| 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 |
 |
Microsoft is a 1000 pound gorilla with a limp | |
|
||
| Time: 08:06 EST/13:06 GMT | News Source: IT Wire | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
A poll of a reasonable sample of computer users shows that a majority want Adobe to allow Microsoft to save Office 2007 files in PDF format. However, there is also a sizeable proportion of users against the idea. The iTWire Poll asked the question: Should Adobe allow Office 2007 to save files in PDF format? Of 478 respondents to the poll, 282 (59%) answered yes, 196 (41%) answered no. Regardless of whether you believe the poll to be accurate or whether you believe Adobe is in the right and Microsoft is in the wrong, there are indisputable facts that need to be considered on this question. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:16:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 9549 (12.150.6.130) at 6/6/2006 10:44:47 AM |
|
Adobe has no right to refuse MS from using PDF it is an Open Format. I always thought Open means Open. I guess it is open to everyone but MS. Now i finally understand the concept of Open Source Software This post was edited by cto on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 at 10:45. |
| #2 By 25488 (66.143.237.250) at 6/6/2006 11:10:02 AM |
| Open Format not Open Source you need to get your facts straight before you start mouthing off about Open Source Software it just makes you look a little more like a moron... |
| #3 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/6/2006 12:32:53 PM |
|
OSS fanatics: PDF is open open open.
Reality: Nope. Patented by Adobe. OSS Fanatics: ODF is open open open. Reality: Nope. Patented by Sun. |
| #4 By 1124 (165.170.128.65) at 6/6/2006 2:05:21 PM |
| Snooper -- please explain your point. I don't understand. |
| #5 By 9549 (12.150.6.130) at 6/6/2006 2:32:41 PM |
| #2 Thanks for that insightful comment I can see you will be a great addition to the activewin community, Welcome. They tried to license it from Adobe, they refused. Ms should now include their own XPS format and noone can say anything. Adobe had their chance to finish dominating pdf by letting MS license it but now I think this leaves open a loophole because now there is documentation that Adobe refused to license and MS had to now create their own format to answer the needs of their customer base, so as not to lose revenue and they should now have every legal right to include it in their software. Also why should we pay extra for it in Office. MS Office costs so much already; if it was included aren't we already paying for it. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/6/2006 3:29:46 PM |
|
#1: It's a shame when someone plays MS the way MS has played others.
#3: As has been explained to you in the past, something can be patented AND open. The two concepts are not diametrically opposed. #4: There is a large difference between open source and open standards. Open source is software that has the source code available for you to look at. Open standards are standards/formats that anyone can implement. HTML is an example of an open standard. The Firefox web browser is an example of open source. #5: We have yet to hear anything official from Adobe. So far, everything has been "MS said...". I've been around long enough to know not to take anything MS says at face value. |
| #7 By 25488 (66.143.237.250) at 6/6/2006 3:39:44 PM |
| For one if MS wanted to incorporate a viewer into Office that would be fine as it's an Open Format Document "PDF" meaning they can only view files not create files. This is where Adobe makes there money off of PDF if you wish to Create/Save/Export into PDF you need to buy the right from Adobe. MS wants to do it for free and tought it as a feature of MS, as of this writing Adobe Acrobat "Free" does not allow a user to create, export or save as PDF only view. Adobe Standard on the other hand can create, export and save as PDF and they charge for the feature that also includes a plug-in for Office 2000/XP/2003 allowing these functions from within Office. |
| #8 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/6/2006 5:46:37 PM |
|
#6 If the creator of a so-called "open" standard can sue you, it isn't open. Period.
Sun reserves the right to sue over ODF. Adove has threatened to sue Microsoft. End of story. Neither are open. |
| #9 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 6/6/2006 9:32:53 PM |
|
#7: if you wish to Create/Save/Export into PDF you need to buy the right from Adobe.
Wrong. Unless by "buy," you mean for $0, because that's what Adobe charges for the right to create/save/export to PDF. Until Microsoft wanted to include that functionality in Office, anyhow. #6: Adobe's silence on this issue is deafening. Of course, once it comes out, you'll accept it over anything Microsoft has said, just because it's against Microsoft. |
| #10 By 37047 (70.25.214.232) at 6/6/2006 9:39:00 PM |
|
"Open XML", otherwise referred to as MSXML, is patented by Microsoft. Microsoft could sue someone for using "Open XML" in a manner they deem to be inappropriate, such as by embracing and extending it. Therefore, by the argument put forward by NotParker, "Open XML" is not truly open. Therefore, we should no longer refer to it as "Open XML".
It should also be mentioned that the XML standard is not owned by Microsoft. #3: MS Fanatics: Open XML is open, open, open! Reality: Nope. Patented by Microsoft. Also, when mentioning that "company X" can create a free program to write PDF documents, and poor Microsoft can't, because Microsoft says Adobe will sue them, you should keep in mind that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and owns enough of the desktop to be considered a defacto monopoly, as well as an actual one. The rules governing what a monopoly can do are different than the rules of a small company with a fractional marketshare. I will also point out that the only company that has stated that Adobe is going to sue Microsoft is Microsoft. Adobe has not gone on record as saying they are going to do this. I agree with Latch; we need to wait and see what Adobe has to say before we blindly believe what Microsoft has to say. Blindly believing anything Microsoft says is just dumb. As someone pointed out in another place, Microsoft may believe that Adobe will sue them, because that is exactly what they would do if the roles were reversed, and they cannot believe, therefore, that Adobe could possibly do anything other than sue them. I think that is enough for one evening. |
| #11 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 6/6/2006 10:07:01 PM |
|
#11
"The rules governing what a monopoly can do are different than the rules of a small company with a fractional marketshare" So Adobe is a small company? AFAIK PDF is the de facto standard. "Adobe is going to sue Microsoft " Adobe threatened to sue MS. What can they sue about now that MS has taken outh this feature? |
| #12 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 6/6/2006 11:08:12 PM |
|
#11: "convicted monopolist." This is a nonsensical (and unfortunately, also overused) phrase. Being a monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing a monopoly is. Furthermore, the conviction was regarding Windows, not Office.
The issue here is that the PDF format is already used freely by other competitors, and that Adobe has granted a royalty-free license for third parties to implement PDF-handling/creation abilities in their products. So, if OpenOffice started taking the world by storm and won 90% marketshare, would Adobe have grounds to say, hey, we want you to remove your PDF support? And would you be fine with that reaction? I don't think you would. What's so funny about this, though, is that you folks cry foul ad nauseam when Microsoft has been alleged of similar practices in the past; what's more, the facts from the side opposite Microsoft are accepted without question, sometimes even before Microsoft has a chance to respond. Now, when the position is reversed, the stance taken becomes completely clear for what it is: it's not consistency of position or principle, it's simply anti-Microsoft. |
| #13 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 6/6/2006 11:09:48 PM |
|
#12: AFAIK PDF is the de facto standard.
In some places, it's also the de jure standard. |
| #14 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 6/6/2006 11:31:40 PM |
|
#11 I think we can agree then that governments and companies that claim ODF is open and that PDF is open (lie Massachussetts) are lying and should not be trusted since OSS fanatics have always made the arguments against Microsoft that you are using now.
I just find it amusing that the distrust you (and other OSS fanatics) display towards Microsoft is never shown towards Sun or Adobe. I enjoy pointing out OSS hypocrisy. I prefer a full featured Office suite from Microsoft, with great performance and features, to one attempting to gain market share through lies. |
| #15 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2006 8:04:36 AM |
|
#12: That's what I get for posting after 10pm. I should have said that the rules are different for a monopolist than they are for a company that is not in a monopoly position in the same market. In other words, Microsoft has to abide by certain rules that pertain to monopolists that Adobe doesn't, at least in the office product add-on space. Now, in the market for graphic manipulation software, the roles would be reversed, with Adobe possibly in the monopoly position, and Microsoft as the come behind company. But, we are talking about MS Office, not Photoshop.
#13: That should have been "Monopolist convicted of abuse of monopoly power". You are right. Convicted monopolist is a nonsensical and overused phrase. I stand (or sit, as the case may be) corrected. Given Microsoft's long and storied history of spreading FUD, it is not a surprise that people get on their case quicker when it appears they are doing it again. Other companies without this reputation get the advantage of the benefit of the doubt. That is the advantage of being a more reputable company. Adobe is not perfect, but they are a lot more trustworthy than Microsoft. So is Sun. I will easily criticize them when they do something stupid. It only appears that I won't because they don't do stupid things as frequently as MS does. And the topic of Sun or Adobe stupidities doesn't come up as often on this site, which is mainly a MS oriented site. #15: Would you still prefer the full-featured office suite if MS ignored the patents of other companies, stole technology from other companies without licensing it, or otherwise illegally incorporated someone else's technology into it? This is what it seems like you are claiming. For the record, I believe that Microsoft should not be trusted because they have a history of lying. I don't believe in giving automatic trust to known liars, whether they are companies or individuals. That is just common sense. Also, Parker, if you think that OSS people don't criticize Sun, Adobe, et. al., you should try going to other message boards oriented towards other technologies. Some of the Java boards I frequent criticize Sun all to often, about every little mistake they make with a decision regarding Java. It happens all the time. you just need to broaden your horizons. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:16:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
