Cost of MS Office relative to LO, was: Fwd: [libreoffice-users] Re: moving to new version of MS Office

users
#21

Hi :slight_smile:
Most products have numerous well-known competitors.

Normally an offer of a free trial-period is marketed to state that
after just a short time of using their product you will see how much
better it is than x, y, z because of a, b, c. So they even name some
of their competition, drawing attention to the alternatives you could
try instead.

When MS offer a free trial it is not made clear that people could
choose an alternative. The only option seems to be to either buy
their product or not use any word-processor or office programs.

There is no crap-shoot because none of the other choices are known.
It's not akin to the shareware idea at all!

However, I think people (incl me) have been too heated about this.
It's not the same as a drug-dealer giving a freebie to get someone
hooked. People are not held hostage.

I only want to comment on this last bit but didn't want to delete the preceding and subsequent context.

I concur that the rhetoric about drug-dealing is too heated and is inaccurate.

there is however a point that seems missing from the discussion. Microsoft produces the operating system on which they then 'offer' Word.

the sense that the user is somehow tied in comes in part from the fact that users, most of whom are or have been 'naive', as another poster put it, only see Word, it appears as part of Windows.

if Microsoft offered Word, WordPerfect, LO or whatever and said, take your pick, that would be different.

or if others had some 'real estate' on the system when you bought it for instance as options offered by OEM's, that too would be different.

the difference would be that users would see alternatives and trial them. this would correspond to the 'shareware principle'.

of course one would not expect Microsoft to do such a thing out of the goodness of their heart, or on some free market principle. it's not 'cunning' so much or 'drug dealing', it's the common sense of the owner of the platform.

well, there may be cunning too.

on another note, I see no reason not to disdain a firm if you abhor their corporate practices. quality of a firm's product, for instance, is not the only consideration for a morally aware consumer.

F.

#22

Once again, Umas, you set up a straw man and demolish him!

FOSS means "Free and Open Source Software". It doesn't necessarily refer to
software created by some pure amateur in his garage. As long as the creator
(commercial firm, university or private individual) releases the source at
no cost, it is FOSS.

#23

hi. I work in a state school, using ms windows and ms office... i think I
know the policy of microsoft. I think they use a sort of (apparent)
programmed obsolescence for the software. I mean: periodically they add a
new version with some changes in interface, macro programming, functions
and file structure, which is installed on new computers. the new version is
voluntarily incompatible with the previous ones. It's a matter of
marketing, not innovation. where I work, people are always complaining
that what works on a computer (files, macro etc..) doesn't work on
another. the school, on the other way, doesn't want to spend money on new
software licenses (very expensive in italy). so, why don't they change
? they don't know enough about LibreOffice; they would need
demonstrations or some training (some training is done, but always on ms
office, I don't know which version... are they trained every new
version?), I guess... I
think microsoft did the same politics with charities and schools:
discounted prices (but they are still stealing money somehow...). other
software producers (autodesk) are doing similar things... schools are
good marketing targets... ideas?

​Paolo, here a link (http://autotelic.com/windows_is_free) to a
six-year-old article which describes the techniques Microsoft used and
continues to use to achieve «lock in» to their expensive and buggy
programmes. The article discusses Windows explicitly, but the same
techniques are of course used to get their favourite cash cow MS Office on
as many computers as possible and to establish it and the proprietary
formats it employs as the *de facto *standard. Changing a graphic interface
in ways that make it less, rather than more intuitive, and making minor
changes to a proprietary format in order to force users to purchase the
latest and greatest are part and parcel of the business idea....

Henri ​

#24

​But jomali, you misunderstand, «Urmas»​
​ favourite OS is a «real» OS, while all others are, of course, «toys»​ How
so ? *Urmas locuta, causa finita est*....

Henri

#25

Peter West wrote:

or quietly being given, a copy of an employer's software meant that MS Office products gained near-ubiquity.

Assuming the organization is not SoHo sized, or smaller, unless the person negotiating with Microsoft for licenses is a complete idiot, the license will allow for each employee to install MSO on their home computer, for the duration of their employment, or the corporate license expires, whichever comes first.

demands to provide documents in MS Word format when providing a CV.

The first software to scan resumes did so with plain text. HR personel are too incompetent with computer software, to know how to convert a file in any non-plain text file format to plain text, so the companies added import in MS Word DOc, as an option. They also provided the ability to import several other word processing formats. But since HR doesn't understand that the software has that ability, they don't accept resumes in other formats.

former MS executives will reveal that theft was a vital element in MS' strategy for their Office

products during the world colonisation phase.

Bill Gates is on record that corporate piracy was, and is, vital to their efforts to prevent competitors from even gaining a toehold.

Ballmer is on record on saying that the company has to walk a fine line in combating piracy. Whilst short term revenue is always increased when the piracy crackdown happens, the long term revenue stream is less clear, and that some companies and organizations have made it decidely more difficult for Microsoft to collect any money from them.

jonathon

#26

Urmas wrote:

Just think about it: there was NOT A SINGLE successful FOSS-created
project so far.

Ever hear of Linux? Besides those of us who use it on our desktops, it
also runs about 95% of the super computers, most of the Internet (along
with Apache), including the likes of Google, Yahoo and more, Android
smart phones, embedded in appliances such as TVs, Bluray players etc.
and it's the OS used on the space station.

Why do you keep trying to prove how ignorant you are?

#27

James Knott wrote:

Ever hear of Linux?

That was dismissed, because it was developed in a university setting, as a research project.

FWIW, using the provided definition, there has been no commercially successful Non-FLOSS software.

jonathon

#28

Urmas wrote:

Because people buy computers to work, not to tinker with.

There are many who don't need Windows but are forced to pay for it with
a computer. Take a look at the strong arm tactics MS has used over the
years to see how they got to this point.

#29

Peter West wrote:

If people writing documents on their private computers had been obliged to but a copy of MS Office, alternatives would have been embraced much more enthusiastically.

FWIW, several years ago, I bought a copy of PC-Write for DOS. It was
shareware, but if you paid for it, they sent a manual. I might still
have that manual here somewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-Write

#30

Urmas wrote:

"James Knott" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:529918D1.30907@rogers.com...

...and then hold [created documents]
hostage, until the users coughs up for MS Office.

There is immense number of software capable import DOC files, due to
their format being virtually unchanged since 1997 or 2007. Including
the Word Viewer, of course.

The problem is so many are not aware of alternatives. If they want to
access their documents, they think they have to pay MS. I do what I can
to educate them. BTW, several years ago, I worked for a company that
used OpenOfice. However, I suspect it was because they were too cheap
to pay for MS Office. :wink:

#31

James wrote:

Ever hear of Linux? Besides those of us who use it on our desktops, it
also runs about 95% of the super computers, most of the Internet (along
with Apache), including the likes of Google, Yahoo and more, Android
smart phones, embedded in appliances such as TVs, Bluray players etc.
and it's the OS used on the space station.

Man, with a market share like that, somebody could've gotten really rich!

Virgil

#32

I'll have to dig through my basement to see if I still have my PC-Write manual. I loved the cat on the cover. That cat sort of reminds me of the Linux penguin.

Virgil

#33

I am using a version of linux based os since 5 years  (a distribution; linux is the kernel). there are many distributions available (the CERN of geneve has also developed its own version), you can download and install it or free.  institutions, schools and universities are moving to linux and free software to save money and other technical reasons...   many distributions (such as ubuntu)  include libreoffice by themselves.

James wrote:

Ever hear of Linux?  Besides those of us who use it on our desktops, it
also runs about 95% of the super computers, most of the Internet (along
with Apache), including the likes of Google, Yahoo and more, Android
smart phones, embedded in appliances such as TVs, Bluray players etc.
and it's the OS used on the space station.

Man, with a market share like that, somebody could've gotten really rich!

Virgil

#34

James Knott wrote:

FWIW, several years ago, I bought a copy of PC-Write for DOS. It was
shareware, but if you paid for it, they sent a manual. I might still
have that manual here somewhere.

Found it. Now, I wonder if PC-Write is available on the web somewhere. :wink:

#35

Hi :slight_smile:
Pleeeease can we NOT have the Romans sketch in here?

Errr, Firefox Reg? Don't forget what it used to be like around here! :wink:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#36

may I ask you one real world case where this actually happened?

Thanks,
  Marco

#37

I concur that the rhetoric about drug-dealing is too heated and is
inaccurate.

even if that were true, in most practical cases is the most effective,
if not simply the ONLY way, to make ordinary computer users pay
attention for at least ONE minute to the fact that they do have a
dependency problem, and to what ACTUALLY causes that dependency.

otherwise we'll remain stuck to discuss irrelevant or useless measures like this:

if Microsoft offered Word, WordPerfect, LO or whatever and said,
take your pick, that would be different.

when the only thing that is really necessary is to stop using
proprietary **formats**

the difference would be that users would see alternatives and trial
them.

and how this would change anything, as long as the only way to
exchange files with other users (ESPECIALLY public administration)
with the smallest possible amount of compatibility issues remained to
use MSO, because nobody, including many FOSS advocates, bothers enough
to demand open file formats?

the only practical outcome would be some variation of:

"I like WordPerfect much better than MSO, but it makes all the files I
send to my boss look funny, so I have to use MSO too"

          Marco

#38

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
Sadly that does seem to be true but having done the shock&awe and
grabbed their attention it's time to consider getting back to reality
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

I concur that the rhetoric about drug-dealing is too heated and is
inaccurate.

in most practical cases is the most effective,
if not simply the ONLY way, to make ordinary computer users pay
attention for at least ONE minute to the fact that they do have a
dependency problem, and to what ACTUALLY causes that dependency.

otherwise we'll remain stuck

<snip />

#39

Paolo,

First off, every company has periodic changes in ui and features when
they upgrade. I'd be concerned if somebody was offering me an upgrade
that looked and worked exactly like the previous version. Also, using
the term steal in regards to discounted prices is more than a bit
inflammatory.
Second, schools are verry good marketing targets. If students grow up
using one particular office suite, chances are that they'll continue
using that suite. Almost all of the Apple fans I met came out of
university graphics arts programs. Add in the student discount rate and
the odds of the person purchasing that program on their own being very
low, and you've got a very good success rate.
It sounds to me like your school does not have a well thought out
upgrade protocol. This would be true whether or not they were on MSO,
LO, OO, etc

#40

Marco wrote:

... because nobody, including many FOSS advocates, bothers enough
to demand open file formats?

My guess is that those of us who use LO in general, and those of us on this list, in particular, are a little more computer savvy than the typical office worker using MS-Office. When sharing files with others, if I were to demand that they send it to me in an .ODT format, they would first question what the #$%^ I was talking about. They would then not have a clue of how to get it there, claim they don't have the time to learn how to do it, and finally wonder why in heavens name I would be asking for such a goofy file format when *everybody* uses MS. I believe standards are determined by what users actually use, and right now, it appears that most users are using MS. Thus, it remains incumbent upon us in the minority who know how to create DOC files to accommodate our less knowledgeable colleagues.

So, my computer has Office (Starter version), LO *and* WordPerfect, so I can talk to just about anybody.

Virgil