| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Redmond's Prices May Cost Gates Dear | |
|
||
| Time: 05:54 EST/10:54 GMT | News Source: Business Week Online | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
Is that a crack I see in the fortress of Redmond? In late August, 2002, Microsoft lost one of the biggest customers for its Office suite of applications. Hewlett-Packard, the world's largest PC manufacturer, is going to yank Office from its Pavilion line of home computers. Office has been usurped by the WordPerfect suite, a longtime rival produced by Canadian software maker Corel. WordPerfect offers most of Office's features -- but for about $100 less, at least in the shrink-wrapped version. It looks like Mac users aren't the only ones rebelling against the high price of Microsoft. Indeed, HP said price was the reason it was swapping Office for WordPerfect. And it won't be hard to implement, given Microsoft's recent antitrust concessions. HP can now actually replace Office with WordPerfect on the Windows start-menu bar on its Pavilion PCs. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 315 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:51:31 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1401 (24.74.52.28) at 9/5/2002 8:32:04 AM |
| Microsoft will continue to charge as high a price as they can get away with. But ultimately, the market will determine what price the product will cost and Microsoft will either have to deal with it or suffer the consequences... |
| #2 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 9/5/2002 9:31:00 AM |
|
> Microsoft will continue to charge as high a price as they can get away with
and so will Corel, and so will Sun, and so will Apple, and so will HP, and so will Compaq, and so will McDonalds, and so will WalMart, and so will Home Depot, and so will Nintendo, and so will the IRS, and so will Texaco, and so will Papa Johns. Microsoft is a capitalist, just like every other business. No less, no more. |
| #3 By 1401 (24.74.52.28) at 9/5/2002 9:40:54 AM |
| ...and so will KMart, Pizza Hut, and Lowes. I get your point, but we are talking about Microsoft here, right? |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/5/2002 10:31:54 AM |
|
I think it's funny. These media people whine endlessly about how they have no choice with software.
Now they're whining endlessly that some companies have decided to ship alternatives to Microsoft. One wonders exactly what they want? |
| #5 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/5/2002 11:36:24 AM |
| The anti trust case never at any time had anything to do with the relationship of Microsoft and Corel. Further, Microsoft itself invested in Corel a few years because to prevent Corel from going bankrupt. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/5/2002 12:37:03 PM |
|
soda, seriously, I'm curious where you get your nutball conception of things... To you, everyone is either a conspiracy theorist or wants it both ways (when it's anti-Microsoft). But I don't see anything inconsistent about this article. Haddad is a Mac writer; he is enjoyng the situation. He isn't complaining that the options are bad alternatives, he isn't complaining that he wishes Microsoft had complete control again. So how do you see this as "whining endlessly that some companies have decided to ship alternatives to Microsoft"? Seriously.
He says, "As Mac enthusiasts, let us hope that some Microsoft honcho squashes this stealth program. The longer Microsoft remains blinded by its own brilliance, the better it will be for Apple." Do you consciously realize that you make up your own version of the story and just do it because you think the FUD will pass with others without realizing only you see it this way, or are you yourself fooled by this baloney you spew? |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/5/2002 1:42:22 PM |
| Yeah, Chasuk, he gets it wrong, but wouldn't it be worse if he had gotten it right? After all, Works is a cheap and crippled program--how much do you think OEMs pay for it? Whereas, now it's being replaced by a more fully-featured suite AND still at a LOWER cost than Works. He doesn't even mention the Sony switch... So what you are saying, I guess, is that it's worse than Haddad knows. I'd agree. |
| #8 By 1913 (68.14.48.57) at 9/5/2002 2:15:47 PM |
|
No matter what comes with the system, if a person is used to using MS Office, he or she will install or purchase MS Office.
We all know that MS Office is pretty much installed on every system at the work environment, and do you think a user will suddenly switch to Corel WordPerfect Office Suite just because it came with a HP Pavillion. In fact in my place of work, users are spending the money to purchase Office XP for home because they're familiar with the product; granted that they've looked at some options, but the bottom line for the users is productivity. They will do anything to get their jobs done. Then again ...MS Office never came pre-installed in a HP Pavillion. This post was edited by rommels on Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 14:16. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/5/2002 2:28:52 PM |
|
Some softies are just plain whacky:
"You people don't seem to notice that Microsoft has a knack for competition, sometimes they get very bored. That's why they make all these major investments in their rivals. One thing though this won't hurt Office or Windows at all, people might receive WordPerfect with their PC, but the majority is still going to end-up purchasing MS Office or stick with their present copy of MS Office. Its just the truth." Yeah, they do it for fun. To give themselves a little jump start. For Christsake, some people can convince themselves of anything. Like it didn't have anything to do with the fact that MS hates developing their own technology for other platformsand Corel was willing to "try" to develop .Net for BSD at the time. It didn't have anything to do with a cheap way to improve their legal situation with some minor anecdotal evidence. It was all just for some fun! As for buying Office, I think Mr. and rommel are a bit off--my mother bought a Pavillion and she had no idea she wasn't using Word (she doesn't really see Office as a whole, just Word with a little Excel occasionally; yes, Chasuk people get confused by the two, or rather, simply don't care). When I told her to get a hold of Office to solve a problem she was encountering, she actually borrowed Works again from a friend--her friend didn't know either! If you don't actually know of the difference, it's tough to be convinced to go out and buy a $400 app. As for my mom, she hasn't bought or "stolen" Office yet, she just ignores her problem. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 14:32. |
| #10 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 9/5/2002 2:43:21 PM |
|
SJ, What does porting .NET to BSD have to do with not developing their own technology?
MS did develop their own technology. They developed the original .NET code that runs on Windows. They are further integrating .NET into Windows. You can just check MSDN or MSR to see how much technology they like developing themselves (for use by them and for others in markets they aren't in). Not long ago, one of the main complaints people had about MS is that they would develop their own technology (or implementation of a technology) rather than use something that was already available. It's a good thing they do this, because many times their implementation yields the best performance. Their Java VM and IP stack are prime examples, not to mention NT and OS/2 (making their own system when they could have easily gone the UNIX route like everyone else). This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 14:46. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/5/2002 2:47:39 PM |
|
Right, I agree with the need for accuracy, and I like your own recommendations to people. But by crippled I mean, a Works user will actually have problems with docs created by Office.
As for the source of this inaccuracy, I bet there are many full-time Office/Win users who are completely unaware of the existence of Works. As I mentioned, my mother who actually has and uses Works doesn't realize it's not Word/Office. And my point remains the same--what the hell is MS charging OEMs for Works that it is still more economically feasible for them to package WordPerfect? Also, BobSmith, you do realize that this wouldn't have happened without the "settlement"/antitrust case--the economics were still the same before, but they didn't choose the cheaper bundle because MS would have retaliated with higher license fees? I believe that's Cypher's point. Of course, some of you fools will still assert that MS should have the right to tie such contractual purchasing together, huh? Whatever. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 16:10. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/5/2002 2:54:16 PM |
| Enforcer, MS has a clear history of this behavior. But specifically, I'm talking about the .Net crossplatform compatibility claim--the myth that we heard so frequently over 2 years ago that in time .net applications could be built for other platforms.. Theoretically, they could, but MS sure as hell isn't going to do it. But in some regards, they need this ultimately so what do you do but save Corel from their Unix strategy by giving them some cash, and them having you build your Unix version of .Net (just as they are retracting from the Unix strategy). Where's Rotor now? How capable is it? Doesn't matter, MS got a few good months of press just with the thought the notion that .Net would be on other platforms. Haven't seen anyone from MS talk about this portion of the strategy in a long time, haven't heard them mention Mono or Rotor or any other attempt at .Net... Even with there silly report cards, and failings, and redirection of the strategy--I haven't heard dick about non-Wintel .Net. |
| #13 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 9/5/2002 3:47:54 PM |
|
MS had an interview with Eric DeIncaza (Mono Developer) on MSDN not long ago.
Rotor has been released as shared source, development continues. Check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/sscli/ The point about .NET, however, is that it is an open technology. It has been standardized by one organization (ECMA) and is on track for ISO standardization. It is there for anyone to implement without having to license the technology from Microsoft. MS is still a business. Other than Windows and Mac (and Unix for servers), they can't be expected to directly support every platform in existence more than anyone would expect Apple or IBM to do so. They are having a heck of a time making improvements to .NET on Windows platforms alone, plus their work on the .NET Compact Framework. The tech is out there for anyone to implement. Several OSS groups are doing that now. Maybe when the platform is more stablized, there will be an increased effort towards other platforms. Why can't Apple, IBM, HP, etc. create their own .NET runtimes for their platforms the same way they created their own Java VMs? Why must MS be the only one to have to do all the work? This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 15:51. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/5/2002 4:02:16 PM |
|
enforcer, last I checked (about 2 months ago) Rotor was essentially useless.
As for your points, I can understand them--I just think MS should have the ground cut out from under them for touting crossplatform capabilities before, if ever, they exist. Also, where is the motivation for these companies to do so? If MS were to pay or provide other incentives (because it serves their interests much more than it does other platforms), then maybe I'd have fewer qualms. Putting it out in the wild while it's a moving target and an admittedly confused mess with substantial benefit to them and little to the other platforms is not the way to get it towards cross platform compatibility. Also, as I said, this stems from a historical position on their part: they asked Apple to develop WMP for the Mac, DX for the Mac, similar gambits with Real, etc... So it's a historical arrogance that they expect the others to do it out of dependency on Microsoft--when these companies fully understand MS has more to gain and usually does little or nothing to reciprocate. However, getting back to the main point, Mr. Dee most be a complete idiot if he believes the motivation for an investment in Corel was boredom and the need for a little fun. That was my point for bringing it up: The extent to which softies will go to delude themselves to bask in the soft glow of Redmond. I know we disagree so I don't see much reason to digress to a .Net crossplatform discussion, but whatever... You know I'm willing... This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 16:08. |
| #15 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 9/5/2002 4:29:48 PM |
|
I know you're willing, but we can end it here. :-)
I replied to another post of yours in "Windows hole allows Credit Card fraud". I'll see you there. Oops, I see you already replied to it. :-) |
| #16 By 1913 (68.14.48.57) at 9/5/2002 4:46:17 PM |
|
Hey Sodajerk ...have not seen you here for awhile.
Anyway as for my comments ...I'll stand by it because I've actually seen my users purchased Office XP for their home use because they believe productivity is the issue. Of course some of them was purchased by their department and some was not. Not to sound rudd here, but my users sounds like they know more than your mother when it comes to computers. I am in fact talking about productivity here. Another thing ...when I bought my Toshiba laptop a few months ago, it came with Corel Office Suite; it is not even the lower end model laptop. It will just come down to what type of configuration that you want to purchase. If you want a lower end model, they'll throw in Corel, and if you want a higher end model, they'll throw in Microsoft. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/5/2002 6:25:45 PM |
| rommels, no offense taken , my mom certainly isn't a productivity worker, and I get much harder on her, usually only out of frustation that she doesn't pick up what I'm telling her. But I wasn't suggesting savvy office workers. People forget that there are whole segments of the population (I particularly like to think of cops) that can barely type. They are only slowly becoming computer savvy. How many savvy users go out and buy Pavilions (my mom did), low end Toshibas, or worse low end (but expensive) Sonys? Nevermind the people that buy computers and just work with the apps bundled, maybe buy a couple of games or share with friends, but basically stick with the base config. This happens alot. And then there are those that will spend say 200-500 bucks on apps a year--what room does that leave to go buy Office. Anyway, some of these people I'm talking about represent a very small portion, but that huge middle ground, I think you are way overestimating their overwhelming desire to go out and spend several hundred dollars on Office if their needs are met by a similar suite. Everyone keeps pointing out that most need basic word proc--in such a case, .doc compatibility is very good and spreading to more and more apps. |
| #18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/5/2002 6:25:49 PM |
|
woops This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 05, 2002 at 18:26. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 315 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:51:31 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
