On Thursday 2004-12-23 18:51, Alan Dayley wrote:
> Eric \Shubes\ said:
> > Kevin Brown wrote:
> >> Trent Shipley wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 2004-12-23 12:00, Lee Einer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Advantages of the *.doc interactive form:
> >>>
> >>> 1) We have Word, we have Word gurus, without additional training we
> >>> can get to a prototype form in-house in 2-4 hours.
> >>>
> >>> 2) We can use the resulting file to produce hard-copy forms.
> >>>
> >>> 3) We can put the exact same form online and only an insignificant
> >>> minority of users will be unable to access the form. The completed
> >>> form can be returned online or printed by the user and returned as
> >>> hard copy. Even if the form needs to be signed sophisticated users
> >>> with scanners can return the form online (if the web builder allows
> >>> for the option) or return the form as an email attachment.
> >>>
> >>> 4) The sophisticated office can accept online Word forms and
> >>> automatically extract the values of the form's fields.
> >>> Unfortunately, this will require the assistance of someone with IT
> >>> expertise.
> >>>
> >>> WHAT A GREAT VALUE. Cheap to create, then you can use it everywhere,
> >>> and everyone (Windows and Mac users) can access the results. In the
> >>> worst case, a customer can request a faxed or snail mailed hard
> >>> copy.
>
> Just look at the points above. It is a great solution that allows a
> create once, publish many utility. Except the Word format is closed (not
> publicly documented) and proprietary (even beginning to included patents).
> So, to participate (completely and legally) in this wonderfulness, one
> must purchase a license.
Indeed.
> I am pragmatic about a copyright holder's freedom with their code. If
> they want to keep it closed, that is there choice. However, Keeping the
> data format closed enforces more sales, can lock the user out of their own
> data and helps maintain the monopoly.
From the capitalist publisher's perspective, that is rather the point.
Without scarcity and control of scarcity, it is hard to make money.
> Just think: If the format of the file that could do all of the above was
> open, with many vendors creating tools (free software or closed) that use
> the format, what would be the benefit? Low income people would not be
> required to spend money as an entry fee to information exchange.
That is true. But since the poor and disenfranchised have no money and no
power, who cares?
> Incentive to infringe on copyright would be reduced. Charities and
> governments could expend resources on other things instead of licenses for
> themselves and for the people they serve. Competition on features,
> quality and support would replace profit by force.
And if wishes were horses....
> Then, I would agree that it is a great value.
Well, even as a closed, proprietary, ubiquitous standard, I still think *.doc
is a HUGE advantage over no ubiquitous standard at all. (Though from the
perspective of consumers and the commonwealth it is not an _ideal_ solution.)
> >> I wouldn't completely agree with this last point. I had to support
> >> Office on OSX and Windows and there were a number of files (word,
> >> excel, powerpoint) that would open fine on the PC version, but not
> >> the Mac and vice versa.
>
> --[clip]--
>
> > If the document is stored in Word's
> > latest format, I'd argue that there are a significant number of Word
> > users who couldn't open it using their present version of Word.
>
> Exactly. Force user B to upgrade because they need the data from user A
> and A just installed the new version. "Profit by social force."
Yes, and for Microsoft's executives to do otherwise would be an unethical
betrayal of their fiduciary duty to investors.
> Bah. Encourage use of openly documented, unencumbered formats. Then we
> get the benefits Trent points out, without the risk of being locked out of
> your data or having to spend money unless you choose to do so.
Indeed! But remember what is REALLY critical about *.doc is not really the
fact that it is standard, but that it is ubiquitous. Also a lot of "legacy"
systems are dependent on it.
Microsoft should be worried, it's whole Office Suite is horizontal software,
ideal for coversion to free infrastructure (free as in "freeway"). There are
a couple of problems despite the advantage of OO.o's incomparable advantage
in initial cost of ownership. First, Word and the rest of MS Office are
still noticeably better engineered, more robust, and feature rich than OO.o
analogs. Second, if we consider licensing MS Office the primary cost of MS
Office, gains in ICO are more than offset with losses from secondary costs
from confused clerical staff struggling with conversion and broken software
that expects to work with MS Office COM interfaces. Even in the rosiest
scenario, it will take years to get MS Word down to 50% market share against
a competitor with a price-point of $0.
===================================
Hans Kugler please note:
Free:
Free, as in beer. Gratis.
Free, as in freedom. Libere.
Free, as in freeway. Free infrastructure, contrast with toll road.
Economically, the most important of these is "Free as in freeway".
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)