Posted on 10/05/2005 7:42:38 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Opinion: It's not coincidence that after Massachusetts made it clear that it would support open formats, Microsoft is now going to include PDF in the next version of Office.
What is Microsoft up to, anyway, with its sudden plan to finally support PDF?
It wasn't announced by Bill Gates loudly to the world at the Professional Developer Conference a few weeks ago. It also wasn't proclaimed to the Microsoft faithful at its recent Most Valuable Professional Global Summit.
No, instead, Microsoft quietly squeaked out the news on a Saturday afternoon in Microsoft Office Program Manager Brian Jones' Weblog.
Could it be that it's because Microsoft is backing its way into ever so reluctantly supporting an open format after Massachusetts decided that it would only use office suites that supported open formats like PDF and OpenDocument?
It certainly looks that way to me.
For all of its talk about being an innovator, Microsoft is really just a follower.
PointerClick here to read more about Microsoft's decision to build PDF support into Office 12.
Sometimes, of course, the company is a very, very reluctant follower. It took Microsoft's leadership forever to live down the fact that they had initially dismissed the Internet. Now, I see Microsoft slowly and painfully embracing open standards.
Mind you, this move is just a beginning. I recently pointed out that it would be trivial for Microsoft to add OpenDocument support to Office.
I don't see that happening anytime soon now though.
With PDF support alone, Microsoft can still try for Massachusetts government contracts without having to add OpenDocument.
Well, until StarOffice, OpenOffice.org and WordPerfect's support for OpenDocument force Microsoft's hand anyway.
After all, PDF is much more of an end-result format than one that most people actually want to edit in. As OpenDocument and the applications that enable it gain more support, Microsoft will find itself forced into supporting it too.
Now, some might say that this is just Microsoft giving the people what they want. Many users have been asking for a PDF option from Microsoft since Adobe Acrobat 4 appeared in 1999.
eWEEK Special Report: Office Politics
But, if that's all there was to it, then why was Microsoft banging the drum for its own PDF substitute, Metro, only a few months ago?
Still others might say that is part and parcel of Microsoft's recent efforts to compete against Adobe in other ways: Sparkle vs. Flash, Acrylic vs. Photoshop and so on.
To which, I say, "Why now? Why announce it in such a subdued way?"
No, all those other things play a role, but at the end of the day, Microsoft felt that it must make at least a concession to open standards by adopting PDF.
After all, it's not like Massachusetts is the only entity that is seriously considering making supporting open standards a requirement for its software purchases. Massachusetts was just the first to make it official.
Microsoft would love it if it could make everyone stick to its proprietary formats. That forces customers to keep buying its products. But it can't. And, much as Microsoft may hate it, its executives know it. So it is that as quietly as the company could, Microsoft is, once more, making concessions to open standards.
eWEEK.com Senior Editor Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has been using and writing about operating systems since the late '80s and thinks he may just have learned something about them along the way. He can be reached at sjvn@ziffdavis.com.
Have you read the licenses yet?
False assumption. I'm not afraid to answer it. Microsoft is not in a position to pass all costs to the consumer, their competitor is operating at a much lower price point.
When your competitor is free, you do not have pricing power.
You really believe you can hand out homework assignments and conduct interrogations, don't you? LOL
Do you DRESS like Napoleon too?
Ah, so you agree the Office 12 license is about the same as PDF. And you're missing the point if you think it's about O12 vs. ODF. It's about Taxachussetts using taxpayers money to pull an ABM move (which is illegal). So they gave PDF a waiver simply because it wasn't M$. And the claim was because their PDF license was good for them. So why isn't O12's license good enough as well? Because it's Microsoft.
Fantastic leap, and not true. I've not examined them, and you've offered no demonstration of your claim.
It's not ABM, though you're desperate to continue that lie. All Microsoft needs to do is implement ODF.
Well duh, once again just good opsec. Plus having a simple hash like the one I used or shadow is stupid because as soon as it falls into the wrong hands it's cracked. I'm not saying obscurity is the only tenant of security, but it is one of them. Whereas you claim it isn't needed at all. I guess that's what we are debating.
BTW: What would really help here is for you to answer my question...Do you agree a that one of the properties of a hash has The quality or condition of being imperfectly known or difficult to understand?
Not true. M$ doesn't have to...a state agency that wants to buy M$ can also buy, develop, or implement a plug-in or converter to do that for them.
Or they can buy M$ for pdf creation.
Helluva way to treat a customer. ROFL
What are you smaking crack again? Last time I used Oracle, I didn't get "FREE" Oracle services to design my database around my requirements. Or when I used Red Hat, they didn't pre-install it on my computer (as I required them to do). Yeah, they are all awful vendors. A pox on all their houses. They should give me everything I want for free. And when they give it to me I should be free to do whatever I please with it.
Have you actually ever used it? And deployed it to over 1,000 seats? LOL!
I have never smoked or smaked crack. The customer is considering you, or a much-lower-priced competitor, and tells you it wants ODF implemented.
You then have a choice: implement it at no additional cost, or lose your customer.
[cue Jeopardy theme]
Yes. Works great.
And deployed it to over 1,000 seats? LOL!
Gotta be less unpleasant than Bill Gates hand in my pocket. If Massachusetts decides to go that way, they will have done their TCO analysis and made their choice. All that will be left for Microsoft is analyzing the game films to find out what went wrong.
Ah the truth comes out! You just hate M$ and you're willing to let taxpayers fund your crusade against them.
What is a liberal state gov't wasting taxpayers money to get revenge on a company they don't like?
Another Fantastic Leap! You're quite the gymnast.
It's about reducing cost to taxpayers. Microsoft can choose to compete or it can withdraw.
I don't know what word games you're trying to play, but I've already told you what a hash is -- a digest. Hash, cipher and code may seem similar to laymen, but they are completely different concepts in cryptography.
I'll go out on a limb and give you guys the benefit of the doubt that we were having definition problems. True, the end purpose of encryption is obscurity of the data. But obscurity itself has no business in the process of achieving that end goal.
Silly non-sequitur question.
You go in circles. All Microsoft has to do to thwart that dastardly scheme is implement ODF.
Uh maybe they did it because in order to have people use the standard they have to know the standard, duh. You can't hide something you are giving away.
I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.