Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 09/27/2012 09:04 AM, Pertti Rönnberg wrote:
All the best LibO folks,
This discussion about calendars etc. may be interesting perhaps also
useful -- but back to the basic question!
Microsoft is going to change their behavior.

Let us remember that MS is the absolute market leader -- they can't be
totally wrong when having 95% and people accept paying.
It is no use blaming MS for success -- it is only waste of energy and
expresses your foolishness.  LibO only have to accept it.
I think the original issue raised was the MS pricing strategy of an
annual license with perpetual updates and whether this model made sense
for many users. Updates and upgrades can be buggy. More importantly is
do users need to upgrade because they already are using a limited set of
features/capabilities. The problem MS faces is getting users to buy new
versions when the old version is perfectly adequate. Other than the msox
formats and the life-cycle expiring (no security patches), many users
would not need to upgrade at all.

This may be a marketing blunder long term because users may start
migrating away from MSO to other options such as LO, AOO, Calligra, or
Google Docs as they start looking at replacement costs.

Whether you like it or not MS's programs use to work without
remarkable problems - and if such happens MS fixes them rather quickly.
That is why people and especially companies seem to be prepaired to
pay what ever the cost.
Part of MS' problems is that they have been historical not very security
conscious in the past. Even though they have improved some do not fully
believe some of the old mindset is gone. Also, I have never found out
how one reports bugs to MS.

What I have tried to say is that if LibO wants to get a reasonable
share oh this cake -- free of charge or not -- then LibO must offer
and also deliver something better than the MS's Office suit it's
Access included -- equal is far away from enough.
Part of the problem is what the users actually need versus what is
included. Access represents a special issue because many MSO users do
have Access because it is not included in the version they purchased.
Working with relational databases and NoSQL databases I dislike both
Access and Base. I know Base can be used as a front end for many
relational databases and I believe Access also can be a front end.

Some of you said that ordinary users -- and even more experienced -
seldom use more than a 2-5%  of the LibO's (MSO's) features.
Why not then identify the 30% of all most used features and make sure
that at least these work properly -- Base included.
Base is still a bit of a mess if you use the embedded backend and
wizards. If you use a different database it seems to be tolerable.

If LibO cannot be made at least as stable, free of bugs and easy to
use -- and especially it's help function understandable for every new
user -- then there is no larger future for LibO except for a small
group of idealists and enthusiasts in their own little kindergarten.
I see this as a question of defining priorities - and a strategy.
I understand the goal of LO (and AOO) is to provide a FOSS alternative
to MSO that fits the needs of most users.
If the goal seems clear and clever then then the resources will at
least not disappear.
Pertti Rönnberg

Jay Lozier

For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.