In years past, the way to get people to buy new versions was by adding features . . . But in time, this strategy failed because new features became harder to think of and, more importantly, because magazines and consumers both began to complain about bloated software. Enter a new and improved strategy -- file format changes. An associate sends you an e-mail message with an attached word processor file. But your copy of Microsoft Word won't open the file. This is because your associate is using Word 2000 and you are using Word 98. It takes awhile to figure this out, of course, but eventually you learn that there are two solutions to this problem: 1) your associate can send you a new version of the file saved in Word 98 format, and; 2) you can buy an upgrade to Word 2000. Eventually, you'll be forced to buy the upgrade, just because the problem will crop up again and again, and sometimes it won't seem proper to go back to the sender and ask for a new version. So you upgrade, spend time and money to gain a few new features you don't explore and never use. One question that lies unanswered, of course, is why Microsoft felt the need to change file formats at all? Why to get you to buy the damned upgrade, of course! And most of the revenue Microsoft gains from those otherwise unnecessary upgrades can be counted as a cost to consumers. Pay attention, Department of Justice.
Can anyone point me to a document signed by Chairman Bill that says "Note to self: Break Office 95 file format."? . ..
No, you would have to subpoena MS to get that. But look at this article about MS's recent earnings. They make a ton of money off of Office. Do you think they want this revenue stream to dry up?
Is it such a stretch that some PHB in Redmond told the Office95 team to do X, and he or she was out playing golf when the team decided to fix it in Office97?
Yes
Of course not. It has to be a global conspiracy that involves those at the highest levels, working to enslave us all.
Not a conspiracy. Just business in a monopoly market. If MS cared about protecting its customer's investment in software, it would attempt to keep file formats in at least some of its office programs the same. But they changed the file format for every single program! And, they did not create office97 to office95 converters until they got massive complaints. Again, if they cared, they would have created these from the start.
An interesting article. File formats are important. MS changed the Word97 format from Word95 to both break compatibility with other office programs who had created decent Word95 filters and to create an artificial reason for Word95 users to upgrade. However, even MS felt the heat on this and had to create a Word97 to Word95 filter for teed-off corporate users. Would a regulated environment help? Would other software developers actually want to standardize around another MS-controlled format? I think government control of file formats is going a bit far. JPEG, for example, became a standard because it was freely-published, worked well, and was supported by an industry. If interoperability were really a big issue, Corel, Lotus, Applix, StarOffice and whoever else would have created an open and comprehensive common file format long ago to challenge MS. They have not done this because they think their proprietary formats give them a competitive advantage. Also, while everyone makes a VHS recorder, the patent is owned by someone (JVC?) and they get a royalty on every one built. Should MS get a royalty for their file format? FInally, in all the famous antitrust trials of the last century (ex. Standard Oil) the cost to consumers decreased from year to year as SO undercut the competition (and supplied better quality). They were broken up anyway. Good thoughts, though.
The OS marketplace is changing rapidly. Computers as we know them will become less important as appliances like iToaster become available. The real future is in embedded systems. MS already grabbed a significant portion of this market from Sun by wooing Xerox (now all Xerox copiers run on NT instead of Solaris). MS will simply take its money and run to new markets: cable, satellite, maybe a TV network or movie studio. Instead of having MS in your face (and on your computer screen) it will be in your copier, set-top box, TV, car, movie theater, telephone, etc., etc., and you won't have any choice because you won't even know it's there. The market is moving so fast that any punishments meted out by the court will only affect dying markets, not new ones.
The OS marketplace is changing rapidly. Computers as we know them will become less important as appliances like iToaster become available. The real future is in embedded systems. MS already grabbed a significant portion of this market from Sun by wooing Xerox (now all Xerox copiers run on NT instead of Solaris). MS will simply take its money and run to new markets: cable, satellite, maybe a TV network or movie studio. Instead of having MS in your face (and on your computer screen) it will be in your copier, set-top box, TV, car, movie theater, telephone, etc., etc., and you won't have any choice because you won't even know it's there. The market is moving so fast that any punishments will only affect dying markets, not new ones.
More competition. More Linux development money. More Linux-optimized hardware. Is good.
BTW, the little company from Redmond started because IBM allowed someone to own exclusive rights to its PC operating system. VA doesn't own Linux, and never will.
After reading some of the many comments on the D.H.Brown report on Linux, I found that noone bothered to actually read the report, just the poorly-written news article describing it. Here is what the report says:
1. Linux is great for: small file, print, and web servers; appliance-class systems; ISP's; computer nodes in Beowulf clusters.
2. Kernel 2.0.36 has poor SMP abilities.
3. Linux can only access *files* (not memory) up to 2 gigabites is size (Tru64 UNIX can access files up to 14TB in size)
4. Kernel 2.2 SMP should handle 8 processors, but there is no field evidence showing that Linux programs can properly handle multiple processors.
5. There is no redundant high availability (HA) clustering for Linux (even NT offers HA clusters with Microsoft cluster service). Beowulf does not help here because it was not designed to be redundant.
I could go on, but better that you read the executive summary posted for free at http://www.dhbrown.com, or buy the full report for $995.
Slashdot Mirror
Too many X-Files watchers. Why do people assume conspiracy when stupidity fits the bill (or should I say Bill :) just as well.
.
From (the real) Robert X. Cringely, 8Apr99:
In years past, the way to get people to buy new versions was by adding features . . . But in time, this strategy failed because new features became harder to think of and, more importantly, because magazines and consumers both began to complain about bloated software. Enter a new and improved strategy -- file format changes. An associate sends you an e-mail message with an attached word processor file. But your copy of Microsoft Word won't open the file. This is because your associate is using Word 2000 and you are using Word 98. It takes awhile to figure this out, of course, but eventually you learn that there are two solutions to this problem: 1) your associate can send you a new version of the file saved in Word 98 format, and; 2) you can buy an upgrade to Word 2000. Eventually, you'll be forced to buy the upgrade, just because the problem will crop up again and again, and sometimes it won't seem proper to go back to the sender and ask for a new version. So you upgrade, spend time and money to gain a few new features you don't explore and never use. One question that lies unanswered, of course, is why Microsoft felt the need to change file formats at all? Why to get you to buy the damned upgrade, of course! And most of the revenue Microsoft gains from those otherwise unnecessary upgrades can be counted as a cost to consumers. Pay attention, Department of Justice.
Can anyone point me to a document signed by Chairman Bill that says "Note to self: Break Office 95 file format."? . .
No, you would have to subpoena MS to get that. But look at this article about MS's recent earnings. They make a ton of money off of Office. Do you think they want this revenue stream to dry up?
Is it such a stretch that some PHB in Redmond told the Office95 team to do X, and he or she was out playing golf when the team decided to fix it in Office97?
Yes
Of course not. It has to be a global conspiracy that involves those at the highest levels, working to enslave us all.
Not a conspiracy. Just business in a monopoly market. If MS cared about protecting its customer's investment in software, it would attempt to keep file formats in at least some of its office programs the same. But they changed the file format for every single program! And, they did not create office97 to office95 converters until they got massive complaints. Again, if they cared, they would have created these from the start.
An interesting article. File formats are important. MS changed the Word97 format from Word95 to both break compatibility with other office programs who had created decent Word95 filters and to create an artificial reason for Word95 users to upgrade. However, even MS felt the heat on this and had to create a Word97 to Word95 filter for teed-off corporate users. Would a regulated environment help? Would other software developers actually want to standardize around another MS-controlled format?
I think government control of file formats is going a bit far. JPEG, for example, became a standard because it was freely-published, worked well, and was supported by an industry. If interoperability were really a big issue, Corel, Lotus, Applix, StarOffice and whoever else would have created an open and comprehensive common file format long ago to challenge MS. They have not done this because they think their proprietary formats give them a competitive advantage.
Also, while everyone makes a VHS recorder, the patent is owned by someone (JVC?) and they get a royalty on every one built. Should MS get a royalty for their file format?
FInally, in all the famous antitrust trials of the last century (ex. Standard Oil) the cost to consumers decreased from year to year as SO undercut the competition (and supplied better quality). They were broken up anyway.
Good thoughts, though.
The OS marketplace is changing rapidly. Computers as we know them will become less important as appliances like iToaster become available. The real future is in embedded systems. MS already grabbed a significant portion of this market from Sun by wooing Xerox (now all Xerox copiers run on NT instead of Solaris). MS will simply take its money and run to new markets: cable, satellite, maybe a TV network or movie studio. Instead of having MS in your face (and on your computer screen) it will be in your copier, set-top box, TV, car, movie theater, telephone, etc., etc., and you won't have any choice because you won't even know it's there. The market is moving so fast that any punishments meted out by the court will only affect dying markets, not new ones.
The OS marketplace is changing rapidly. Computers as we know them will become less important as appliances like iToaster become available. The real future is in embedded systems. MS already grabbed a significant portion of this market from Sun by wooing Xerox (now all Xerox copiers run on NT instead of Solaris). MS will simply take its money and run to new markets: cable, satellite, maybe a TV network or movie studio. Instead of having MS in your face (and on your computer screen) it will be in your copier, set-top box, TV, car, movie theater, telephone, etc., etc., and you won't have any choice because you won't even know it's there. The market is moving so fast that any punishments will only affect dying markets, not new ones.
More competition. More Linux development money. More Linux-optimized hardware. Is good.
BTW, the little company from Redmond started because IBM allowed someone to own exclusive rights to its PC operating system. VA doesn't own Linux, and never will.
After reading some of the many comments on the D.H.Brown report on Linux, I found that noone bothered to actually read the report, just the poorly-written news article describing it. Here is what the report says:
1. Linux is great for: small file, print, and web servers; appliance-class systems; ISP's; computer nodes in Beowulf clusters.
2. Kernel 2.0.36 has poor SMP abilities.
3. Linux can only access *files* (not memory) up to 2 gigabites is size (Tru64 UNIX can access files up to 14TB in size)
4. Kernel 2.2 SMP should handle 8 processors, but there is no field evidence showing that Linux programs can properly handle multiple processors.
5. There is no redundant high availability (HA) clustering for Linux (even NT offers HA clusters with Microsoft cluster service). Beowulf does not help here because it was not designed to be redundant.
I could go on, but better that you read the executive summary posted for free at http://www.dhbrown.com, or buy the full report for $995.