Microsoft Wanted To Drop Mac Office To Hurt Apple 479
Overly Critical Guy writes to mention that more documents in the Iowa antitrust case have come out. This time, it's revealed that Microsoft considered dumping the Mac Office Suite entirely in a move to harm Apple. "The email complains at poor sales of Office, which it attributes to a lack of focus on making such sales among reps at that time. It describes dumping development of the product as: 'The strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately.' The document also confirms that Microsoft at the time saw Office for the Mac as a chance to test new features in the product before they appeared in Windows, 'because it is so much less critical to our business than Windows.'"
Nature of the beast.... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it is an unfortunate reality of the software business, no matter how the consumer may benefit. When it comes down to it, companies are interested in making money and they have to balance the needs and desires of the customer along with their requirements of making mo' and mo' money. Just look to insurance companies, right? They are not in business to provide health care insurance or to cover your medical bills. They are however in business to make money. Don't ever mistake the two or conflate their motives.
That is not to say that there are not companies that have motivations that are geared towards the consumers of their products. On the contrary, I feel that Apple has done a pretty good job over the years of balancing ethical behavior with making great products that will keep their customers happy, but even they have, on occasion screwed up, sometimes spectacularly.
I guess the most impressive thing to me about this is the continued flood of documents that have come out of the anti-trust trial that was dumped after the current POTUS entered the White House. These documents show an amazing culture of not just intense competition, but also one of dishonesty, dishonor and patently illegal behavior. I remember the case being dropped, but how could it have gone so wrong and how much more is there to find?
That's why kids... (Score:2, Insightful)
Y
uhm (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nature of the beast.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I think the big question is: did Microsoft consider dropping it merely because it wasn't generating enough revenue, or mostly because they wanted to hurt Apple. If the "Microsoft Mac Business unit is quite profitable" as you say, then there seems little reason to drop the product except the hurt Apple. If they're willing to lose profit with the intent of hurting Apple it's possible grounds for a suit by stockholders as it's likely not in the best interests of corporate profits. Plus it would be clear they were intent on hurting a competing platform even if it cost them more money to do so.
Apple commercials (Score:5, Insightful)
Entourage problems already have hurt (Score:5, Insightful)
Having half-working software is far worse than none at all.
Re:That's why kids... (Score:5, Insightful)
So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
Re:I can't imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Two reasons. First, it's Office. I needed Office in school, so I used Office. Now that I don't need to do that kind of stuff on my laptop/home computer I wouldn't buy Office.
Second, Office for Mac is really very nice. I have Office 2004 on my Mac (version 11). I've got to say that I like it's interface WAY better than the Windows versions of Office I've used (up to XP, I haven't had much chance with 2k3 or the newest one). It's really a very nice program. If it wasn't from Microsoft, I think it would still sell very well.
I've also heard of them using the Mac version to "test" things. I think the UI that I like so much (the floating pallets on the right side) was probably a part of the precursor to the ribbon they've been touting so much.
The Windows version may have gotten complacent, but the guys in the Mac Business Unit are good at what they do.
Final Cut Pro 5 for Windows? (Score:0, Insightful)
Oh.
Maybe because if FC Pro 5 was available on Windows people would have less incentive to go to the Mac?
Re:Nature of the beast.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nature of the beast.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a monopoly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nature of the beast.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only people it might not be in the best interest of would be day traders, and even they will benefit if they sell short. See, if Microsoft could crush Apple, then they would have an even stronger hold on the market, an even stronger monopoly position, and they would get even more for their bribe money to whoever received it that immediately pulled the DOJ dogs off of Microsoft after they had been convicted of abusing their monopoly position.
Well, and it wouldn't be in the interest of Apple users either, but by then they would have lost their voices entirely so they would be quite irrelevant :)
Re:That's why kids... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not a monopoly? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nature of the beast.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's why kids... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who sayd MS is pulling the plug on Mac Office? If you read TFA, you'd note the memo in question was a decade old.
I think the only reason they keep Mac Office going now is to keep the monopoly-abuse people happy. Perhaps Microsoft trying to gain standardisation for .doc is a prelude to ditching Mac Office. If Office uses an 'open' format it's no longer a monopoly, so they can ditch Mac Office and have half a chance of winning an anti-trust case. After Windows, Office is the cash-cow for Microsoft. Being forced to open up Office would be devastating to Microsoft's bottom line. Selling it on a platform (any platform) other than Windows is the best insurance against that.
No Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. (Score:5, Insightful)
PC: and I'm a PC.
PC2: and I'm another PC
PC3: and I'm another PC
Mac: So what are you guys working on?
PC: We're working on this year's budget. We need the numbers for your department.
Mac: Okay, send it over.
(Pause)
Mac: Here you go.
(Pause)
PC 6: What's wrong with this file?
PC 11: I don't know, it's formatted all wrong.
PC 8: I'll bet it's Mac's fault. Hey, Mac?
Mac: It looks fine to me...
PC 3: Mac, look, you're a cool guy and we really like you, but you can't just go off and mess up a document like that!
Mac: But...but...it looks fine in OO.o!
PC 19: Oh oh oh? Listen, I don't have time to play games, I need your numbers in that file without any screwing around!
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand how your point is relevant. If you were in business, would you want to help your competitor? What we are talking about is Microsoft withdrawing a product from the marketplace. How does withdrawing a product from the marketplace constitute monopoly abuse?
Re:Apple commercials (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is not just that Microsoft was talking about doing something to hurt the market share of another company, but rather that the method they were looking to use was of a monopolistic nature. By cutting out Microsoft Office from Apple, they would hurt the Microsoft Office division but would help the Microsoft Windows division. Basically, by a single company owning the overwhelmingly dominant office suite and operating system, they had the ability to destroy competition. Consider, for example, that Microsoft was divided into two (or more) distinctive companies: one that developed the operating system and related development tools and one that developed Microsoft Office products. In this scenario, Microsoft Office would continue to support Apple due to the revenue stream. The Microsoft Windows company would be required to compete on an equal footing against the Mac OS and any other operating system.
This is not to say that this is complete monopoly. Linux does not have Microsoft Office, but they are able to compete with Open Office. However, it is an example of how Microsoft's position in multiple sectors can be combined to give them an unfair advantage. It is almost like the phone company also owning the electricity companies. "Sure you can use our competitor's phone service, but then you won't get any power." Some choice. (Of course, phone companies are their own form of evil monopoly [pollyticks.com], but that is another story.)
Re:I can't imagine (Score:3, Insightful)
The most important issue is that the dock changes size, and its contents move. This happens every time you minimize a window or launch an application that is not glued (whatever the terminology is) to your dock. It doesn't change size until it has to (unless you have zooming turned on, but that's not what I'm talking about here) but things do MOVE. This eliminates the ability to use muscle memory. The brain has to be involved every time you click on anything in the dock.
Another issue is that icons appear behind the dock. I used to have a much larger dock because I have a fairly large apple display (19"?) and I had room for it. But what would happen is that icons would appear behind the dock and there was nothing to click on. In order to get them out from under it, I would lasso them AND another icon, and drag the other icon.
The sad thing is that the original Dock from NeXTStep had none of these problems. It had a fixed layout and grew from one end, so that the things at the top of the Dock always stayed put. THAT Dock also allowed you to have "drawers", sub-docks that folded out horizontally from your vertical system Dock, but they elected to remove that functionality from OSX. So what I'm saying here is that they had it right in NeXTStep, which ran smoothly on a low-end (~25MHz) 680x0 processor (I believe 020, 030, and 040 processors were used in various NeXT workstations?) but they fucked it up for OSX, which runs like shit on a machine an order of magnitude more powerful in every way, for example a 350MHz G3 with a 3d graphics accelerator and a gigabyte of memory. But this last paragraph isn't an additional indictment against the dock (Except for the drawer issue) but against Apple.
Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has thought of this. That's why Apple is in the middle of developing an Office replacement. Pages, Keynote, and the soon be released excel compatible spreadsheet app.
2. Buy Adobe
3. Cancel all Adobe products for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions
This merger/aquisition would never be approved since MS is already a convicted monopolist. Even if approved, Apple has Aperture (high end) and iPhoto (low end) ready for precisely this contingency.
4. Buy DigiDesign
5. Cancel ProTools for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions
Even if this one were approved, Apple already has Logic Pro, Soundtrack Pro, and Garage Band , for this market.
Apple has thought of your "5 step plan" and have been taking steps to counter it for years.
The important thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Paul
MSFT is the same (Score:3, Insightful)
-Proprietary hardware
Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello, I am a sound designer and an occasional beta-tester for Digidesign.
Digidesign has a very love-hate relationship with the Mac platform, I have observed. They started with it and used Apple's great MIDI and audio support to make their product awesome (and vice versus). They do also, however, have a PC version (that I've never seen used in the wild), are owned by Avid (which has gone seriously pro-PC in the last 5 years), and Digi is constantly chasing the Mac's hardware platform (the PCI Express transition has been painful for a lot of people, the Intel transition less so.)
Digi would have a ton of trouble dragging their userbase to PCs. We Pro Tools users don't use them, we hate them culturally, all of our jigs and tools are Mac-centric, and frankly we'd have nothing to gain by the move (since we all own $3000 workstations anyways, cost isn't an issue), thus we would oppose it fiercely, from a marketing point of view.
That said, Apple's line of audio software is nowhere near where is needs to be in terms of workflow and interoperability to work for music and post-production sound. We have a joke that you need to have a Ph.D. in order to understand Logic (it's the Linux of DAWs, powerful but unfriendly), and Soundtrack Pro doesn't do 5.1 and doesn't use dedicated hardware for DSP or IO. Neither have good Avid interoperation, which is still the industry standard, and the interoperability standard (OMF and AAF) is controlled by Digidesign and Microsoft, and tends to be a moving target.
IMHO, If Pro Tools users lost the Mac, it wouldn't cause a migration to the PC in professional recording, it would cause a huge fragmentation of platforms in professional recording. Pro Music people would probably go to Logic or Nuendo on Mac, post would probably switch to Nuendo, or someone enterprising developer will write a Post-Centric DAW (they've existed in the past, but it's a small market, so the economics have to be just so). Also, Pro Tools has a huge installed base in amateur music and home recording, and these people would stay on Mac, either switching to GarageBand, or switching to OSS like Ardour or Jokosher. This would have the unwelcome (to MS) side effect of spurring their development. All of this fragmentation would also cause the development of stronger interoperability standards, which MS wouldn't want, either.
Re:That's why kids... (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT, this is irrelevant.
The major selling point of MS Office is: Outlook + Exchange.
I have used Novell Groupwise on Linux and it can't hold a canlde to it. I do not know about Lotus Notes, but seem to hear similar signals. And Exchange tying in to more and more, like blackberries, getting even harder to beat.
Re:I can't imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Shows what you know. OpenOffice on Mac OS X == NeoOffice/J. You only use the X11 version if you want a world of pain.
Re:Nature of the beast.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exchange (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that Hydrogen et al have done what thay can, but (forgive me, I've not been watching lately), have they got 100% compatibility?
I now get Outlook meeting appointments from third parties, requiring MS Exchange/Outlook all round. But then, it seems that the "innovation" behind this involves a simple one-liner text-based email saying "Accepted: "
Desktop is not my field, but this whole "we need MS because they use MS" thing must be cross between a house of cards and the emperor's new clothes; somebody will come up with the "Eureka!" moment to get us out of this apparent vendor lock-in.
I just wish that I was smart enough to be that person
Re:Nature of the beast.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The old OOo vs MSOffice (Score:3, Insightful)
It'll never happen, because "office suites" are inherently wrong. Like above, with your example of "embedding documents" -- that's wrong. The concept doesn't even make sense! Or putting content and presentation together haphazardly -- that's wrong, too. Yet that's exactly what Word is designed to do. And "macros?" Wrong! A document and an application are two different things. Documents aren't meant to be executable! Because of these things, MS Office and OpenOffice, like 'goto,' should be considered harmful.
So what's the "right" thing? XHTML, with separate content and stylesheet, is the "right" thing. TeX is the "right" thing. Writing an actual application when you need an application, instead of hacking the functionality into Word or Excel using VBA, is the "right" thing. And most importantly, realizing that the point of the document is the content, and that you shouldn't be wasting time with excessive markup in Word, is the "right" thing!
Re:While the DoJ is sleeping ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to assume it was just because MS didn't compete with Mac OS X because of PPC hardware (according to some strained definition), but they did with GNU/Linux because it usually runs on the x86 platform, but even that strained argument no longer applies...
Re:Nature of the beast.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mac software incurs the SAME expenses as word but has an order of magnitude less avenues for sales. It *HAS* to be less profitable.
Actually the nature of the beast is that the efforts of making a Mac version of software can help the Windows version thus save some money. As TFA says Mac users were to be the guinea pig. Any mistakes made would be in Mac software and the Windows developers could learn from the mistakes the Mac unit made thus lowering costs for the Windows version as well as avoiding lost sales for the Windows unit because Windows users decided to forgo the mistakes by not upgrading. As long as you're willing to loose some in a small or less profitable unit it can help avoid mistakes in bigger units. That's the smart thing to do.
FalconRe:Apple commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing I've learned (Score:3, Insightful)
Parent is absolutely right: there's a whole world out there with REAL problems that need to be fixed, not some lame ass "my hate for a particular company dictates my worldview" tripe that passes for news around here.
Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of argument is that? Is not "design! shiny!" a tangible reason?
By your kind of logic you can also explain to us why a Ferrari costs 1000x more expensive than a regular car apart reasons like "design!" and "faster engines!"
So what if it is faster, the engines are made of the same metal, who cares what amount of intellectual property and engineering has gone into it. It is free right? You are only paying for the materials. Yeah right.
Re:...even MS doesn't play by its own standards. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not only true when transferring files from a Mac to a PC or vice versa. It also happens among different versions of Word for Windows (or for the Mac, for that matter). Heck, sometimes even moving a file between two PCs with the SAME version of Word screws the layout! (In this case the culprit may be different versions of a font or specifying a different printer).
For comparison, a document written in LaTeX will look fine when rendered in different versions of LaTeX. Maybe not exactly identical, but at least it will almost always look great anyway. Or consider PDF files, which look and print perfectly on any system/viewer/printer (although they are a pain to edit).
So, dude, you suck it.