part of the precursor to the ribbon they've been touting so much.
The Windows version may have gotten complacent, but the guys in the Mac Business Unit are good at what they do.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Pivot tables in OpenOffice are not quite there yet.
How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.
-Benjamin Disraeli
My school bought Office for the Macs they have. I bet their thought processes were "Oh, Office. We should buy that because it is a stable of computing." or something.
Open Office is not natively supported without the use of X11. For most people this is a deal breaker. Most people I know who have Mac's don't have the skill's to install it. For them it is worth it to shell out the money for Office. I wish they did....but they don't.
This is exactly the kind of anti-competative behavior that monopolies engage in.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
To be honest, I use my MS OFfice installation on my Parallels instance, as it's much faster and usable than the Mac Office 2004. I'm planning to give Office 2008 (which should be universal) a bit of a look, and approach that with an open mind, but for now I'm happier with using the Windows version under my VM.
There is an almost-finished Carbon port of OpenOffice, that will be migrate to Cocoa when it is done. It was demonstrated at FOSDEM and apparently is very fast.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them?
Yes, damnit!
And unless I can have Clippy offering helpful advice as I slave away at my Timex Sinclair 1000, I plan to sue Microsoft for anticompetitive behavior.
Damn that Bill Gates and his 640KB of RAM... Just because I only have 2KB, he thinks he can just ignore 0.00026% of the home market?
My reason was: it was 1999, and I knew nothing other than Star Office (and it was not very good) and I needed Word to send my resume to stupid recruiters. Somehow they found text documents to hard to deal with. Dummies! I didn't see Clippy, but they had a little animated Mac along with the other characters for the help/annoyance feature.
Other than patching, I would never upgrade from the original Office v.X, especially now that the ODF is beginning to gain traction in the marketplace. Proprietary doc formats should all go away. Next time I go job searching I'll spend extra time "educating" the recruiters on the need for them to support open docs.
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Whatever moron modded this up, please stop. This factually incorrect troll has been circulating way to long, fooling the gullible.
Please, for the love of god give me a better way than Entourage with Mac:Office to connect to my work e-mail account on an Exchange server? I've tried plug-ins for Apple Mail, similarly for Eudora, Thunderbird extensions, Mulberry (an IMAP client), I considered running a separate machine with Evolution on a Linux distro. But I've never got support for shared calendars and public folder access from home working with anything other than Entourage - which to me is a piece of shit for a litany of reasons. For all the rest that I can think of, I could easily live with NeoOffice/J.
I truly hope I'm ignorant of a real solution to this. If not, I still need the whole suite for that one program, its clusterfuck of an interface, its shoddy database management (why, if it's comparable to IMAP, does it need to create a 3GB database on my harddrive?), and its randomly attributed shortcut keys.
Ouch!
Yes, it would definitely hurt Apple sales.
Of course, there is software like NeoOffice, Pages and Keynote.
But people *want* MS Office, and in corporate environments, people *need* MS Office.
The OSX Version of MS Office is still not 100% compatible with the Windows version, but it's still better than NeoOffice.
And "MS Office runs on OSX" is a strong selling point. People familiar with Windows and Office are thinking "cool, Office runs on OSX, I won't feel lost if I ever switch to OSX".
{{.sig}}
But that's the point of NeoOffice: It's OpenOffice ported to native APIs. No more ugly non-anti-aliased fonts of the X11 version.
It would simply give apple one less competitor for appleworks and iWork
Also give Apple ports of OOo higher popularity...
I have to back him up here: Office for the Mac is an excellent product. It's got a good Mac-like feel, runs fast and performs solidly. I have been continually surprised by it. Being an MS product the price is (of course) very high but it is leagues ahead of the alternatives. I do not have any objection to using OpenOffice, but on the Mac it still runs in X11, which for me is an instant deal-breaker. My attempts to use NeoOffice were met with too many bugs/crashes for me to get too far into. And as for "most people won't notice the difference" - OpenOffice is an excellent product, but particularly on the Mac that simply isn't true at this stage. On Windows, perhaps.
First of all, forget OpenOffice for the Mac. The OpenOffice port, requiring X11, is not something most tech-savvy people want to run, let alone standard users. At the very least, you're talking about NeoOffice. Now, for all the great work done by the NeoOffice people, they don't get the level of help and support that OpenOffice has, let alone the sort of funding that Microsoft has. NeoOffice is making good progress, but it's still far from perfect.
Even ignoring all that, it can be hard to avoid MS Office. OpenOffice doesn't always have all the features you might need. Exchange connectivity, for example. Also, OpenOffice still has its problems. It loads slowly, for example, and doesn't always read/write Word documents perfectly. Now, of course, that last one can't be blamed on OpenOffice developers, but it's true none the less.
I'm not trying to badmouth OpenOffice, and I am, in fact, very glad for the work done by the OpenOffice/NeoOffice communities. However, I can't pretend that there are no good reasons to choose Microsoft Office for OSX.
You know, you would have a point if there ever WAS a Final Cut Pro for Windows that Apple could threaten to pull. But hey look there isn't. Meanwhile, Office for Mac started at the same time as the Windows version - earlier if you look at the Mac-debuting Excel spreadsheet.
Thanks for pointing out the lack of a movie editing application for Windows that can match Final Cut Pro, though. Microsoft's Movie Maker doesn't even reach iMovie levels.
This should have been modded 'Flamebait'.
Where I work, a University lab, we are migrating from Linux on the desktop to MacOS X. This is principally due to MS Office support; users want it. Badly. If Microsoft kills Office for Mac I predict a wholesale dumping of OS X and a migration back to Linux. Nobody here wants to run Windows, except for a small number of administrators and fiscal professionals who are accustom to MS software. That would really throw a wrench in our plans. We're basing the whole migration on the presumption of Office 2008 for Intel Macs.
Office support is critical for a large number of professionals. Drop it and IMO the Mac will die. Quickly.
By keeping Office on the Mac, they kept their monopoly in the Word Processor/Spreadsheet dept. Otherwise Apple would of just created their own or helped work on a Open Source one. I didn't think Macs were much of a threat in 97, sure they dominated graphic design but thats about it.
There are, in fact, laws to prevent monopoly companies from using a monopoly in one product (office) to damage competing products (Mac OS) in a different market.
,or office software, or telephone service, or oil production...it's bad for consumers. And the majority of citizens in this country are consumers.
For better or worse, the USA is not an entirely free market. There are many rules and regulations that companies need to follow. Believe it or not, but at some level the government is supposed to support the general well being of its citizens, and not value capitalism, corporations, and some dedication to a "free market" over all other concerns. There is ample evidence that having a single company have monopoly control, particularly in a market as significant as computer operating
So to sum it all up, Microsoft was labeled as a monopoly by the government, and as such can be held to a number of laws that might not be applicable to other companies. I'm no expert on anti-trust litigation, but there are many examples of actions that MS took that were of questionable legality, and had they decided to cancel Mac office in an effort to kill Apple, that would hopefully raise some red flags.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who follows Microsoft and Apple. Of course MS 'considered' it; not to do so would show a remarkable lack of long-term strategy thought at high levels of the company. Unless they actually do remove Office for the Mac, there's no story here.
The day that Office for Mac gets killed will be the day that iWork gets released as a complete, full-featured, Office-killer suite. We know that Apple has a spreadsheet app waiting to be released. It is inconceivable that they would not have the rest of the suite at least in closed beta. I, for one, would love it if Apple would go ahead and release that suite soon.
That said, killing Office for Mac would cause microsoft to lose those profits, and probably lead to more people switching to Apple. Microsoft knows that Apple can make a slick GUI for almost anything, and they know that their Office GUI is anything but slick. That's why there was all the crap about the ribbon. They don't want to incite Apple to do anything smart, like releasing a better product than MS Office.
This isn't related to OO.o vs. MS Office, but with respect to your copy-and-paste problems:
copying and pasting from OO.o into Dreamweaver results in some spurious HTML crap for which I blame OO.o (a fucking DOCTYPE actually makes it in there!)
I'm that guessing OO.o exports, in addition to plain and formatted text, an HTML clipboard element when copying. While most programs will ignore this, Dreamweaver knows how to read HTML and it might prefer that over the plain/formatted text version. If Dreamweaver doesn't provide an option to paste the formatted text (IIRC switching to design mode before pasting might be that option) it would be pretty trivial to write a program/AppleScript that dropped to HTML version of the clipboard (which could be linked to a hotkey), forcing OO.o to use one of the text versions. Obviously it would be best if you could choose what goes to the clipboard and what you take from it, but until there's a standard OS interface for that you're unlikely to see it in either Dreamweaver or OO.o.
This and related emails were part of the DOJ's case against MS.
http://biz.yahoo.com/msft/p29.html
Hasbro should make Nerf chairs for people to throw at meetings. (Like whenever the subject of Microsoft comes up.)
Maybe mini, hand-sized ones.
They can give the first case of 'em to Steve for a promo.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Well, the problem here is that Microsoft is doing this in an attempt to stop Apple from being a player in the enterprise market, not because of a lack of demand for Office on the Macintosh platform. If the market was truly dictating what Microsoft does, then they'd dump their horrible Virtual PC line of crap.
Office for mac does not obey any of the mac UI conventions. It looks like ass, it looks like a windows program. What's worse is that it spew umpteen windows on the screen for no good reason at all.
All and all a sucky program. I am just glad I wasn't suckered into paying for it.
evil is as evil does
No no, you're going to love this. I paste formatted text from OO.o into dreamweaver, right? If I paste it into design view, which is the "WYSIWYG" view (in quotes since I know there's no such thing in HTML-land) then I do get (badly) formatted text, but I also get the DOCTYPE inserted into my document wherever I pasted it. If I paste it in code view, then I just get the unformatted text in the code.
In any case, snippets of actual HTML do not include DOCTYPEs unless you're getting the first line of the document. The formatting is dependent on the DOCTYPE I plug the content into, NOT where it came from, so there is no need for me to have a DOCTYPE... It's just not actually useful to anyone.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I fail to see the problem. Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them? I think not.
What do you mean by "benefit"? See, you might have a point if MS Office for Mac was simply "not profitable", and so Microsoft didn't want to operate at a loss. However, if it's a profitable business, then the product is most certainly "benefitting" them. On the other hand, if the product was very profitable, then Microsoft Office would also be failing to lock consumers in to Windows, and therefore could be detrimental to the MS monopoly. Therefore, dropping the profitable product in order to destroy Apple would be almost a textbook example, AFIAK (IANAL), of monopolistic abuse.
I would call that a problem. Wouldn't you?
Out of curiosity...what about the Dock do you find to be an example of a poorly designed interface?
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
How is this any more malicious than Apple preventing X86 Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware? Or refusing to license FairPlay? Or locking out third-party applications on the iPhone?
Office is Microsoft's IP, and like all their products, it exists primarily to provide a raison d'être for their main cash-cow: Windows licenses. Why should Microsoft increase the value of anything that can become a threat to their business?
The most important issue is that the dock changes size, and its contents move. This happens every time you minimize a window or launch an application that is not glued (whatever the terminology is) to your dock. It doesn't change size until it has to (unless you have zooming turned on, but that's not what I'm talking about here) but things do MOVE. This eliminates the ability to use muscle memory. The brain has to be involved every time you click on anything in the dock.
Another issue is that icons appear behind the dock. I used to have a much larger dock because I have a fairly large apple display (19"?) and I had room for it. But what would happen is that icons would appear behind the dock and there was nothing to click on. In order to get them out from under it, I would lasso them AND another icon, and drag the other icon.
The sad thing is that the original Dock from NeXTStep had none of these problems. It had a fixed layout and grew from one end, so that the things at the top of the Dock always stayed put. THAT Dock also allowed you to have "drawers", sub-docks that folded out horizontally from your vertical system Dock, but they elected to remove that functionality from OSX. So what I'm saying here is that they had it right in NeXTStep, which ran smoothly on a low-end (~25MHz) 680x0 processor (I believe 020, 030, and 040 processors were used in various NeXT workstations?) but they fucked it up for OSX, which runs like shit on a machine an order of magnitude more powerful in every way, for example a 350MHz G3 with a 3d graphics accelerator and a gigabyte of memory. But this last paragraph isn't an additional indictment against the dock (Except for the drawer issue) but against Apple.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well, thanks for the insults & venom, much appreciated :)
I agree that most people use very few of the features in Office. But I don't think it's reasonable to say "few people will notice the difference" and expect people to interpret your comment in that way. Looking unlike most other Mac applications, and having to launch inside the X11 environment, puts lay people off. One of the prime reasons I have a Mac is due to the aesthetic of the OS and applications; something which breaks that isn't going to immediately recommend itself to me.
As for my "not having an objection to OpenOffice" - that was intended to convey that I am not an MS fanboy by nature and simply presenting an opinion having tried both. You seem intelligent enough to realise what I meant, so I presume that you deliberately misconstrued me.
Well, it might be a tad more complicated than that.
:) They are certainly not uncomfortable using tactics that have been deemed unlawful (or at least they weren't uncomfortable in the past).
First, we're all aware that there is some discussion about Microsoft using its position in the marketplace to lock people into Microsoft Windows. There might have been a lawsuit or two somewhere in the world
Second, Microsoft Office is and for some time has been the default Office suite. "Everybody" uses it.
What they've got here is an opportunity to potentially bolster their already dominant position on top of the *OS* market by dropping support for their *Office Suite* product on the competition's operating system. By dropping support for the Macintosh version of MS Office, they are putting Macintosh and its customers in a position that is worse than if Microsoft had never developed a version of Office for the Mac. In other words, they created an overwhelming need (real or perceived) for their product, offered it on multiple platforms, and then considered dropping the alternate platform after the software was well-established on that platform.
Could that be considered anti-competitive? Well, I think it can be argued strongly in both directions. Assuming that Office for Mac is a profitable product, and that pulling support for it would not only damage Macintosh but also the consumer (not only because existing Mac owners would be "stuck" without Office, but assuming that some choose to use a PC instead, it also harms consumers down the road by lessening the competition between platforms overall), I think that the argument is a little bit in favor of the anti-competitive side.
Now, if some government was to force Microsoft to develop a version of Office for some non-Windows platform for which a version did not already exist, then I would agree with your argument whole-heartedly.
if they're desperate, they'll install XP on their Mac, or just continue to use older versions of Office for Mac.. at this point in the game, it'd be stupid to stop making the software since I'm sure it makes M$ a *little* bit of a money..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
I always have more where that came from, for those who would respond to some comment I didn't write, but what they believe I wrote.
If you want me to try to figure out what meaning of a word you're intending when you don't make it clear, maybe you could extend me the same courtesy when I say "few people will notice the difference". But you opened up your conversation by not doing that. I don't understand why you should expect me to treat you by a different standard than that with which you treat with me.
99% of OSX users don't know what an X11 is, they probably think it's some kind of fighter plane and want to know what it has to do with their computer.
Looking unlike Mac applications, is that such a big deal? It certainly wouldn't be the only thing.
Not being a M$ fanboy doesn't mean you don't have some other preconceived notion of why OO.o is bad.
I am intelligent enough to speculate as to what you meant, but what you said was contradictory and I like to point that out. You are clearly a hypocrite anyway in that you expect me to inspect your comments for all possible meanings rather than the one closest to what you actually said, but do not want to do the same for me, which might have avoided this entire conversation in the first place.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Here's a hint: use any editor that edits and saves as RTF. Save your resumé, then change the file extension from .RTF to .DOC. MS Word will open it transparently. I've been doing this for years.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Today, you and many others say this is obvious:
Of course they found emails saying this. It's blatantly obvious to any armchair strategist. The only way you wouldn't find an email somewhere in the MS vault saying something anti-competitive is if the entire organization had been coached not to use this type of language.
Tomorrow, the M$ astroturfer cloud, will tell me I'm paranoid and that M$ is not that evil.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I was pretty surprised to find find Windows Live advertising popups (you know, the on-hover ones) on a page very explicitly chastising MS for it's business practices. That being said, i've seen worse.
Microsoft's pathetic $150 million investment in Apple made no appreciable difference whatsoever to Apple's finances. Apple had billions in the bank at the time. The investment was nothing more than symbolic.
Idiot.
It seems a bit generous to call this a conversation, but avoiding it sounds good to me. I am interested in what you think, but simply getting a stream of derision in every response is a waste of time for both of us.
Why anyone smart enough to buy a Mac and avoid Windows would then want to buy Office, especially when they can download OpenOffice for free.
Because then they'd have to use OpenOffice.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
What magical version of OpenOffice.org are you using? I'll name one thing it can't do that MS Office can - open and format *.doc documents properly. I'd really like to use OpenOffice.org, but people send me .doc files. I need to open and edit them. I can't do that with OpenOffice.org, unless I plan on spending 25 minutes guessing and fixing the formatting.
So, I continue using MS Office 2000. Why? Because it meets all my needs, I have a copy of it already anyways, it's stable (for what I use it for), it loads much faster and takes up less memory than OpenOffice.org, and I'm familiar with it. I know where menu items are, I know how to create auto-sorted and auto-updated bibliographies and references, I know how to format headers/footers for page numbers and dates etc. And that's all I need to do - if it isn't broke, why fix it?
Could you tell us what University so the rest of us can stay the fuck away from there?
Sounds like a fun place to send our kids.
From what I've been reading there will be no VBA support for Office 2008. This concerns me, as there are many of our staff and faculty who have invested time and money in macros running in Excel properly. Breaking VBA support in Office 2008 will possibly slow adoption for the Mac OSX platform or make people more reluctant to jump platforms once they discover this problem. I'm not entirely surprised by their decision since it seems to follow a recent trend and an end to the 1997 Apple Microsoft support agreement to bundle IE with OSX.
;)
- Discontinued Outlook and no MAPI support on Entourage
- Discontinued IE support (not a huge problem since Safari)
- Discontinued Windows Media Player and no DRM support for WMV and WMA (Flip4Mac doesn't do DRM)
- Limited support of MSN Messenger
- Allowed to purchase Virtual PC from Connectix, stalling G5 support, then killed it
- Finally crippling Office 2008 by removing VBA
- Bought Bungie Studios before the release of Halo. Stalled Mac release for number of years. Crippling almost all Mac game development where before Bungie used to create both Mac and PC games, with a little more emphasis for the Macs.
I suppose Ashcroft and Gonzales have bigger fish to fry because looking at the computer desktop/office monoply isn't worth the USDOJ anti-trust divisions time
A REVIEW OF RECENT ANTITRUST DIVISION ACTIONS
DEBORAH PLATT MAJORAS
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
June 12, 2003
In United States v. MathWorks, we challenged an agreement between two head-to-head competitors in the design software field: MathWorks and Wind River. Competition between these two had resulted in significant technical improvements and price reductions for consumers. But their collaboration agreement on the sale and development of software gave MathWorks control over the prices, marketing, support, and future development of the Wind River software and required Wind River to stop its own development and marketing. Shortly after the agreement, Math Works announced that it would undertake no further development of the Wind River products. We reached a settlement with MathWorks pursuant to which a trustee was appointed to sell the Wind River assets, which were successfully sold to National Instruments.
I am soo looking forward to the day VMware finishes the Fusion product for Mac OS, because then all the Apple-haters will have one argument less. You do know Fusion enables you to run Windows in OS X and use DirectX for games? We would not even have to leave OS X to play your Windows games! Probably at a performance cost of course - but we have BootCamp for that!
Just so y'all know - because I'm sure no-one will actually read the thing - the submitter has picked a couple of quotes, utterly out of context, buried in an email exchange that is pretty much 100% positive about Mac Office and its continuation as a product.
You'd think that, over the years, that Apple would have created their own version of Office software that works with MS-Office file formats like OpenOffice.org did? Or at least work with OpenOffice.Org to bundle OOO with OSX instead of MS-Office and break that stranglehold Microsoft has on Macintosh users forcing them to use MS-Office for Macintosh?
Odd, Microsoft does not make MS-Office for Linux, *BSD Unix, Solaris, and other operating systems and it does not even seem to harm them and their marketshare keeps increasing anyway. I highly doubt that dropping MS-Office for the Macintosh would harm Apple, it would more likely harm Microsoft because Microsoft just cut out a lot of profits from the sales of MS-Office for the Macintosh.
Logically it would make good business sense for Microsoft to make MS-Office for other platforms as well, which would increase their profits.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
It is no University you want to "stay the fuck away from." But, honestly, no. I used to be far more open about my full name and personal contact. That is until people started harassing me by calling my office number, posting my business contact info and soliciting harassment from others, etc. So... sorry. Think: well known technical university on the east coast.
Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them?
as soon as i'm not forced to use office (well word) by my english prof, i could give a damn what microsoft does with office. it's garbage.
I'm not sure whether it's funny or sad that so many people here take personal offense to what one company does or does not do to another. In the end, it's up to them (both Microsoft and Apple) how they want to run their own business, and they are not required to develop for each other.
How much of that is due to a catch 22 of no one making software (e.g. Final Cut) for it?
It had a fixed layout and grew from one end, so that the things at the top of the Dock always stayed put.
defaults write com.apple.dock pinning end
or
defaults write com.apple.dock pinning start
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
I know the parent didn't make reference to this, but a lot of people think it, so:
In August 1997, Microsoft purchased $150 million in non-voting Apple stock.
As of the prior quarter, Apple had $1.2 billion in cash on hand .
The money didn't "bail Apple out", as some people think. It was a symbolic gesture. The symbolism of the "badly needed" "investment" (which really wasn't needed from a financial standpoint) renewed peoples' faith in Apple, renewed the faith that Microsoft and Office would still be on the Mac platform, etc.
So while you could argue that the gesture was needed (and I'd tend to agree), the money itself wasn't.
And Microsoft made out like bandits on that investment.
More Open Office users.
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
...isn't Word/Excel/Powerpoint- NeoOffice works fine for those, it's Entourage- in an Exchange business environment, that's a key item and mail.app doesn't cut it.
Paul
http://www.pauldrobertson.com
After watching those Mac vs. PC commercials where Vista is bashed to hell, if I were Microsoft I'd want to pull it too.
I can imagine why. I'm one of those people. I have installed on this Mac NeoOffice, OpenOffice.org, and Microsoft Office:Mac 2004. I have followed the development of Office:Mac 2008 via the MSDN Mac Blog and various other sites and I'm looking forward to its release. I fully intend to purchase it when it comes out later this year. Why? Because I prefer it. Just looking at Office:Mac 2004, it looks more Mac-native than other office suites I've tried. I find it more responsive. I like using it. I still fire up NeoOffice from time to time, for light database work, but I don't like its word processor and I don't like its spreadsheet application. OpenOffice.org bugs me slightly, I just feel awkward using it. It is because I'm used to MS Office? Maybe. But I don't like its dependence on X11 and I don't like the fact that the title of the software is a web address. What's wrong with 'OpenOffice'? Do we need '.org' at the end? My car isn't a Ford.com, my cereal of choice isn't Kellogs.com... It's possible to buy a Mac and still use, and like using, Microsoft software. I use MSN Messenger to keep in touch with faraway friends. I know I could use Adium, and I did for awhile. But I didn't like the interface. iChat AV looks nice but none of my friends are on AIM and only a few have Macs. It's not because I'm not smart that I use MS software on my Mac. I genuinely prefer it, I think it's polished to a high standard compared to the free alternatives and I'm awaiting Office:Mac 2008 with intent.
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
-Proprietary hardware
What's proprietary hardware? Only intel can make intel CPUs and intel chipsets. Only NVidia can make Nvidia compatible gfx chipsets. Macs can use the same Ram, hard drives and optical drives as everyone else. Now they even have Intel CPUs in them like other brands. Where is your proof? -Proprietary software
What's wrong with that? Do you even know what proprietary means? A lot of "open source" programs have proprietary file formats of their own. Sorry, but source code is not the same as a documented open standard. MSFT and a bunch of other companies also have proprietary software even by your definition. -Closed protocols
-Lock-ins MSFT's Playsforsure DRM has platform lockin. You cannot use an MTP only device with anything other than windows. MSFT's Zune only works with windows and the Zune software. -selected compatibility Would you care to define what you mean by that? MSFT has selected compatibility with windows. Anything good said about Apple in comparison to Microsoft is just hypocrisy. Except for human interfaces, that where they excel (ex iPod).
Give us something solid, not just empty rhetoric and hyperbole.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The problem is there are other costs there than just distributing the product. There might be some development costs, right? There might be some other costs relating to securing legal rights, packaging, trademark and copyright issues and the whole raft of things that you have to consider when you're not just operating out of a basement.
I highly doubt that Mac Office is very profitable, if it is profitable at all. More than likely it is operating at a loss for compatibility sake alone. It is (or was, as this issue is 10 years old) something that the benefits to Microsoft were tenuous at best. You have lock-in and domination of the office suite space vs. the costs to develop, maintain and ship the product.
"Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them?"
Yes they should be forced. For the same reason someone can be forced to do community service work or forced to pay a fine.
Microsoft was forced to continue to offer Office for Mac because of the way a law suit was settled. They got caught using some stuff from Apple without paying for it and as a result were forced to do quite a few things.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you could download Open Office for free shortly before MS Office 97 shipped. The project had not even started. It's predicessor StarOffice was not out yet.
The article contains the PDF of the e-mail. The e-mail discusses the pending release of Office 97 for the Mac.
OpenOffice.org is based on StarOffice, an office suite developed by StarDivision and acquired by Sun Microsystems in August 1999. The source code of the suite was released in July 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
The truth shall set you free!
From what I can tell from reading the original PDF, the Microsoft threat to cancel the Mac Office project had more to do with Apple messing Microsoft about. I assumed they were holding back details which Microsoft needed to make the project work. Secondly, the statement that Microsoft were using Apple users for testing features seems completely unfounded. The emails author was stating that new work on memory management would probably be useful in future releases of Office on Windows. I can only assume that this memory management was added out of necessity. Macs don't or didn't have the best reputation for playing well with memory.
In all, there seems to be a lot of pride in the Mac version, a degree of frustration at Apple playing politics and no trace of anything anti-competetive. I realise that Microsoft don't have the best rep in the world for playing fair, but this email doesn't show microsoft in anything but a good light.
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
While I agree with you, I'm not sure what your remedy is. How much could you penalize Microsoft financially? If you made them come out with an office suite, under court supervision, could it possibly suck? (Would they just pour strawberry jam in the box and ship it?) From most of the postings I've read it seems like a lot of people confuse a free market with an absence of ethics and laws. While I don't think /. readers are *exactly* representative of the general population, I suspect a lot of Americans even more unaware that monopolies break capitalism. They just view Microsoft as being sucessful or even what a PC "is" in a sense.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
Beacuse MSO the defacto standard.
OO, is not.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If Steve Jobs had a secret Intel port of Mac OS X going on for years, is it so hard to imagine that he might have a secret office suite project going on in case Microsoft dumps Apple? The only reason he wouldn't release it would be because Microsoft's support for Apple is good for sales and Apple's own office suite would be for a ``use only in case of emergency'' scenario. I mean, even if it were vastly superior to Microsoft Office, it would be a hard sell.
I think there are many things I'd fault Microsoft for, but dropping Office for Macintosh isn't one of them. The problem with Office is its proprietary and closed formats, and those don't get fixed by having a Mac version.
While Apple fans like to talk about Apple vs. Microsoft, Apple's actions suggest that they would really simply like to be part of a cozy little duopoly with Microsoft.
Shows what you know. OpenOffice on Mac OS X == NeoOffice/J. You only use the X11 version if you want a world of pain.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
In addition to other office suits like NeoOffice available for the Mac, KOffice and a bevy of other KDE-related software is about to become easily portable to the Mac as a native application, thanks to Qt 4.x. People will be looking at it more in the future. What if Apple got the incentive to do with KOffice as they did with KHTML to make Safari?
;)
To paraphrase: the more you tighten your grip, Microsoft, the more users will slip through your fingers.
documents were created with typewriters or written by hand. Then Wordstar happened. No-one gave a shit about layout and preservation of fonts when converting to/from WordPerfect. It was good enough if the text contents got transferred during a transfer. It still applies today. The fact is that the exact layout and preservation thereof during a transfer is nice to have, but not essential.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I have been of the view that OpenOffice can deal with just about every MS Office document, since the days of StarDivision's StarOffice 5.1 (remember that?).
.doc format is undocumented, even internally within MS, but using an entire MS Office suite, provided by one of MS's largest partners (EDS), it is a horrible, ugly mess. We have documents embedded within documents; opening an embedded document means that I have to enable/disable macros within the new document. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, so you double-click the icon, click "Enable", nothing happens, double-click the icon again, and the embedded doc opens. This is apparently "correct behaviour".
n ters_hp3180), and in the end, I gave up, scp'd the .doc to the Linux box and opened it in OpenOffice.org, to print it direct. It was a steaming mess, nothing like the original MS Word document.
.doc files in OOo, just to find a random blank page part way through, which I could not delete. I had assumed that that was a flaw of OOo, but I've had the same problem with MS Word documents in MS Word!
However, I have also been a *nix user all that time. For the past 18 months, my work has required me to work with MS Office (and therefore, Wintel desktop).
I had not realised quite how bad the situation was; I know that the
We also have various templates, which I naively assumed could be edited as required, by an untrained user (such as myself; I'm certified in WfWG3.11, but nothing since from MS!). This is the corporate standard, after all. But no, I have to admit failure. I cannot edit our templates. Maybe that's me, maybe it's MS. I can configure cross-site clusters, but I can't edit an MS Word document. I don't think that the deficiency is in my own IT knowledge.
I have to be open - I don't much care for Windows, it's not a huge dislike, it's just not a big part of my life. I find configuring Samba/CUPS on my Ubuntu print server rather difficult to do (http://steve-parker.org/urandom/?y=2007&m=01#pri
So, I am finally forced to agree that OOo is no replacement for corporate uses of MS Office. It's not OOo's problem, though; it's MSO's problem. It's an undocumented pile of layers upon layers upon layers, dating back to the late 1980s.
Ugh. I can't deal with MS Office docs using OpenOffice.org, but then again, I can't do much with them using MS Office, either.
The key problem seems to be the format, more than the app itself. Neither app fully understands the format, and so neither app quite manages to display it properly.
In the past, I've opened
Let alone the issues about how future generations are going to access this information, the fact that the corporate standard is MS Office, seems to be a classic example of following the herd over the cliff.
I am still waiting for the perfect (or even near-perfect) office suite. OOo is the closest, with open (if complex) code, and an open (and well-documented) file format.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
To keep this in historical context, in June 1987, the current version of Mac Office was version 4.2.1. It was a direct port of the Windows version and released in 1994. As such, it did not behave or look like a Mac application. By 1997 the age of the program and its poor reputation contributed to poor sales. Office 98 was certainly was under development, but had not yet been released at this point. Office 98 proved to be a successful release due to its feature set and mac-like interface. At the time of this email howerver, the success of both Office on the Mac and the Mac in general were very much in question. It also makes sense to test new features on the Mac version, which is geared much more for home use than its Windows counterpart.
Apple then would have come out with something compatible, better, and free. Look at keynote, for example.
I don't know why I feel compelled to step into this, but I will.
First, some background:
I have a Mac, though, for various reasons, it's been semi-retired. I've used both MS Office (v.X, I believe - not the current one, but the first one for OS X) and NeoOffice. In fact, I did substantial coursework using OpenOffice for X11, then switched to NeoOffice when I learned about that. Here's what I can tell you based on this admittedly anecdotal experience:
1. OO.o, either in X11 form or NeoOffice form, was definitely slower on my computer than MS Office. Since I was running OS 10.3 on a G3/333 iMac with 160 MB of RAM, I noticed any speed differences very acutely. They were both slow but, on that computer, what wasn't? However, when you move elements around in PowerPoint and they barely hose your computer and, in contrast, you move them around in NeoOffice and you have to wait five minutes for your computer to finish paging before your mouse does what it's supposed to do, guess what product is going to get preferred?
2. Font support is better on NeoOffice than it is on OO.o. So is printer support. More importantly, so is clipboard support - I don't know if they fixed the X11 clipboard limitation in 10.4, but at least in 10.3 (unless there's some manual setting to change, which wouldn't surprise me) there was a 64kB size limitation to what you could put into the clipboard. This proves to be exceptionally obnoxious when you're copying and pasting flowcharts into a document. This is what motivated me to find NeoOffice in the first place. For this reason, and this reason alone, OO.o on X11 was a deal-breaker for me. Throw in lousy font support and sketchy printer support and it made it so much easier. This may have been fixed, though - I haven't checked on that side in a while.
3. NeoOffice just looks bad compared to MS Office. I'm sorry, but MS Office looks gorgeous, and, when you have a Mac, looks count. To MS's credit, they do a wonderful job of making that software look like it belongs on a Mac. OO.o has, thus far, done a wonderful job of making their software look like it belongs on a Linux workstation (not in a good way), no matter what platform it's on. That barely flies in the Windows world and doesn't fly at all on a Mac.
4. There were little idiosyncrasies with NeoOffice that just bugged me - hitting ENTER in Calc would go to the beginning of the next row, whereas Excel drops you down one element, layout of the menus, odd formatting issues with sections, etc. I seem to remember charts being pretty poor, too - I had an easier time getting AppleWorks 5 to generate the graphs I wanted than NeoOffice and, well, let's just say AppleWorks is not a "power tool" by any stretch of the imagination.
I do think OpenOffice and its derivatives have a place. I do think they can fill some needs for some Mac users. It filled a need for me - I needed an office suite to make some documentation in that was light on my wallet and I wanted something useful so I could finally ditch the pirated version of Office I had on my machine. However, for most Mac users, spending some money on something that looks good and works reasonably well is going to be preferred over something that's free (in any sense), looks bad, and runs worse. I mean, that's why we get Macs in the first place, right?
Of course, what do I run now? Ubuntu Dapper Drake with OpenOffice 2 on it... but it actually looks like it belongs there! That's probably because it does.
Yup. It's 20 years worth of cruft-in-a-box. Much of it is undocumented. Much of it is unreliable black-box mumbo-jumbo. What you say about editing templates is so depressing and familiar - I've had similar moments of madness recently. My background is in RDBMS coding/design... I can optimise and debug nasty SQL Stored procedures for a large finance-house application, but I can't get alternate-page headers and footers to work reliably in an MSWord mail-merge - something is rotten! I'm keeping my fingers crossed an escape route will exist, however briefly, and getting ready to bail, even if there's some pain involved.
ceci n'est pas un sig
Oh no, a company discontinuing a product they've made for their competitor so that they can gain the upper hand! Welcome to business, folks.
You do have a very good point there. MS Exchange is a "killer app", not because it's good, but because if it's deployed once, it has to be deployed everywhere to be useful. So if a corp decides on MS Exchange, it needs to use MS Outlook, therefore it needs to use MS Windows.
I know that Hydrogen et al have done what thay can, but (forgive me, I've not been watching lately), have they got 100% compatibility?
I now get Outlook meeting appointments from third parties, requiring MS Exchange/Outlook all round. But then, it seems that the "innovation" behind this involves a simple one-liner text-based email saying "Accepted: "
Desktop is not my field, but this whole "we need MS because they use MS" thing must be cross between a house of cards and the emperor's new clothes; somebody will come up with the "Eureka!" moment to get us out of this apparent vendor lock-in.
I just wish that I was smart enough to be that person
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
There's actually a port of Novel Evolution out there for Mac OS X 10.4 http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfcontent/downloa
If more people showed interest perhaps we could get better support/development from Novell on the Mac version of Evolution.
The phrase should be: "I am SHOCKED! Shocked that monopolistic practices are going on in this establishment!"
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
It was supposed to be a score:5 funny sarcastic comment, but I guess i messed it up. Mod me down score:-5 not funny.
OS X isn't ready to run on an uncontrolled hardware platform.
Makes you wonder if submitter even read the e-mail before he posted the story!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I was going to tell you that 0.00026% is probably a rather optimistic estimate of the Sinclair's market share, but it actually might be reasonable. There are roughly 300 million people in the US, and 0.00026% of that is 780. Granted, not all people in the US are computer users, but I'm sure if we include the rest of the world we can find 300 million computer users. So, 780 Sinclairs means about 15 or 16 per state... which still seems a bit high. And, this whole comment is full of invalid assumptions, so you should probably just go ahead and ignore me...
I haven't used Office on the Mac. I can tell you that Office 2007 on PC is a very pleasant improvement (still imperfect in many ways, but a hell of a lot better than Office 2003) as far as interface goes. I haven't had enough time to test reliably for stability. But I have tried more than my share of OpenOffice ports for the Mac, and the ones I tried were all (X11 or not) buggy and crash-prone. I, like many Mac users, have not had a seamless transition to X11-based apps. There's often a bunch of tweaking that has to happen -- something most geeks find irritating and most average joes find completely overwhelming. And I think in this Slashdot environment, it is sufficient to say that X11 on the Mac is a dealbreaker and most people with Macs and X11 experience would understand, if not agree.Hm. Since we're playing blockquote-and-pithy-translation, how about this: "You didn't respond submissively to my rapier wit, so I shall insult your intelligence and pretend to enlighten you." Please.
I hope, as another person here has stated, that it gets better for Mac users -- they could use a good open source, free office suite. I'm a graphic designer, so I tend toward hammering Quark or InDesign inappropriately into service as a word processor anyway. But I can certainly see the dearth of good office suite alternatives for the average Mac user. Get off your high horse, please. It's a tool. These people have real experience with using Office for the Mac, and have been genuinely pleased with the results and displeased with the open source options. They stated this here for our common edification. And you were a dick to them for it. Come on.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Apple charges double for everything it sells.
Can you back up this statement? The last price comparison I saw between equivilently equiped Macs and Windows PCs Macs edged out Windows on a price/feature basis.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Aperture isn't a dropin replacement for Photoshop, it's not meant to be a thorough photo editor. What Aperture comes closest to in regards to Adobe software is Lightroom, which Adobe is just releasing version 1.0 from beta. If you're going to do any in depth photoediting you'll still need Photoshop.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'd be supprised if Apple were to release OSX for commodity PCs, though I would like to see it. Apple is as much a hardward as a software company and they've already found out that if they allow Mac clones they will loose hardware sales. For a few years, while Jobs was gone, Apple did license clones. But when Jobs was brought back he ended that as Apple was loosing money because of it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The issue isn't whether it can be changed; of course it can.[*] The issue is how it's set up by default.
[*] Though for some things requires the source code, but that's not really harder than what you're suggesting.
Look out!
So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
The problem with this though is that MS pulling out of Office for Macs will drive more people to OO and therefore OO will gain capabilities faster. If MS really wanted to harm OO they would release MS Office for Linux and make it affordable. The only reason a person would then use OO is because they won't use MS products.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If the justice department (oxymoron under Bush) decided for anti-trust reasons to break up Microsoft a straightforward thing to do would be to separate the operating system portion from the office portion and eventually allow them both to compete with each other. For this reason Microsoft should very careful about doing non competative actions. The government also could specify a standard word processing format and only purchase software that used it. Again Microsoft must be careful of how they tread. Just ask AT&T. IBM was facing a similar situation but was saved when the Intel/Microsoft based PCs took over so much of the computer business.
Slashdotters hate being told that what they're discussing isn't important, even though that is the case with petty OS arguments. A mere discussion of operating systems somehow snowballs into a discussion of politics and religion that has very little bearing on reality. The personal anecdote is respected almost as factual content. This behavior is exemplified by the two replies you've gotten that say, "hey lighten up!"
Parent is absolutely right: there's a whole world out there with REAL problems that need to be fixed, not some lame ass "my hate for a particular company dictates my worldview" tripe that passes for news around here.
When you say "replacement" you have to define what type of user you are talking about. I'm a casual user of office software, so I might use it to type a letter I intend to print, or to create a spreadsheet for personal use. For my purposes, OpenOffice is easily a replacement.
I think you'll find that for most students writing up essays or school projects, OpenOffice is also a suitable replacement.
Perhaps there are some users in business environments who need more out of their office software than OpenOffice offers (I can't really imagine what...), but for at least 50% of users, I think OpenOffice would be a very decent replacement, especially considering the cost savings.
You do know that office is a PowerPC app, right?
Ironically, Office X is years ahead of the latest Windows Office in terms of user interface and usability. My Windows friends are always amazed at the sleeker, semi-transparent, foldable-menu UI on the Mac version that i've been using for years now! Additionally the presentation mode of PP is top notch, really. Much better than the way its done on Windows. Worth noting that I only really use Word for text processing and PP for presentations on occasion.
Now, when my friend use to tell me that they couldnt get a Mac because they need Windows for the applications, they would always note Office as the most important one. When I showed them how much cooler it looks running on a Mac, they shut up pretty quick and walked away mumbling. Now, you can't walk through the halls without noticing that half of the laptops are Macbooks. I rarely hear this argument anymore, especially with boot camp.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
> This is principally due to MS Office support; users want it. Badly.
You're migrating platforms over an office suite? That's silly, especially since Linux can run M$ Office through at least XP with WINE, and work on newer versions is ongoing.
Hell, even if your administrators aren't good enough to be able to set up a WINE config file, buying CrossOver Office to do it for them would still be cheaper than shelling out for a fleet of Macs.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
I would posit the latter. Look at some of the ODBC problems in M$ products for Apple. The problems have been around for ages and M$ has no plans to fix them, and hasn't fixed them despite new releases. The solution promoted is to ditch Apple. That company doesn't appear to treat Windows users any better, so my solution, however, was to ditch M$ and that has worked quite well.
Yes, the M$ Office for Apple has been profitable, but another reason for M$ to keep it around would be to maintain the lock on the office file formats. So to drop it now is probably just trying to force the few into Windows and thus the InfoPath / MS OOXML lock-in. IMHO, it's a premature move and will cost them.
There are a quite a few options, that are in most ways better, though different. The weakest points, which could go away in short order, are the file formats. The M$ formats are still undocumented and only some on the list below fully support OpenDocument, though that number is rapidly growing.
That's just focusing on word processors. There is a similar range of choice for spreadsheets and presentation graphics. Now see how important control of those file formats is.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Microsoft are not dropping Mac support for office - this report is from 1997, and if you actually read the email, you will find that its actually talking about improving support for the mac and justifying supporting the mac and apple despite the 1997 drop in sales.
The macworld.co.uk website has twisted this around for _entertainment_ purposes, probably with the assumption that people would not actually read the email
The email: http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/1 22106/PLEX0_6060.pdf
30GB Zune: $249.99
30GB iPod: $249
"Nearly double"? On what planet are you living on? And the Zune is bigger and it weights more (iPod: 4.8 ounces, Zune: 5.6 ounces).
Please give some real examples of this "nearly double" prices Apple asks for it's mp3-players. Go on, it shouldn't be that hard, right?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
For the Lexx reference. Not every day you see one of those around here.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
Why do slashdotters always use stupid car analogies? Your analogy doesn't even work. Road tires are necessary to make cars, office software isn't necessary to make computers at all.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
M$ will fix that eventually.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Why were they considering threatening to cancel Mac Office. Who first proposed threatening to cancel Mac Office.
'The threat to Cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately'
Email Communications (Score:5, Interesting)
davecb5620@gmail.com
"Fine, then. MP3 players. Can you cite a tangible reason (not just "ooh, design! shiny!") why iPods are typically 70-90% more expensive than comparable models from other manufacturers. And lets remember ... NEARLY DOUBLE... not just a little more."
What kind of argument is that? Is not "design! shiny!" a tangible reason?
By your kind of logic you can also explain to us why a Ferrari costs 1000x more expensive than a regular car apart reasons like "design!" and "faster engines!"
So what if it is faster, the engines are made of the same metal, who cares what amount of intellectual property and engineering has gone into it. It is free right? You are only paying for the materials. Yeah right.
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
"Why anyone smart enough to buy a Mac and avoid Windows would then want to buy Office, especially when they can download OpenOffice for free."
Because "nearly as good but free" is seen by many, many people as synonyms for "crap they have to give away because nobody is stupid enough to pay for it". The free software movement fails to understand that most Western adult humans have been taught by experience to treat things which either claim to be "free" or are much cheaper than well known equivalents with suspicion because they've learned there's usually a catch: get three free books by agreeing to buy one a month for eternity; get a free frozen lasagne if you buy two others; get a free cup worth $1 by providing proof that they've bought $700 worth of goods from a company; get a free toy worth 15c by paying $3 for child's meal which would cost under $2 if they bought the food that's in the box from the same vendor as separate items; buy a cola that's much cheaper than Coke or Pepsi, and use it for cleaning coins because it's too horrid to drink; etc., etc., etc.
There was an experiment performed a few years back where several people stood in busy commercial areas with trays full of bank notes and a sign saying "Free Money: take as much as you want", and nobody showed any interest because someone actually giving away free money for the sake of it is completely outside of their experience. This same mentality is at work with free (as in beer) software: how, both the public and corporate bods ask themselves, can Microsoft continue to charge lots of money for operating systems and other software if there are free items that people claim are either nearly as good, or in some cases better? If that was really true, then everyone would be using them, and Bill Gates wouldn't still be the richest man in the world, so it's obvious that they can't actually be as good as what Microsoft are selling, irrespective of what the neighbour's kid says.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
"Microsoft Wanted To Drop Mac Office To Hurt Apple" -> Microsoft didn't "want" anything.
They were discussing it, but mostly as as a card for bargaining with Apple on different matter. Notice Bill Gates said if they can hide their progress from Apple, since revealing the project is almost done and to be out will put them in a worse position for negotiations.
Or you believe Microsoft should simply say "hey what the heck, Office it the de-facto Office package, so we can't negotiate our position, we'll just bend-over and let be f-ed in the ass by everyone".
So Apple has started to give it away for free?
The threat to cancel MS Office for Mac OS is and has been the big stick that Microsoft has never missed to shake in Apple's direction.
To come out with "something compatible" to MS Office for Windows is not an easy thing to do.
Apple could have supported the development of OpenOffice in a substantial way for years now (this would have been the way to go), but they rather preferred not to.
As a consequence, Microsoft's big stick will continue to work perfectly.
Walter.
I, for one, have been enjoying getting to use Excel Page Layout View years before almost everyone else.
Oh, we're good enough to support wine (if the users wanted it). No. We're migrating to OS X because users demand it. This is exactly how Linux came into the lab. People just installed it everywhere until it became so unwieldy for users to support on their own that they hired staff to do so. This time, the staff are on top of the migration and planning for it.
We are a university laboratory. Each professor has their own income stream, their own projects, and their own group of postdocs and grad students. Our goal is to make certain the computers they connect to our network are secure, and configured such that they can utilize basic services. And then there's data retention.
My job exists to support scientists conduct science. I am not paid to promote a politico-software philosophy
Just for your information:
Too lazy to look up the specifics, but OpenOffice.org is called that because a company owns the rights to the name "OpenOffice" (sans ".org"). I believe the project was originally using OpenOffice and adopted the ".org" part of the current website name to avoid a lawsuit.
Personally, I've migrated to OO.o (or NeoOffice) on all my PCs and Macs, with the exception of my work PC (which I have no choice in). I've yet to find anything that caused me significant delay that I could have done quicker in Office.
I will acknowledge that I've had to spend a good deal of time on and off in the help files to find my way around, and that well formatted documents and simple formula spreadsheets is about the limit of my requirements.
"...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
High fidelity? A lot of MP3 players on the market aren't Hi Fi.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
MP3 players are by definition never Hi-Fi, not even the fairy touch of Apple can change that.
Fine, then. MP3 players.
One example does not prove Apple charges double for everything. And as the post I replied to says, they do: "Apple charges double for everything it sells".
why iPods are typically 70-90% more expensive than comparable models from other manufacturers.
I neither own any mpg3 music players nor follow the industry so I can't say how the prices of iPods compare to others. And I don't plan on getting any, the next music player I may get is a turntable for playing vinyl.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Seeing as how apple is delaying releasing a patch for the ipod becuase windows vista "supposedly" messes up the songs on your ipod, i say take office off of the mac. Maybe when people start switching back to Microsoft to use office, apple will look beyond their ego and fix a problem, if it is a problem, within the 12 months BEFORE the next microsoft operating system is released, rather than leaving it unresolved a month AFTER it's released.
... another way to look at it is that Microsoft actually showed compassion and basically saved Apple from bankruptcy.
Of course, that doesn't make a good Slashdot headline. So never mind.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
iPod Nano 2g, 4GB, $193.98, vs RCA 4GB Mini Jukebox, $89.99, vs Creative Zen 4GB $140 (not quite double on this one, sure), vs Sandisk Sansa 4GB, $103.
Sorry, you were saying?
The ipod is half as thick as the mini jukebox and has a color display, the creative weighs TWO POUNDS and is considerably larger than the ipod, the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run and is twice as thick as the ipod as well (otherwise it looks like a nice player, though it is a good 50% off the suggested retail price through amazon, where as the ipod is only 3% off). Apples to Oranges.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
So what if the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run? iPod requires iTunes to run. Sucks for Linux users, huh? (Yeah, I know you can kludge your way around it on Linux. Key word - kludge).
Utterly irrelevant - bottom line is that those are prices consumers can pay. Not consumers problem if Apple gets pissy at sellers selling iPods below RRP! Do you whine that you paid less than MSRP for your new car, too? Or that that amount less than MSRP for the car might be less if said car is in demand?
iPod requires iTunes to run. Sucks for Linux users, huh? (Yeah, I know you can kludge your way around it on Linux. Key word - kludge).
I wouldn't call running gtkpod a "kludge" any more than running iTunes is a kludge. You open the program, connect the device, transfer the songs to/from the device, and you're done. How's that a kludge?
No, it's not as easy as accessing it as a USB mass storage device like my iRiver, but it's no worse than using iTunes.
All subjective. Again, why are any of those factors justification for 75% differences in pricing?
Subjective?!?! Do you know what that word means? These are OBJECTIVE differences between the products. The cheapest product you listed lacks the color screen (which adds cost) and is TWICE as thick as the ipod despite the fact that competing in the area of PORTABLE MP3 players (which again, adds cost, if you're going for a small player, you want a SMALL player).
So what if the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run? iPod requires iTunes to run. Sucks for Linux users, huh? (Yeah, I know you can kludge your way around it on Linux. Key word - kludge).
Well, that means the ipod runs on TWICE the platforms of the sandisk, which is a consideration for some people and likewise could justify a cost increase.
Utterly irrelevant - bottom line is that those are prices consumers can pay. Not consumers problem if Apple gets pissy at sellers selling iPods below RRP! Do you whine that you paid less than MSRP for your new car, too? Or that that amount less than MSRP for the car might be less if said car is in demand?
No, I don't whine that I pay less, though I do wonder why, and in this case I would assume it's because they CANNOT sell the players and have an ABUNDANCE of them (implied: because no one wants them for one reason or another), where as ipods do not vary in cost because they have a clear demand. It's worth something to have a product that I know will still be made in a few years as it means I will still have support.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
Good point. I'll grant you, I was ambiguous with the intention of what I was saying. Those tangible differences are not inherently better. Up to a point it costs no more to make a product bigger or smaller, so the appeal is subjective. Likewise with the weight, as 'rugged' is a feature some people want. I know I (as someone who moved from an iRiver to an iPod to a Nano, my current player, so please don't take this as an anti-Apple diatribe) would have little issue with my nano being twice as thick. You might. It's all good. But again, the costs of shrinking an object are negligible, to a point.
Rebates, seller incentives, marketing promotions. You're right - it is partially supply and demand, of course, I'm not naive enough to believe otherwise. On the other hand, there are a few companies that are known to get ultra pissed off when people sell products below RRP, and Apple is one of these. Why should they care? They get the same amount from the wholesaler? You have to ask why they have an issue with a big seller being content to razor his margins. It's not supply and demand at that point. It's due to Apple's incessant desire to control every aspect of product perception (which is fine, to a degree). And if that happens to be at a higher price point for no discernible reason (which to be fari, I'm not trying to argue, I'm more questioning whether the discernible reasons are in themselves justification for the overhead), then its only hurting, not benefiting the consumer, who has to pay more to fund Apple's desire for self image.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Wow, you didn't get it at all. The problem isn't that Word 97 doesn't open Word 2000 files (although I think it actually does). The problem is that a file created in a version of Word tends to get mangled when opened in a different format. Specifically the page layouts tend to get screwed up, something specially infuriating for long documents like a book or a thesis.
This is not only true when transferring files from a Mac to a PC or vice versa. It also happens among different versions of Word for Windows (or for the Mac, for that matter). Heck, sometimes even moving a file between two PCs with the SAME version of Word screws the layout! (In this case the culprit may be different versions of a font or specifying a different printer).
For comparison, a document written in LaTeX will look fine when rendered in different versions of LaTeX. Maybe not exactly identical, but at least it will almost always look great anyway. Or consider PDF files, which look and print perfectly on any system/viewer/printer (although they are a pain to edit).
So, dude, you suck it.
You might as well say that VW is overpriced, since you can get a "comparable" Lada for half the price. I mean, they are both cars, right? Nevermind the fact that Lada is noisy, it has interior straight from the eighties, it looks like crap, it has no accessories, it's quality is utter crap and it's just _awkward_ to use. Sorry, you were saying? I was saying that "show me a comparable mp3-player that is half as expensive". And what did you do? You showed me a bunch of shitty players with zero elegance, design and minituarization. Show me a COMPARABLE player with half the price! No, the fact that it has as much storage-space as the Nano does not mean that it's "comparable"!
Anyone with a working brain-cell can obviously see where Sandisk, RCA and Creative cut corners on their products when compared to the Nano. And they did that so they could make their products cheaper. But that also means that they are not "comparable". Yes, they are all mp3-players. But not all mp3-players are equal. Just because you managed to find some bargain-basement mp3-players with similar storage-space does nothing to prove your point. It just proves that the mp3-players that are cheaer than the Nano are... well, crappier. Where are the comparable mp3-players? I'm still waiting.
Maybe I should save a whopping 90 bucks and get the kick-ass RCA Lyra instead of the Nano, since the two are just as good, right?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Why do you doubt it's profitable? Apple has a relatively small market-share, yes, but that's still an awful lot of computers, and I would say that most Mac users have a copy of Office. There are lots of other companies who make money developing Mac software, probably making fewer sales of the product per Mac sold.
> This time, the staff are on top of the migration and planning for it.
You made it sound like you had professors shouting, "I WANT WORD!" and so to give it to them you're buying Macs. I was saying that if the demand was for Office (rather than for Macs), there's a much easier and less expensive way to do that than changing platforms. If you instead have professors shouting, "I WANT A MAC!", then the situation is different.
I'm also still a little confused as to whether or not you're forcing people to move. If the researchers are buying the computers and you're supporting them, then obviously you need to support Macs if they've bought Macs. But, you had made it sound like YOU were the one orchestrating the huge Mac-fest.
> I am not paid to promote a politico-software philosophy.
I didn't suggest you were. I still think that anyone migrating from Linux to OS X just to get M$ Office is being silly, doubly so since running Office under Linux is pretty trivial these days. Perhaps it's the users being silly rather than you. Maybe you should make sure the users know that Office has run well under Linux for at least 5 years now, so that they don't waste further grant money on buying overpriced white plastic boxes. Since they could then use the money for something else, that might fall under your very broad job description of supporting scientists conduct science.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
"Those tangible differences are not inherently better"
Since the subject is portable mp3-players, I would say that the size and weight of the device IS important. Very important. The smaller and lighter, the better. And Nano is considerably smaller and lighter than the competitors. Making device like that as small and light as Nano does cost money. If it didn't, the competitors would be as small and light as the Nano, yet they are not. Why is that?
"But again, the costs of shrinking an object are negligible, to a point."
True, but making things really small does cost money. And it's quite obvious that Apple went the extra mile on that front, wheras RCA, SanDisk and Creative did not. I mean, those three are 2-3 times thicker than the Nano. If it doesn't cost extra, why didn't they make their products thinner? And what about the weight?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
You made it sound like you had professors shouting, "I WANT WORD!"
In fact, many are saying just that. Though Powerpoint is a bigger motivator than Word among the professors.
I'm also still a little confused as to whether or not you're forcing people to move.
Professors do not take direction from me. They herd like cats, not sheep.
But, you had made it sound like YOU were the one orchestrating the huge Mac-fest.
I'm certainly recommending it. I've been supporting UNIX in one way or another since my first industry job, back in 1985. I don't particularly like UNIX, but it does get the job done. And we are a UNIX shop. The Mac is just one more variant.
Maybe you should make sure the users know that Office has run well under Linux for at least 5 years now, so that they don't waste further grant money on buying overpriced white plastic boxes.
These people know *exactly* what they're doing. We have Nobel Prize winners here. Nobody wants to run Office under Linux because we've been there and it sucked. These guys have more important work to do than tinker with an OS, unless they need it for some special purpose - like accelerated data collection. Or optimizing code for Monte Carlo sims.
For us, Linux is a just tool, not a purpose in and of itself.
So, am I to understand that the Zune has a cheaper price per ounce? Sounds like marketing that Microsoft needs to use.
> Nobody wants to run Office under Linux because we've been there and it sucked.
r oup/?app_id=17 suggests there haven't been. Making WINE config files by hand is error-prone, and standard WINE eschews short-term hacks to make programs work for long-term codebase maintainability, so if you were using WINE and found it wanting, CrossOver Office would probably have been a better choice.
:)
It worked fine for me when I tried it. That was a number of years ago, but I doubt there have been any major regressions and http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/g
Seriously, man, Office on Linux has been a solved problem for many years now.
> These people know *exactly* what they're doing. We have Nobel Prize winners here.
Well, since there's no Nobel Prize for computer science, that doesn't mean much as far as computer competence goes. And even Turing Award winners don't necessarily know what they're doing if they're from the theory side
> [cut patronizing crap]
And so should you. Nowhere did I suggest you viewed Linux as an end in itself.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Seriously, man, Office on Linux has been a solved problem for many years now.
Try deploying crossover or wine across hundreds of desktops in production. Doing it on your own for a personal machine is not the same as supporting an application professionally. I do not want to waste my staff time on such matters. And neither do my superiors.
I've been there. I remember installing a very early release of wine back in 1994. Been following it ever since then. It's a cool hack, but I wouldn't trust office on wine for our documents, spreadsheets, or power point presentations. I bought a crossover site license two years ago. Didn't work - everyone hated it.
Dude, go with what works. The licensing costs are peanuts compared to staff outlays.
Research shows that Linux is gaining on Microsoft as of the year 2000 yet there doesn't seem to be any MS-Office for Linux.
The trend seems to be continuing in 2005 and I would guess 2006 as well if the numbers finally come in for 2006.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
> I bought a crossover site license two years ago. Didn't work - everyone hated it.
:), though I'm also intrigued since your experience is so different from mine and every other one of which I'm aware.
Wow, that's interesting. Even running only gold-supported apps? If you tried with a gold-supported version of Office, and it failed, then I concede you're not being silly
I haven't really been properly following WINE for a while. I've sort-of painted myself into a corner with my own installation. I got some programs working, but I can't upgrade because they stop working when I do. There's nothing I need it for anymore, though, so it's mostly just a toy I play around with on those rare occasions when I still use my x86.
I still remember downloading the trial version of CrossOver Office, installing M$ Office, and being blown away by how similar the experience was, though, and then reading some news stories about companies using it to successfully run Office on Linux, and this was more than two years ago. It's a shame it didn't work for you, and I'm curious as to why that might have been. My first guess is that you were trying to run a later version than was gold-listed, but if you weren't, then I really don't know.
> Dude, go with what works. The licensing costs are peanuts compared to staff outlays.
Well, I'd guess that the hardware cost would be more than the licensing cost for your specific migration case.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
That's interesting. I have three questions:
I typed it into a terminal and got not error, but nothing happened, either. I assume a reboot is required...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"