Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire)
Here's an ITWire article on the strange removal of PDF support from Microsoft's Office product. "Adobe has reportedly demanded that Microsoft charge users for the PDF facility in Office 2007. Microsoft has refused and intends to offer the PDF facility as a separate free download. Meanwhile the word on the street is that Adobe is preparing to mount an antitrust case against Microsoft in Europe, where the software giant is unpopular with regulators. The whole episode appears to border on the ludicrous, given that Microsoft Office is compatible with the open source look-alike Open Office.org 2.0, which enables documents to be saved as PDF files." That which hits Office today may hit OpenOffice.org tomorrow.
(Log in to post comments)
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 3, 2006 15:33 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] PDF is an open standard: specs published with no panets claims. The implementation that OpenOffice.org uses is not Adobe's and hence Adobe can't chanrge royalties for a PDF export.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 3, 2006 15:39 UTC (Sat) by pjdc (subscriber, #6906) [Link] Relevant how?
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 3, 2006 16:52 UTC (Sat) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] Relevant in that Adobe hasn't a legal leg to stand on when it tries to prevent anyone from saving in PDF format.This raises the question: why would Microsoft care about hurting Adobe's feelings? Either they're so oopsy about monopoly charges in Europe that they don't want to get into a suit even when they're clearly in the right, or some deeply hidden agenda is at work. Unfortunately for OOo, being in the right doesn't mean they have enough money to defend such a suit, so Adobe's threatening noises could still be bad news for them, should Adobe act less than courteously.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 3, 2006 17:06 UTC (Sat) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] This raises the question: why would Microsoft care about hurting Adobe's feelings? Either they're so oopsy about monopoly charges in Europe that they don't want to get into a suit even when they're clearly in the right, or some deeply hidden agenda is at work.It could be that Microsoft thinks that by dropping PDF support they will marginalize it as a document format, which will ultimately hurt Adobe more than Microsoft.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 3, 2006 19:00 UTC (Sat) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link] It has a legal leg to stand on the same way that governments have had legs to stand on when it sued Microsoft for bundling it's web browser or media player.
Anyone can play MPEG2, but Microsoft isn't allowed to include an MPEG2 player in Windows in Europe.
Anyone can parse and render HTML, but Microsoft got slammed for including an app that can do that in their OS.
Anyone can scan for viruses, but sure enough the AV companies got Microsoft to not include their newly-bought AV software in Windows.
It's about monopoly. Adobe is claiming that if Microsoft includes PDF writing in Office, then nobody will ever need Adobe's software for converting Office files to PDF, and Microsoft will suddenly have a de facto monopoly on PDF generating software. (The existance of alternatives like OOo or Abiword or KOffice don't really count here because they are essentially gnats compared to Microsoft's Office product.)
Normally this would be fine. Creating a new product or product upgrade that happens to put a competitor out of business is a part of capitalism, and a very important part of it at that.
The problem is that Microsoft has a monopoly. They don't just have "a" office suite, they have "the" office suite. Federal regulations dictate that companies with monopolies have to play nice with competitors to give them a chance to grow and thrive, and to allow capitalism to continue to operate.
Essentially, it means that Microsoft has to give Adobe the chance to sell its product, and that means that Microsoft can't take away all reason for a customer to buy Adobe's product.
*Personally*, I think it's silly. PDF writing is commoditized, or soon will be, and it isn't something that a product should need to exist for at all. If Adobe wants to compete, it should create a *new* product, or make their PDF/Office integration software in some way more capable than Microsoft's. (I imagine Microsoft's PDF feature for Office will be very minimal in capabilities compared to Adobe Acrobat.)
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 6:48 UTC (Sun) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] I was actually wondering if Microsoft's implemntation is independent of any Adobe *code*. (OOo's isn't)
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 15:53 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Anyone can play MPEG2, but Microsoft isn't allowed to include an MPEG2 player in Windows in Europe.Well, that is not entirely true. They are allowed to bundle a media player, but they should also sell a version without it, allowing OEMs (i.e. distributors) to bundle a different media player, at the same price. Anyone can parse and render HTML, but Microsoft got slammed for including an app that can do that in their OS.Again, not exact. They got sued for not allowing people to uninstall the bundled browser. Also for not even allowing OEMs (i.e. distributors) to bundle a second, different browser with the OS. It is a fine point, but it makes all the difference. To give an analogy, Intel sells processors, chipsets, graphics cards, motherboards and what not. Now imagine what would happen if Intel processors could only be bundled with Intel graphics cards. Sure, you can always purchase a separate card, but it would cut ATI and nVidia from a big chunk of the market nowadays. Even if you hold a near monopoly, as long as you have the option not to buy the bundle, it is fine. The Adobe case looks bleak from this point of view. An export capability is not something that can be limited. If you want to provide an alternative export plugin or program then you are free to do so. Now, if you want to charge for something that the Office suite gives for free (or OpenOffice.org for that matter) then you are busted.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 6:19 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] "This raises the question: why would Microsoft care about hurting Adobe's feelings? Either they're so oopsy about monopoly charges in Europe that they don't want to get into a suit even when they're clearly in the right, or some deeply hidden agenda is at work."
Exactly.
Rules are different when your a monopoly. You get extra special scruteny that other companies don't have to deal with. Technically in the U.S.A. going around and using market forces as a monopoly to dominate other companies are a big no no.
A big money maker for Adobe is selling PDF distillers. You can make pdfs from Office, photoshop, quark, or any other commercial software product if you purchase their products. Microsoft adopting PDF support into Office by default would break off a big revenue stream for Adobe and if Adobe was to start to get into trouble financially I doubt Microsoft would fair that well in ANOTHER anti-trust case.
Adobe is a competator in some markets, giving away a free replacement by default would be a bad thing.
Also notice how MS is doing their anti-virus/adware stuff as a subscription add-on to Windows rather then building it directly into Vista? I expect they are doing that for the same reason.
Now as far as OpenOffice goes.. it's not a monopoly. Adobe can compete just fine against it even if it's no-cost.
If Linux was to become as big as Microsoft then I'd expect this sort of thing to start popping up for free software stuff also.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 5, 2006 12:13 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] As someone else pointed out, Microsoft didn't get into trouble with the DoJ for including a browser with Windows. They didn't get into trouble with the EU for including a media player.
They got into trouble because they made it difficult for the customer to CHOOSE a browser or media player (as opposed to being forced to use the MS one).
Linux will never get into the same sort of anti-trust mess MS is in. One only has to look at the vi/Emacs or KDE/Gnome wars to see that. In linux, the argument goes the customer has *too* *much* choice.
And if you followed the Wallace case, one of the Judge's reasons for tossing the case was "Antitrust law is there to protect competition, not individual competitors. The GPL encourages competition, therefore it cannot be anticompetitive". As something built on the GPL, Linux cannot be anticompetitive.
Cheers,
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 5, 2006 14:55 UTC (Mon) by kolk (guest, #36699) [Link] PDF distiller is for years in GhostScript. I used to add it to Windows context menu, i.e. "Distille with GS" when right-clicking on .ps
Now many people including me use free PDFCreator, which passes output of Adobe's _free_ PS-producing Windows printer drivers through GS. PDFCreator can save _anything_ to PDF.
May be somebody knows a free _direct_ GDI -> PDF driver?
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 2:37 UTC (Sun) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] Relevant how?Please don't act like that. The last sentence of the article summary says: "That which hits Office today may hit OpenOffice.org tomorrow." If Adobe is successful against Microsoft, the fear is that they could be successful against OpenOffice.
No case == no case. Posted Jun 3, 2006 15:42 UTC (Sat) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] I don't see the legal basis Adobe can use. Unpopularity with regulators might conceivably make a company lose a highly ambiguous case, but I don't see that here.
No case == no case. Posted Jun 3, 2006 16:47 UTC (Sat) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] So far we've only heard Microsoft's side of the story; I'ld like to hear Adobe's opinion, so that we have a better view of the whole story.
I love to speculate about the reasons... Why would Microsoft drop a working PDF export? It could be that the generated PDF failed on Adobe's conformance tests... Or Microsoft has fundamental problems with its XPS and tries to use a smoke and mirrors trick to put the blame on someone else, Adobe this time.
Well, time will tell!
No case == no case. Posted Jun 4, 2006 17:20 UTC (Sun) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] > Why would Microsoft drop a working PDF export?
<tinfoil>
No case == no case. Posted Jun 5, 2006 9:47 UTC (Mon) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] And Microsoft drops XPS support ("their own proprietary patent-encumbered monopoly-reinforcing PDF-killer") at the same time of PDF... What have you been smoking under your tinfoil? ;-)
No case == no case. Posted Jun 5, 2006 21:12 UTC (Mon) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] Maybe he meant his tinfoil pipe ...
No case == no case. Posted Jun 3, 2006 17:33 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] remember, it's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to use your monopoly status as a lever to move in on other areas.
as such I could see the argument that microsoft adding pdf export capability is moving in on adobe's turf, and theefor illegal. Adobe recognises that for most people being able to save in pdf will eliminate the need for their products (not for everyone, but for a very large percentage). allowing microsoft to gut their customer base without a fuss would not be a responsible thing to do from a corporate point of view.
openoffice saveing in pdf is mearly competition from the free market, nothing they can (or should) do about that. but with microsoft their monopoly status means that there is somewhat reasonable grounds for a lawsuit, and adobe is indicating that it will launch one and microsoft has backed down.
David Lang
No case == no case. Posted Jun 3, 2006 20:03 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I don't understand why Adobe thinks they have a case. Microsoft can argue that they are just playing catchup to a feature that OpenOffice.org has and they lack (though they might not want to say that too loudly). Adobe has no case against OpenOffice.org since OO.o is not a monopoly and isn't accused of infringing any Adobe patents or copyrights.
No case == no case. Posted Jun 5, 2006 9:09 UTC (Mon) by remijnj (subscriber, #5838) [Link] It might be that microsoft were using an adobe sdk to do this or that they tried to license a few patents to implement some parts of pdf writing which are patented. In the corporate world this is fairly common and Adobe can decide who it wants to license their stuff to. OpenOffice.org wrote their pdf writer themselves but microsoft could have chosen to take another road.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 3, 2006 19:01 UTC (Sat) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link] > "The whole episode appears to border on the ludicrous, given that Microsoft Office is compatible with the open source look-alike Open Office.org 2.0"
This sentence is silly in so many ways that it almost boggles the mind. First of all, MS-Office is only compatible with OOo insofar as OOo has been able to make it so, and that's no thanks at all to MS! And more than that, OOo can open native MS-Office documents, but MS-Office cannot open native OOo documents. Who's compatible with whom? Seems to me that all the compatibility runs the other way, here!
But much more important--most important of all--is the fact that OOo doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly! There is no basis for an anti-trust lawsuit against OOo! (Or Sun or the OOo Foundation or anyone like that.) The situation with MS and OOo are not at all comparable, and to even attempt to make the comparison is what's actually ludicrous!
OOo does not have the power and ability to destroy the market in PDF-creation software. Microsoft does!
Of course, as someone else mentioned, we still haven't heard Adobe's side in this. Only MS's attempt to spin the situation (if there is a situation) in their favor. But still, all too many people seem to be falling into the "if so-and-so can do it, why can't MS?" trap. MS isn't playing by the same rules as Apple, OOo, Sun, Debian, Red Hat, or Xtifr's Consulting Services! None of these others have a monopoly to abuse nor a history of abusing the monopoly they don't have.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 8:15 UTC (Sun) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] I think the point was rather that word users could use OOo to convert theirword document to PDF instead of buying Adobe software.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 9:49 UTC (Sun) by schabi (subscriber, #14079) [Link] That's true, but that's not the point.
An economical monopoly is not always occupying 100% of the market, without any alternatives existing.
60% or 70% market share can be considered a monopoly, even if there are hundreds of competitors sharing the remaining 30%. The criteria is that the marked is dominated and steered by the monopolist.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 5, 2006 12:18 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] In the UK, the guideline figure is TWENTY percent!
Think about it. You only need one other company comparable in size, and the two of you can control the market. Or if there is no comparable company, then you are big enough to dominate the market by yourself.
As soon as one company reaches that sort of size, network effects start cutting in to re-inforce the dominant players, and true capitalism starts breaking down.
Cheers,
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 8, 2006 9:26 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > true capitalism starts breaking down.True capitalism???? Most markets start with *one* vendor. Most products begin as natural or enforced monopolies. There is no such beast as 'true' capitalism, a 'truly free' market, whatever you want to call it. There never was, and never will be. Punter: Look! A fifty-dollar note lying in the street! Economist: Don't be silly. There's no such thing, someone would have exploited it by now if there were.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 10:06 UTC (Sun) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link] Ok, but OOo still doesn't come equipped on all their PCs by default, and it's something that many people have never heard of. Adobe is a brand that people know and trust[1] and rely on. Adobe makes the only PDF viewer that most people are familiar with[2]. Adobe makes the photo editing software whose name has become a verb. Many companies are already licensing Adobe products in volume. Word users *could* use OOo, but many of them *will* use Abobe's products instead.
OOo may provide some competition for Adobe's PDF-creation software; MS could simply kill that entire product line dead. The comparison is not valid.
[1] I won't comment on whether I think that trust is deserved.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 14, 2006 21:46 UTC (Wed) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link] I think the point was rather that word users could use OOo to convert their word document to PDF instead of buying Adobe software.As long as they're interested in nothing more than MS Word, that might fly. But I'd imagine a fair fraction might like to export PowerPoint to PDF, too, and OOo blows for that. Greg
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 3, 2006 19:11 UTC (Sat) by achitnis (guest, #20) [Link] Actually, if you step back and think about it, Adobe isn't being as dumb as MS would like us to believe.
One word - "java".
Imagine if MS bundled PDF writing capabilities with Office. They could produce bad PDF docs, and at the same time produce brilliant docs using their own "PDF Killer" format. In no time at all, people would believe that PDF sucks, and use only MS' format.
By forcing MS to unbundle PDF writing capabilities, people will continue downloading Adobe's stuff, which works great and produces solid documents.
Two sides of a coin. :)
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 3, 2006 22:39 UTC (Sat) by loening (guest, #174) [Link] "The result of that was that people basically felt that Java sucked, was slow and unstable and ugly."
I could of sworn I was running Linux for the past decade..., I better check which OS is installed on this machine.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 2:40 UTC (Sun) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] No, there are not two sides to this issue.
So what if Microsoft's Java sucked? If we're going to make crappy software illegal, open source has an awful lot to answer for. Especially when it comes to Java, PDF support, and office suites.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 9:52 UTC (Sun) by schabi (subscriber, #14079) [Link] It is not crappy software per se that is illegal. (Sadly, I admit :-)
It is using the OS monopoly to spread crappy software to kill the market for Java VMs, which is illegal.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 5, 2006 7:13 UTC (Mon) by jmansion (guest, #36515) [Link] > It is using the OS monopoly to spread crappy software to kill the market for Java VMs, which is illegal.
Win32 has been the premier platform for running JVMs for a very long time. NT always did well in Volano, Win32 is Eclipse's biggest target, and Sun and IBM both have decent JVMs for Win32.
I would have expected Solaris to be an order of magnitude better, but it never happened - and what *did* happen was Sun essentially abandoning the N:M threading in favour of the 1:1 threading that NT (and previously OS/2) had used to practical effect.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 4, 2006 16:52 UTC (Sun) by kh (subscriber, #19413) [Link] Also, Microsoft could tie their pdf's DRM with their Sharepoint server, and make it incompatible with Adobe's DRM to push server sales. (Maybe by adding a patented field to an optional extenstion like they did with Kerberos.) I think there are a number of posibilities that would seperate Microsoft's usage from OOo and other Free software implementations of PDF - especially when you consider DRM as part of the PDF specification.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 8, 2006 10:07 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] By forcing MS to unbundle PDF writing capabilities, people will continue downloading Adobe's stuff, which works great and produces solid documents.Download? You mean buy, as in "spending money", don't you? Or where can I download Adobe tools to create PDF files? Those who want to download software, are better off by using Ghostscript and PDFcreator. Joachim
All Windows apps have PDF output already Posted Jun 4, 2006 13:57 UTC (Sun) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] Just install a postscript printer driver and use print to disk. You don't even need a postscript printer, just download/install a driver. Then just open the postscript print file in Acrobat which automatically converts it to PDF. I did this trick many years ago (prior to Acrobat being available and doing a PS to PDF conversion I just wanted a postscript file) and it still works in XP.
All Windows apps have PDF output already Posted Jun 8, 2006 10:00 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] If you have Acrobat (which is a commercial product) than it installs already the PDFwriter printer and Office plug-ins to produce PDF directly. No need to go via PS.That's also possible with open source tools, like PDFcreator, which installs a PDF printer driver that's based on Ghostscript. The question for the article actually is: What legal leverage has Adobe to block Microsoft from adding own PDF save functionality. If it is strictly limited to the monopoly argument, then there is no danger for OSS. If Adobe tries to pull some other stunt, they must be watched. Joachim
Acrobat is not the only was to create PDF. Posted Jun 4, 2006 18:50 UTC (Sun) by dps (subscriber, #5725) [Link] ghostscript, and derivates thereof like gsview (popular free software for M$ windows), can read and write PDF. dvipdfm directly converts dvi to pdf. None of this matters because the impact of Adobe's market is approximately nil.
M$ windows was irrelevant to Apple until windows 3.1, at which point a ridiculous law suit hapenned. I do not recall hearing about the outcome. OOo lacks enough market share to be a threat and has no money, so is not worth suing---even if Adobe won they would probably end up out of pocket.
I *thought* some adobe products offered the ability to either edit or annotate PDF, which currently still requires acrobat. (Acrobat is just one of the options for conveting PDF to M$ word, which is not something I personally need).
Persuading people to use XPS instead of PDF is proably in micrsoft's interest, but XPS could flop the way active X controls did. Almost nobody uses word for journal articles (or PhD theses) which contain equations.
Acrobat is not the only was to create PDF. Posted Jun 5, 2006 12:12 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Almost nobody uses word for journal articles (or PhD theses) which contain equations.Indeed, it's noteworthy that over 25 years after Knuth almost completely solved the problem of typesetting mathematics beautifully, not a single producer of commercial software has caught up. Even people at Microsoft Research seem to typeset their papers in latex. It's frightening how ugly equations are in Microsoft Word. It would traumatise small children. It shows what a low priority the academic world is for the likes of Microsoft.
Acrobat is not the only was to create PDF. Posted Jun 5, 2006 12:55 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Given that Leslie 'LaTeX' Lamport has long been employed by MS Research, this is not *entirely* surprising. :)
ODF replacement? Posted Jun 5, 2006 8:17 UTC (Mon) by jayorke (guest, #10685) [Link] If Adobe actually is actually blocking the openness of the PDF format then I think the Open Document Foundation has another document type to design an open standard for to go along with ODT, ODP, ODC, ODF, etc. ODV - Open Document View. Maybe something with the same schema but view-only and all referenced images and fonts encapsulated somehow in an equally open image (PNG and SVG (gzipped) instead of TIFF and PICT) and font formats (is there one yet?). Once the format is complete printers could get firmware capable of processing ODVs. We need to take non-open components out of our document storage and printing methods. I don't like the idea of someone being able to revoke permission to use my documents, my font creations, and my pictures because they decide they want money for their patents all of a sudden. I don't mind paying for software but once I create a document or file it should be usable to me forever without any future payments to someone else.
Not a fight Microsoft wants to win Posted Jun 5, 2006 16:30 UTC (Mon) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375) [Link] If Microsoft wins over Adobe in court, that could be a ruling that anyone is free to make an independent implementation of a file format developed by and "owned" by a commercial company, as long as no patents are violated.This is not a precedent that Microsoft is particularly interested in establishing ...
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 5, 2006 22:52 UTC (Mon) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] And maybe just maybe if we all keep a little more STUM we might not give gates and ballmer any more hairbrained ideas.
They smoke enough pot as it is already with out giving them more to think on .
Pete ..
Too many questions raised here and no answers. Groklaw? Posted Jun 6, 2006 2:13 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] There's nothing to be gained by always taking the corner oppositeMicrosoft, no matter whose the corner or whatever their tactics may be. In the absence of more particular information (my guess is that this suit is over the breach of a long-standing contract, whose terms have hitherto been strictly confidential between Adobe and Microsoft), it looks like Adobe is making a completely unfounded demand. Adobe published pdf as an open, *portable* standard, in order to get the widest possible exposure and user base for the format. They have succeeded admirably in this goal. On the face of it, it is a complete turn-around to decide to charge royalties, which they could only do on the basis of some pre-existing contract with Microsoft or on the dubious grounds that Microsoft is attempting to use its monopoly to cut Adobe out of a third market. Frankly, I'd have been less surprised if Microsoft had unilaterally dropped pdf in favour of its own format, and to see Adobe suing them to *keep* it. If Adobe has started a dispute which Microsoft can resolve by leaving pdf out of the loop altogether, then Adobe has aimed squarely at its own foot and is squeezing the trigger.
Adobe yet to explain why no PDF in Microsoft Office (ITWire) Posted Jun 8, 2006 9:00 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link] No one seems to have linked to this interesting article yet:http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/015807.html His take on the situation is that Microsoft don't want PDF support in Office. Why should they? - They are working on XPS, a competitive format which they control. Microsoft have successfully deflected the blame for this on to Adobe. To judge by the comments here, that deflection has been very successful. Rich.
|
|||||||||||||