Microsoft Writes Off Corel 409
PizzaFace writes "Microsoft resuscitated Corel two and a half years ago, paying $135 million for a quarter of Corel's equity ownership. Corel talked then about bringing its products to .Net, and even hinted that it might use its Linux expertise to port .Net to Linux. Since then, Corel gave up on the Linux business and isn't talking anymore about .Net, but is instead riding its XML hobbyhorse. So Microsoft is selling its stake in Corel to a VC firm for $13 million, taking a 90% loss on the investment."
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't that be the real reason that they invested in the company? Microsoft always gets its fingers into the competition when they feel that they could be a threat.
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft antitrust case... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the heart of the issue, right there. So ironic.
Why corel is dying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
for a company (and owner) that are worth rediculous amounts of cash....what is the price of eliminating the competition.
A 90% loss over 2.5 years...122 million...
thats only 50 million a year...
wish i could throw away money like that
Re:Why corel is dying (Score:2, Insightful)
By this logic, Microsoft would be dying as well.
The only reason anybody ever uses it is because it's so dirt cheap.
Hmm. I thought this was part of the appeal of lots of open source stuff and Wintel stuff in general. It's cheaper than better solutions that may or may not ultimately cost more money.
Explain logic? (Score:2, Insightful)
What *does* make sense is wanting another major software developer to use
Not everything Microsoft does is pure evil.
Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that they don't have to worry about being punished, why continue shoring up companies like Corel? I wouldn't be surprised if they also drop their support of Apple (via Office X) for the same reason. They no longer have to prove that they're "good partners".
Frankly, after the previous round of government litigation in the mid-nineties, the same thing happened. Once they were out from under close scrutiny the loosed the dogs of war.
-David
Re:Why corel is dying (Score:1, Insightful)
depends on what you're trying to do.
corel draw is a screwdriver. photoshop is a hammer.
if you try doing photo manipulation in corel draw, you're going to be hurting. if you try and do vector graphics in photoshop, you're going to be hurting.
if your boss didn't understand this, then he's the tool.
Re:Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate Software (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems that far too much importance is given to WHO is making a software, WHO is on-board (or in-bed perhaps), WHO is going to buy, WHO is shipping, WHO invested in WHO...
It seems corporate software is more about making market splashes than to provide a stable and sensible platform for future development of those projects. Money In, Money Out. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
If the companies involved aren't about making a better software industry (and to avoid argument, let's say "better" equals "more thought out, more stable for the future of software and the industry than a company"), then the products they create won't make a better industry, no matter WHO uses them.
Software has always been about HOW people use it. Not everything made was made for the largest audience, and not everything that is made for a niche audience hits its audience.
Corel was a graphics software development company (remember CorelDraw?). It was far more about real-world transferrable graphics, signs, tshirts, etc.
Why would anyone have expected it to get into Linux eventually, and even less would expect MS would ever buy into a company pushing Linux.
I'm not surprised Corel doesn't do Linux even more. I'm even less surprised that MS bailed out of Corel.
The history of Corel's Crazes (Score:5, Insightful)
Then a few years later it was Linux. Asked by an interviewer whether the Linux thing was just a passing obsession for Corel like Java had been, a spokesman asserted that no, this was different, Corel was really committed to Linux.
Then they got almost-bought by Microsoft, dumped Linux and started going on about
Now that too has gone and XML is the big thing? Whatever next?
So long, and thanks for all the text! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, here it may be!
I personally prefer WordPerfect as a word processor application. I feel it is more intuitive, more versitile, easier to control, what not than MS Word. I hate Word. If not for WP I'd have died trying to write my masters thesis. MS doesn't have a superior product, they have a superior suite that most people use because it is on their machines when they get them. And hence it has become a default. WP & MS are not interoperable (and MS will keep it that way) and so WP has no chance at competition.
Sorry, I rant now. WP lost and sadly I must now resort to Word because to many of my coworkers complained about all my files saved as
Carry on.
The shortest distance between to puns is a straight line.
Re:Wow, what news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Corel/Wordperfect (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case converting to wine was as stupid as rewriting wordperfect in java (which apparantly they tried to do). If they had gotten a decent set of coders to keep a native unix set with decent wrappers they could easily have grabbed the market. The conclusion they drew from being burned by the linux sector (i.e. non selling product) wasn't the wrong conclusion because essentially they were selling a broken, nonworking product that they had no idea how to support.
-bloo
Re:Corel Killed WordPerfect a Long Time Ago (Score:2, Insightful)
If Corel had jumped up and down sooner about M$'s file format shit then maybe Corel would still be triving.
On the other hand, it is more likely it would have just led to M$ destroying them a bit sooner.
Re:Missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
From then on they tried just about anything Cowpland could dream of, including moving to Linux (yeah, there's a core business focus for you). They practically killed Wordperfect by themselves, even before Microsoft took equity in them. By the time Word 6.0 was out, WP was dead in the water anyway.
But, I like your FUD. It's poetic.
MISSING THE POINT on Corel (Score:3, Insightful)
Mikie has some problems. Like god complex. And a show wife who wore slinky outfits and threw huge parties. He sent a postcard out to people with his blonde babe wife sprawled over his lamborghini.
Corel began as the first high-end graphics package provider for Windows 3.0 (actually it started with hardware, but graphics made Corel an international company).
If Mikie had kept his eye on the ball and stuck with graphics with an increasing emphasis on web and perhaps looking into media, streaming video, backends etc, it would never have gone down the rathole of wordprocessing suites.
The new CEO seems to be concentrating on graphics again. Maybe he can get somewhere.
Microsoft only became relevant because Mikie didn't stick with core competencies.
Re:The history of Corel's Crazes (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as i can tell, Corel has never once followed through on any of these buzzword projects. They get *something* in the hands of consumers.. they never really *commit*.. they spend lots of money.. then they get bored, wander off, and dump the thing like it never existed sometime well before the point at which the inclusion of the buzzword would begin to make sense.
Like the java thing all those years ago. They got their office suite *working* in java. I tried it. It was buggy and it was slow, but it was beta, and it was *there*. But, from my perspective as a mac user-- well, first off, running it was a bloody mess, you had to bugger about with
So then what did they do? Well, um, nothing. After awhile they decided it wasn't worth the bother and just stopped updating, maintaining or allowing you to download it. By the time the MRJ reached a decent level of speed, which was still the EARLY days of java, you couldn't get Wordperfect for Java anymore, and if i remember right the older WPJ versions had some big incompaibilities with the later MRJ versions anyway. Had they kept developing it, they probably would have been able to come up with a reason why Wordperfect for Java is a good idea, and it would have been a usable, considerable project. Java's a big thing now, Java's everywhere, Java could probably use a wordprocessor. But they didn't bother to let that happen.
And then the linux thing. Everyone said it was a neat distro, not *very* revolutionary, but that it needed more work. Did they do the work? Did they develop the product until it lived up to its stated goals? Did they even maintain it long enough for it to take hold? No, they just went "hm, this isn't taking over the world overnight, it probably isn't worth the bother". Then they ran out of money.
I don't know what's up with this
This is, of course, just my perception of things, and i could be wrong, but *shrugs*.
Re:Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Mission Accomplished (Score:2, Insightful)
Corel's Linux products, before the Microsoft investment were great. I'm
talking about Wordperfect 7 and 8. Their Wine project had potential,
but version 1 sucked. Unfortunately they didn't stick it out and release
a 1.1 version - which would likely have ruled - due to Microsoft's
influence.
Re:MISSING THE POINT on Corel (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally a definitive account of the Corel's shoddy history instead of the kneejerk "It's all Microsofts fault" reaction. Michael Cowpland is the reason Corel is where they are today. He was noting but a blowhard. Corel developed one good product (Draw) and everything else they acquired from other companies, usually knee-jerk reactions to jump on the latest bandwagon at the time . Remember "thin-clients?" Remember "Corel-Linux?"
Combine that with the fact that Corel couldn't market water in the middle of the desert and it's obvious that MS isn't the main reason why they are going down the drain.
MS didn't kill Wordperfect. (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't we know this was coming? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is why MS wouldn't back it. They like selling windows. It makes them money. They don't want people moving to another platform.
Citizen Bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Charles Foster Kane: You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars *next* year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place... in 60 years.
I'm not really sure what I mean by posting this, but it seems appropriate somehow.
Microsoft's "Monopoly" (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure this will be moderated as flamebait, but the fact remains that the consumers made their choice whether they like it now or not, and there is no reason Microsoft should be punished because their marketing works too well. This is something every one of Microsoft's competitors, including Corel, needs to learn. The quality of the product means nothing if you can't market it properly. Microsoft's products are on many levels inferior to those of their competitor's, but their marketing is second to none and they will pretty much call the shots until the rest of the software industry learns how to play the game.
If the consumer doesn't like IE being bundled with Windows, let them prove it by buying and using other software. If competitors want to gain a larger marketshare, let them innovate instead of whining. It's not like they're competing against quality software.
Re:90% Loss? (Score:3, Insightful)
Before pushing the standard MS lines, try to provide some proof, as I have never read (becides from slashdot) that MS loses money on everything but Win/Office. I don't love MS, but I hate posts pushing "facts" which make little logical sence when there is little proof to back them up. Just becuase we may not like MS dosen't mean they don't have a lot of products making a lot of cash.
not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what Corel did, back in 95 or so was simply drop WP on all platforms but Windows and started to compete with Microsoft head to head on Microsoft's own platform. We all know how well that turned out. When Linux became a buzzword and Corel was looking for a new bandwagon to jump on, they simply couldn't produce a native version of WP in a reasonable timeframe, so they just hacked it until it ran under WINE without crashing too much. When I downloaded a trial version of WP8 for Linux, my first reaction was "are they actually trying to sell this thing?". I had the same impression about their distribution: a good start, but far, far from a finished product.
Had they kept the Unix ports going, they would have been able to provide a high-quality office suite for Linux. The last version of WP I used was WP8 (for Windows), and I certainly would have paid for a Linux version. But no, I am not interested in half-assed wine hacks.
Anyway, the story of Corel is truly sad. They were an awesome graphics company back in early 90s, but they kept making one boneheaded decision after another. This is a perfect example of how *not* to run a company.
Re:Microsoft's "Monopoly" (Score:2, Insightful)
Had you done so, you would have found that your choices for purchasing a computer without Windows were extremely limited. And this was no doubt in large part to the anti-competitive OEM agreements that Microsoft foisted upon any company that wanted to sell Windows at all.
But hey, you knew this already and were just trying to troll me, I realize..
Hence the sig...
Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider what would happen even if Microsoft did make Palladium (or some similar technology) mandatory on all of its software, and furthermore windows would only run on hardware designed for so-called trusted computing (Remember the scare a year or two ago, whenever the hell it was, about DRM-enabled hard drives?) so that copyrighted digital media, once loaded onto your computer, was more or less inviolate.
The answer: More and more people would be fed up with the layers of crap and they would be ripe for a new solution. An entirely new player would then have a good shot at entering the market.
Of course, even if we DO get to that point and the public DOESN'T rebel, we will still have several avenues of approach available to us. First, there are various other CPU designs which we can use which are unlikely to be forced-DRM any time soon. China's Longxin processor (or whatever it's called this week) is a prime example. China will control people through legislation and fear and not through computer hardware because they know that if you have more than a billion people running around your country, someone is going to figure out how to defeat your protection. So their CPU and its eventual descendants may provide us a way out of hell.
But again I really don't think we will ever get near that stage. Also Microsoft plain and simply will not exert a reign of control over the internet for a variety of good reasons. First, none of it really belongs to them now. Second, companies which are as large and maybe as powerful as Microsoft who are currently in control of the internet, or at least large portions of the infrastructure, have too much to lose by letting them get ahold of it. And finally, if Microsoft did end up "owning" the internet, another internet would rise up. By that hypothetical time it should be even easier and cheaper to do something like that because as technology marches on it makes things cheaper.
So... Stop spreading FUD, you reactionist weenie. There is no danger whatsoever that microsoft will take over the world.
Re:Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, until the next generation, eager to code cool stuff and maybe get a huge payoff to stop, replace them.
Oh and BTW, what do you mean by a bounty?