On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 03:18 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Joshua wrote: > > >Since their products don't use ODF as a native format there is not much > >point in developing an add in that breaks the standard they are trying > to be sure > >of being able to import and export. > > it might not make sense to you, but to them it will make perfect sense > to export ODF files that can only be opened using MSO.
It wouldn't make sense to their customers which is what matters and it would be irrelevant to the growing number of office users who are not MS customers. When you have 98% of the market because you bundle a web browser with the OS its a completely different scenario from when you have less than 90% of the office market and shrinking. The situations where MS has been able to embrace and extend standards are not the same and the world has changed. If they even try it they are likely to be fined by the EU for 100s of millions and have their products boycotted by governments so I rather hope they do try but I think they are too smart to try it. > When people that don't use MSO complaint that the file format is broken, These people by enlarge no the issues, they are the more informed early adopters. > > Microsoft will say, "Obviously the file format is broken. It has a > number of technological issues that make it inferior to our own XML > format. We can not fix that which is by definition, broken." And it won't stand up because there are now enough people that know in influential paces to discredit such arguments. It will then place MS under siege and they really don't want to go there. > FUD, but that is standard practice for Microsoft. Lie when possible, and > tell bigger lies when the little lies show how stupid their claims are. Except people and more importantly governments are no longer just accepting lies, the risk of going down that route is very high - I hope they try it. > > any value in them coding something that "enhances" an exported file that > > then doesn't behave in OOo. > As a weapon to take market share from OOo, that would be a quasi-perfect > plan for them. No, it would be a high risk given the current situation. This is no longer the 90s and its not a browser war or a war with Java, both of which were fundamentally linked to a strengthening monopoly situation. The Office space is a weakening monopoly with entire governments mandating ISO26300. In none of the other situations was an ISO standard involved. You can't just unilaterally change an ISO standard and ISOs have particular special considerations in government. > Quasi-perfect, because most people are idiotic enough > top think that Microsoft is an honest, upright, ethical organization > that has never committed a crime in their history. Increasingly not the people that matter. Government and large corporate decision makers. MS have screwed too many in the industry so a lot are hungry for revenge even if they don't say so. That includes some large customers as well as competitors. Not whether its a good idea to move away from MS control but how much will it cost. > They also believe > that Microsoft products have always been inherently secure. Some do, but the future direction of things is more to do with 3 factors. Developing countries where costs of software are relatively much higher so the incentive to dump proprietary is much greater - that generates the volume of users needed to drive and sustain development. Governments that are waking up to the fact that their policies are directly in conflict with the MS Monopoly. Large corporates that see their interests not in providing MS a gravy train. None of these factors were in play 10 years ago. > > jonathon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ian -- www.theINGOTS.org www.schoolforge.org.uk www.opendocumentfellowship.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
