On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 01:54 -0500, Robert Derman wrote: > > <big snip> > > > >> if 'better' ruled, we'd have all had betamax videos, > > So for a product to succeed it must not just be technically better,
It doesn't need to be technically better.If it was about being technically better, DOS and the IBM PC would never have got off the ground. There were far better technologies around at the time. What mattered most was confidence and "good enough". IBM established confidence. The next most important factor was a perception of open architecture so anyone could build a PC to a standard such that all could use the same software. The flaw in that thinking was that the OS and CPU were not open standards and so started the Wintel monopoly. The rest is history leading to MS's and to an extent Intel's dominant positions in the industry. It had virtually nothing to do with technical elegance or innovation. Generally the people who think it has have no real technical experience of computer systems other than DOS and Windows based PCs or are too young to have experienced the origins of the microcomputer in the late 70s and early 80s. > it > must be better in ways that actually matter to the average consumer of > that type of product. On the average TV in use at the time of the Beta > Wars, the extra quality of Beta was not all that appearant. Yes, the technology has to be good enough for the purpose not necessarily technically superior which is why if there was sufficient confidence in OOo any shortcomings compared to MSO would be insufficient to make any real difference. I used a computer that had a multitasking GUI, Outline fonts, drag and drop etc etc yet people took up character based DOS PCs in preference *and* paid more for them. Why? Because they were told they were the "industry standard" and "open architecture". That shows its nothing to do with technical features and excellence and all to do with confidence. Since most people were just using PCs as glorified typewriters at the time WP running character based on DOS was good enough and generated confidence through marketing and large scale take up in business. That is also why marketing intitiatives and confidence building are so imprortant to the success of OOo. Also why under-mining confidence is extremely bad for the project, assuming that people belonging to the project are in fact advocates. > That is why I think that OOo will win with average consumers. If > average consumers simply become aware of the existance of OOo, they > will, in most cases choose it over M$ Office. OOo's price trumps M$ > Office's features almost every time. And in my own experience M$ Office > doesn't even have any features that would lead me to choose it over OOo, > even if it cost the same! Also its easy and convenient to just download and install. No sending for CDs, no license keys etc. Now that might not matter to even a majority but as the significance of the size of the minority using ooo grows, confidence grows. As confidence grows more people will use it so the ,arket share will increase and so confidence will grow. The long term outcome is inevitable if take up of OOo continues even slowly, the timescale is more difficult to predict. ODF's acceptance is all part of the confidence building. If it doesn't happen it isn't the end of the game, the game just takes longer. Of course MS want to prolong things as far as possible to try and get alternative products going before the gravy train hits the buffers. That is perfectly understandable but that is their problem not ours. Our singleminded aim should be to optimise all the conditions that promote confidence in OOo. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL
