Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Microsoft Faces Fight Against Online Office Rival 186

bharatm writes "It's now been a decade since Microsoft bought Hotmail, the web-based e-mail service, for about $400 million. Now Sabeer Bhatia (the site's co-founder) is challenging the software giant's core $20 billion office desktop business. Yesterday Sabeer Bhatia released a free online rival to the bestselling Office suite of applications that will allow users to view, share and edit documents from any computer. 'Designed to help consumers avoid expensive upgrades and to foster collaboration on a secure internet platform, Live Documents matches features found in Office 2007, the most recent version. It will be given away to individuals with 100MB of free data storage space per user. Companies will pay for the system, either hosted remotely or on an internal server, at a discount to Microsoft's licensed technology.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Faces Fight Against Online Office Rival

Comments Filter:
  • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @06:25PM (#21449177) Journal
    Office [wikipedia.org] Live [wikipedia.org] Documents, also not falling under the trademark name exception where he's using the naming in a different field of business? Should be interesting to see what Microsoft's reaction will be here, if they see it's enough of a threat here to have their lawyers attack him. It's not identical by sharing the Windows Live part of Windows Live, but it looks quite intentionally used to sound confusingly similar to a Microsoft product to me.
  • One thing missing... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sirch ( 82595 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @06:26PM (#21449185) Homepage
    I'm not surprised a Slashdot summary didn't link to it, but the Times Online? Come now.

    Here it is: the Live Documents website [live-documents.com].

    Not had a look yet, though as I've only found a limited use for Google Documents (the spreadsheet application is great for collaboration) I doubt it will be of any use to me. Open Office is good enough for me, if not everyone.
  • by Stevecrox ( 962208 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @06:54PM (#21449377) Journal
    Yes but when you download Open Office or install star office the look and feel is subtley different they have their own logo's and design. If you goto the live document site you will slight alterations of the standard MS Office icons, you'll see the MS Office logo on the front page and a snapshot of what looks to be MS Office 2003. The site appears to be trying to pretend to be Microsoft sanctioned and be part of Microsoft.

    I always thought trademarks were designed to protect companies/consumers when small companies stole names, designs and images from anouther and mislead consumers into buying their product. This would seem like an open and shut case of a website trying to pretend it has Microsoft Office and mislead people into using it for that reason. If they want to tout how the apps looks extremely similar to MS Office let them but lets not use identical images and icons.
  • Re:Yeah, forget it (Score:5, Informative)

    by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @06:54PM (#21449385) Homepage
    The company I work for has been using all online docs for the last 7 years. Around 4 million documents and a few hundred thousand dollars saved later, I don't think it's that ridiculous of an idea.

    About a year in, we added a plug-in to store backup versions of the docs on the user's hard disk to supplement the auto-save (in the case of a lost connection during editing, which of course does happen occasionally) - but other than that things have pretty much "just worked". Honestly, the docs have caused less problems than we used to have with Word: there's nothing to configure incorrectly, there's no choice about where to save, there's nothing to install, and there's far fewer features to abuse. It's much easier to protect the user from themselves and to enforce business rules in documents. As a bonus, users can work from home without buying their own software, or having compatibility hassles.

    Pretty much everything our users do is done using a browser and hosted centrally; it has been an unqualified success and an IT dream. I can't imagine how much pain we've avoided by missing 5 generations of new Word problems. I think back to the time when we had to install apps on every machine, and I shudder.
  • ummm (Score:4, Informative)

    by rockwood ( 141675 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @07:04PM (#21449447) Homepage Journal
    I've been using Zoho [zoho.com] for a while now. With six kids in school, it has been a fantastic tool for them to write, edit and print documents accessible remotely at a moments notice. So what makes live doc's so much better? Furthermore, from what I've read thus far at live-docs, it seems Zoho has also provided more features... a more thorough overall user experience. Admittedly I have nothing solid for comparison since live-docs is still by invitation only (yes, I did register). Can anyone that currently has full access to live-docs that also uses Zoho regularly care to post a comparison... [or get that invitation approved for me :) ]
  • by YU Nicks NE Way ( 129084 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @07:27PM (#21449577)
    Lindows won in the United States, but lost in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. Microsoft had Robertson by the balls, and he knew it, so he took the "settlement" (which was essentially a capitulation on his part) and got while the getting was good.
  • by jma05 ( 897351 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @07:32PM (#21449605)
    > And how is that different from Google Docs

    It allows off-line use for one thing. They will be releasing an MS Office plugin soon. This is a big deal for me. I would like to access my documents from anywhere but I also like the richness of desktop tools. Google talked about it but nothing concrete so far as I know.
  • A bunch of hot air? (Score:3, Informative)

    by no-body ( 127863 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @07:49PM (#21449709)
    Well, Beta on invitation only....
    Poking around on those web pages, it gets to: [live-documents.com]

    Getting Started with Live Documents

    Sign Up

    Before you get started you'll need to set up your account. It just takes a few seconds: sign up here for an invitation to our technology preview.

    Then:
    Sign up to get invited

    Live Documents is currently available in a technology preview mode on an on-invitation basis. To request an invite to this private beta, please sign up below.

  • by pklinken ( 773410 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @08:48PM (#21450025)
    The website plays a tune, NEXT.
  • Re:Yeah, forget it (Score:5, Informative)

    by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @09:42PM (#21450291) Homepage
    Our document editor is homegrown, and we host it internally. Privacy and security would certainly be bigger concerns if you were hosting with a third party, and I can't really speak to how it would be best to manage that.

    The application isn't overly bandwidth intensive, and some of our users access it over cell-type connections. But really this hasn't impacted us too much - the nature of our business means that our production staff who travel will usually be dictating rather than typing themselves (and it's easy to upload the dictation files when you're back to some kind of good connection). Also, to be fair, many of our users (especially marketing) have other Word processors they use for documents not tied to production, like proposals or brochures or labels and what not. Our app is not a general purpose word processor: we had the luxury of designing it around a limited set of needs.

    In terms of business rules, we've found it to be very convenient - though a proper content management system would do most of the same things. Naturally it's easy to control who can see what, who can edit what, what's available to what clients online, etc. We can also make certain elements of documents uneditable, or only editable via our own tools (and the relevant data captured back). For example: our users produce a lot of reports, and in the past they would tend to put tabled information in reports and nowhere else (meaning we couldn't analyze that data later). Now, they enter that data one time, in a structured way through a plugin in the word processor, and it's persisted in the database as well as being on the report. This is of course possible with a regular word processor as well, but I think some parts would be much more difficult to manage. When you're dealing with a small subset of word processing functionality, and a small/standard codebase for the UI, many of these things are trivial.

    I imagine there are a lot better options out there now than when we built this years ago (and it quite possibly wouldn't be the right choice now) but it has worked out well for us.
  • by macs4all ( 973270 ) on Thursday November 22, 2007 @11:12PM (#21450781)
    Especially lame, since the intro graphics tout Mac and Linux availability. Then not even one word about a plugin for Mac or Linux browers.

    Lame, indeed.

    Next...
  • by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert AT slashdot DOT firenzee DOT com> on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:24AM (#21451807) Homepage
    There was also a graphics program called vista for generating landscapes...
    Version 4 is still available, see:
    http://www.vendornation.com/*ws4d-db-query-QuickShow?vp001 [vendornation.com]

    Tho the site looks somewhat broken...
    I used to use VistaLite and VistaPro on the Amiga back in the days. It started out as just Vista, then as it got more features it was renamed VistaPro but the extra features meant it wouldn't run on most standard Amigas, and thus VistaLite was born as a stripped down version requiring much less memory.
    Wikipedia has a brief article on it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaPro [wikipedia.org]
  • by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Friday November 23, 2007 @01:40PM (#21454997) Homepage
    You can buy a version of Word where you pay per document? I don't keep up on pricing, but that's quite the revolution for MS. When we buy Word, we have to pay per user - and we have a lot of users, many of whom are not employees or who do very few documents. I'm also counting in there drastically lower support costs, which we've seen.

    And no, we didn't actually spend that long in development (one developer, me, times about 3 months at the start) and no, it doesn't take people long to train - because the thing only has the 15 or so functions that our users should be using, and where appropriate they work the same way they do in other word processors. To be sure, this started out as an experiment - but it's an experiment that paid off. Our alternative options at the time (2001/2002'ish I think) were not good, and our tests with them didn't make happy users.

    And, to be clear, I never set out to say this is the right solution for everyone - and likely less so now in 2007. And, of course, if your Word users are using lots of complicated functions, you'd be crazy to try to re-implement them all. I was countering the idea that an online word processor is infeasible in general.

    Also, to be clear, I am not inexperienced with other alternatives. A few of our users need spreadsheets, so a couple years ago we looked into an OpenOffice based content management system. We got it working for the spreadsheets and got most of the application ties working, and as a test we tried to see whether the word processing users wanted to use it too. They didn't like it - too complicated, and if they wanted to use it at home they had to install stuff. And, for us, if we wanted to do customization, we had to delve deep into a fairly complicated project. It's still only used for a few spreadsheets, and the project was, on balance, a waste of time (which we're OK with - we may use it more later).

    We also support another client that uses a forms based app with ties to Word (from around 1998). It works OK for the most part, but there's fairly often some problem and the breaks between apps make the UI fairly hokey. A month ago, they installed a Server 2003 update on a neglected server, untested, and everything died. Some "Word cannot open " error. Had to run a fix on every computer, and then fix some of the templates - lost a half day of work. Nothing major, but something that happens much less frequently for the online one (though, to be fair, Vista gave us some curveballs). I've spent a lot of time diggling with weird errors in Word templates, and Googling about odd problems.

    In general, I get tired of the term "Not Invented Here". I hear it fairly often, especially when we get a new employee who's not used to actually writing software. I understand the idea that re-using tested software is often better than rolling your own, but I know a lot of developers who seem scared of developing anything. It's always "piece together 6 well tested, general purpose tools". We've had a few guys like that over the years, and their legacy usually lives on in the bad parts of the software, and the parts that don't work when we make a new app server because they require 12 packages installed to do simple crap (and where did we put the license key for this one? can we still download the old version of that one?).

    If you have a manageably sized, specific need, quite often a homegrown solution will better meet your needs and will be easier to maintain for those needs going forward. Our company outpaces our industry fairly handily on technology, despite spending about the same. It's because we don't blindly write off options because they don't match some rule of thumb.

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Working...