Office joins the Genuine Advantage program
-
The EU are pressing for a lot of things, but it will be business that ultimately decides what they use regardless of their little experiments with tax-payers' money. You are talking free to purchase, not free to use. Personally I would prefer it the other way round because support costs can easily exceed the purchase price for a piece of software, but I have yet to find one that offers it. But come on, be realistic here -- OpenOffice is no more a real competitor to Microsoft Office than I am, and certainly not in the category of 'strong competition'. Sure, it look spretty for the first two minutes you use it, but after that the infuriation at not being able to do the simplest of day-to-day tasks effectively with it will drive you mad. OO suffers the classic symptoms of many of these so-called proprietory-killer-applications in that it was designed purely for ticking off features on a comparison chart with its competitors and not for usability.
Ðavid Wulff Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
10 PRINT 'HELLO MAINTAINER: GOTO HELLDavid Wulff wrote:
The EU are pressing for a lot of things, but it will be business that ultimately decides what they use regardless of their little experiments with tax-payers' money.
My school uses OpenOffice, actually. Price being the simple reason that they don't go for MS Office instead.
David Wulff wrote:
You are talking free to purchase, not free to use. Personally I would prefer it the other way round because support costs can easily exceed the purchase price for a piece of software, but I have yet to find one that offers it.
That's much easier to argue when you're talking about something like an OS, not applications. Yes that is true to an extent, but many will argue that that's what forums are for. Though I don't agree with this because Mom doesn't like forums, again, people use this as justification to switch.
David Wulff wrote:
But come on, be realistic here -- OpenOffice is no more a real competitor to Microsoft Office than I am, and certainly not in the category of 'strong competition'. Sure, it look spretty for the first two minutes you use it, but after that the infuriation at not being able to do the simplest of day-to-day tasks effectively with it will drive you mad. OO suffers the classic symptoms of many of these so-called proprietory-killer-applications in that it was designed purely for ticking off features on a comparison chart with its competitors and not for usability.
You're missing the point. For the last time, I don't like OpenOffice either. But it has come a very long way since the slow crashy glitchy mess that it was several years ago, and with so much support from corporations and even intranational governments, it's stupid not to expect it to improve further, if only to catch up and never exceed MS Office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org#Market_share[^] Although Microsoft Office retains 95% of the general market, OpenOffice.org and StarOffice have secured 14% of the large enterprise market as of 2004.[24] The OpenOffice.org web site reports more than 61 million downloads.[25] This is Wikipedia, of course, but you're free to prove it wrong. Their source is here:
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Until that stops happening MS need not change.
Not for their own sake, anyway. Yet. I don't see why you care only about their raw profits; you work there or something? As a consumer I'd rather see them go for a price/demand balance that also makes it easier for us to actually buy Office.
reinux wrote:
I don't see why you care only about their raw profits; you work there or something?
No. Just describing their rationale. It's the same with those who criticise their technology. When you have annual profits in double-digit billions of dollars there's little incentive to do things differently.
reinux wrote:
As a consumer I'd rather see them go for a price/demand balance that also makes it easier for us to actually buy Office.
As a consumer I'd rather see them go for a price that's free!:) Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist system. We can't get everything for free. And of course MS would never be alowed to provide Office for free even if they wanted to - which they wouldn't because they would lose revenue. They'd probably also be stopped if they made it not free but too cheap. Actually, in a historical context, Office is cheap. It looks expensive now because: 1. It is overwhelming market leader. 2. It now has free competitors.
Kevin
-
reinux wrote:
I don't see why you care only about their raw profits; you work there or something?
No. Just describing their rationale. It's the same with those who criticise their technology. When you have annual profits in double-digit billions of dollars there's little incentive to do things differently.
reinux wrote:
As a consumer I'd rather see them go for a price/demand balance that also makes it easier for us to actually buy Office.
As a consumer I'd rather see them go for a price that's free!:) Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist system. We can't get everything for free. And of course MS would never be alowed to provide Office for free even if they wanted to - which they wouldn't because they would lose revenue. They'd probably also be stopped if they made it not free but too cheap. Actually, in a historical context, Office is cheap. It looks expensive now because: 1. It is overwhelming market leader. 2. It now has free competitors.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
As a consumer I'd rather see them go for a price that's free! Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist system. We can't get everything for free. And of course MS would never be alowed to provide Office for free even if they wanted to - which they wouldn't because they would lose revenue. They'd probably also be stopped if they made it not free but too cheap.
I never said free... And no, as a consumer I'd rather pay something so that I know the product is made responsibly. We don't seem to agree on that particular point so please don't put words in my mouth.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Actually, in a historical context, Office is cheap. It looks expensive now because: 2. It now has free competitors.
And that's not exactly what I said?
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
As a consumer I'd rather see them go for a price that's free! Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist system. We can't get everything for free. And of course MS would never be alowed to provide Office for free even if they wanted to - which they wouldn't because they would lose revenue. They'd probably also be stopped if they made it not free but too cheap.
I never said free... And no, as a consumer I'd rather pay something so that I know the product is made responsibly. We don't seem to agree on that particular point so please don't put words in my mouth.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Actually, in a historical context, Office is cheap. It looks expensive now because: 2. It now has free competitors.
And that's not exactly what I said?
So what are you saying then? Just that they charge too much for it?
Kevin
-
So what are you saying then? Just that they charge too much for it?
Kevin
I think so? :doh: I was talking about price/demand balance; what else could I be saying? http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Office-Standard-Edition-2003/dp/B0000AZJVB/sr=8-3/qid=1162040355/ref=pd_bbs_3/102-1058572-5660129?ie=UTF8&s=software[^] Microsoft Office Standard Edition 2003 List Price: $399.99 Price: $314.99 You Save: $85.00 (21%) -- modified at 9:14 Saturday 28th October, 2006
-
I think so? :doh: I was talking about price/demand balance; what else could I be saying? http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Office-Standard-Edition-2003/dp/B0000AZJVB/sr=8-3/qid=1162040355/ref=pd_bbs_3/102-1058572-5660129?ie=UTF8&s=software[^] Microsoft Office Standard Edition 2003 List Price: $399.99 Price: $314.99 You Save: $85.00 (21%) -- modified at 9:14 Saturday 28th October, 2006
So what would you say is a "fair" price then, given that you don't believe it should be free?
Kevin
-
So what would you say is a "fair" price then, given that you don't believe it should be free?
Kevin
I don't know, how about half or 2/3 the price of Windows? Personally, that I'd be more willing to pay. Wouldn't you?
-
I don't know, how about half or 2/3 the price of Windows? Personally, that I'd be more willing to pay. Wouldn't you?
Well, in my case not even that because I don't see much in Office that is compelling beyond what was in Office 2000 or even Office 97! (I currently have Office 2000 at home.) However, I would expect Office to be more expensive than Windows, just as, e.g., VS Pro is. There is no "right" price though. What some think is too high, others will think is a bargain. Many say VS Pro is expensive. However, the prices of MS dev tools are comparable or cheaper than other commercial dev tools. Perhaps if the price of Office were somewhere near the price of say WordPerfect Office that would be reasonable. But some would deem that too expensive too. I don't know how old you are but I remember that at the time Office first emerged, the prices of the single programs, Lotus 123 and WordPerfect, were higher than today's entire MS Office even in nominal terms. In real terms they were much higher. Plus MS introduced concept of the competitive upgrade, which meant you could pay an upgrade price to the full MS Office if you owned a copy of Lotus 123 or WordPerfect. It was one of the reasons Office came to dominate the market. Another reason was that they were first to offer an Office bundle in itself, and that was compelling.
Kevin
-
Well, in my case not even that because I don't see much in Office that is compelling beyond what was in Office 2000 or even Office 97! (I currently have Office 2000 at home.) However, I would expect Office to be more expensive than Windows, just as, e.g., VS Pro is. There is no "right" price though. What some think is too high, others will think is a bargain. Many say VS Pro is expensive. However, the prices of MS dev tools are comparable or cheaper than other commercial dev tools. Perhaps if the price of Office were somewhere near the price of say WordPerfect Office that would be reasonable. But some would deem that too expensive too. I don't know how old you are but I remember that at the time Office first emerged, the prices of the single programs, Lotus 123 and WordPerfect, were higher than today's entire MS Office even in nominal terms. In real terms they were much higher. Plus MS introduced concept of the competitive upgrade, which meant you could pay an upgrade price to the full MS Office if you owned a copy of Lotus 123 or WordPerfect. It was one of the reasons Office came to dominate the market. Another reason was that they were first to offer an Office bundle in itself, and that was compelling.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
However, I would expect Office to be more expensive than Windows, just as, e.g., VS Pro is. There is no "right" price though. What some think is too high, others will think is a bargain. Many say VS Pro is expensive. However, the prices of MS dev tools are comparable or cheaper than other commercial dev tools.
Visual Studio is understandable; they offer a lot more options for various budgets. Visual Studio Express is freeware and sufficient for practically any purpose.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Perhaps if the price of Office were somewhere near the price of say WordPerfect Office that would be reasonable. But some would deem that too expensive too.
I don't get it. One moment you're saying there's no right price, next you're saying something around WordPerfect would be reasonable. Just because some would deem that too expensive doesn't mean that it's still a better price that, evidently, more people (you and I) could live with.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I don't know how old you are but I remember that at the time Office first emerged, the prices of the single programs, Lotus 123 and WordPerfect, were higher than today's entire MS Office even in nominal terms.
What's your point?
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
However, I would expect Office to be more expensive than Windows, just as, e.g., VS Pro is. There is no "right" price though. What some think is too high, others will think is a bargain. Many say VS Pro is expensive. However, the prices of MS dev tools are comparable or cheaper than other commercial dev tools.
Visual Studio is understandable; they offer a lot more options for various budgets. Visual Studio Express is freeware and sufficient for practically any purpose.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Perhaps if the price of Office were somewhere near the price of say WordPerfect Office that would be reasonable. But some would deem that too expensive too.
I don't get it. One moment you're saying there's no right price, next you're saying something around WordPerfect would be reasonable. Just because some would deem that too expensive doesn't mean that it's still a better price that, evidently, more people (you and I) could live with.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I don't know how old you are but I remember that at the time Office first emerged, the prices of the single programs, Lotus 123 and WordPerfect, were higher than today's entire MS Office even in nominal terms.
What's your point?
My point is that I have my own ideas of what a reasonable price is (for me). But there's no such thing as an objectively right price.
Kevin
-
My point is that I have my own ideas of what a reasonable price is (for me). But there's no such thing as an objectively right price.
Kevin
And a reasonable price isn't a "right" price? You yourself established that WordPerfect Office's price would be reasonable. ...Wow :wtf:
-
And a reasonable price isn't a "right" price? You yourself established that WordPerfect Office's price would be reasonable. ...Wow :wtf:
I was expressing my subjective opinions. Look, we're not really getting anywhere with this are we? You think MS Office is too expensive? Fine, don't buy it.
Kevin
-
I was expressing my subjective opinions. Look, we're not really getting anywhere with this are we? You think MS Office is too expensive? Fine, don't buy it.
Kevin
:laugh: Gotta love the "I have my opinion you have yours" ending.