Sorry for top posting, but I think that the idea of creating a wiki page where we can brainstorm about the selling points for Windows (as Microsoft document is focused on Windows, which is their cash cow) is very good. All the points that have been raised so far are extremely good, and I think that we should pick them and paste in a starting document.
I am currently working at the final version of the migration and training protocol for certification, and I do not have the time for creating this wiki page for a few days. Anyone could create the page though, in the Marketing area of TDF wiki: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing I would call the page "Selling Point vs MS Office", because this is the summary of the contents. Marc can definitely help in creating the page, if someone has problems with the wiki. I am definitely interested in helping with the contents, once I will have finished working on the certification protocols. On 12/29/12 10:07 PM, Jay Lozier wrote: > 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. -- Italo Vignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316...@messagenet.it skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
