On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:18:18 +0100, Lars D. Noodén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My personal experience is that when vendors say that there is no
customer demand, what they really mean is that whatever is being
requested does not currently fit the vendor's agenda for the foreseeable
future.
One incident that gave a strong impression on me was when I visited or
corresponded with many sites, who turned out to be customers of a
particular vendor. They all had been very interested in a particular
feature and had all been negotiating for a few years to get that
feature, yet the vendors representative tried to tell me that there was
"no customer demand" for that feature. When presented with a list of
their customers interested in that feature, they countered with "no
customer requests". When presented with a list of customers and the
dates on which they had requested the feature, the vendor still denied
it.
Well here you need to see throught the lines, they really have no control
on what the features are getting in or out, I think you need to ask the
right questions. For example what I think is that the development was
sub-contracted. And they just have a high level development to fit to
specific needs.
They dont have the skillset to re-ingeneer their product even if their
lives depend on that. Another thing is that it might be the people you are
dealing with doesnt really have that power within the company to call a
shot so dealing with higher levels within the company might be something
to think about.
If MS Office can support XML-based formats, then it should easily be
able to support OpenDocument. Perhaps the grounds for defensiveness is
that the MS product *cannot* really support non-MS schemas and there is
fear that it would be known that it can't. It would not be the first
Well even funnier, is vendors that support Netscape but dont support
Mozilla. :D
time that features and functions listed in the MS ads and brochures
failed to work or even exist in the shipped version of the product. MS
has a long track record of leveraging vaporware to disadvantage
competitors. It would be no surprise if one of the contributing
factors[1] was the inability for MS Office to support non-MS based XML
schemas.
The last reason is that they basically dont want to support it but they
are choosing other words that wont make them look as if they dont want to.
-Lars
[1] Aside from losing the monopoly of file formats for MS Office
Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Patents are wrong for software but right for inventions. Write:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Ian Lynch wrote:
On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 12:41 +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 21:54 -0700, Gary Edwards wrote:
Since Sinofsky indicates, based on the threshold
he set for PDF adoption, we need 120,000 demands for ODF before
Microsoft will concede to our demands, is there anyone else willing to
join the demand line for ODF? If Microsoft wants to position
themselves
as a company that responds to the demands of the marketplace, let us
shout loudly. Start by posting a comment to the Zdnet talk back. Put
it
right in Sinofsky's face.
should we start setting cron jobs to submit requests for ODF support
and
searches for ODF on the Microsoft website? ;)
Why not? If they are so stupid to use that as their only market reseach
method they get what they deserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Alexandro Colorado
CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES
http://es.openoffice.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
