Future of Office for Mac
Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.
and helping my mother to carry on without him, and other business of life.
This for the MVP's
What is your thoughts as to the possibility of Office Mac continuing
either before or after 5 year contract deal with Apple. Now That Mac's
with Intel processors could run windows at will.
I think it was bone headed of Jobs to allow it and it spells the down
fall of the Mac OS. Why should Companies, develop for the Mac OS when
with some additional programing A Mac can run a widows version of the
same program.
What needs to happen instead is create one universal program that runs
on any Platform and have all the features of all the platforms. Now Jobs
has spelled the actual destruction of the Mac Platform.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>
Corentin Cras-Méneur
> What is your thoughts as to the possibility of Office Mac continuing
> either before or after 5 year contract deal with Apple. Now That Mac's
> with Intel processors could run windows at will.
Apple wants to attract WIndows users who were considering to switch.
With dual boot, it might win them over.
Honestly, even if I can run Windows on my Mac, do you really think I
will stop using MacOS X ?? If that were the case, everybody would have
bought a PC box and stopped using MacOS X.I'm not too worried: MacOS X
will continue its development and along with it all application already
present on this platform (including Office).
Just a personal opinion/feeling though,
Corentin
--
--- Mac:MS MVP (Francophone) http://www.cortig.net/wordpress/ ---
http://www.mvps.org - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
MVPs are not MS employees - Les MVP ne travaillent pas pour MS
Remove "NoSpam" to e-mail me - Retirez "NoSpam" pour m'écrire
Elliott Roper
CE.T. <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> Hi! Been away from forum for a long time. Dealing with death of my dad
> and helping my mother to carry on without him, and other business of life.
>
> This for the MVP's
>
> What is your thoughts as to the possibility of Office Mac continuing
> either before or after 5 year contract deal with Apple. Now That Mac's
> with Intel processors could run windows at will.
>
> I think it was bone headed of Jobs to allow it and it spells the down
> fall of the Mac OS. Why should Companies, develop for the Mac OS when
> with some additional programing A Mac can run a widows version of the
> same program.
>
> What needs to happen instead is create one universal program that runs
> on any Platform and have all the features of all the platforms. Now Jobs
> has spelled the actual destruction of the Mac Platform.
With the greatest respect Phillip, you have the wrong end of the stick.
It does not matter that the new Macs run on Intel processors.
What matters is that they run OS X (as well as Windows if you allow
Boot Camp or Parallels to blight your working day)
Any application sits on top of an operating system which provides the
services it needs. Each of Windows and OS X provide very different
services to applications. Therefore it is impossible to create a
universal application that runs on both. Unless of course you mean by
'additional programming' a complete Win32 API plus Windows OS services
in Mac OS X, or a complete Cocoa or Carbon environment and OS X
services inside Windows. Neither is likely any time before hell freezes
over. Not only that, it would be neither use nor ornament. Please read
on.
Such a complete execution framework, while possible, is a complete
waste of time. Whichever direction you go, you end up with an operating
environment indistuinguishable from the *other* platform. So anybody
who was interested would have already bought a PC.
Parallel's virtualzation *might* be acceptable to a larger fraction of
users, but be aware that even there, you have to put up with the
illusion of two computers running side by side in the same box. You
won't be able to open a pdf in Windows that was created on your Mac
doppelganger without going through the charade of SAMBA-ing to the
other virtualized machine in the same bit of hardware.
To any sensible person, that is a complete dog's dinner.
For almost everybody, it is not worth the hassle.
MVPs will be able to tell you what you could have found out with
Google. The fabled 5 year contract is long since past. Microsoft has
committed to continuing development of Office on Mac OS X for the
foreseeable future.
A significant number of people tolerate Office on Mac, but would ditch
it for NeoOffice in an eyeblink if they had to put up with the seething
mess of ill-design that is Windows too. MS and its MacBU knows this
well. The MacBU is a profitable business. Not only that, it protects MS
from some of the more extreme anti-monopoly political forces.
So you can rest easy at night.
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Corentin Cras-Méneur
> With the greatest respect Phillip, you have the wrong end of the stick.
> It does not matter that the new Macs run on Intel processors.
> What matters is that they run OS X (as well as Windows if you allow
> Boot Camp or Parallels to blight your working day)
> Any application sits on top of an operating system which provides the
> services it needs.
Nahhh, you are forgetting Java apps :-> But would yo really want Office
to be entirely re-written to run in Java?? :-D
Elliott Roper
Corentin Cras-Méneur <korve...@NoSpam.mvps.org> wrote:
> Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > With the greatest respect Phillip, you have the wrong end of the stick.
> > It does not matter that the new Macs run on Intel processors.
> > What matters is that they run OS X (as well as Windows if you allow
> > Boot Camp or Parallels to blight your working day)
> > Any application sits on top of an operating system which provides the
> > services it needs.
>
> Nahhh, you are forgetting Java apps :-> But would yo really want Office
> to be entirely re-written to run in Java?? :-D
Heh!
Not really. NeoOffice is Java? You are still stuck with the OS it is
running on except when you are in the sandbox. It does not really
change anything much.
Clive Huggan
1hfsp46.1vdqv8lad41vsN%korve...@NoSpam.mvps.org, "Corentin Cras-Méneur"
<korve...@NoSpam.mvps.org> wrote:
> Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> With the greatest respect Phillip, you have the wrong end of the stick.
>> It does not matter that the new Macs run on Intel processors.
>> What matters is that they run OS X (as well as Windows if you allow
>> Boot Camp or Parallels to blight your working day)
>> Any application sits on top of an operating system which provides the
>> services it needs.
>
> Nahhh, you are forgetting Java apps :-> But would yo really want Office
> to be entirely re-written to run in Java?? :-D
>
>
> Corentin
Welcome back, Phillip. Good to see you again. ;-)
And what an opener you chose!
Clive Huggan
============
Corentin Cras-Méneur
> > Nahhh, you are forgetting Java apps :-> But would yo really want Office
> > to be entirely re-written to run in Java?? :-D
> Heh!
> Not really. NeoOffice is Java? You are still stuck with the OS it is
> running on except when you are in the sandbox. It does not really
> change anything much.
NeoOffice needs specific compilations for each platform (plus additional
tricks). That's not quite the same as Java apps that can run directly on
different platforms (through the respective virtual machines).
Beth Rosengard
contract) on stage with Steve Jobs at MacWorld earlier this year. There
were a lot of sighs at MacBU after that to the effect of: What do you want
to bet that rumors will now start flying that once the five years are up,
that's it for Mac Office!
IOW, you can't win. If you announce a commitment with any kind of time
limit attached, people will instantly question your post-commitment
commitment. And you just did that, Philip :-).
As far as I know, MSFT's commitment to Mac Office is firm for the
foreseeable future but they would be foolish to say anything like: We will
support the Mac platform till the end of time. Who knows what the future
may hold?
Anyway, welcome back, Philip. Nice to see you again :-).
Beth
On 5/23/06 12:33 PM, in article 230520062033364542%nos...@yrl.co.uk,
Jim Gordon
I'm glad you asked. It is always fun to guess the future and then live
long enough to see whether or not my guesses are correct.
My guess is that as long as Microsoft makes money selling Mac Office
that the product's life is assured.
If there was one major application that is notably different on the Mac
compared to Windows I think that it is Microsoft Office. Personally I
think the user interface of Mac Office is far superior than its Windows
counterpart. Many of the other major applications seem to try to make
Mac and Windows versions as much alike as possible. Microsoft learned
that making applications that are alike is a catastrophe when it comes
to Mac customer satisfaction (Word 6, Excel 5, PowerPoint 4). OpenOffice
has not learned this lesson from Microsoft's very public embarrassment.
Mac Word's Data Merge is SO superior to the Windows version I can't
imagine anyone who knows the difference specifying the Windows version
over Mac Word. Mac PowerPoint's Presenter Tools and graphic special
effects are just not in Windows Office or NeoOffice or OpenOffice.
Excel's database capabilities are weak with only a partial
implementation of MS Query. MS Access is a no-show. But there is
progress being made on the MS Query front as independent developers have
recently created ODBC drivers. I'm hoping that once the big release of
the next version of Office has passed that MacBU will put some effort
into shoring up MS Query. As for programmability, in Office 2004 better
AppleScript support was included across the board. Try using AppleScript
in OpenOffice, NeoOffice or whatever else you can find. Microsoft is
bringing C# to the Mac - a major bit of news developer-wise.
As for running Windows on the Mac... I just purchased Parallels and
installed Win XP Pro and Office 2003. All applications in Office 2003
seem clunky and awkward to use. The task pane is aptly named - a pain.
Even though they run lightning fast on a CoreDuo they are only faster,
not better.
So for most people who switch from Windows to MacOS, Mac Office offers a
better value for the same money and that's always a good sign of a
product that will succeed. Making office the same on both platforms
would be a marketing mistake that Microsoft will hopefully not repeat.
-Jim Gordon
Mac MVP
Clive Huggan
in the wall right now, Jim...
Trouble is, how long do you reckon I have to leave the time capsule?
Cheers,
Clive
=====
On 24/5/06 1:46 PM, in article elc5YSuf...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl, "Jim
Peter Jamieson
> imagine anyone who knows the difference specifying the Windows version
> over Mac Word.
From the UI point of view, maybe, and the Mac version may well be better at
large mailings - I do not know, but the connectivity is compartively poor
(try connecting to Unicode data of any kind held outside Word - even Unicode
data in Excel is not currently transferred) and in every other respect it is
at best identical.
Peter Jamieson
"Jim Gordon" <gold...@WarmerThanWarmMail.com> wrote in message
news:elc5YSuf...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.
But I did ask the question all seriousness.
One of the respondents noted "the Five Year agreement" has long since
passed. The original one has passed. I am talking about the one entered
into at the last Mac World, here someone committed MS to supporting the
Mac Platform for the next five years. (This was when Jobs announced to
PowerPC to Intel switch). It also at the same exact time That all R&D
and support for Windows Media Player for Mac would cease immediately (in
MacAddict/MacWorld). Fortunately a Company called flip4mac has come to
the rescue, but is hamstrung by the fact they can't handle any DRM Media
Player movies/audio.
I'd like your thoughts on the subject.
Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.
support the Mac Platform and added no particular Time frame. That way
they are not pinned down to forever.
Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.
about was Have one CD. Put in what ever machine, install ever how
installed and it would simply open in the native version of that
computer, But would have "all the Good feature sets, of all the
platforms for example the PDFMaker added by adobe that allows you to
create PDF's. In the PC version all web-links, and mailto: and such are
appropriately color coated, and are live when PDFMaker is used to create
a PDF. In the Mac version you can still create a PDF but all of the
links are de-colored, and You have to add them. Adobe says That certain
hooks in the PC version to allow this are not in the mac version, on
purpose.
Things like that stuff within the PC version that are deliberately
left. As Mac users we feel like "Second Class" citizens.
Beth Rosengard
If they said "We will continue to support the Mac platform," people would
immediately ask, "For how long?" If they didn't respond to that, people
would think they weren't serious. If they said something like, "For the
foreseeable future," people would think they were being coy or disingenuous
or both. They gave the best response they could.
Beth
On 5/25/06 12:39 PM, in article #0pshLDg...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
"Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
Clive Huggan
"Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
My thoughts on this subject are not profound, Phillip. ;-)
I look at it like a marriage. 39.75 years ago I did not think to clarify the
time-frame before our wedding day. My wife (same one as then) and I are
still doing all right. ;-) My wonderful daughter, who among many other
things keeps me up to date on current social trends (albeit with a certain
sense of disconnectedness from some of them on my part) tells me that most
upwardly mobile young women contemplating longish-term meaningful interfaces
think in terms of "If it lasts 7 years that's OK; if not, get over it!"
MacBU makes a profit. Shareholders like profits. More people are moving to
Mac. Looks good so far.
And that's it for me. Life is too short for further "debate".
"Don't worry; be happy".
[To which I would add, based on recent research results, "eat more seafood";
but I won't bring my professional work into this. It would almost be, er, a
red herring.]
Cheers,
Clive
======
Chris Ridd
M. Jones, CE.T." <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> They would have eased matters by simply saying we will continue to
> support the Mac Platform and added no particular Time frame. That way
> they are not pinned down to forever.
No, because then people would note they didn't say how long, and thus
"clearly" they were planning to abandon ship.
I'm not sure they could have said *anything* to stop the rumours!
Cheers,
Chris
Corentin Cras-Méneur
> Adobe says That certain
> hooks in the PC version to allow this are not in the mac version, on
> purpose.
On purpose?? Nah... I would say that Office for Windows supports a
version of VBA that's much more advanced than the Mac version. Adobe is
most probably using Windows-only VBA for its plug-in.
Corentin Cras-Méneur
> Fortunately a Company called flip4mac has come to
> the rescue, but is hamstrung by the fact they can't handle any DRM Media
> Player movies/audio.
Well, this is a tricky point... It's fortunate, because Flip4Mac (now)
has tremendously better support for WMV and WMA than WMP ever had.
It's very unfortunate, because it prbably means that MS will simply drop
the development of WMP for Maac - and only they have the possibility to
support DRM-protected Windows Media content. Unless they allow/licence
FLip4Mac for that, that's the end of any hope for us to ever play
anything protected with the MS DRM over version 1.3. Not so good...
On the other hand, this is not really related to the MacBU, they have
never had the app in their hands. It was (poorly) ported in the past by
some people of the Windows WMP team.
Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.
> Phillip M. Jones, CE.T. <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>
>> Fortunately a Company called flip4mac has come to
>> the rescue, but is hamstrung by the fact they can't handle any DRM Media
>> Player movies/audio.
>
> Well, this is a tricky point... It's fortunate, because Flip4Mac (now)
> has tremendously better support for WMV and WMA than WMP ever had.
> It's very unfortunate, because it prbably means that MS will simply drop
> the development of WMP for Maac - and only they have the possibility to
> support DRM-protected Windows Media content. Unless they allow/licence
> FLip4Mac for that, that's the end of any hope for us to ever play
> anything protected with the MS DRM over version 1.3. Not so good...
>
> On the other hand, this is not really related to the MacBU, they have
> never had the app in their hands. It was (poorly) ported in the past by
> some people of the Windows WMP team.
>
> Corentin
>
giveth, while the left hand taketh away. :-(. Kind of like I'll give you
a good bear hug and stab you .... (fill in the dots) at the same time.
Now it means, Unless DRM can be licensed, People that now use WMA, WMV
content to "all" computer users will have to make a simultaneous
QuickTime version as well. They will like rethink their support of Mac
and decide to drop it.
John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]
Well, it's a wonderful troll that will undoubtedly increase the traffic on
this newsgroup for quite a while :-)
Here's my completely uninformed two cents worth:
* There will be an alternative operating system to Windows still around in
50 years. In 50n years, Windows may *be* the alternative...
* Both the PC and the Mac will fit in your shirt pocket well before then.
* Keyboards will probably be little used, even if they don't disappear
entirely.
* The need for a word processor will go away, quite soon now.
* Text-handling ability will become so ubiquitous it will simply be
built-in to the front ends of the software that "use" the text. And that's
where the remnants of Microsoft Office will end up: as a set of callable
modules in something that looks suspiciously like your web browser.
* The contents of your shirt pocket will come in two flavours: beige with
square corners, and white with rounded corners. Both will have a heads-up
display, earphones, and cameras.
* And Microsoft will still be making software for both :-)
Cheers
On 24/5/06 1:40 AM, in article uyRVG9nf...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
"Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> Hi! Been away from forum for a long time. Dealing with death of my dad
> and helping my mother to carry on without him, and other business of life.
>
> This for the MVP's
>
> What is your thoughts as to the possibility of Office Mac continuing
> either before or after 5 year contract deal with Apple. Now That Mac's
> with Intel processors could run windows at will.
>
> I think it was bone headed of Jobs to allow it and it spells the down
> fall of the Mac OS. Why should Companies, develop for the Mac OS when
> with some additional programing A Mac can run a widows version of the
> same program.
>
> What needs to happen instead is create one universal program that runs
> on any Platform and have all the features of all the platforms. Now Jobs
> has spelled the actual destruction of the Mac Platform.
--
Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410
John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]
Oh, we have that now :-)
The Windows and Mac versions of Virtual PC install from the same DVD :-)
Cheers
On 26/5/06 5:48 AM, in article eX3yERDg...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
"Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
--
Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]
On 26/5/06 5:48 AM, in article eX3yERDg...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
"Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> platforms for example the PDFMaker added by adobe that allows you to
> create PDF's. In the PC version all web-links, and mailto: and such are
> appropriately color coated, and are live when PDFMaker is used to create
> a PDF. In the Mac version you can still create a PDF but all of the
> links are de-colored, and You have to add them. Adobe says That certain
> hooks in the PC version to allow this are not in the mac version, on
> purpose.
>
> Things like that stuff within the PC version that are deliberately
> left. As Mac users we feel like "Second Class" citizens.
Well, yes, it was left out on purpose. But the "purpose" was Adobe's.
Microsoft announced five years ago that VBA was to be killed off. On BOTH
platforms.
They did this after much internal pain and soul-searching. The reason is
that, BY DESIGN, VBA cannot be properly secured. On Any platform. So it
had to go. It was a great idea (which is why it instantly became so
popular). But AppleScript did it better.
AppleScript you CAN secure. So Microsoft went with AppleScript on the Mac,
and replaced VBA with .NET on the PC. (Dot-NET enables you to choose a wide
variety of source coding languages, including COBOL and, I suspect X-Code or
AppleScript will be offered by someone real soon now ...)
Had Adobe chosen to re-code their add-in in C-sharp, it would run on both
platforms and Save to PDF would have the same functions on Mac as it does on
Windows.
The PDFMaker.dot is not a large piece of code. And it's badly designed. It
creates all manner of problems on the PC (where it works), as well as on the
Mac (where it doesn't).
Cheers
--
Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.
I was asking the questions and making the comments in all seriousness.
Unless Computers greatly improve voice recognition exponentially, and
memory becomes 100% fool proof. With Free guaranteed backup; I don't see
Keyboards , Word Pros, and even paper disappearing.
Even CD's and DVD's only stay valid for 100 years. If the technology
stays viable.
If we get to the point, If ever; of Star-Trek next Generation where you
have massive supper computers that there processors grow as they receive
knowledge, It will be a 1000 years if Mankind last that long before we
get there.
I don't share your rosy (is it really?) picture of things.
Voice recognition is terrible now. My mother car has one of those ONSTAR
systems, and the Voice recognition is terrible. It can't tell the
difference between my pronunciation of 4 (Four) and 0 (Zero, or ohhh.)
My mother is hearing impaired and has to use Close-captioning. The way
the voice recognizer mangles words would embarrass an 8 year old. The
voices created in The Mac OS system are great and even tweaking the
speed for an hour you can almost make some of them sound real. But, its
still Robot like.
It will be long after my death (and I am 57) before voice recognition
gets to the point it will be perfect and we can do away with pen/pencil
and paper, or Keyboards.
--
Clive Huggan
"Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> It will be a 1000 years if Mankind lasts that long before we
> get there.
>
Don't worry about this, Phillip!
You won't be there. I won't be there. Humans won't be there. We're
collectively too greedy and too stupid (not you or me, of course...). ;-)
Cheers,
Clive
=======
John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]
Go on, admit it... You love to stir us up :-)
On 29/5/06 7:10 AM, in article eHW5bspg...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl,
"Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
> If we get to the point, If ever; of Star-Trek next Generation where you
> have massive supper computers that there processors grow as they receive
> knowledge, It will be a 1000 years if Mankind last that long before we
> get there.
Well, I believe voice recognition is a LOT closer than that :-) However,
you can't do it properly on a wimpy little 2GHz processor :-) And some of
the algorithms around are not quite there yet, either.
I worked on this back in 1990, when Fujitsu was trying to get it going on a
giant LISP machine. Yeah: the results were truly embarrassing... But they
were trying to translate from English to or from Japanese while they were at
it.
Knowing the Japanese as I do, they have NOT stopped trying, and they will
get there as soon as we can throw enough computing power at the problem.
My "guess" is that it will take another order of magnitude of memory, and a
massively-parallel processor to do the job. Voice recognition is less about
highly-complex processing of one sound-wave at a time, and more about making
lots of small calculations on millions of concurrent possibilities.
The human brain is fairly "slow" as CPUs go -- it runs at about 20 to 80 Hz
(yeah, it's a speed-step processor...). But it has several billion parallel
processors :-) Oh, and lotsa memory (except for mine...)
Given that your friendly local software company has not yet mastered the
challenge of getting Word to run on more than one processor at a time, we
may have to wait a year or two yet for parallelism on that sort of scale.
> Voice recognition is terrible now. My mother car has one of those ONSTAR
> systems, and the Voice recognition is terrible. It can't tell the
> difference between my pronunciation of 4 (Four) and 0 (Zero, or ohhh.)
There is hope: Most of Sydney's taxis are now dispatched by voice
recognition. The majority of Australia's large court transcripts are
produced by voice recognition. But my phone still won't reliably dial my
friends using it :-)
> It will be long after my death (and I am 57) before voice recognition
> gets to the point it will be perfect and we can do away with pen/pencil
> and paper, or Keyboards.
Well, I don't agree. You're only two years older than me, and I expect to
see it working properly before I retire :-)
Cheers
Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.
But; from what I've seen or been through, I am an eternal pessimist, or
more likely a Pragmatist. I don't see it happeing before my days are
over :-|
Jim Gordon
thread. This is fun yet seriously insightful.
CDs and DVDs are not likely to be around in 100 years. "CDs and DVDs
don't have a shelf-life of more than 15 years at the outside."
http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/25514
Tape still has an edge over CDs and DVDs as an archive media in terms of
the ability to reliably play back over time (safely up to about 15
years). There really is not a good low-cost way to keep a digital
collection for long periods of time. Those circumstances coupled with
ever-changing digital formats and encryption schemes means that although
the technical problems of recording and distribution have been solved,
the problem of preservation remains unsolved.
My blue-tooth enabled cell phone has voice recognition so that I can
simply speak a name and the phone calls the desired person. It gets it
right about 50% of the time on the first attempt. Another 25% of the
time it takes 2 tries for each spoken name. 5% of the time it calls the
wrong name. The rest of the time it doesn't respond. Since the names are
single sounds isolated, I agree that voice recognition has a long way to
go. Also, when getting call distributors that ask me to speak... my
results have nearly a 100% failure rate at both voice recognition and
anticipating what I want to say.
As for player technologies I can only offer some observations without
any firm conclusions. Web browsers are players. The PowerPoint player is
a player. QuickTime is a player. Flash, RealPlayer, WMP, BlackBoard,
SCORM etc are all players. Businesses that can control their in-house
environment can freely choose which player to support. All others must
consider the mix of available players in the markets they wish to reach.
Content providers have to decide what is the best way to reach their
intended audience. The widest possible user base is not necessarily
plain text, despite the persistent stubbornness of PINE and LYNX users.
Right now the base line is HTML v4 IMHO. Anything you do beyond HTMLv4
is risking losing some audience. When IE had 92%+ market share then WMP
was a pretty safe bet. Now IE for windows is less than 75% market share.
Toss in another 15% Mac users and sticking with a single platform player
like WMP means an instant loss of about 40% of potential audience. Adobe
Flash is the closest thing to ubiquity right now, but QuickTime via the
back door of iTunes is also a contender. Right now WMP needs to always
be supplemented with at least one other player in order to reach at
least 80% of the market. As long as Microsoft makes IE and WMP
single-platform then mathematics will work against them and both will
continue to lose market share. If there is a single lesson to be learned
from Flash, QuickTime, and RealPlayer it is that they must be cross
platform in order to succeed.
Returning to the original topic of this thread - MacOffice looks like it
will be a better cross-platform player in the future. Please trust the
MVPs on this one. We're not allowed to "spill the beans." Indeed, the
beans are still growing and not ready for harvest yet. Read John's
comments about AppleScript and C-Sharp programming languages. Put that
information together with the idea that Mac Office will support the new
XML office formats, but with a user interface that will be different
from Office 2007's and you might get a feel for the future of Office. It
looks to me that Office for Mac in the future will be a better
cross-platform application, which ought to strengthen its position in
the market place.
-Jim Gordon
Mac MVP
Phillip M. Jones, CE.T. wrote: