Re: [us-marketing] Marketing material suggestion: Why LibreOffice?

On 12/29/2012 01:12 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote:
> Well to be fair, I raised three points that seemed to me were the 
> arguments of MS feature-wise.
>
> Other arguments are listed, and my suggestion was to create a new wiki 
> page where we could compare (side-by-side) LO and MSO.
>
> Summary of arguments from MS against LO
>
> *Arguments about $$*
>
>   * Total costs: Business impact; like software issues, integration,
>     incompatibility, run-time errors, downtime, unreliable support and
>     security vulnerability.
Unreliable support? MS normally offers very limited direct user support 
- 1 or 2 incidents max if I remember correctly. Most user support will 
be from a help desk (internal or external). If it is from MS it is via 
separate contract or additional costs to the licensing agreement. 
Security is a joke because MS is notorious for shipping insecure 
products. Run-time errors? What about BSOD for Windows? Integration and 
incompatibility are very nebulous - do they mean file formats or being 
able to access the program from another? The first is really MSO not 
following standards and the later is a programming issue.
>   * Total benefit: Such as reliable supports, updates, accessibility,
>     and security.
>
>   * Integration cost: The cost associated when you decide to use a
>     different software platform.
Different software platform - do they mean OS? If so, LO does this 
better even if the OS/distro is not officially support because the 
source code is available and can be compiled by someone for a very 
specific platform. With MSO, if a version is not provide you have no 
options (Linux version available).
>   * Management: Can it be easily managed? Large companies tend to have
>     this issue because they don't have a unified system.
This is truly a management problem, is the management competent?
>   * Deployment costs: Can it handle corporate size business
>     productivity? In addition to the compromise or extra benefits of
>     software alternatives.
Software suitability should be determined for each case. There is no 
blanket answer for this. MS is implying that MSO is the only answer for 
businesses when in fact it is often not. Often the issue is that a 
company has an installed base of VB macros, etc for MSO that would need 
porting to LO
>   * OpenOffice/LibreOffice does not provide the same depth of
>     functionality as Microsoft Office as a result do not meet the
>     needs of some end users. This will force your organization to
>     manage multiple software suites potentially increasing IT costs.
No software meets the needs of all users because all are design/feature 
compromises.
>   * When running a mixed software environment you are also running the
>     risk of interoperability issues which could further increase IT
>     and helpdesk costs, inhibit productivity, and generate end users
>     frustration.
Most companies standardize on the software tools as much as possible to 
reduce these costs. However no single program/suite will cover all user 
needs so to some degree there will be a mixed software environment.
>   * Additional factors that could create higher costs include
>     integration with your existing systems and applications like ERP
>     and content management systems and software updates.
This is more of issue with the ERP and CMS software not LO per se. They 
can support LO if required by contract or if the vendor desires.
>   * *LibreOffice*/OpenOffice *does not allow for incremental software
>     updates. *Instead it requires a complete uninstall and reinstall
>     every time you need to update the software.
How difficult are Windows/Mac updates? I use Linux. I am not sure this 
is a major issue if the updates are handle uninstall/reinstall without 
user intervention.

The cost argument is mostly bogus because it ignores the 
purchase/licensing costs for MSO while LO/AOO are free for unlimited 
installations.
> *Arguments more about features*
>
>   * Office drives increasing business value through innovations that
>     span basic functionality, like copy and paste, to
>     advanced features like business intelligence.
How? Most of the "business intelligence" I am aware of is located in 
databases outside of MSO/LO thus the issue is interfacing (Base/Access) 
or importing the data (Calc/Excel). Importing data is fairly easy with 
Calc and Base can interface with many relational database backends if 
desired.
>   * LibreOffice/OpenOffice does not deliver a complete productivity
>     suite. Critical components like email and calendaring are absent,
>     not to mention equivalent software to Publisher, OneNote, Business
>     Contact Manager and SharePoint Workspace.
If they are so valuable why do some versions of MSO not include them? 
Also, can the feature be done within LO 
(Publisher/OneNote/BusinessContactManager) using the existing components?
>   * LibreOffice / OpenOffice also lack some commonly used components,
>     for instance; they do not ship with commonly used functionality
>     like user friendly ribbons, clipart, SmartArt or Pivot Charts.
Ribbons user friendly? Many find them poorly designed. Clipart/SmartArt 
IMHO nice but not very necessary. Pivot Charts I am not sure about.
>   * Organizations may have to fill these application gaps with product
>     extensions, additional software or customizations adding to cost
>     and complexity.
And they do not with MSO? The main issue for LO is that is a large 
number of third part extensions available for MSO to extend 
functionality that would need to be created if the functionality does 
not already exist in LO.

> *Arguments about collaboration*
>
>   * Collaboration technology should facilitate ease of sharing, and
>     trust in the fidelity of information shared. To facilitate
>     collaboration, Office 2010 has many new features including
>     co-authoring, integration with the Microsoft Unified
>     Communications technologies in addition to the new online
>     companion applications, the Office Web Applications.
IMHO, MS is trying to slowly convert everyone to renting MSO by using 
Office Web Applications. This renting is more lucrative in the long run; 
lots of "small" monthly fees forever versus a one time purchase. When 
the true costs are analyzed many may reject this model. For many the 
major reason to upgrade from MSO XP to MSO 2013 is because XP does not 
support the MSOX file format. There are no new features they need beyond 
what XP already has they need. MS dropping support may not be a real 
issue for some, they are occasional users and security issues may not be 
that critical.

Pushing a limited use feature for many - collaboration - as the reason 
for renting MSO online as the reason for this. The are very few truly 
new features most users want in LO or MSO that would get them excited 
about a new release. For MS this means most people would then buy the 
new version for the new feature. This means for any office suite many 
users will delay upgrading to a newer version for sometime just to avoid 
the cost/aggravation of updating. I suspect MS is seeing this trend with 
business users and is trying find some other way to separate them from 
their money. Thus the push for online collaboration. I can remember when 
spell checkers were added and people really wanted the new version for 
the spell checking.
>   * People using OpenOffice/LibreOffice are limited to using
>     disparate email and document repositories to share and
>     edit documents one person at a time. To take advantage of advanced
>     collaboration technologies will require additional software and
>     possibly more customization. In addition to sharing documents,
>     information formatting integrity is critical.
There are no external users? As soon as the an external user is added 
this argument falls apart, they must access the document outside the 
original organizations IT domain. Also, if the all the users are 
internal why can they not access the documents on the internal server? 
This would seem to much simpler than the convoluted methods MS is 
talking about.
>   * LibreOfice/OpenOffice can read and output many file types, however
>     vital information like formatting structures, calculations,
>     layout, and macros may not be preserved when sharing with non
>     OpenOffice/LibreOffice users.
What about MSO file type/version incompatibilities. Macros are a problem 
but they are also a serious security risk. Document layout is often 
determined by system default settings and the printer settings. I have 
seen different printers re-paginate a document because of mechanical 
issues when printing from the same computer.
>   * Whether you have a mixed group of users or plan to share documents
>     with people outside of your organization you may not be able to
>     trust that people receive the document with the intended content
>     and formatting.
See above, also what do the external users need to have; are they 
involved in editing the document? LO offers better PDF exporting than 
MSO and often this is a better format for sharing with external users.
> *Security/Sensitive information*
>
>   * OpenOffice/LibreOffice are limited to only password protecting
>     files. Although password protected documents can be effective,
>     they do not ensure security and may cause additional complexity.
Older versions of MSO used a weak password protection scheme. Password 
protection is useful in some situations but it is limited to the 
strength of the password. The "complexity" of password protection must 
be judged in context of the security needs for the specific document and 
the overall system security. Also, user level protection schemes beyond 
passwords are dubious, IMHO, because most users do not really understand 
the security methods/models to properly use them.
>   * Advantage and also weakness of OpenOffice/LibreOffice for being an
>     open source software means that many users have the ability
>     to alter the state of the software by integrating their
>     own design, which could lead to security vulnerability issue.
Truly, how many people actually do this? I think in practical terms this 
more a theoretical issue than a practical one. Most users and 
organizations (vast majority?) are not going to modify the code. Also, 
this could be a benefit for a large corporation to customize there 
office suite to better suit their needs. I think IBM did this OO with 
Symphony.
>   * Microsoft Office provides a robust set of features for securing
>     documents that reduces the risk and cumbersomeness of password
>     only protection.
MS security implementations have historically been poor so what robust 
features? Also, are these features protecting against MS stupidities 
which LO does not support anyway.
>   * Information Rights Management (IRM) allows individuals and
>     administrators to specify permissions to documents, workbooks, and
>     presentations. This helps prevent sensitive information from being
>     printed, forwarded, or copied by unauthorized people. After
>     permission for a file has been restricted using IRM, the access
>     and usage restrictions are enforced no matter where the
>     information is.
I doubt most users would correctly use this feature, they are not system 
administrators. This sounds good but can the system be bypassed by 
anyone logging in with valid user credentials or by some with valid 
credentials modifying the permissions?
> *Arguments about "Cloud"*
>
>   * OpenOffice/LibreOffice does not provide any other deployment
>     option besides the desktop.
IMHO, cloud deployment will be secondary for most users, most of the 
time. The primary issue for users is having the tools available and 
access to the files. If the user has access to both the tools (local) 
and the files (external) this issue is moot. See above comment about 
renting software.
>   * Microsoft provides a seamless experience across the PC, phone,
>     and browser.
Really, Linux users can not use MSO and LO can be compiled/ported to 
other devices because the code is available Compiling/porting is not 
trivial. MSO is limited to what MS supports (or not supports)
> *Future-looking arguments*
>
>   * OpenOffice/LibreOffice may be limited in providing the next
>     generation of productivity, cloud computing, lacking the ecosystem
>     of enabling server and consumer collaboration technologies
>     likeSharePoint and SkyDrive.
Dropbox? UbuntuOne? AmazonWeb? There are several services for sharing 
files between remote users. The only issue is which to chose. Also, IMHO 
MS is pushing cloud centric models to drive users to a rental model for 
MSO. If the data is in the cloud why not have the have MSO in the cloud 
and charge a monthly rental fee to access both? MS probably hopes to 
make more money this way.

I have one rule: If sales/marketing is pushing a "solution" I ask, "Does 
the solution really benefit me or does it benefit the vendor?" For most 
cloud models, I do not see any benefit for renting software for me but 
considerable benefit for the vendor. I see some benefit for sharing 
documents between devices and others and this can be done independently 
of any software.
>   * Choosing Microsoft Office will help ensure that you can take
>     advantage of the next generation of productivity software.
Pure marketing hype. Also, how many new features do users need? IMHO, 
most users would like improved implementations of existing features not 
many truly new features. Make the software better at what it does and 
make useful but obscure features more accessible/visible. For example I 
like any improvements for importing and exporting MSOX formats since I 
receive them periodically. But this is not a new feature but improvement 
to an existing feature.
> Is it possible to add this to a wiki or something please. We can work 
> on it collaboratively :)
+1 - see inline comments
> Cheers,
>
> Immanuel

Summary:

Most of MS' talking points are about collaboration with others. LO 
offers tools for collaboration with others so this is not the real 
issue. The issue to MS is that LO does not offer a cloud version but 
this ignores what really is needed for collaboration. What is really 
needed is the ability to share files with other users and numerous 
methods services are available to do this. Where the LO is installed is 
not critical along as users have access to LO. IMHO, MS is trying to 
push a software rental model using the cloud versus a software purchase 
model. The rental model is likely to make more money for MS over the 
life of the product. Assuming an annual rental of about $300 ($25/month) 
one can easily spend more over time than if they purchased. LO and AOO 
use the purchase model, the user installs locally but since LO and AOO 
are both free the user has unlimited downloads/installs to any device.

Another point is that MS is saying they support a wide variety of 
devices which is not strictly true, they do not support many OS'. LO and 
AOO have many official versions available for many devices but because 
the source code is available users are able to compile/port either to 
any device. One can argue LO and AOO can potentially support all devices 
on the market while MS only supports selected devices/OS'  with 
unsupported users having no options.

IMHO the MS security features are probably more dangerous because they 
allow untrained users to make important security decisions. While there 
are potential benefits the problem is that most users are well versed in 
security issues. Thus they are liable to make serious mistakes when 
implementing anything beyond password protection of a document. Also, MS 
has a long, dismal history with security issues so why should one assume 
they implemented best practices.

Most direct feature comparisons are disingenuous because LO/AOO often 
implement the same feature/functionality differently. Some cases LO/AOO 
has a better implementation and in some cases MSO has the better one. 
Also, when one downloads LO/AOO one gets the entire suite while MSO is 
offered with different retail selections so direct comparison should 
specify which MSO retail selection is being discussed. LO is clearly 
more feature rich than the less expensive MSO variants by virtue of 
including everything.

Integration with Outlook, IMHO, sounds good but is really not that 
useful and the principal functionality can be replaced by other FOSS 
options.

--
Jay Lozier
jslozier@gmail.com


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@us.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/us/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted