I read an article in Computerworld this morning by Eric Lai in which he and Michael Croan, Senior Marketing Manager of Microsoft, provided the reasons why Microsoft Office has greater market share than OpenOffice.org. I thought it was completely off the mark. The comment by Croan was typical of a marketing shirt but was, nonetheless, was another example that Microsoft is basically full of itself and out of touch with reality.

This was my response to the article:

While I will concede that Microsoft Office is well integrated, this is largely due to the fact that it is usually running on a Microsoft OS with other Microsoft products that are designed for interoperability with each other, which does put OpenOffice.org at a disadvantage.

However, I disagree with Mr. Croan’s claim that MS Office is well supported compared to OpenOffice (yes, I know he was referring to open source in general, but I think we all know what he was alluding to). Actions speak louder than words.

Microsoft is known for taking their sweet time to patch their products (if and when they actually admit their is a flaw to be patched). In contrast, organizations such as Mozilla and OpenOffice.org are usually more responsive to such flaws and are quick to patch their software. So tell me again who offers better support?

As for the reasons OpenOffice.org is not widely adopted, I think the article is on the wrong track. According to the article Lai wrote, “OpenOffice.org’s total usage, while unknown, remains small overall, despite its free price. That is due to document compatibility fears and Microsoft’s aggressive, tactical discounting.”

Sure, there are certainly document compatibility concerns, but they are not concerns about the ability of OpenOffice.org to work with MS documents, but the other way around. That’s not the fault of OpenOffice.org. It uses and supports ODF, which is a standard format (something older versions of MS Office cannot claim). It is Microsoft that has resisted the call to support that standard, opting instead to stick to its closed, proprietary document format in order to lock customers in to their product. Even so, that is not the issue it once was, since MS has recently supported the development of plug-ins to add ODF support to its office suite, so that argument is moot.

However, the assertion that the other reason for low adoption of OOo is due somehow to Microsoft’s “aggressive, tactical discounting” is out of touch with reality and makes absolutely no sense. The article is essentially telling us that one of the reasons MS Office is more popular than OpenOffice.org is because this popularity is driven by a price factor. Let’s be real. No matter how aggressive the pricing, OpenOffice.org is free. MS Office isn’t. (I contend that MS Office is still overpriced, but that is another discussion). It is still more expensive than free. So if price is a primary main factor, how can MS Office possibly win over OpenOffice.org? It can’t. So it isn’t really a factor here.

No, the real reason is two-fold.

First, Microsoft Office is a household name. users are already familiar with MS Office and so they are comfortable using it. Users generally don’t like to go through the hassle of retraining themselves on new applications. They typically want to just sit down, load it and get down to business. Anything new to them is something they don’t want to deal with if they don’t have to.

This is one reason why it is sometimes difficult to sell new, better vertical applications to companies that have been on old, horrid systems for years. As old and cumbersome as these apps are, users are comfortable using them and do not want to deal with the hassle of migrating their entire operation to something else, even if it is better.

The other reason is simply product marketing and awareness. Microsoft is a household name. Microsoft Office is well-known throughout the world. That doesn’t make it a better office suite, just a famous one. It is well established and Microsoft pours tens of millions of dollars each year into making sure it stays that way.

OpenOffice.org does not have the power of branding that MS has, nor the marketing budget to create and perpetuate it. If you ask the man (or woman) on the street if they know MS Office you will likely get a positive response, since most people have at least heard of it. Ask those same people about OpenOffice.org and chances are you will get a blank stare. Most of them have never heard of OpenOffice.org and have no idea what it is.

There’s your real reason.

I have downloaded and installed OpenOffice.org 3.0 and I contend that it is every bit as good as Microsoft Office, and in some ways better. The problem is that most of the world doesn’t know it yet. That’s the real reason.