Is Microsoft Running Scared of OpenDocument?

PDF Zone ^ | 10-3-2005 | Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

[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.

[for-q-clinton]

You have to please the customer in order to make that profit.

You do not have to please anyone to make a profit. Do you know what a profit is? It's where you make more money than it costs to do business. So I guess we're going to get in to an argument over what you mean by "please", but when you say customers rule in capitalism--you're just flat wrong. I can make a profit without "pleasing" my customers--as long as my income in higher than my costs then I make a profit. You have to please the customer in order to make that profit.

I'll give you an example where I wasn't pleased and I didn't "RULE" as the customer. I had to get my house powerwashed. Typically it costs about $200. I don't it should cost that much; however, I had to pay it because it's the "going" rate. Was I pleased? Nope. Will I do it again in a couple years--Yes, because I have to. Does the guy I hired have a monopoly? Nope, but they all seem to charge the same rate and do about the same quality. Definitely not pleased. Definitely didn't rule. And I'm the customer. So how is that when you said customer's rule. Is it only a matter of time before the guy that powerwashed my house goes out of business? He's only been in business for about 20 years...so it may be he has a 100 year business plan before he starts pleasing his customers.

Still LMAO at your statement.

[for-q-clinton]

In capitalism, the customer rules.

Just re-read your posts to make sure you did actually say that. And not only once but twice!

This is really making me laugh. Where did graduate college? If I were you I'd go and demand my money back because they ripped you off.

[MikefromOhio]

You don't even know what capitalism is! Try profits rule. Customer service is just one aspect of making a profit.

If no one buys your crap becuase you treat them like crap, then you don't have any profits. Captialism isn't all about consumer power nor is it all about profits either. There is a definitive give and take about it.

[for-q-clinton]

Ok, I thought, maybe just maybe you had heard of an obscure definition of capitalism, so in my best effort to understand I went to google and typed "define: capitalism"

I didn't see one definition about "customers ruling" or even customer service, but I did see a whole bunch about profits. Here take a look for yourself:

• Although nowadays there are ideological capitalists - people who support a set of ideas about the economic benefits and importance of "free markets" - the term capitalism was first used to describe an the system of private investment and industry with little governmental control which emerged, without an ideological basis, in the Netherlands and Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries. A "capitalist" was an individual who invested money (or capital) in a given business venture. ...
  academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/glossary.htm

• From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Capitalism is an evolving concept which is derived from earlier European economic practices (see Feudalism, Imperialism, Mercantilism). Capitalism is widely considered to be the dominant economic system in the world. There is continuing debate over the definition, nature, and scope of this system.
  www.aworldconnected.com/subcategory.php/80.html

• An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and controlled and which is characterized by competition and the profit motive.
  countrystudies.us/united-states/economy-12.htm

• an economic and social system in which individuals can maximize profits because they own the means of production.
  www.powerhomebiz.com/Glossary/glossary-C.htm

• an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production. Under capitalism, individuals, companies or corporations invest in, own, and share in profits (or losses) of the entities that produce goods, distribute products or provide services.
  www.ots.treas.gov/glossary/gloss-c.html

• Capitalism is an economic theory which stresses that control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest the capital for production. Private ownership and free enterprise is supposed to lead to more efficiency, lower prices, better products. Adam Smith popularized this theory in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations.
  www.ilstu.edu/class/hist127/terms.html

• Economic system in which property is privately owned and goods are privately produced.It is sometimes referred to as the private enterprise system.
  www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/EcoGlossary.html

• An economic system in which capital is mostly owned by private individuals and corporations. Contrasts with communism.
  www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/c.html

• An economic system built upon the profit motive. Capitalism depends upon private individuals or companies investing money in order to make profits. In Marxist analysis, these profits are secured by exploiting workers who provide their labour.
  www.adamranson.freeserve.co.uk/critical%20concepts.htm

• Economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange for profit without State regulation. In effect, concentrates wealth into hands of the few and denies equal rights for the many. A belief that all human interaction should involve the exchange of artifacts called Money. Usually seen as the opposite of Socialism.
  www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/c1encyc.htm

• Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of property and well-developed financial institutions. Capitalism allows individual initiation, business competition, inheritance, and profit earning.
  www.whitneystewart.com/DXP/Glossary.htm

• An economic system based on the exchange of capital.
  www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/communist/quotes.html

• An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. Also promotes a free market regulated by supply and demand.
  regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm

• an economic system that allows for private ownership of the means of production (land, labour, & capital) and assumes that economic decision making is in the hands of individuals or enterprises who make decisions expecting to earn a profit. Page 6
  www.ucs.mun.ca/~rsexty/business1000/glossary/C.htm

• an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
  www.opb.org/education/coldwar/berlincrisis/glossary/

• This economic system is premised on private ownership, market-based decision making by large numbers of buyers and sellers, and reinvestment of profits into the firm. The term free-enterprise system is preferred today.
  www.politicalscience.utoledo.edu/faculty/lindeen/glos3260.htm

• the dominant organisation of contemporary global economic life. The basic processes of capitalism are the production of commodities, the extraction of value from labour, exchange and attention; and according to Marx the tendency towards monopoly. Contemporary capitalism is often analysed in three component sectors: industry (or manufacture), services (retail, officework) and finance (banking, stock markets). ...
  shiva.smst.waikato.ac.nz/~seanc/seanwriting/102web04/Glossary/glossary2.html

• A competitive social system, emerging in the seventeenth century in Europe, based on commodiftcation and the drive of the owners of the means of production to maximise the profits of their companies.
  freespace.virgin.net/brendan.richards/glossary/glossary.htm

• Private ownership of the businesses of a society with the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties.
  www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html

• an economic system in which the means of production, such as land or factories, are for the most part privately owned by individuals or corporations which compete with one another to produce goods and services that are offered on a free market for whatever profit may be made.
  schools.cbe.ab.ca/b628/social/russia/glossary.html

• a political and economic system involving the private ownership of companies through shareholders or individual owners
  home.ica.net/~drw/glossc-d.htm

• is an economic system in which products are produced for profit using privately owned capital goods and wage labor. Capitalism is the main economic system in North America, as well as in most other countries.
  colours.mahost.org/faq/definitions.html

• The socioeconomic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the use of wage labor.
  www.sage.edu/academics/schoolofprofessionalstudies/management/programs/definitions.htm

• an historically specific economic system in which production and distribution are designed to accumulate capital and create profit. The system is characterized by the separation of those who own the means of production and those who work for them.
  media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html

• an economic system based on private ownership of capital
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

• Capitalism has been defined in various ways (see ). In common usage it refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated (commonly for profit), and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined largely through the operation of a "free market" rather than by centralized state control (as in a command economy). ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[TechJunkYard]

Trying to cover for your buddy hduh?

When I see a boneheaded statement like yours, I tend to jump in and correct it.

what if it costs me more than I make to give the level of customer service requested? If your at least educated past the 3rd grade you'll know you'll go out of business.

You'll go out of business even sooner without any customers. And with that kind of attitude, you'll lose 'em PDQ. Treat customers like crap, and you don't deserve to be in business.

[for-q-clinton]

If no one buys your crap because you treat them like crap, then you don't have any profits. Captialism isn't all about consumer power nor is it all about profits either. There is a definitive give and take about it.

See the definitions I posted. I didn't see anything about customers giving and taking, but I did see a bunch about customer service. You're just conditioned to "good" service. I put good in quotes because its all relative...you may not know you're getting bad service or you may not care. A business model that relies on "customers ruling" will soon run that business to the ground.

Have you ever been to a company and got bad customer service and thought "how the heck do they stay in business?" Well the answer is good customer service isn't the only way to make a profit.

I'm not sure what kind of education you guys have in business, but it's either third rate or nonexistent.

[TechJunkYard]

If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed.

[for-q-clinton]

You'll go out of business even sooner without any customers.

Believe it or not I'm a huge advocate of great customer service...I've actually many awards for great customer service; however, it's not the only way to make a profit or staying in business...to think so is naive at best.

Here's another example of where customer service doesn't mean jack. The builder for my house was an ass after the sale. Everyone in my community has complained to the state board; however, he's still in business making a killing building houses. How can this be...according to your stupid statement he should be out of business years ago. Give it up, this is a point you can't win. Profits are the key to capitalism and making profits is what rules. How you make the profits are secondary...whether it's through good service, unique product, bullshitting customers, marketing, etc...

[for-q-clinton]

Yep, you need to keep on sucking because you're not succeeding by a long shot yet.

[for-q-clinton]

Which definition above says in capitalism customer rule?

Answer this question or just shut it.

[for-q-clinton]

Fixing my statement...it got mixed up. but I did see a bunch about customer service...should be...but I did see a bunch about PROFITS

[MikefromOhio]

it all ties in, but you can't have one without the other....

[TechJunkYard]

Which definition above says in capitalism customer rule? Answer this question or just shut it.

L0L!

I think you're up way past your bedtime again.

[N3WBI3]

Here is where the two of you are running into a disagreement. Tech never said you needed customer service he said you needed customers. Now suppose this guy who sold you your house only had a bunch of four bedroom houses to sell and everyone had their number one requirement be six bedrooms. No matter how good or bad their customer service without the customers wanting four bedroom houses he is out of luck.

MA has said 'we want open document formats that anyone can use without significant restrictions' Now MS has two choices try to get by with a PDF export function for an office suite (who would use that) or implement ODF. If they cant get by with export to pdf and they wont implement PDF no matter how good or bad their product and customer service might be there is no business for them with the MA state government.

Tech is not saying that if you have poor customer service you will be out of business, and fqc is not saying that business have a right to customers. I think the two of you started with a different language on the subject..

[for-q-clinton]

First, what he said is customer rule. Then he and others proceeded to argue profits don't rule (or they rule with customers).

Since then they've been trying to prove customers rule; however, as I have proven and will do again in capitalism that isn't always true.

Take your example. No matter how good or bad their customer service without the customers wanting four bedroom houses he is out of luck.

He's not out of luck IF everyone wanted six bedrooms and could only find 4 bedrooms. They'd have to settle on 4 bedrooms or not buy a house. Happens all the time...it's called "settling". By that I mean you decide on something that isn't 100% of what you wanted; however, it's the best you can do. In that scenario the customer doesn't "rule" as was said by others; however, the business owner is the one ruling.

Or let's go back to the late 60's in the Auto industry. The big 3 ruled and customers didn't. And they are still in business today. Since then other competitors have moved in, but the big 3 made lots of profits while they were "ruling" and the customer wasn't.

It comes down to do Customers Rule or do profits rule in capitalism. Unfortunatley, this one can't be chalked up to a different frame of refernce. It's in black and white 2 posts by Antirepublicrat. He said in capitalism customers rule...and that just isn't true. However, if he wishes to correct himself he's more than welcome to retract that comment and then restate it however he sees best, but it will be odd as he's said it twice (once after being challenged on it). I think he's one of those that hate to admit he's wrong.

[for-q-clinton]

Also Antirepublicrat said, "You have to please the customer in order to make that profit."

See he was talking about customer service and is trying to defend his position that "customers rule in capitalism". Every thinking/educated person knows Profits rule in capitalism. So either he misspoke and hates to eat crow so much that he'll continue a wrong point to try and avoid eating crow...or he's not very educated. To be honest, I'm not sure which of the 2 it is (maybe a bit of both).

BTW: I posted a whole slew of definitions found on google and not one of them mentioned customers directly. One would think that if customers ruled in capitlism they'd be mentioned in at least one definition. However, profits are mentioned a whole bunch.

[for-q-clinton]

And he also completely misunderstands the system of supply and demand when he stated, "The customer states a requirement, and vendors line up to provide that requirement in order to get the business."

This is not always the case. If they aren't paying enough to meet the requirement the requirement will go unfullfilled. Heck I've put out many requests for people to bid on them and no one did! Even when it was fully funded. Where were all the vendors he said would line up.

[N3WBI3]

He's not out of luck IF everyone wanted six bedrooms and could only find 4 bedrooms.

True, but what if some lesser known source offered 6 bedrooms (like say star office or corel).

It comes down to do Customers Rule or do profits rule in capitalism.

It comes down to 'without customers (not necessarily customer service) you have not profits to rule..

[for-q-clinton]

even your spin is admitting that the customers rule comment is wrong.

[TechJunkYard]

You do not have to please anyone to make a profit.... I'll give you an example where I wasn't pleased and I didn't "RULE" as the customer. I had to get my house powerwashed. Typically it costs about $200. I don't it should cost that much; however, I had to pay it because it's the "going" rate. Was I pleased? Nope...

Lets use this example. You researched the market, so you knew what the going rate was. You could have gone out and rented the equipment and done it yourself and saved some money, but you didn't. So what made you decide on that particular supplier? Would you use him again, or would you shop around next time?

What if there was someone in your town who charged $400 for the same job? Would you use him? He'd be making scads of profits, so by your definition he'd have a great business. He just wouldn't have many repeat customers.

You can't ignore the value of customer satisfaction. It's what keeps the customers coming back and reccommending you to their friends, so it sustains your profit.

"Now I'll sit back and let you have the last word, since you enjoy it so much..."