Posted on 10/05/2005 10:40:42 AM PDT by Panerai
Microsoft Corp. is not going to release a version of its Office suite software for open-source rival Linux, although the company is actively studying how Linux works and how it can integrate with the platform, a Microsoft representative said Wednesday.
“The simplest way I can answer the question is that Microsoft is 100 percent focused on Windows,” said Nick McGrath, director of platform strategy for Microsoft in the U.K. “We have no plans at this present moment in time to deploy or build a version of Microsoft Office on Linux.”
McGrath participated in a roundtable debate on whether free software development leads to proprietary software or if the flow works in reverse at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo that started Wednesday in London. The lone representative from Microsoft, McGrath handled a fair amount of ribbing from emotional open-source advocates who used the forum to question how Microsoft plans to deal with what advocates say is increasing market share of the Linux platform.
Open-source software allows anybody who has a great idea to “stand on the shoulders of giants,” whereas in the commercial world it has to be patented, the underlying infrastructure has to be licensed and the idea has to be tried, said Mark Shuttleworth of the Ubuntu Foundation.
(Excerpt) Read more at macworld.com ...
Another they could have put this was they are using a monopoly in one area to create new monopolies in other areas.
Open source projects are filling in the void with Office compatible software under the Open Office project.
I believe there is a Linux version already floating around out there.
Open document standards will make it moot because Microsoft will be forced to comply with the standard by many large corporations and government entities.
Yep. They are attempting to avoid this by deploying smoke and mirrors (e.g. their attempts to obfuscate the Massachusetts open-format requirements), but that will only buy them a little more time (which they seem determined to squander rather than take the opportunity to adapt).
1. Embrace
2. Extend
3. Extinguish
Their strategy, time after time.
Not so. You have to have critical mass before open document standards will force Microsoft to comply.
Right now, Microsoft has critical mass and Microsoft does not have to comply to the open document standard. By increasing the incompatibility with the open document standards, Microsoft can force the business community to choose now. And they will choose Microsoft to be compatible with the rest of the critical mass. This is the strategy that Microsoft has used successfully to squash a number of competitors. They did it in word processors, spreadsheets, browsers.
An interesting quote for users of Mac Office.
Indeed. Glad I have iWork.
If you want Office on Unix, the best approach currently available is to buy a Mac. OSX is essentially FreeBSD with a prettier windowing system, and Office for OSX is a genuine Microsoft product with few compatibility hangups (OpenOffice 1.1 has several compatibility issues, though the claim is they've largely fixed that in 2.0, I'd have my doubts).
That was then, this is now.
Believe it or not, the reason Word became the defacto word processing standard is that WordPerfect had strong copy protection, while Office did not. All those pirated copies of word people were using at home made them want to use Word at work.
In other words, free software was the driving force behind Microsoft's monopoly.
Rather than install a pirate copy of Office on my parents' computer, I now install OpenOffice because it won't make any difference to them and there are no licensing issues.
"Free" will be the driving force behind the _gradual_ erosion of Microsoft's monopoly.
> I believe there is a Linux version [of Office] already floating around out there.
OpenOffice. I use it, version 1.1.4. OO lacks a MS Outlook equivalent, which is ok by me because KMail works just fine and Outlook's calendar is an intrusive nuisance.
I certainly agree it can be. And I agree, that Microsoft obtained much of it's critical mass by offering it's software free, or at very low prices, and probably by weak copy protection as well.
But once that critical mass was obtained, Microsoft has been able to use it to successfully defend against upstarts that would use similar strategies to displace them.
I'd love to see it work. But this article is evidence that Microsoft is taking steps to try to squash the Linux revolt before it has enough critical mass to be a true contender.
MS would drive them out of business by underselling them until they ran out of money.
It will not be possible to kill open source that way.
"Linux could find a way to create a platform window within Linux to operate all Windows/Mac programs if they wish.
They should be able to do it themselves IMO."
while that work is ongoing it's not as efficient. The application developers within the MS Office group have access to extra information about how Windows works - information that gives them an advantage - As the Word Perfect and Lotus people found out.
I understand the monopoly issue, but why don't some people just write a huge program called "Office 2004 for Linux" and be done with it?
Once Microsoft has that critical mass, which they do with their office products, they do not have to compete on price. They simply introduce changes that make their products incompatible with the rest of the non-microsoft world.
Then people are forced to choose between leaving microsoft products to go to an incompatible non-microsoft world. Or upgrading within the microsoft world to stay current. Invariably they stay to maintain compatibility with the rest of the business world.
Yet their Office for Mac is better than Office for Windows.
The ghost of Christmas-future:
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.