Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe

[Tom Huffman <tlhuffman -at- EARTHLINK -dot- NET>]

Darren:

Gee, quite a few people use Publisher. It is in fact the leader in the low-scale
DTP market. However, I was speaking somewhat hyperbolically. Obviously, MS can't
literally release *anything* and have it succeed. Speaking more accurately, MS's
clout, marketing, and overall dominance gives their products a huge advantage in
the marketplace that's wildly disproportionate to their quality.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Linux. It's one product that MS
can't beat. It can't undercut it on price. It can't leverage Windows against it.
Finally, it can't -- or rather I should say *won't* -- release a Linux version
of Office, giving competitors a chance to gain back some market share. The
problem is that Linux is nowhere near ready as a consumer operating system. Even
the latest builds by Caldera and Red Hat are way too geeky for the vast majority
of users.

*******

> Dear Mr. Huffman,
>
> If the only reason Word has achieved success is because it's made by
> Microsoft, I wonder who is buying up all the extra copies of products like:
>
> MS Publisher
> MS Bob
> MS Phone
>
> Obviously these products were so popular because they were made by
> Microsoft. A product does not become commonly used simply because Microsoft
> makes it. If marketing clout determines so completely the success of a
> product, why are we even having this discussion? Neither you nor anybody
> else should be using anything but Microsoft products. Why do people use
> Linux? Why do people use Oracle? A product's merit undeniably has a
> significant impact on its use. DB.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Huffman [mailto:tlhuffman -at- EARTHLINK -dot- NET]
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 3:35 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Rumors of FrameMaker's Death are Untrue, says Adobe
>
> Kat:
>
> Word has achieved the dominance it has achieved for one reason only: it's
> made
> by Microsoft. For example, I challenge anyone to objectively compare the
> relative power and ease of use of MS Access vs. Lotus Approach and then to
> report with a straight face that Access wins. However, it kills Approach in
> the
> database market, just like Word kills WordPerfect.
>
> ******
>
> > At 12:29 PM 05/21/1999 -0700, Darren Barefoot wrote:
> > >MS Word
> > >is intuitive, and more intuitive than FrameMaker,
> > >because it adheres to
> > >Microsoft's standards for interfaces.   [snip]
> > >The very commonness of Microsoft's
> > >products makes them familiar and thus intuitive.
> >
> > I used Microsoft products for years before I tried Frame.  They never felt
> > intuitive, even though I've gotten a reputation as a 'power user' at
> > several client sites.  I can make Word jump through hoops, but it feels
> > more like training an obstreperous rottweiler than riding a well-trained
> > horse.
> >
> > The first time I used Frame, I fell in love.  The way the menus are
> > organized, the logical approach to complex tasks---now  >that's<
> intuitive!
> >
> > Frame's organization and functions suit the way my mind works.  Word
> > doesn't.  Different strokes for different folks, Darren.
> > Kat Nagel
> > MasterWork Consulting Services            katnagel -at- eznet -dot- net
> > "Every year, back comes Spring, with nasty little birds
> >  yapping their fool heads off and the ground all mucked
> >  up with plants."                              --Dorothy Parker
> >
> >
> From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==
>
> --
> Tom Huffman
> tlhuffman -at- earthlink -dot- net
> Corel C_Tech Volunteer
>
> From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==
>
> From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==

--
Tom Huffman
tlhuffman -at- earthlink -dot- net
Corel C_Tech Volunteer


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=