Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 23 July 2007 12:03 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ John Locke on Sunday 22 July 2007 19:30 : \____
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:45:46 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Bill Gates is a goblin
>>>>>
>>>>>| To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is the maker, not
>>>>>| the purchaser. All goblin made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully
>>>>>| theirs." "But it was bought --"
>>>>>| "-- then they would consider it rented by the one who had paid the
>>>>>| money..."
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft is still making noises about a subscription service.
>>>
>>> They successfully tested it in some parts of the world, but people are not
>>> so foolish. Office for rent (not just renting a licence to use it) with a
>>> pay-as-you-go plan will make Linux seem a lot more attractive. Yet, it's the
>>> only way Microsoft can compete with Google and OpenOffice.org /without/ just
>>> turning a blind eye to piracy. It's Microsoft long-term survival plan. To
>>> boost profit, they recently elevated Office support costs by 50% and they
>>> also cracked down on piracy, played hardball with 'standards' bodies, and at
>>> the same time saw customers leaving. It's not a sustainable plan.
>>>
>>
>> A subscription is only going to work if you have something which is
>> unavailable any other way. Subscription models have to have a consumer
>> pull, eg:
>>
>> 1) Lower cost than direct retail
>> 2) Access to material, capability not available elsewhere
>> 3) Access to expertise or other value add not available
>> elsewhere
>> 4) Shared risk (eg, better returns policy)
>> 5) Early/more timely delivery
>>
>> ... and so on.
>>
>> Microsoft Office does not have any singular feature which makes it worth
>> paying for, something Microsoft are /brutally/ aware of. This is why
>> they're busy perverting ECMA to approve a second standard to do what
>> the already agreed-to standard does, in order to force a monopoly on
>> their formats.
>>
>> If Microsoft can manage to get the "monopoly on their formats" approved
>> by lots of different government bodies and the like, then they can use
>> item 2) above, for a subscription access to Microsoft Office, which will
>> be "access to a capability not available elsewhere". Or "Proprietary".
>>
>> This is also precisely why the Patent trolling has been going on, in order
>> to give the ill-informed the impression that Microsoft Office has some of
>> "2" above built-in. It hasn't, of course, but it won't stop our Microsoft
>> trolls here using phrases like "Microsoft Office format offers higher
>> fidelity". A great marketing phrase which has precisely zero meaning.
>
> Funny that you mention it. Read the first sentence *here*:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/interop/collab/linspire/definitions2.aspx
>
> It made the front page of Digg a few hours ago, ONLY because of that sentence.
> Nice shot in the foot there, Microsoft attorneys.
>
haha! That's funny. You're right - it does illustrate this point very
well indeed.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
