OSNews

"As far as support costs go...what support? You don't get any kind of support when you buy the Windows/OS X version of Office, why would it be any different for the Linux version?"

Depending on the version you buy, you get a set amount of free calls to MS for issues. Not to mention that MS has to also train their entire Office support staff not only on Office, but on Linux basics as well...no small feat.

"Since Linux has roughly the same market share as OS X, and MS did put out an OS X version, I believe the answer is yes."

Perhaps, but are those same number of users willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for Office? Mac users are, but they come from a different mindset than Linux users.

"I hope you realize how condescending that sounds."

I meant Linux as a platform needs to prove to MS that a port would be profitable.

Really? For MS Office? How many calls do you get, for which version? What about the OS X version?

It seems to me that many pro-MS posters here are so negative in their views of Linux that they are unwilling to compromise - and yet a Linux port of MS Office would do wonder to repair some of the burnt bridges between Microsoft and the Linux community!

No, MS has to be convinced that their is money to be made in porting Office to Linux. Linux as a platform has, and cannot have anything to prove. Seeing that MS is a public company that has to show it's shareholders a profit, all there needs to be is a business case, and MS doesn't see that.

Porting Office to Linux is not an impossible task. Choosing which distros to support is the tough problem. That's what I think MS is doing right now, separating the ones that will play ball to the ones that won't.

"Nonsense. Microsoft could simply reuse the OS X code base to port the software. Sure, it's not as simple as a recompile, but I don't think it would be nearly as difficult as you suggest. "

Um, no.
Mac Office is a Mac app, not a unix app. Meaning, it is built against of the two Mac apis (i.e. Carbon & Cocoa; Office uses Carbon), not POSIX or the like. And it's likely that Microsoft doesn't have enough programmers with Linux experience, so they'd have to hire new staff. Then they have to decide if they use Gnome, KDE, or whatever... We're talking about a huge undertaking here, with very low prospects of ROI.


"Would the majority of Windows user pay for Office? This has to be the single most pirated productivity app out there (with the possible exception of Photoshop)."

It doesn't matter whether the "majority" of Windows users pay for Office, all that matters is that enough do that there is ROI.

Linux users:
a. Hate to pay for software.
b. Hate to run closed-source software.
c. Hate Microsoft.

You're telling me that enough Linux users would pay for closed-source software from a company that they hate, to deliver a profit against the huge expense it would take to port MS Office to Linux?

Note that Mac users only fit (c) of the above "hates" (and the silent majority of them don't even even fit (c)). So Mac Office delivers ROI. Linux users, on the other hand, fit a, b, and c, so it's a lot harder there.

Edited 2007-06-14 18:59

I disagree with a), inasmuch as it singles out Linux users. *All* computer users hate paying for software (which is why piracy is so rampant in the Windows and OSX worlds). There's *no* reason to believe that Linux users are *more* averse to pay for software than other types of users. In any case, has someone has already pointed out, the prime target of a Linux version of MS Office would be businesses, who *do* pay for software.

I consider myself a pretty average Linux user, and I would pay for MS Office. In fact, I already use my bought copy with Crossover, which I also paid for.

The fact that Crossover is a successful product invalidates a) all by itself.

As for b), I also don't think that is true. Some closed-source programs for Linux are quite successful (Google Earth and the Nvidia/ATI drivers come to mind). The vast majority of Linux users are pragmatic. They are not *against* closed-source software, even if they will prefer open-source alternatives if they are good enough. This isn't limited to Linux, by the way: it's also true for Windows and OS X (see rebuttal to point a, above).

As for point c), one of the reason Linux users distrust Microsoft is that they figure that the software giant wants to destroy their OS of choice. Publishing a Linux version of MS Office would go a *long* way into restoring some sort of trust for Linux users - and in the long run, that might be worth a lot more than the profit made from Office sales. ROI isn't everything.

In any case, as you pointed out, most Mac users are as vocal in their criticism of MS as Linux users, and yet they still buy Office. Heck, even Windows users bitch about MS all the time...

Home users don't have to be the ones buying Office for Linux. But lots of business users can for a good price if it means compatibility with documents produced on Windows.