Slashdot Mirror


Forrester Research Shows Steep Decline in Free Office Suite Stats

An anonymous reader writes that although many Linux users (and others) are at home with OpenOffice and LibreOffice, typical organizations are as addicted as ever to MS office formats. In 2011 13% of organizations had OpenOffice variants installed on some computers. Today that number has dipped to 5% according to Forrester Research. ... The poll included [shows totals] over 100% as many organizations have multiple versions of offices installed. Also surprising, Office 2003 is alive kicking and screaming as almost 1/3 of companies and governments still use it even though EOL for Office 2003 ends with XP on the same date! The good news is online cloud-based platforms are gaining traction with Google Docs and Office 365 which are not so tied to Windows on the client."

26 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Office 365 by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So to avoid locking our data into a Windows-only proprietary format, we'll lock it into a Windows-centric Microsoft-owned cloud? Oh yeah, that's going to work much better.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Office 365 by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So to avoid locking our data into a Windows-only proprietary format, we'll lock it into a Windows-centric Microsoft-owned proprietary format cloud? Oh yeah, that's going to work much better.

      FTFY

    2. Re:Office 365 by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a practical matter, you are "locked in" to whatever Office program you use - online or otherwise. OpenOffice is free and open source, but unless you use it company-wide, you will have compatibility issues with whatever the next guy uses. For instance, if you bring your presentation to the conference room and they don't have OpenOffice installed, then you will have problems (yes, you can use PDF but that has limitations for presentations). Yes, there is no excuse for not installing a free program - except that you may not have Admin rights on the machine or other IT issues.

      At home we tried to use OpenOffice (actually LibreOffice) exclusively. We struggled, mostly with PowerPoint, but also with Word formatting glitches when collaborating. In the end, I sucked it up and loaded MS Office. My wife simply has to be compatible with the rest of the world - same reason I keep one functioning Windows box around. I can RDP into work, so I don't have that need.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Office 365 by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is the benefit of cloud-based office software? I understand it allows the service provider to demand rent indefinitely. What benefit does it provide to the end-user?

      Easy. I can view my docs anywhere. From my phone, home pc, work pc, whatever. Dropbox has some of this but office file compatibility is a problem for example when it comes to spreadsheets.

      Second, it is a damn pain in the ass to setup software to be updated and pushed on thousands of PCs in a work envrionment. With this you push a group policy for a hyperlink. Sovled as the website or intranet site takes care of everything. No hunting down damn Outlook archive folders when upgrading a PC. If a company wants something confidential they flag it and it instantly is unavailable elsewhere. On the cloud means it wont leave on flash drivers either.

    4. Re:Office 365 by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look at OwnCloud if you want to host your own stuff "in a cloud". But the sales pitch for Office 365 is that they do all the "icky computery" stuff, like backups and upgrades.

      Of course the drawbacks of cloud are well known, too: you need to be online, you need to pay them monthly, and it can be read by anyone with a warrant (or not a warrant, if they're the NSA. )

      Vendor lock-in changes, too. Sure, you can download an Office 365 document to import into Open Office. Today. And just because the TOS says you can today doesn't mean those terms can't be changed tomorrow.

      There's a lot to dislike about cloud solutions. But they sure meet the needs of a lot of people - at least those who don't think about it too much.

      --
      John
    5. Re:Office 365 by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

      No there isn't any such possibility. You can export your data eg. from Excel as a read-only view but you can't export from Office 365 to anything. Office 2010 "is supported now" but it won't be forever, you can't use OpenOffice or similar to access your O365 content.

      Adobe right-out says their cloud solution is not backwards compatible with their desktop products, once you convert you're stuck in it. Microsoft says "Although the full Office applications go into 'reduced-functionality mode,' you can still use them to read and print your Office documents."

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Office 365 by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How glorious! We're surrounded by technology and what do we do! Find ways to work MORE and more OFTEN! What are you working on? What are you producing? Where is all this work going? What happened to the leisure society?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    7. Re:Office 365 by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is the benefit of cloud-based office software?

      If you work in an enterprise with 1000 users running Office, with cloud-Office all you need to do is give your users a hyperlink. No suites to install, no version management, no software to maintain, no IT staff that you need to keep employed. And if your users collaborate around the country or around the world you don't have all these giant email attachments flying back and forth - It's all in the cloud.

    8. Re:Office 365 by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the NSA have a copy of everything, so there's no need to back it up yourself.

    9. Re:Office 365 by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Adobe right-out says their cloud solution is not backwards compatible with their desktop products, once you convert you're stuck in it.

      Huh? Adobe's "Cloud" is just a stupid marketing term for their subscription service. The only thing that is remote is a couple of gigs of storage you get to synch your application settings and to act as a half assed Dropbox clone. The applications are run locally. And most of the Creative Suite applications are pretty backwards compatible for at least two or three versions. That is the same problem that everybody has - software developers have this annoying tendency to try to improve their products which occasionally means that files created in older software will have to be changed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. The whole Open/Libre Office thing hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think that's the full reason for the decline, but it didn't help. At first we were pushing Open Office at work, and then one day we had to start pushing Libre Office. So, people would say "What's wrong with Open Office?" and then you say "It's complicated... blah blah blah." And then they say "Okay, we'll just use regular Microsoft Office then."

    1. Re:The whole Open/Libre Office thing hurt by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well you can blame that whole debacle on Oracle. As another responder said, they were going to close-source OpenOffice and only have some shitty "lite" version for Free, and as a result, all the devs quit and forked the project. This isn't a bad thing, it's one of the big strengths of open-source software: if some shithead gets control of the project (e.g., Oracle or David Dawes) and does something unacceptable, other interested parties can fork the code and continue development instead of having to start from scratch. The only downside is they can't forcibly take over the name, so they have to come up with a new name, which may or may not be as catchy or memorable. "LibreOffice" is a little odd-sounding to the ears of an English speaker, but can you come up with anything better?

    2. Re:The whole Open/Libre Office thing hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the answer is staring us all in the face... To appeal to Americans, but yet stay close to Libre in meaning... LibertyOffice. They could use a red, white and blue theme.

    3. Re:The whole Open/Libre Office thing hurt by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite. The Oracle-paid devs stayed working at Oracle (until they fired them all six months later), but most of the non-Oracle and non-IBM contributors got up and left - that is, the people who'd spent ten years giving OpenOffice a public reputation at all. Then Oracle threw it to IBM to do Apache OpenOffice, which is ridiculously behind in development (and is now wondering on its mailing list how on earth it can actually get any outside developers interested). (AOO partisans will deny both points, but those links are to the Wikipedia articles, which have ridiculous quantities of citations to this effect.)

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
  3. 155 Forrester Clients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't really a survey of businesses, just people who buy Forrester Research products.. I wouldn't say it's a representative sample of much of anything.

    1. Re:155 Forrester Clients by mspohr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good point... this is a survey of 155 Forrester clients. People who are Forrester clients are the dinosaurs of the business world. They have to pay Forrester to get a clue. I wouldn't put much stock in these numbers.
      (Interesting that the article shows 13% use Google Docs... maybe that's where all the users went.)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:155 Forrester Clients by asmkm22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of my clients use open source software, and it has nothing to do with Forrester.

      The fact is, if your business is in an industry where you have to share or read documents that other people send to you (such as anything in contracting, law, real estate, medical, etc), then you kind of have to stick with Microsoft Office. The free stuff just doesn't do a very good job of reading doc and docx formats (and spreadsheets are unusable if they have any macros in them). Yes, a company *could* go with free software and just take a little extra time with formatting and training, and it wouldn't be an issue for most of what they do.

      But why bother? It's just easier and cheaper for them to buy Office and move on with actual work. For that to change, entire industries would have to change, or at least the biggest players in the industries would.

  4. In fairness to Microsoft.. by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. and at risk of being modded a Troll and losing any rep.

    Office 365 is a good piece of software. Okay, so it's complete shite to use but it's not just an office suite, it's a platform on which you can run your business. IMO for the first time in 20 years, Microsoft has actually come up with a good piece of software. They've certainly leveraged their proprietary format lockin in order to get businesses to use the platform, but using the platform isn't any particular problem.

    The platform itself provides the fundamentals of what businesses need to get up and running. It's pretty stable and not horribly expensive. There are other competing platforms out there (some even much better) but they still don't fully support Microsoft's proprietary format. So Microsoft leverages that format but creates something that not only provides the tools you need, it empowers small business. They've done an excellent job to keep the Office brand running and kudos to them for that.

    Any open source competitor will need to be hosted, provide better facilities, have a clear migration path and have format compatibility for any hope in the future.

  5. Re:Peope use what works by Goody · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hated the ribbon at first, but it's actually quite usable once you get accustomed to it. I still think the classic menu is more efficient from a UI standpoint, but saying the ribbon makes Office unusable is unfair.

    --
    Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
  6. Re:Peope use what works by Morpf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You may call me unfair from now on.

  7. Full report by readacc · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wanted to read the full report. You can too if you go here:
    http://www.forrester.com/Market+Update+Office+2013+And+Productivity+Suite+Alternatives/fulltext/-/E-RES102262

    $2495 for a fucking survey? Get fucked Forrester. Now there's no way for me to verify if the survey is legit or not.

  8. Re:Peope use what works by ohieaux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find using Office without the ribbon unusable. I can't find where anything is at now.

    Does that mean menus are inferior? No. It means I got used to a different way of doing them.

    Sorry, but after 5+ years of dealing with the ribbon I still regularly use Google to find out how to do something I know I could do in Office. Many of the functions in tools like Excel are not easily found behind the limited ribbon.

    This whole ribbon thing was the start of a bad trend. From Unity to Metro, this dumbing down of the interface to the 3rd grade level shows how organizations see their customers.

    --
    Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
  9. Because MSFT Office is better by hessian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There, I said it.

    I work with documents frequently.

    The open source alternatives are not as good.

    Further, pretty much anything can read/write to .docx format, which is XML-based, so you're definitely not locked in.

    There's just a discernible difference in quality and when you're trying to make a good impression on the job, that's important.

  10. Re:Peope use what works by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >saying the ribbon makes Office unusable is unfair.

    People said you just need to get used to the ribbon. Guess what? I has been 6 years now, and I still look for various insert commands on the Insert Ribbon. Where they are not.

  11. The way to compete might be to not compete by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the failings of all these free Office suites is that they try to be MS Office and basically if they can be distinguished as being not office then they have failed. So my suggestion is to pretend that there are no existing office suites; what do people want to do? Then you move forward from there. A good start in that direction would be a product that I use called Bean. It is a very simple Mac word writing tool. The focus is on just writing words. It is fast to load, clean of interface, and doesn't do much in the way of formatting. Another good product is Scrivener; this product focuses on what you need when writing a complicated document such as a book.

    Google docs isn't too bad and brings the whole cloud thing to the table fairly well but I just don't see your average document generating office drone begging their IT department to help them with the switch.

    Here is a simple set of examples. Years ago I worked in an office where the secretaries used Word Processors. That is they used machines with big 8 inch floppies that could only do simple 80 characters per line word processing and print it to a printer that was basically a modified typewriter. In the office there was a shiny new IBM machine with Word Perfect and a sort of good quality dot matrix printer. The secretaries were super happy when I got it working and almost immediately were fighting over it. A few years later I witnessed secretaries demanding to upgrade to windows and Word for windows because it could make the new laser printers dance. The key there was that Word Perfect 4.2 for DOS liked to display things in 80 monospaced characters. But a laser printer could do around 132 characters per line and thus a WYSIWYG interface was a huge leap. Keep in mind that all of the above secretaries were very very good at using their previous systems and thus these switches were painful but there was something they wanted so they demanded it and learned it.

    So fast forward to the present and present your average Office user with Open Office. What is the win for them? For most people there is only a loss as things like the bad dictionary, and the slightly different interface will just be a pain. Maybe the CFO is happy with the lowered cost of operating but that is not how you win the hearts and minds of the average user.

    So the key to getting people to switch over to Open Source non Office environments it to offer them something that they really want. The reality is that they will give up many office features and put up with other pain if they are getting something super cool. So matching MS Office feature for feature is not needed in the winning product.

    This is where I come up empty. As I say the simple products like bean are good enough for me. Maybe the solution lay in a cool way to accomplish the work presently being done in the MS office suite using your mobile? Something where all the existing might of MS doesn't get them very far. Plus something truly innovative would no doubt be initially dismissed by MS as "missing the point".

  12. Nit pick - legal uses Wordperfect. Libre reads fin by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A very minor not pick - the standard for law is Word Perfect. You said "share or read documents that other people send to you (such as anything in contracting, law, real estate, medical, etc)".

    More significant is the claim "share or READ". I've found that LibreOffice is MORE reliable for reading files from various versions of MS Office then MS Office itself is. For collaborative editing, sending a complex document back and forth, sure you'd want to both use the same version of the same software, if you forgot that much better collaborative platforms are available, such as Google Docs.

        For collaboration, working on the same document via Google docs really works better than emailing different versions around and changes. That actually leaves a pretty narrow set of circumstances for which MS Office is actually the best choice. You realize that when a newer version of Word comes out that doesn't handle your existing Word 200x format documents properly.