Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Faces Fight Against Online Office Rival

bharatm writes "It's now been a decade since Microsoft bought Hotmail, the web-based e-mail service, for about $400 million. Now Sabeer Bhatia (the site's co-founder) is challenging the software giant's core $20 billion office desktop business. Yesterday Sabeer Bhatia released a free online rival to the bestselling Office suite of applications that will allow users to view, share and edit documents from any computer. 'Designed to help consumers avoid expensive upgrades and to foster collaboration on a secure internet platform, Live Documents matches features found in Office 2007, the most recent version. It will be given away to individuals with 100MB of free data storage space per user. Companies will pay for the system, either hosted remotely or on an internal server, at a discount to Microsoft's licensed technology.'"

186 comments

  1. Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative

    Office Live Documents, also not falling under the trademark name exception where he's using the naming in a different field of business? Should be interesting to see what Microsoft's reaction will be here, if they see it's enough of a threat here to have their lawyers attack him. It's not identical by sharing the Windows Live part of Windows Live, but it looks quite intentionally used to sound confusingly similar to a Microsoft product to me.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Hmm, looks like I misread -- it actually doesn't include "Office", but is just "Live Documents". It would be funny if MS introduced "Windows Live Documents" though, in their Windows Live line of online services. :-p

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by francisstp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Especially since they're using the actual MS Office logo right on the home page...

    3. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by belmolis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They may be ready to challenge the validity of Microsoft's claim to Office by itself as a trademark. While there is no question that Microsoft Office, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Windows, etc. are valid trademarks, the validity of Office, Word, Windows etc. is questionable since these are arguably generic terms that Microsoft cannot remove from the public domain. There are quite a few other office suites with Office as part of their name, e.g. KOffice, Gnome Office, Xoom Office, Star Office.

    4. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by willyhill · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They are valid, I think, in context. "Office" in the context of a software productivity suite can probably be upheld. I don't see "Joe's Office" in Detroit selling printer consumables being a threat to the trademark. "Office Online", a software productivity suite, might.

      There's a brand of kitchen towels in Brazil I think called "Linux". Has the entity that protects the Linux trademark gone after them? No. Would they go after ReactOS if they decided to re-brand themselves and sell their wares under the "Linux" name? Probably.

      As far as the courts are concerned, it's all about context. That's why "Lindows" got nailed. If they were selling Pokemon stickers Microsoft probably wouldn't have bothered, don't you think?

      --
      The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
    5. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Stevecrox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes but when you download Open Office or install star office the look and feel is subtley different they have their own logo's and design. If you goto the live document site you will slight alterations of the standard MS Office icons, you'll see the MS Office logo on the front page and a snapshot of what looks to be MS Office 2003. The site appears to be trying to pretend to be Microsoft sanctioned and be part of Microsoft.

      I always thought trademarks were designed to protect companies/consumers when small companies stole names, designs and images from anouther and mislead consumers into buying their product. This would seem like an open and shut case of a website trying to pretend it has Microsoft Office and mislead people into using it for that reason. If they want to tout how the apps looks extremely similar to MS Office let them but lets not use identical images and icons.

    6. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by belmolis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, Lindows won on the trademark issue, in the United States. See the Wikipedia article on Lindows. Microsoft finally offered to settle, and the Lindows people agreed since Microsoft had sued them in six countries and dealing with all the suits was such a hassle.

      The fact that numerous other office suites with office in their name exist is pretty good evidence that Microsoft can't claim a valid trademark.

    7. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by belmolis · · Score: 1

      The Live Document site seems to be /.-ed, but if it uses the Microsoft logo etc. then that may well be deceptive and infringing. But that is different from the name being infringing.

    8. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Chubby_C · · Score: 1
      They seem to be quite misleading with what they advertise

      How "Live Documents" works in the browser

      Live Documents provides you with a full Office productivity suite - Word, Excel and PowerPoint - with built-in collaboration features right out of your browser - no more dependence on Microsoft Office and Windows and no more format lock-in!

      --
      - My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
    9. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lindows won in the United States, but lost in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. Microsoft had Robertson by the balls, and he knew it, so he took the "settlement" (which was essentially a capitulation on his part) and got while the getting was good.

    10. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by rhyder128k · · Score: 1

      I don't if there is such a thing as prior art for a trademark but there was an office suite on the 8 bit machines called Mini Office.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    11. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      " ... thought trademarks were designed to protect companies/consumers when small companies stole names, ... Maybe, but the inverse is NOT true. For example, Vista was a Veterans Administration application before it became Vista the OS, the former was open source too. In addition, I read a long description on how MS pilfered the Internet Explorer browser name. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate a link, it was quite a story where justice did not triumph. Others big names have freely used other's property that were not freely given, until they were forced to pay. Many times having the larger legal budget spared them of even that consequence.
    12. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by belmolis · · Score: 1

      There is a good chance that Lindows would have prevailed in the European cases if it had appealed. The decision in the Netherlands, for example, was based on the court's holding, without expert testimony, that "windows" was not a generic term in Dutch, which is empirically false. It is true that the Microsoft suits were more of a hassle than Lindows wanted to deal with, but it is far from clear that Lindows had an untenable legal position outside the US.

    13. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It appears that that they have a desktop plug in that turns MS office into a caching client or something similar. Their use might be within the limits.

      It is confusing though. When I went to the download page, all I saw was the client and the system requirements was windows with MS office 2000/xp/2003.

      I'm not entirely sure that this isn't a some web extention for Office or if it is an entire office sweet. The article and sumery suggested it was a different office sweet but I'm not entirely sure after visiting their website.

    14. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you look at the Office Live Documents website, you'll see they use icons that resemble those of Microsoft Office.

      They are, I think, doing this on purpose, hoping for the publicity from being sued by MS. They are probably gambling on the fact that the money they might lose would be less than what an equivalent marketing campaign would buy them. Besides, they might pull back and "oblige" before it's too late, complying to MS' demand to change their name. By then, everybody + dog will know about the service.

      If this is what they try to achieve, the idea is, basically, brilliant.

      Please look at the Office Live Doc website and count the similarities with MS Office you see. There's even a logo that looks like the MS Office logo!

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    15. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Here, do the following test: go to Google News, or any other searchable aggregator, and find every use of the words "Windows" (or "windows") in a French or Belgian paper that did not refer to Microsoft Windows in the year prior to the date of Microsoft's filing.

      You will find none whatsoever.

      Now, try to invalidate a trademark when mark holder comes in with that bit of evidence (replicated in television scripts, radio scripts, advertisements, and other publications.) Wear earmuffs, though, since the laughter of the judges at your claims will probably hurt your ears.

      Now...do the same thing for Dutch. Get back to me if you find any examples.

    16. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Courageous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's just a stupid idea. If the word is generic in its own language, and in the country in which it is hosted, it doesn't suddenly become "not generic" elsewhere. If stupid judges in stupid foreign countries want to bamboozle themselves and their countrymen into giving up their rights... well that's a different matter.

      C//

    17. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Tacvek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From the site: "Live Documents provides you with a full Office productivity suite - Word, Excel and PowerPoint - with built-in collaboration features right out of your browser - no more dependence on Microsoft Office and Windows and no more format lock-in!" So there is a full office suite online. It also sounds like the online suite might be using the names "Word", "Excel", and "Powerpoint". That is a problem.

      However they also have a Microsoft office add-in that more or less allows one to use Microsoft Office as an offline non-browser client. In fact, it looks like they intend this to be the usual way to edit documents, using the online editors only when Microsoft office is not available.

      Their site does definitely use too many copies of the Microsoft office logo, and the Microsoft Office screen shots are somewhat misleading, especially as there very few screen shots of the browser-based editor.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    18. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Microsoft already has a product named "Office Live": http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/officelive/FX101465131033.aspx?xid=CDBD3DE7-630E-477D-8B20-FE6BB97DB13D

        The only thing these guys did was add the word "documents" to it.

    19. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Gonzoman · · Score: 1

      For Christ sake Microsoft rules all. (can I get my payment now please?)

      Now, I don't use any microsoft software.. can someone explain how this affects me?

    20. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Is that why MS paid lindows money?

      Lindows was about to invalidate the windows trademark in the US, after that it's all dominoes.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    21. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Yes but when you download Open Office or install star office the look and feel is
      > subtley different they have their own logo's and design.

      The look-and-feel design is probably not so much an issue (you can't trademark your whole UI), but the logo is another matter. Logos are a large part of what trademark law exists to protect, and unlike the product name ("Office", which is such a generic term and so closely related to the nature of the product's functionality that it is probably not a valid defensible trademark), the logo for MS Office is distinctive. If the "logo" were, say, an icon of a little piece of paper with writing on it, that would be much harder to defend, but the MS Office logo as it stands is... clearly a logo. I don't see how a competitor could ultimately get away with using Microsoft's product logo on a competing product.

      With that said, I _don't_ see the MS Office logo on the Instacoll site. Not that I looked very hard, but I'm not seeing it featured visibly in the top corner or anything.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    22. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was also a graphics program called vista for generating landscapes...
      Version 4 is still available, see:
      http://www.vendornation.com/*ws4d-db-query-QuickShow?vp001

      Tho the site looks somewhat broken...
      I used to use VistaLite and VistaPro on the Amiga back in the days. It started out as just Vista, then as it got more features it was renamed VistaPro but the extra features meant it wouldn't run on most standard Amigas, and thus VistaLite was born as a stripped down version requiring much less memory.
      Wikipedia has a brief article on it:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaPro

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    23. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And we already have an "Open Office" XML based document format, didn't stop microsoft creating "Office Open"...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    24. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's products have become so widespread that people no longer talk about spreadsheets, they now specifically say "excel spreadsheets"... They could argue that the program names have become genericised. Look at the company Hoover that became synonymous with vacuum cleaners,

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    25. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      They are valid, I think, in context. "Office" in the context of a software productivity suite can probably be upheld. I don't see "Joe's Office" in Detroit selling printer consumables being a threat to the trademark. "Office Online", a software productivity suite, might.

      The question is not whether it's a "threat" to the trademark, that begs the question of whether the trademark is valid to begin with. In any case, the name of the application is "Microsoft Office", not "Office". If you have installed it, have a look at the ridiculously long names of the shortcuts and folders, all using "Microsoft Office ..."

      I can think of a half-dozen "Office" suites: Lotus, Wordperfect, Star, etc. Even a few wordprocessors called "Word" for that matter. Just because MS likes to use generic terms to imply that they are the one and only standard, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to meekly allow them to assume control of the language.

    26. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "There's a brand of kitchen towels in Brazil I think called "Linux"..."

      I never saw one of them.

      Anyway, ReactOS can't be renamed Linux because Linux is a valid trademark. It is far from clear that you'd have troubles if you name "Online Office" your online office suite, because it isn't clear that office is a valid trademark.

    27. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by mykdavies · · Score: 1

      They're using "Office" to refer to "Microsoft Office": what they're offering is an Office plugin that allows you to store and share your doucments online.

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
    28. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's part of the point, if MS attacks them, they get free publicity, and everyone will still know their new brand when that story breaks.

    29. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by PReDiToR · · Score: 1
      From the site:

      Live Documents provides knowledge workers with the flexibility to collaboratively develop and manage documents directly with the tools they normally use to create content - namely Microsoft Office

      This site is an extension for office, not a replacement.

      Basically they are giving us GoogleDocs with the work done on our own PCs, not the thin-client of Google. This should improve sales of Office, not reduce them.

      Summary is misleading, story is bunkum.

      This is online collaboration within Office.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    30. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      *cough* Budweiser.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    31. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Microsoft Faces Fight Against Online Office Rival"

      Fight? This site looks like its actively in bed with MS? Given the previous strategy of purchasing Hotmail and turning it into ... well "Hotmail", I'd avoid this one from the start ...

    32. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      I take it that Budweiser means something generic in a foreign country? I can see that. Would be a fair comment, but you have it backwards. In the country in which the Budweiser product was first hosted, the word was /not/ generic. It may be generic elsewhere; that's a different issue. I.e., if the word "Windows" is generic in both its home language and host country, then I would argue the company has no claim to non-generic elsewhere...

      Admittedly, these issues of language and culture crossing trade protections are bitches.

      C//

    33. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by vic-traill · · Score: 1

      I dunno.

      In the '70's Miller had a trademark on 'Lite' which came into its possession via Miller's acquisition of Meister Brau. When Miller Lite and its fantastically popular ex-jock/'Tastes Great!/'Less Filling' ad campaign rocketed Miller to the Number Two industry position (behind Anheuser-Busch) in only a couple of years, other companies started creating 'Light' bears. Miller started suing, citing its trademark on the term 'Lite'. My recollection (I can't find a link to substantiate) is that they while other companies were restricted from using the term 'Lite', 'Light' was deemed un-trademarkable (sorry!) since it was a simple english word.

      Here's a Google Book link with a bit of background in item 14: http://books.google.com/books?id=B9xkMCPgL-kC&pg=RA1-PA817&lpg=RA1-PA817&dq=miller+lite+copyright+sued&source=web&ots=LTr2T5zPFK&sig=QDoCy6X_T0H1Jep7SVwo_iyt5N8

      IANAL, so I don't understand why one would be okay (Office) while another wouldn't (Light).

      --
      [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
    34. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought from the page describing the "webification" of Microsoft Office - but it doesn't seem to be that way. They really do seem to have set up an alternative office suite that works, allegedly, on Mac, Linux and any version of Windows without having Office installed. I mean, they have to have the full capability, since there is no Office version for Linux and Office 2007 doesn't run on Macs.

      I admit that their site isn't terribly clear about that, though. Their press release, however, says "In addition, Live Documents is available as a optional desktop client application that wraps around Microsoft Office and embeds collaborative capabilities into these hitherto standalone software applications..." Note: "in addition", so the "Webification" and "collaboration" aspects are additional.

      My guess is, they started out with the collaboration versions, then fleshed them out later.

      They need to run some sort of demo on the site itself. I find it hard to believe that they reverse-engineered Office in its entirety with just thirty developers. My guess is that none of the embedded OLE stuff is there, just the basic functionality of each of the main apps. Probably no macro and VBA capability, either.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    35. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      Budweis is the German form of the name of a city in Bohemia, and "Budweiser" is the generic term assigned to a style of beers first produced there.

    36. Re:Office Live Documents? Hmm... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Interesting little tangle, isn't it? It would seem to me that this sort of trademark shouldn't be granted in the modern, well-connected world, but if you go back in time... well, interesting little conundrum. (Intentionally) using a term that is genuinely generic in one place, but not in another. Makes you think.

  2. One thing missing... by Sirch · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not surprised a Slashdot summary didn't link to it, but the Times Online? Come now.

    Here it is: the Live Documents website.

    Not had a look yet, though as I've only found a limited use for Google Documents (the spreadsheet application is great for collaboration) I doubt it will be of any use to me. Open Office is good enough for me, if not everyone.

    1. Re:One thing missing... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Windows only. No OS X. No Linux. No wireless.

      Lame.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:One thing missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMAO! Try listening to the BBC dramatisation of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and visiting that Web site. The gay music juxtaposed with a dystopian future. Untold.

    3. Re:One thing missing... by pklinken · · Score: 3, Informative

      The website plays a tune, NEXT.

    4. Re:One thing missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Click "Interoperability" and read:

      "Live Documents allows you to access your documents on any computer running Windows, Linux or Mac - there are no variations in content or appearance on different versions of Windows (commonly faced if you use different versions of Office)."

    5. Re:One thing missing... by bball99 · · Score: 1

      incorrect

    6. Re:One thing missing... by macs4all · · Score: 3, Informative

      Especially lame, since the intro graphics tout Mac and Linux availability. Then not even one word about a plugin for Mac or Linux browers.

      Lame, indeed.

      Next...

    7. Re:One thing missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't browsers on Linux or Mac? You can view, edit, and create documents through your browser alone. The optional plug-in to integrate with an Office desktop application is not the whole of product. Microsoft doesn't even offer Office for Linux so what pray tell do you expect to plug into?

    8. Re:One thing missing... by soliptic · · Score: 1

      oh for mod points - your post says it all.

    9. Re:One thing missing... by pklinken · · Score: 1

      It's ok, this 1 point got me neutral karma again :)

  3. And how is that different from Google Docs? by vivaoporto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how is that different from Google Docs? TFA even mentions that it is getting a "Crowded office", with all these wannabe "online" office applications. This is nothing but a press release, a slashvertisement for a product that did not even proved its worth yet.

    Nothing to see here, move along people.

    1. Re:And how is that different from Google Docs? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 4, Funny

      And how is that different from Google Docs? Because this one has all the stability and file integrity of Microsoft Office, with the security and trust of an unknown company on the Internet?

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    2. Re:And how is that different from Google Docs? by jma05 · · Score: 2, Informative

      > And how is that different from Google Docs

      It allows off-line use for one thing. They will be releasing an MS Office plugin soon. This is a big deal for me. I would like to access my documents from anywhere but I also like the richness of desktop tools. Google talked about it but nothing concrete so far as I know.

    3. Re:And how is that different from Google Docs? by WestCoastJTF · · Score: 1

      The chief difference is that Google has not paid for a Slashvertisement.

      --
      JTF: In your heart, you know we're right.
    4. Re:And how is that different from Google Docs? by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      How is this much different than using Gspace or some equivalent to automatically sync a file in your google storage box? Besides better integration,

    5. Re:And how is that different from Google Docs? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      looks more like they're trying to knock off the Office Live service than MS Office itself. It seems to use the real MS Office and a plug in to store all your documents online for easy access. That makes a lot of sense as it's what most people would use, but I don't see it hurting Microsoft unless they have an online editor good enough to replace things yet, but for personal organization and companies it seems like a good compromise adding the leading software package and simply adding a plugin to put those documents online... so simple and neat.

      Of course Apple could do something similar with their iEverything, but they want it tied to THEIR service just like everybody else... if Apple's iApps could talk to non-Apple servers just as well as .Mac ones they'd have a real product instead of just a wannabe.

    6. Re:And how is that different from Google Docs? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      And how is that different from Google Docs? TFA even mentions that it is getting a "Crowded office", with all these wannabe "online" office applications. This is nothing but a press release, a slashvertisement for a product that did not even proved its worth yet.

      Well, the offline synchronization looks promising - even if you only treat it as a free online backup and remote access tool. If they manage to create a common OS independent office suite that really is transaprent to users (in terms of 100% file compatibiity between versiosn running on different OS) then it will be a useful tool.

      Nothing to see here, move along people.

      Sort of like Porto being a wannabe Lisbon? I think we could both agree there is room for different varients on a theme; although I draw the line at White Port and California Port.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    7. Re:And how is that different from Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only difference of real merit IMO is that they are offering companies the ability to host it themselves. Thus instead of relying on Google to store and protect your data, you could rely on your internal processes, and, at least in theory be able to access it internally as well as via the web.

  4. The link to the "killer app" by celardore · · Score: 1

    Is here
    See for yourself.

    1. Re:The link to the "killer app" by empaler · · Score: 1

      Is here
      See for yourself. You must have better karma than Sirch, because he linked to the exact same page, only /. thought it prudent in his case to warn me of the url.

      Here it is: the Live Documents website [live-documents.com]. Odd.
    2. Re:The link to the "killer app" by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think the application is killer, unfortunately its only possible victim is itself.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  5. Yeah, forget it by realmolo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "It will be given away to individuals with 100MB of free data storage space per user."

    That's pretty cool.

    "Companies will pay for the system, either hosted remotely or on an internal server, at a discount to Microsoft's licensed technology."

    Okay, that's fucking stupid.

    Office apps that REQUIRE a working network/internet connection to function are something that any sane IT department would stay FAR FAR away from. We just don't live in a world where everyone can be connected to the internet all of the time. And even when that day comes, most people would like to have their apps run locally, just in case.

    The whole idea of "hosted desktop apps" is dubious (and I'm not even considering the inevitable "rental fees", which is a whole 'nuther scam). It might work for little "one-time use" stuff, but no one would ever rely on them for day-to-day work.

    1. Re:Yeah, forget it by Winckle · · Score: 1

      From the way the site describes it, there are both local, and remote copies, the online ones are for collaboration.

    2. Re:Yeah, forget it by s.bots · · Score: 1
      The local copy is a 'wrapper' for an existing office app on your machine to allow you to use the features described.

      From http://www.live-documents.com/products/index.html:

      Use your existing desktop Office application (Microsoft Office currently and shortly Open Office) as a smart client that permits offline access to your document - the next time you go online, Live Documents automatically synchronizes all changes to ensure that there is a single version of the truth.
    3. Re:Yeah, forget it by ReeceTarbert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole idea of "hosted desktop apps" is dubious (and I'm not even considering the inevitable "rental fees", which is a whole 'nuther scam). It might work for little "one-time use" stuff, but no one would ever rely on them for day-to-day work.
      Is is just me or we're slowly going back to square one? That is, to the days when all you had was a terminal connected to a time sharing system you paid to rent resources from?


      RT
      --
      Your Bookmarks. Anywhere. Anytime.

    4. Re:Yeah, forget it by JMZero · · Score: 5, Informative

      The company I work for has been using all online docs for the last 7 years. Around 4 million documents and a few hundred thousand dollars saved later, I don't think it's that ridiculous of an idea.

      About a year in, we added a plug-in to store backup versions of the docs on the user's hard disk to supplement the auto-save (in the case of a lost connection during editing, which of course does happen occasionally) - but other than that things have pretty much "just worked". Honestly, the docs have caused less problems than we used to have with Word: there's nothing to configure incorrectly, there's no choice about where to save, there's nothing to install, and there's far fewer features to abuse. It's much easier to protect the user from themselves and to enforce business rules in documents. As a bonus, users can work from home without buying their own software, or having compatibility hassles.

      Pretty much everything our users do is done using a browser and hosted centrally; it has been an unqualified success and an IT dream. I can't imagine how much pain we've avoided by missing 5 generations of new Word problems. I think back to the time when we had to install apps on every machine, and I shudder.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    5. Re:Yeah, forget it by Thanatos69 · · Score: 1

      So in other words, "Use our product online but continue paying for other software to edit offline."

      Doesn't really solve any problems that aren't already solved from what I can see.

    6. Re:Yeah, forget it by RollingThunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Frankly, if it makes sense, why not?

      They did it that way back then because computers were obscenely expensive and rare.

      Now they're plentiful and cheap, but expensive to administer effectively... there's still an economy of scale there, especially for smaller businesses.

    7. Re:Yeah, forget it by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      yeah because having office installed on every seperate pc, can't possibly see any problems with that!

      oh wait, desktops are shit in a corperate environment and online/terminals shit on them from a great height.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    8. Re:Yeah, forget it by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      And what application do you use to do this, I would be interested to know. (looking for options in that department to better support my company on a whole).

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    9. Re:Yeah, forget it by kava_kicks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would you mind sharing what online application you are actually using? How do you deal with travelling users who may/may not have constant Internet access? What about privacy/security? Are the docs encrypted? Is this an inhouse system or provided by a third party (eg Google)? How are business rules enforced?

    10. Re:Yeah, forget it by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      "Companies will pay for the system..."

      Okay, that's fucking stupid.


      OK so you'd rather have "Clippy" (or his equivalent) pop up with v14gR4 ads every 30 seconds? :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Yeah, forget it by JMZero · · Score: 4, Informative

      Our document editor is homegrown, and we host it internally. Privacy and security would certainly be bigger concerns if you were hosting with a third party, and I can't really speak to how it would be best to manage that.

      The application isn't overly bandwidth intensive, and some of our users access it over cell-type connections. But really this hasn't impacted us too much - the nature of our business means that our production staff who travel will usually be dictating rather than typing themselves (and it's easy to upload the dictation files when you're back to some kind of good connection). Also, to be fair, many of our users (especially marketing) have other Word processors they use for documents not tied to production, like proposals or brochures or labels and what not. Our app is not a general purpose word processor: we had the luxury of designing it around a limited set of needs.

      In terms of business rules, we've found it to be very convenient - though a proper content management system would do most of the same things. Naturally it's easy to control who can see what, who can edit what, what's available to what clients online, etc. We can also make certain elements of documents uneditable, or only editable via our own tools (and the relevant data captured back). For example: our users produce a lot of reports, and in the past they would tend to put tabled information in reports and nowhere else (meaning we couldn't analyze that data later). Now, they enter that data one time, in a structured way through a plugin in the word processor, and it's persisted in the database as well as being on the report. This is of course possible with a regular word processor as well, but I think some parts would be much more difficult to manage. When you're dealing with a small subset of word processing functionality, and a small/standard codebase for the UI, many of these things are trivial.

      I imagine there are a lot better options out there now than when we built this years ago (and it quite possibly wouldn't be the right choice now) but it has worked out well for us.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    12. Re:Yeah, forget it by Quino · · Score: 1

      "Companies will pay for the system, either hosted remotely or on an internal server, at a discount to Microsoft's licensed technology."

      Okay, that's fucking stupid.

      Office apps that REQUIRE a working network/internet connection to function are something that any sane IT department would stay FAR FAR away from. You know, I actually had the opposite reaction -- if the apps are run as an internal service then it's no different from the corporate email client. If email *ever* goes down work comes to a screeching halt, so having the office apps hosted the same way would not imply another productivity vulnerability. The intranet already better just keep on ticking, with zero downtime or you have a building(s) full of people twiddling their thumbs*.

      By the same token, work doesn't buy me copies of MS Office to run at home: if I want to work on spreadsheets at home then I'm on my own already (for me, that means Openoffice). As long as the network apps let me save files locally to take home, then I don't actually see any problem ...

      * not to mention network licenses of CAD programs, etc.

      In fact, I imagine this might give me the option of using the software license work paid for me from home -- again, just like the corporate email client I can use from a web browser right now ...

      Did I misunderstand your objection?

    13. Re:Yeah, forget it by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is is just me or we're slowly going back to square one? That is, to the days when all you had was a terminal connected to a time sharing system you paid to rent resources from?

      It's just you. We aren't heading back to "square one" - the world where you had a terminal connected to a time-sharing system you paid to rent resources from. But that original world still exists, and in certain situations, still makes lots of sense.

      1) Accessing applications online with vendors on their systems means that support costs are dramatically reduced - since the vendor controls the ultimate application execution environment, the possibility of conflicts with strange situations and other software is reduced to near zero.

      2) The "time sharing" system called "slashdot.org" is what you typed your post into. So is "http://maps.google.com". Are you moving "backward" by posting? In other words, it's not a step "backwards", but it might be a step "towards".

      3) Your browser isn't a dumb terminal. You can "do it yourself" if you can do a better job. But if you can't, and the remote application provider can, you'll lose. Get used to it... it's called competition.

      If you want to *own* it, you better have it to begin with. Until then, find somebody who has what you need and pay them. Even when you "buy" software, it's only good for a while until the O/S updates and your version is no longer usable/compatable.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    14. Re:Yeah, forget it by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "Office apps that REQUIRE a working network/internet connection to function are something that any sane IT department would stay FAR FAR away from."

      Everybody around here would stop if we lose network connection. People wouldn't even be able to log on their systems and access their documents.

      So, please, explain why office software is that big a deal.

    15. Re:Yeah, forget it by The_reformant · · Score: 0, Redundant

      For many common day-to-day operations the loss of flexibility isnt worth it imho, many operations are inherently cpu intensive, global regex search and replace on large groups of large files for instance. I could see this bringing a server to its knees pretty quickly if enough users were doing enough complex operations.

      What about large files? I often have need to edit text files in the order of hundreds of gigabytes. Some of these come from customers across the atlantic. Moving gigs of data across the trans atlantic pipes every time you autosave is going to add up for any business.

      1 hour network outage on a site with 500 employees, you just lost 500 people hours.

      The list goes on...

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
    16. Re:Yeah, forget it by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Office apps that REQUIRE a working network/internet connection to function are something that any sane IT department would stay FAR FAR away from.

      How is this worse than storing documents on a central file server? That's a pretty common model, with lots of advantages.

    17. Re:Yeah, forget it by expatriot · · Score: 1

      Parent might be referring to internet connection rather that connection to a LAN or local fileserver. Most big companies have at least the master version of files on a server and many also have employees' working directories. The "internet" can go down without affecting any of this.

  6. Anouther Web Application Oh Good by Stevecrox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When will people realise that not everything that can be done online should be done online. The article is very light on details one of the big reasons I won't even try Google Apps is because all the files are located on Googles servers and I wouldn't have any control over them. The only detail the article does mention is that this "Live" office has Office 2003's look and feel. OpenOffice is free and has Office 2003's "look" and yet it hasn't replaced MS Office, google apps is free and hasn't replaced MS Office.

    Next a small upstart company will be telling us how they have a image manipulation program you uses through the web which will replace photoshop.

    1. Re:Anouther Web Application Oh Good by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't think of using Google Docs as my full time editor. What I have found it very handy for is storing frequently used documents in a fashion which I can reach just about anywhere and export as PDF, Doc or ODF depending on my needs. In a pinch, I can use it for writing, and then move it to my main document store.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Anouther Web Application Oh Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're not doing it because they believe this is the way of the future.
      They're doing it to be bought by Microsoft.

      Buying a small company out is much easier than actually competing with it. Business 101.

    3. Re:Anouther Web Application Oh Good by martijnd · · Score: 1

      When will people realize that not everything that can be done online should be done online. The article is very light on details one of the big reasons I won't even try Google Apps is because all the files are located on Googles servers and I wouldn't have any control over them. The only detail the article does mention is that this "Live" office has Office 2003's look and feel. OpenOffice is free and has Office 2003's "look" and yet it hasn't replaced MS Office, google apps is free and hasn't replaced MS Office.

      Despite having used computers on a daily basis for the past 10 or more years, my dear wife is just not the right person to have to fiddle with USB sticks to carry her documents around, e-mail them to herself etc. She works both at home, in the office, and whenever we are visiting our parents and have a space hour or so. She is one of these people who only need indented lists, bold, italics and headings.

      These days, she logs in to her Google account, and continues typing ; minimal hassle and my life is easier than ever.

    4. Re:Anouther Web Application Oh Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally! Too bad you AC'd, because this is worth +1.

    5. Re:Anouther Web Application Oh Good by Hamstaus · · Score: 1

      Next a small upstart company will be telling us how they have a image manipulation program you uses through the web which will replace photoshop.

      Adobe is already planning on taking Photoshop online.

      --
      I moderate "-1, Fool"
    6. Re:Anouther Web Application Oh Good by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Actually that small startup/upstart will be Adobe.

      And FYi, with Adobe Air, Google Gears and with Safari leading the way on HTML 5 local storage APIs for web apps... those online apps will soon be getting a version that works while you're offline as well, then will update and sync when you do have a connection.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  7. The Truman Show by iamacat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did we really progress from naked MySpace photos to such a disregard to our own privacy that we do not mind putting ALL of our stuff online. Besides server compromises and XSS exploits, the data can be easily disclosed in even a simple civil or divorce court case. At least with your own computer you can delete the files, use encryption or simply throw the hard drive away in the dumpster. Besides, what happens if the provider decides to suddenly discontinue the service or start charging $50/month?

    1. Re:The Truman Show by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

      Privacy is for old people.

      The kids, they love to be stalked.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:The Truman Show by vanDrunen · · Score: 1

      At least with your own computer you can delete the files, use encryption or simply throw the hard drive away in the dumpster. If you don't want your data being disclosed I wouldn't throw a harddrive in the dumpster.
      Who knows who'll put your "private video's" on youtube.
    3. Re:The Truman Show by iamacat · · Score: 1

      What do you think is the probability that someone is going to dive into a can of used cat litter from my garbage on the particular day when I throw away my hard drive?

    4. Re:The Truman Show by vanDrunen · · Score: 1

      The odds will be quite big if the guy diving into your can of used cat litter is the same guy that has been been watching you with a telescope from across the street while you were recording those "private video's". Even bigger if you're a celebrity. Or of course if you work for the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc... for some reason lost USB sticks with secret information always seem to get found somehow...

    5. Re:The Truman Show by foxylad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many posters have responded along the lines of "I'd never trust my data to an online servce!". But there's a case to be made that for the average user online data is safer than having it on their PC.

      Before you shoot me down, think about all the viruses, trojans, spyware you've cleaned off friends PCs, and about the number of times you've asked "When did you last backup?" with a sinking feeling. Wouldn't it be great to be able do a quick Ubuntu install and be totally confident they'll be working on their docs again within the hour? I'm sure all you uber-geeks run machines with mirrored drives and sound OSs, and backup every night - but the average user doesn't. So to them a well-designed and run (not making any judgements on this particular service!) online system is likely to be a lot safer.

      And here's some proof - geek that I am, running my own Postfix mailserver, I bless the day I migrated to Gmail. And as many of my IT dependants too - compared to managing all those Outlook/Thunderbird apps, the possibility that Larry and Sergey might be browsing my email is of absolutely no consequence. Yes, Gmail has gone down occassionally, but the downtime has been an order of magnitude less than it would have been while I was moving my mail data to my new laptop, or rebuilding friend's PCs to get rid of the nasties.

      --
      Do as you would be done to.
    6. Re:The Truman Show by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Gmail (and Google Docs) is a perfect example of a totally insecure way to store confidential documents. They actively encourage people to access the system (sending their credentials) over insecure connections (no https) and will even do it automatically.

      If you're the director of a company and you store confidential information on one of these services and your company loses money as a result of someone gaining access to that confidential information, you will likely be sued into bankruptcy.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:The Truman Show by foxylad · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose all I can say is I've never had any of my dependants lose information they stored online, but I have had several cases of data lost from their PCs. What's your experience?

      --
      Do as you would be done to.
    8. Re:The Truman Show by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to make an argument about data loss vs confidentiality? Cause if you are, yes, bravo, perhaps an encrypted online backup system is a nice way to achieve balance in that department, but using Google's services will not give you that.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:The Truman Show by syousef · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did we really progress from naked MySpace photos

      I for one haven't even progressed to naked mindspace photos. Link please.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    10. Re:The Truman Show by foxylad · · Score: 1

      My point is that for the great majority of users, the safety of their data (whether from malware, hardware issues or privacy) is likely to be higher if they store it on an online service than on their own hard drive. I agree with you that Gmail/Google Apps is not the pinnacle of privacy, but I'm questioning how often network sniffing http packets actually happens, compared to bot/keylogger instances (hence even greater loss of privacy) on a PC.

      I'd imagine the bots win, but even if they are roughly as prevalent as sniffing, you've still got to make up for the all the other advantages of online data/application storage - convenience, reliability, hardware independance... All in all, I stand by the use of online apps by mine and me.

      --
      Do as you would be done to.
    11. Re:The Truman Show by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1

      This is, of course, why we put three or four drill bits through the thing first.

      --
      "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
    12. Re:The Truman Show by QuantumG · · Score: 1
      See, my problem with you, and most people on Slashdot who talk about security like they know what they are on about, is that you don't even understand basic terminology. You confuse data integrity and privacy with confidentiality. You've tried to say something about availability, but all you see is the upside. This is like COMPSEC-101 stuff here. To evaluate the security of a system, identify the degree to which it protects:

      • Confidentiality;
      • Integrity; and
      • Availability


      It even has a familiar mnemonic so you can remember it. If something has bad scores in a particular one of these area, and you're trying to improve the security, try to think of ways to improve that score without trading off the scores in the other areas.

      Google Docs is bad in all these areas because they don't use strong authentication systems - even in availability, because if someone can delete your files then they are obviously not available. If they just used SSL and enforced its use then their scores would immediately shoot up - most notably in availability which is what you get when you put something online, at the expense of confidentiality and integrity.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    13. Re:The Truman Show by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1
      At least with your own computer you can delete the files, use encryption or simply throw the hard drive away in the dumpster

      Wake up! In many countries, governments with a disregard for privacy and human rights are working on (or have already implemented) legislation that forces you to help police decrypt your stuff or go to prison, allows the police to use malware to search through your computer's harddisk and let's not forget all the illegal wiretapping / breaking into homes by police around the globe.

      This might not be a good argument in favour of surrendering all your documents to a 3rd party, but it weakens the case for protecting your privacy by keeping stuff in your home / on your computer.

      --
      "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    14. Re:The Truman Show by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you live.

      In some urban areas it's not uncommon to have somebody (frequently a homeless person but sometimes not) go through the trash every night looking for things of value, e.g. refundable bottles. I've no idea whether they're savvy enough to recognize and pull out a hard drive as potentially valuable, or desperate enough to open a bag of cat turds looking for stuff, but it's not a chance I'd really like to take. (Also, some garbage may go to a recycling center for sorting before it goes to a landfill or incinerator, so there may be multiple points where someone could pull the drive out of the waste stream.)

      I bore a bunch of holes through any of the ones I toss out, just to make it obvious they're not salvageable.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    15. Re:The Truman Show by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      over insecure connections (no https)

      Wrong!

      Google Docs and Gmail both use HTTPS if you force it to. The easiest way to do so is use the Firefox plugin CustomizeGoogle. Hard way is to remember to type https:/// links to Gmail and Google Docs. Either way, you are golden.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    16. Re:The Truman Show by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I believe I gave Google fair credit here.

      By default it is insecure.

      Therefore it is insecure.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    17. Re:The Truman Show by OberonX · · Score: 1

      The weird thing is, I don't really care about privacy and I think plenty of people from my age (24)group don't either, and this is especially true with the non geek crowd.
        I feel is ok to use my privacy as a currency in a commercial exchange. Gmail can read my emails, I get free webmail. Google Docs reads my documents, I get free 'Office'. The same thing in most other cases, id cards, oyster cards, cctv, etc.
        I understand a lot of people here value their Privacy much higher but to be honest, my life is pretty boring and I don't have too much to hide.

    18. Re:The Truman Show by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      In addition to the other comment, there's another issue. The plugin to access Gmail through the personalized Google page only allows for http:/// access. https:/// isn't even an option. Unfortunately, this fact isn't clearly displayed, meaning millions of Gmail users are exposing their password every day and don't know it. HUGE security flaw IMO.

    19. Re:The Truman Show by iamacat · · Score: 1

      When I connected an external hard drive, my computer asked me if I want to use it for backups and has done so since. My last backup was half an hour below and I can conveniently restore my files, folder or the entire computer to the state it was in a couple of month ago. My platform is not known for widespread malware infestations.

      Now, when did Google last backup their e-mail? I accidentally deleted an important interview invitation a couple of months ago and would like them to restore it for me. Why do I get that sinking feeling...

    20. Re:The Truman Show by iamacat · · Score: 1

      All right, put your info where you mouth is. Please post in the following as a reply:

      1. Your physical address and phone number as well as those of your friends
      2. Where do your children go to school and the route they usually take while walking home?
      3. Full history of your love life (so that we can inform all your romantic partners of each other's existence, especially at convenient times like wedding anniversaries or birth of your kids)
      4. Photos of yourself smoking pot, shitfaced drunk and making out with barely familar persons of opposite (or same) gender. Wouldn't it be great if everyone giving you job interviews knew what a great guy/gal you are on a personal level?

      Now tell me how difficult would it be for someone to get all this information from your e-mail, photos and documents?

    21. Re:The Truman Show by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Well, in United States I am protected against self incrimination in criminal cases. So if my life and freedom is at stake, I can refuse to give out the password. And if the police doesn't follow laws, I am screwed anyway. They can just plant the evidence rather than having me decrypt it.

      Regardless, on my own computer I can at least delete files. With any sensitive information that could land me in trouble with government or significant others I would certainly use an encrypted filesystem and do a secure delete as soon as I am done with the file/e-mail message and probably before there is a court order requiring me to preserve evidence. The chances of the data been recovered after that are much slimmer than investigators pulling it out of Google backups or caches.

  8. How many online office rivals do we really need? by MadJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm all for competition against MSO, but I fail to see the benefit of online office suites. And especially now that we have two. (and I'm sure MS is working on their version of MSOO (Microsoft Office Online))

    The market for such online suites seem rather thin to me.

  9. slashdot, home of the infomercial by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is just a plug and nothing more.

    this is about as much of a competitor to microsoft as a cockroach is a competitor to me

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:slashdot, home of the infomercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is about as much of a competitor to microsoft as a cockroach is a competitor to me
      Most cockroaches get much more action than you. Microsoft gets more action that this site.

    2. Re:slashdot, home of the infomercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is about as much of a competitor to microsoft as a cockroach is a competitor to me

      So, you're saying Microsoft really should be worried? :-)

    3. Re:slashdot, home of the infomercial by jamrock · · Score: 1

      this is about as much of a competitor to microsoft as a cockroach is a competitor to me
      Um...so you think it's going to be a success, then?
  10. I liked this better... by realinvalidname · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...when it was called ThinkFree Office.

  11. Where credits due... by LingNoi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now Sabeer Bhatia (the site's co-founder) is challenging the software giant's core $20 billion office desktop business.
    Way to make it sound like it's a new and original idea instead of a copy and paste of what Google Docs has done.

    and from the article..

    Live Documents is similar to Google Apps, launched in February and used by companies including Proctor & Gamble, General Electric and Capgemini as a cheaper alternative to Microsoft.
    Don't want that cheap knockoff now do we..

    However, Mr Bhatia claims that his product is superior to Google's in its range and quality, most crucially because it mimics Office 2007.
    Yes it's better quality because it looks exactly like the most complained about office package due to its usability issues.
    1. Re:Where credits due... by gordgekko · · Score: 1
      Everyone hates Office 2007 so much that it's selling like gangbusters.

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    2. Re:Where credits due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you flame baiting?

      Everyone hates Office 2007 so much that it's selling like gangbusters.
      Conveniently forgetting it's the only Office suite you can buy in a retail store...

      The source on your link sucks.. Do you really expect me to believe something from a website called Mircosoft Watch.. that sounds like a real independent website and goes great with the fact that they have almost no sources themselves to backup what they're saying.
    3. Re:Where credits due... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
      I have noticed that with Office 2K7 you really love it or really hate it. As someone who was given the Pro version from a friend who really hated it and went back to 2K3, I have found the ribbon VERY much a PITA, and find it much more tolerable with it off.


      I think whether you are in the love or hate camp really depends on your monitors resolution. My friends that are running the 1400 and better flat panels seem to love it, while I have found that on my 1024X768 laptop that it just sucks up too much real estate.


      Does anyone know of a way to resize the ribbon real estate without getting rid of it entirely? I wouldn't mind learning the button layout just so I can walk folks through it when I have to work with it,but I am not going to give up 25% of the screen just for a control bar.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Where credits due... by RupW · · Score: 1

      I think whether you are in the love or hate camp really depends on your monitors resolution. My friends that are running the 1400 and better flat panels seem to love it, while I have found that on my 1024X768 laptop that it just sucks up too much real estate. Actually you don't lose any real estate.

      Does anyone know of a way to resize the ribbon real estate without getting rid of it entirely? I wouldn't mind learning the button layout just so I can walk folks through it when I have to work with it,but I am not going to give up 25% of the screen just for a control bar. Well you can minimise it (ctrl-f1 or right-click 'Minimise the Ribbon') which leaves only the tab headers and hides the ribbon itself until you click on them or start using ribbon command key shortcuts. Don't know about scaling it.

  12. WebApps == Utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Web application developers/promoters seem to think we are living in a utopian society, with free Fiber-like speeds everywhere.

    I have news for these people, internet connections go down, servers crash, on-line servers get hacked.

    I like having an application on my laptop (portable), where I can access it anywhere. I don't need an internet connection to get at my data. USB keys, CD-ROMS, DVDs provide enough.

    Software, as flaky as it is, can also be resold when I am done with it.

    Try selling a subscription to some web service that you don't need / no longer want.

    Software developers want a market that operates like the cellphone market, pay $20.00/mo, independant of usage of the service. Then add 'micropayments' for 'features'. A sure fire way of ensuring revenue, while nickel and diming consumers to death.

    I will always buy standalone software. You can pry my copy of Office/Visual Studio from my cold dead hands, or when I sell it for say 50%. Take that away, and I can use OpenOffice, and good old GCC/G++.

    Software wants to be like a utility company. Pay for the service, weather you use it or not. Without any of the regulation, security, or acccountability. Sorry, doesn't work in my book.

    1. Re:WebApps == Utopia by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Try selling a subscription to some web service that you don't need / no longer want."

      especially after the company offering it dies...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:WebApps == Utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      internet connections go down, servers crash, on-line servers get hacked.


      But someday they wont. They will be as reliable as electricity.

      Computers used to be very unreliable as well, crashing multiple times a day, but now they dont. Were you saying that we should all stick to typewriters back then?

      Typewriters used to have mechanical problems (arms impacting and getting stuck) in their early days. Should we have abandoned that path?

      I'm sure that early electricity, phone service, and automobiles weren't all that reliable when they first appeared either. Should they have been abandoned early on too?

      Online access will be reliable and ubiquitous in the near future. These applications are the pioneers of a new type of service.
    3. Re:WebApps == Utopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, and for computers to be that reliable, I have a few things we can add:

      1. On-Line services will compensate me for downtime. Regardless of if I use it or not. Just like the electrical company does.

      2. Software Service companies will offer me a warranty. The software crashes, I get the technical support I need right now.

      3. On-Line services will compensate me for ANY failures, baring acts of Nature, for ANY software failure.

      4. On-Line services will offer redundancy, and offer a 99.999% uptime rate. Any deviation from this, and they loose their license.

      Oh wait..software companies can't , and don't want to be licensed. Simple programmers can't offer any guarantees or warranties on their software. Well , not even Microsoft.

      Maybe in another 100 years or so, heck, it took the telephone that long.

    4. Re:WebApps == Utopia by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1
      Web application developers/promoters seem to think we are living in a utopian society, with free Fiber-like speeds everywhere.

      This utopian society may soon be reality for most of us.

      I have news for these people, internet connections go down, servers crash, on-line servers get hacked. Laptops get stolen, hard disk drives break down, viruses can destroy your data... Data on some online provider's disks is generally better protected, the real danger is that provider or the company hosting it might go broke / rogue / ...

      I will always buy standalone software. You can pry my copy of Office/Visual Studio from my cold dead hands, or when I sell it for say 50%. Take that away, and I can use OpenOffice, and good old GCC/G++.

      How many times have you had to pay for an upgrade that you needed because it fixed some bugs or because your old version didn't support your new operating system anymore? Software vendors are always in it for the cash, whether they sell you something (perpetually unfinished) or rent you a service. Judge them by the easy with which you can take your stuff elsewhere (try reusing Word documents elsewhere without problems).

      Personally, I don't use any of those web 2.0 online tools (although I do look at online presentations occasionally - e.g. this), but I realize that they do have their use for the perpetually connected among us. I would never use such tools if I couldn't make a local copy of all my data easily though (poor webmail users...), or if I had to deal with highly confidential stuff.

      --
      "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    5. Re:WebApps == Utopia by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

      Not really, moreover, nor is really necessary.

      I remember reading of the first experiments using VoIP and thinking it was a joke. Never would work too many short comings. However, while I still have a single land line it is only for emergency use when either the cable or the electric power is down. Even then I still have the cell phone if it is charged. Perfect? Far from it, nonetheless, I have two VoIP numbers for business use and I prefer them over the land line.

    6. Re:WebApps == Utopia by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Web application developers/promoters seem to think we are living in a utopian society, with free Fiber-like speeds everywhere.

      I have news for these people, internet connections go down, servers crash, on-line servers get hacked.


            You can't build the future in the present. If I show you a future that you need, the fiber will come. Twenty years ago the lucky ones had 1200 bit per second modems, and paid $12 per hour (on top of any long distance charges) to connect online to bulletin boards, and services like CompuServe, AOL, GEnie and Prodigy. Our "networks" before the popular 'net we know today. Who would have dreamed of multi-megabit connections that are always on, for a cheap, flat monthly fee?

            You don't know what tomorrow will bring. Should the innovation stop just because today you don't have the bandwidth?

            A guy once asked a king for some ships, in the middle of a war. And he discovered America.
            A guy once built a town in the middle of a desert.
            Etc.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:WebApps == Utopia by m2943 · · Score: 1

      Web application developers/promoters seem to think we are living in a utopian society, with free Fiber-like speeds everywhere.

      Appliance manufacturers seem to think we are living in a utopian society, with free, reliable electricity everywhere. Those silly bastards.

    8. Re:WebApps == Utopia by jo42 · · Score: 1

      This utopian society may soon be reality for most of us. Even 90% of a few million people is a fraction of 6 billion, so you might want to reword that to a "few, privileged, us".
    9. Re:WebApps == Utopia by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1
      Even 90% of a few million people is a fraction of 6 billion, so you might want to reword that to a "few, privileged, us".

      True, but why are we even talking about the poor/starving/3rd world population when we are arguing about new technology? But since you brought it up - do you think that people in 3rd world countries will be more likely to have laptops/desktop PCs capable of running Office 2007, or low-power devices connected to the internet?

      --
      "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    10. Re:WebApps == Utopia by steveoc · · Score: 1

      Or maybe - in the near utopian future - the 600 billion third world residents are going to have an unconstrained 100mbit network everywhere, one laptop per child, open source everything ...

      and the better off residents in the USA will using Vista to get their AOL.

    11. Re:WebApps == Utopia by cyborch · · Score: 1

      Wow... we have 100 times the world's population in third world countries?

      Does that mean the world population will suddenly grow to 606 billion people, or that most of the third world countries will be extraterrestrial?

    12. Re:WebApps == Utopia by steveoc · · Score: 1

      No - the internet is growing at like, 100 times per annum .. so there are 600,000 billion ppl in the near utopian 3rd world future

  13. Agreed, confidential documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Agreed.
    These types of things are fine for college & high school kids that have very little confidential information. But when you become an adult, you need control over your information.

    There is no way I going to write a letter involving a financial transaction on one of these things. Plus, I have been around long enough to see these things come and go, and my data along with it.

    Also, what business is going to use this? If you run a law firm, medical office, or financial business you are legally required NOT to use this stuff.
    If you run a business that has trade secrets (i.e. most of them) you would be stupid to use this.

    I know MSFT wants to move Office to a web/subscription model and when they do these types of businesses will be out in the cold, or moving to something like OpenOffice (although many don't know of OpenOffice's existence, and OO really just isn't good at making complex documents. I wish it was, it isn't. OO is better than this web crap.)

    Seriously, I have been waiting forever for Google Apps to come out in a Google branded server that a business puts behind their firewall.
    I think Gmail is fantastic, but I can't put my businesses emails on there because of the confidentiality laws. If I could run the server in my office, problem solved. I know Google is about the data so it wont' happen. But the data is what I am not allowed to give them.

    Also, you have the problem of working when not connected.
    But I am always connected you say. Yeah, Right! With a web app, I can't work on a plane. I can't work in a non-free WiFi airport (unless I pay $20 for the 3 hours I am stuck there, delayed flights). I can't work at my parents house because they are out in a dial-up location (it isn't a radius from civilization thing but a how land features cause extra line lengths thing) and they are in a cell phone black hole.
    This is a probelm as sometimes getting out of Internet range is the only way I keep people from bugging me and getting work done.

    1. Re:Agreed, confidential documents by smallfries · · Score: 1

      There is no way I going to write a letter involving a financial transaction on one of these things. Plus, I have been around long enough to see these things come and go, and my data along with it.

      I know MSFT wants to move Office to a web/subscription model and when they do these types of businesses will be out in the cold

      Are you trying to have both sides of the arguement by yourself? Either it's a useful product or its not. If its a not a valid product then micronsoft moving into the market has no affect whatsoever.
      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    2. Re:Agreed, confidential documents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe I came down on the side that it isn't a useful product (email excluded)
      MSFT wants it (on-line Office) to be a useful product, but it isn't.
      MSFT moving into the market, implies that they pull the non-Online version of Office. Thus removing the useful product and replacing it with a non-useful product.

  14. an office plugin? by h2k1 · · Score: 1

    to promote online file sharing on real time? and setting permisions? looks like to me very dubious and not nothing like an online aplication suite. i have seen people doing this like this by phone, being just fine to have one file updated and then e-mailed to everyone, and i believe that in this case the most simple thing to do should prevail. anyway, it's a crazy thing to do... i guess, imagine if two users try to change a cell value at the sime time, could be complicated, uh?

  15. ummm by rockwood · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been using Zoho for a while now. With six kids in school, it has been a fantastic tool for them to write, edit and print documents accessible remotely at a moments notice. So what makes live doc's so much better? Furthermore, from what I've read thus far at live-docs, it seems Zoho has also provided more features... a more thorough overall user experience. Admittedly I have nothing solid for comparison since live-docs is still by invitation only (yes, I did register). Can anyone that currently has full access to live-docs that also uses Zoho regularly care to post a comparison... [or get that invitation approved for me :) ]

    --
    Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
  16. What's the tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it HTML+JS, Flash/Flex, XUL, XAML... or what? What server-side components?

  17. "Matches"? by Jay+L · · Score: 4, Funny

    Live Documents matches features found in Office 2007

    They're obviously trying to position this to be "as powerful as Office 2007", but they can't even bring themselves to use THAT much vague puffery?

    My personal site also matches features found in Office 2007. It's blue.

    1. Re:"Matches"? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Methinks that's a bit of Indian understatement at work there. :-)

      Why do I say this? Consider the About Us page:

      InstaColl is a Bangalore-based start-up founded with a singular vision - establish the first "Made by India" product brand that is globally recognized and appreciated. Please note that is "Made by India" and not just "Made in India" - half the software products in the world are probably already developed to some extent in India but can you name even one product brand made by India...no? We thought so - this is therefore our raison d[']être...

      Confusing run-ons notwithstanding (and in fact, I would disagree, unless they specifically meant Web2.0-isque products), there's a bit of a ra-ra-India chest-beating going on out here. You then have that sentiment followed by this gem of a sentence:

      InstaColl was founded by a bunch of average-Joe technologists aided and abetted by the favorite poster boy of Indian IT .

      Note three points here:-
      a) "Favorite" not 'favourite' : These guys are thinking "global", which apparently, is en-US.
      b) AND YET, you have that very superfluous, Indian construct, "of the". In a different place and dialect, that sentence would have, probably, read as "Indian IT's favourite poster-boy" or something; it is a very very Indian habit to convert adjectives into nouns with an "of the" construct.
      c) You usually aid and abet someone in crime, not to fund a start-up. While, of course, they might have used the phrase tongues firmly in cheek, long experience in editting such documents tells me that they, perhaps, didn't think about it too much. The idiom hits the general spot they were aiming for; so they didn't quite think about, well, not using it. Again, this is usually a result of reading English more than you speak; truth be told, I'm also occassionally guilty of doing that. [As also use more c's and s's than necessary at times ;-)]

      In addition to using quaint phrases, and wrong idiomatic usage, (traditional) written Indian-English is also quite understated; for the line you quoted, you could easily imagine the copy-writer thinking about writing, "More Powerful than Office!" but then telling herself that she's probably better off saying, it matches Office 2007. This is a common pattern in Indian-English; here's an article where the author hints at that understatement ("self-important colonials ... decreed that when an exalted civil servant says "may," trembling lesser breeds should hear "shall."")

      Another article making a similar point:

      [A] recent book, "Indlish", ... notes that: "Indian English suffers from flatulent orotundity, a form of high-flown language that tries to impress but instead obscures." This style of speaking and writing, the book argues, is a hangover from the Raj and the bureaucratic officialese that it bequeathed to India.

      Favorites or not, you get this distinct impression of a previous generation's "good-name" Ind-glish is struggling to come out into a globalized world here.

  18. I'm not sure that people are 'getting' this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try here http://www.live-documents.com/products/how.html

    There seem to be a number of comments made by people based entirely on presuppositions. I know we're not supposed to RTFA, but you could at least look at the website before *flame on*

    1. Re:I'm not sure that people are 'getting' this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sabeer Bhatia is that you?

  19. Go Compaq! by rta · · Score: 1
    FTA:

    He said. "This will do for documents what Hotmail did for e-mail. Why spend $400 on an upgrade when you can get it for free?"

    Office 2007, the biggest advance in the system in ten years, took more than 2,000 Microsoft programmers three years to develop. Thirty-two software engineers in Bangalore, India's IT hub, took four years to break Microsoft's code so that they could replicate it online.

    InstaColl said that it was not infringing copyright because of a legal ruling that concluded that it was not possible to patent the "look and feel" of a computer interface.

    At least when Compaq reverse engineered the PC BIOS it was a technological achievement of sorts though that too was, imo, a crap move (even if ultimately legal and brought down prices for consumers).

    You want to offer a better and/or lower priced alternative; fine. Bragging about how you're great because you ripped off someone else's stuff, on the other hand, is pretty crass. Yes, MS sucks in a lot of ways, and they are perhaps the biggest biters of all, but it's still not something to brag about.

    1. Re:Go Compaq! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      odd, you don't need to crack code to get the 'look and feel'. You do need to crack code to get access to all the internal API code..and to, you know, copy the code verbatim.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  20. M$ must be desperate by jrothwell97 · · Score: 0

    Not content with buying up all the banner ad space, they're now spamming Slashdot articles. Honestly, they'll be claiming patents on Linux next.

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
  21. Re:How many online office rivals do we really need by 2ms · · Score: 1

    How about being able to do your work the same way on any computer any where? How about not having to carry a laptop everywhere just for simple crap like writing documents? How about being able to collaborate with other people on any computers anywhere anytime including the same time you are working on the same document yourself? How about not having to pay hundreds of dollars for freakin basic software that, realistically speaking, hasn't advanced remotely enough over at least the last decade to justify all the forced upgrading and incompatibilities. It's freakin text editing, spreadsheeting, and putting slideshows together people. Why would you pay hundersds of dollars for software that only works on one computer just to do this stuff?

  22. infringing copyright != infringing patent by Zwaxy · · Score: 1

    InstaColl said that it was not infringing copyright because of a legal ruling that concluded that it was not possible to patent the "look and feel" of a computer interface.

    Aren't copyright law and patent law two completely different things? The article makes it sound as if the guys who spent millions of dollars developing this thing didn't realise that.

    1. Re:infringing copyright != infringing patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly, the original Look and Feel cases were about copyrights, and determined that copyright doesn't apply.

      Design patents are effectively patents on "look and feel" so patents would probably apply, but design patents aren't generally taken for software.

  23. More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will it do that Office doesn't ?

    While some companies may consider office expensive, I doubt most think some 100 dollar a year or less investment is a lot of money. I can see the savings adding up a little, but Office will be more widely supported and will contain mush more help and how to's.

    In the end, if these products only have savings to offer, it's unlikely they can beat MS. MS can always lower their prices if they feel threatened and while that may be the MAIN goal of many products, I don't see most people, especially businesses, complaining about the cost of Office or Windows.

    People are not looking to re-educate their staff to save 100 bucks a year per computer or less. That is just not real incentive when looking at the bottom line. MS can DUMP money into all the nice touches, extra templates, extra clip art, all the things the common end user loves.

    MS should also target quickbooks, since their products completely and totally sucks. It has to be the slowest most bug filled SOHO accounting package around. It would be smart to incorporate to online office. Most people primarily need backups of only their finacial data, office docs are usually expendable or easily replaced.

    It's good to see more comp out there, but quite honestly it's WAY LATE, but fortunately so if MS's offering. Still, with MS fast on their heels, I see little hope for competing products. Historically you need a head start against MS to secure the market and office more than Windows itself is a very popular product.

    I'd say, even if MS blundered the first release, they need but dump more money into it. Look at that tiny 100 meg offering. This tells me the company hosting this service is hard up for money or else they'd offer AT LEAST as much space as hotmail.

    Good ideals with low profit businesses models usually fail.

  24. Google docs was there from the beginning by bariswheel · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet. Google has provided a sound alternative to Office 2007. Yes it's in its infancy, whereas Office has had decades to grow. I wonder how docs will look like in 15 years.

    --
    Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
  25. What does it do OpenOffice doesn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already have a great alternative. http://www.openoffice.org/

  26. A bunch of hot air? by no-body · · Score: 2, Informative
    Well, Beta on invitation only....
    Poking around on those web pages, it gets to:

    Getting Started with Live Documents

    Sign Up

    Before you get started you'll need to set up your account. It just takes a few seconds: sign up here for an invitation to our technology preview.

    Then:
    Sign up to get invited

    Live Documents is currently available in a technology preview mode on an on-invitation basis. To request an invite to this private beta, please sign up below.

  27. No on-line for me. by gbr · · Score: 1

    I just can't see myself using an online system for my Word Processing or other office needs. Once my private data is off of my system, who knows who is looking at it.

  28. -1 Troll by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    Unless it was -1 delusional

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  29. So what's stopping MS? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    It's not open source, it is a private company. If by some act of god this did take off, remind me again what's stopping MS from just buying them up?

    1. Re:So what's stopping MS? by thedarknite · · Score: 1

      Nothing at all, and considering how it worked out with hotmail that may well be the business plan.

      --
      A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
    2. Re:So what's stopping MS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure that is what Mr. Bhatia wants.. The company seems to be started with the express idea of being bought over. Google docs is believable because the company makes money by being online. These guys cannot even have a live demo online. Makes one think about if they are serious about the "invites". Do let me know if anyone *actually* gets to try this product.

    3. Re:So what's stopping MS? by AlexBirch · · Score: 1

      remind me again what's stopping MS from just buying them up?
      One word: Commonsense. If Google isn't hurting Microsoft with their web apps why worry about vaporware?
      Personally I'd bet that Ballmer would rather see Microsoft buy Slashdot and watch us through chairs around in frustration.

    4. Re:So what's stopping MS? by mlk · · Score: 1

      My guess is that is Sabeer Bhatias business plan.

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
  30. Words only. by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    This doesn't jive with their plugin download page which demands Windows.

    I suspect that the Linux and Mac stuff is a phase two thing.

    1. Re:Words only. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sure it jives.

      From the website:

      The Live Documents Plug-in is an optional client that you can download - the client converts Microsoft Office into a smart client You don't need the optional plug-in, only a browser. The plug-in only gives you direct access from within a local install of office though is not required.
  31. Curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's a knock-off of others out there. Did he post an ad on elance and ask for it to be built for $2000?

  32. Likely Story... by bigdavesmith · · Score: 1

    Designed to help consumers avoid expensive upgrades...
    If they really want to help me avoid expensive upgrades they should make it run Supreme Commander.
  33. Why? by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is this story worthy of a post on Slashdot? So someone has come up with yet another MS Office competitor. Google already has Internet-accessed office apps. Others do as well. And there have been Office clones, free and otherwise, for over a decade. What makes this one so special? Was it that slow in the Slashdot bullpen today?

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  34. Do you consider Amazon.com a retail store? by westlake · · Score: 1
    Everyone hates Office 2007 so much that it's selling like gangbusters.
    Conveniently forgetting it's the only Office suite you can buy in a retail store...

    Amazon Best Sellers in Office Suites

    1 MS Office Home and Student 2007
    2 MS Office Home and Student 2004 [OSX]
    8 MS Office Home and Student 2008 {OSX]
    13 Word Perfect X3 Office
    15 OpenOffice.org 2.2 [79 cents on CD-ROM]
    16 Word Perfect X3 Office Home
    34 Star Office 8

    MS Office 2007 holds seven of the top 25 slots in Office Suites.
    iWork 2008 is #11 in software sales overall. OSX Leopard #1. MS Office Home #2 [11 PM Nov 22]

  35. The overlooked VBA aspect by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The key seller for Office, in business, is Word + Excel and Outlook + Exchange. The key seller for Excel, is VBA. Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of businesses with more than a few people use Excel and VBA Macros. The company I work at provides a large scale financial solution to people and we have hundreds of client businesses. All of them use VBA Macros. Sadly, I spend a large amount of each day modifying them to suit their latest requests.

    Does Google Apps offer VBA or something like it? Does Live Documents? Does OpenOffice? I'm pretty sure they don't (but admit to being too lazy to fact check this).

    So it's game-over for businesses. Have fun with the Mums and Dads and teenagers but they're never going to pay you more than a few peanuts. Until you can match VBA in applications, MSO wins.

    1. Re:The overlooked VBA aspect by dodobh · · Score: 1

      OOo has equivalents. They aren't pretty, but work.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  36. Be afraid mere mortals - we crack codes ! by steveoc · · Score: 4, Funny

    So let me get this right - Firstly, 2000 Microsoft programmers spend 3 years developing MS Office, and then lock it up with some sort of secret code, and proceed to make money selling it as a desktop application.

    After that, 32 software engineers in India put in many hard hours over a 4 year period to "crack the code" of MS Office. Thats like 4 years of tedious mathematical analysis .. comparing ciphers, testing hypothesis, following hunches, kidnapping and interrogating suspects who may have had some involvement with the original Microsoft effort.

    After 4 years of this seemingly endless and fruitless intellectual struggle .. this battle of wits and minds .. they make a breakthrough ! Excitedly, they gather together at 3am after an exhausting marathon code breaking session. Behind them the blackboard is covered in equations, diagrams, the chalk dust of many previous failures and deadends. Today's ciphers are layed out on a large table, aligned correctly, and checked and double checked once more. And then they place the ciphers one on top of another and roll the result into a single, extremely complex equation that just might work this time.

    This new equation is fed into the computer banks and the hard disks begin whirring away for one more time.

    Some hours later, as the sun is well on its journey into the sky, the hard drives stop whirring. Everyone in the team gathers around the green glow of the monitor in the dead silence, the sweat glistening on their faces drawn tight with exhaustion and tension. After a moment that lasts a lifetime .. the words :

    C O D E - C R A C K E D

    appear in capitals on the monitor, and the dusty old dot matrix printer begins printing out the secret Microsoft Office code word. But admist the jubilation, the computer hackers remain calm .. the world may now be theirs, but there is still remains work to do. Armed now with the secret code word to Microsoft Office, they skillfully manipulate the code word, shuffling and re-ordering the code word ever so slightly - like cyber Gods adjusting the DNA of a dangerous new species - until they are done.

    Barely hours after breaking the secret code, the new modified code word is overlaid onto Microsoft Office and fed back into the computer. The hard drives whirr noisily one more time, and then the result appears on the screen. They now have Microsoft Office working as an online application !!!

    Im glad that the times newspaper in the UK decided to print this story .. because it gives the inside view on how IT really is .. this tense, frustrating, demanding, clandestine and often dangerous occupation that we geeks take for granted. Its time for the common man in the street to give us the fear and respect that we so obviously deserve. We are programmers - We crack codes ! Be afraid - Be very afraid.

  37. Thats good but... by madbawa · · Score: 1

    ...does the live-docs version of XL have the Flight Simulator?

  38. Sabeer next failure hits Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    He was lucky with Hotmail to have had a very creative and clueful partner. There's nothing original with this site and this will fail along with Sabeer's other companies in his post-Hotmail days. I've very happy to not have to deal with Sabeer's ego on a daily basis anymore.

  39. Re:How many online office rivals do we really need by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

    I'm sure MS is working on their version of MSOO (Microsoft Office Online)
    And I'm sure Mr. Bhatia is counting on MS "working on" this new free office suite in the same way they "worked on" their new free email offering about ten or twelve years ago, to the tune of another $400 million or so in his pocket.

    Have you seen the Live Documents site? I assume that some of that $400 million for Hotmail was spent on legal consultation for this Live Documents baby. I'm no lawyer, and I certainly wouldn't be throwing around registered trademarks without some seriously qualified legal advice the way it's happening on this site. Add to this the claim (to be seen) that Live Documents will mimic the MS Office interface and it's clear that Mr. Bhatia is desperately waving his arms in the general direction of MS and saying either (a)"Hey, screw you and your $400 office suite", or (b)"Hey, look, I just saved you a lot of work designing your online office suite". Or possibly (c)both.

    And power to him. As was pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, MS helped lay the legal foundation for the borrowed interface; let them lie in the bed they've made.

    Personally I have no love for Google's version of the online office. I've used their spreadsheets for collaboration and found them painfully slow and inferior to the good old-fashioned local office suite. I'll try Live Documents just out of curiosity, but even if it's quick and great and functional, unless it's functional beyond my wildest dreams I just don't see any compelling reason to trust my files with a third party. And don't talk to me about the money I can save in licensing fees -- most slashdotters already have some great workaround to that problem already figured out.

    db

    --
    I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
  40. You saved $0.25 per document? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Around 4 million documents and a few hundred thousand dollars saved later"

    All of that work saved at most $999,999 over 4 million documents edited? That's one quarter saved per document. Do bigwigs at your company actually think, in retrospect, that developing this thing was worthwhile financially? Because at the end of the day your company has now written an office tools that need to be maintained, new employees have to be trained on, etc.. And I'm guessing that writing something like that has nothing to do with your core business, so it's "overhead" -- i.e. the first thing to get cut when the company hits financial problems.

    I'm not saying Office is good. And yeah, I don't know your requirements. However, it sounds like your requirements were such that Office was in the running when you started the project in the year 2000. Up against Office or even OpenOffice (in 2000, StarOffice), going with proprietary code sounds like Not Invented Here syndrome or just another IT project out of control, not a great case study for dumping Office.

    1. Re:You saved $0.25 per document? by kurokaze · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up to insightful.

      He's correct, the best case scenario saved at most 25 cents per document. Its highly unlikely that purchasing site licenses for Word would have amounted to that much over 7 years. And I say Word on purpose. Its highly unlikely that any home-grown web-based spreadsheet solution can match the analytical functions that Excel has built in (Google doesn't do it, and lets not even get started with PowerPoint and Access). So basically it sounds like they've spent a heck of money developing a system that would have cost far less than purchasing Office itself, in order to save far less money that it would have cost to purchase Word over the last 7 years.

    2. Re:You saved $0.25 per document? by JMZero · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can buy a version of Word where you pay per document? I don't keep up on pricing, but that's quite the revolution for MS. When we buy Word, we have to pay per user - and we have a lot of users, many of whom are not employees or who do very few documents. I'm also counting in there drastically lower support costs, which we've seen.

      And no, we didn't actually spend that long in development (one developer, me, times about 3 months at the start) and no, it doesn't take people long to train - because the thing only has the 15 or so functions that our users should be using, and where appropriate they work the same way they do in other word processors. To be sure, this started out as an experiment - but it's an experiment that paid off. Our alternative options at the time (2001/2002'ish I think) were not good, and our tests with them didn't make happy users.

      And, to be clear, I never set out to say this is the right solution for everyone - and likely less so now in 2007. And, of course, if your Word users are using lots of complicated functions, you'd be crazy to try to re-implement them all. I was countering the idea that an online word processor is infeasible in general.

      Also, to be clear, I am not inexperienced with other alternatives. A few of our users need spreadsheets, so a couple years ago we looked into an OpenOffice based content management system. We got it working for the spreadsheets and got most of the application ties working, and as a test we tried to see whether the word processing users wanted to use it too. They didn't like it - too complicated, and if they wanted to use it at home they had to install stuff. And, for us, if we wanted to do customization, we had to delve deep into a fairly complicated project. It's still only used for a few spreadsheets, and the project was, on balance, a waste of time (which we're OK with - we may use it more later).

      We also support another client that uses a forms based app with ties to Word (from around 1998). It works OK for the most part, but there's fairly often some problem and the breaks between apps make the UI fairly hokey. A month ago, they installed a Server 2003 update on a neglected server, untested, and everything died. Some "Word cannot open " error. Had to run a fix on every computer, and then fix some of the templates - lost a half day of work. Nothing major, but something that happens much less frequently for the online one (though, to be fair, Vista gave us some curveballs). I've spent a lot of time diggling with weird errors in Word templates, and Googling about odd problems.

      In general, I get tired of the term "Not Invented Here". I hear it fairly often, especially when we get a new employee who's not used to actually writing software. I understand the idea that re-using tested software is often better than rolling your own, but I know a lot of developers who seem scared of developing anything. It's always "piece together 6 well tested, general purpose tools". We've had a few guys like that over the years, and their legacy usually lives on in the bad parts of the software, and the parts that don't work when we make a new app server because they require 12 packages installed to do simple crap (and where did we put the license key for this one? can we still download the old version of that one?).

      If you have a manageably sized, specific need, quite often a homegrown solution will better meet your needs and will be easier to maintain for those needs going forward. Our company outpaces our industry fairly handily on technology, despite spending about the same. It's because we don't blindly write off options because they don't match some rule of thumb.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    3. Re:You saved $0.25 per document? by JMZero · · Score: 1

      I replied to the other guy, but I'll reply to a specific point in yours as well. We didn't develop this to save money on Word. We developed it so that we could have a central document store that worked, that was easy to use for our purposes, and that we could control and customize.

      Initially, the online one was an experiment. We needed to switch to something, because the legacy system (involving Word 95 documents and batch updates from the branches) wasn't going to cut it going forward. The templates relied heavily on Word 95 style macros (which weren't supported in later versions), but Word 2000 had much better online support and we couldn't just let ourselves be trapped with an old version. Anyways, we tried a few content management setups - but they were all dead ends.

      We rejected them not because of cost, but because they were less reliable and usable than our homegrown one (which, again, was developed at very low cost - and pretty much as an experiment). The savings since, which are real, on licenses and support are the gravy. You're right - switching to a bad solution to save a few hundred thousand wouldn't have made any sense. But that's not what we did.

      Also, it's hard to overestimate the long-term cost of giving an employee a copy of Access :)

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    4. Re:You saved $0.25 per document? by kurokaze · · Score: 1

      So wait, your system isn't a word processor but rather a home-brew sharepoint portal? In that case, what are you using for the actual "word processing" side of things?

    5. Re:You saved $0.25 per document? by JMZero · · Score: 1

      It's both: a document management system and a simple in-browser word processor. I'm hazy on history - it's a while back now - but I think Sharepoint came into being fairly soon after we launched.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    6. Re:You saved $0.25 per document? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, I'm the original AC, responding to your response.

      "In general, I get tired of the term "Not Invented Here". I hear it fairly often, especially when we get a new employee who's not used to actually writing software"

      Maybe I'm just venting becuase I work for a large company (5000-10000 employees) where NIH is rampant. We have a ton of custom software that has to get written to maintain our core business. But every week I hear about some new non-core-business tool that was implemented at a different branch office that should have been bought instead of built. Or they should have taken the home-grown stuff from yet another branch office. It's a huge drain on our overhead. I don't know what your business is, but when a project is really far off from the core business, that usually indicates some kind of NIH problem. Either it's an engineer who wants to do it to learn whatever it is, or because they think they can do it better (i.e. NIH).

      "If you have a manageably sized, specific need, quite often a homegrown solution will better meet your needs and will be easier to maintain for those needs going forward. Our company outpaces our industry fairly handily on technology, despite spending about the same. It's because we don't blindly write off options because they don't match some rule of thumb."

      Well, I can't disagree with the reasoning. My point was and is that I'm not really sure office software is the best place to apply this benchmark. Custom software almost always ends up being more expensive than buying a solution -- BUT, I really like the idea when there is something very tied to your productivity that would end up in vendor-lock... especially if that vendor has no competition. So I guess in that light, if your business entirely revolves around Office, maybe it's less disruptive to build your own.

      BTW, as far as the $0.25 per document goes... yeah, no one pays by the document, but I really like to play with numbers to help put expenses in perspective. Even if you don't necessarily measure that way, it can help convince someone to the pros or cons of whatever it is you're spending money on. Using this kind of thing, I recently figured out we're paying a vendor about $10000 per support call. That perked up some managers' ears real quick.

      Cheers.

    7. Re:You saved $0.25 per document? by JMZero · · Score: 1
      For us, we only have 5 developers (for around 1000 employees), and the CIO is an ex-programmer who keeps a good lid on what's going on. We would have to change a lot of how we do things if we had a larger dev team. Or if our roll-out costs were higher. Or if we had more external clients. I like our development culture, but there's a lot of places it wouldn't work - and I would probably be useless as part of a larger team.

      I recently figured out we're paying a vendor about $10000 per support call.


      Lol.
      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  41. Re:How many online office rivals do we really need by MadJo · · Score: 1

    1) Most documents I have to work on are at work. I have no need to go somewhere else to work on these documents.
    2) At work I already have a computer with all the tools I need.
    3) Collaboration sounds nice, but so far I have yet to find the instance where I have to do that, at the same time (except for our timesheets, but that works in Excel out of the box already. (you can set an excel sheet to 'share with others', and they can edit the same document at the same time as you.)
    4) TANSTAAFL. Right now it's free, but you still pay in some other way. I'm sure there will be ads there, and from there it's a small step to inserting ads inside your documents. (As you often have with shareware applications) Unless you pay x amount to get the 'premium' package.

    So the only reason that might apply to me is the collaboration tools. And that's not enough. Sure it's nice to work on documents from home as well as from work, but why? And it also means that your documents aren't stored on drive space that you own. Who knows what happens to them when you leave it there. Is it secure? I don't know. I wouldn't store sensitive data on those services.

    I'm much more interested in decent version control, but then not online but inside the 'offline' office tools. (preferably in OOo, that way I have a hook to sell that office suite to my superiors)

  42. They're actually better by being consistent.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    What I like about the macro code in OO is that you learn ONE variant. Not 3 (VBA Excel, Word or Powerpoint), just ONE. And, of course, you end up with multi platform support, but it will be a while before people realise that from using OO it is but a short step to Linux - IMHO, Outlook is about the last claw MS has on business and end users because mobile phone suppliers still insist on using it as the sole targer for synchronisation.

    The moment some Open Source heda comes up with a decent alternative for that it's curtains for MS. And no, Evolution is still too far off to serve as a decent replacement.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  43. Lolz @ 100mb free space by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    Live Documents matches features found in Office 2007, the most recent version. It will be given away to individuals with 100MB of free data storage space per user.

    Looks like Thinkfree.com gives away 1gb of free online space. Maybe we'll see the same kind of competition that happened when Gmail opened with 1GB of space, now everyone has multi-GB (or unlimited) free storage available.

    Hurray for competition!

  44. Slightly OT Warning by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    Since I had no mod point to take you from +3 Insightful to +4, I thought I'd post.

    I've been re-watching ST:TOS lately & something that has bugged me is that we thought there would only be one computer on the Enterprise hundreds of years in the future & that everything would go through it. Then in TNG, everything had a computer of some sort in it.

    You may have a point & possibly we're only seeing the second of many pendulum swings. I realize StarTrek is fiction, but Roddenberry may have been on to something.

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  45. Re:How many online office rivals do we really need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (and I'm sure MS is working on their version of MSOO (Microsoft Office Online))
    That would be "MOO" -- and I'm quite certain it's just a lot of bull!
  46. oh come on by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    Online word processors written largely in javascript taking on Microsoft word and the rest of the office suite? Anyone who takes that idea seriously needs to get their head screwed on straight.

    Google already has such a service, as do several other companies. I see no evidence that they have or ever could make the slightest dent in Microsoft's office sales.