Oct 94 Dialog Box
Volume Number: 10
Issue Number: 10
Column Tag: Dialog Box
Dialog Box 
By Scott T Boyd, Editor
Unbiased? Or Propaganda?
I suffer from a fundamental worry that by appearing to be neutral in the
OLE/COM vs. OpenDoc/SOM war, you as an editor, are doing the Mac community a great
disservice.
Clearly, this is a war to determine whether Apple or Microsoft will control the
central standards used to create a document-centric environment on the Mac. After a
couple of years of seeing Microsoft upgrade Mac products six months to a year after the
corresponding Windows product and reflecting for a moment on where Microsoft’s
future lies, I find it hard to believe that the principal Mac developer magazine
wouldn’t come out four square behind Apple. Independent of which approach is better
(more to follow), Apple needs your help and you should be there for them.
I have read the docs from both Apple and Microsoft (and the SOM manual that is
flamed in your “unbiased” comparison piece). SOM is good stuff and it exists right
now. Sure, OpenDoc is in Alpha, but if you read the documentation and talk to some of
the people in the Alpha program, you’d see that the Apple/IBM/WordPerfect approach
is better grounded than the Microsoft approach. Microsoft was first with OLE 1.O and
that’s part of their problem. To be backward compatible with OLE 1.0 they’re getting
the same hash that resulted from basing Windows on DOS. But they’ll improve...that’s
for sure.
But I will say that their July diatribes were marketing FUD... a lot of crap
written with a lawyer on the team. If I were IBM, I’d be fuming.
In your editorial capacity, I realize that you must allow freedom of expression by
your contributing authors, but you also have a responsibility to not take a Pontius
Pilot attitude at a time when your opinion might make a difference. If you really think
that Microsoft has Apple’s or the industry’s best interests at heart, you don’t deserve
to be occupying the chair that you currently enjoy. If Microsoft controls the Mac
document architecture, then it’s all over for the Mac and a poor time for the industry
( and incidentally for your magazine...which up to now I have admired enormously and
would greatly miss).
The “unbiased” article your magazine printed to compare OLE/COM and
OpenDoc/SOM appeared to me to be very little more than a crude rehash of the
Microsoft propaganda with a C++ bigot’s flame on a somewhat C++ hostile SOM.
I don’t have all the information to make a completely informed decision yet based
solely on bits and bytes. I can, however, tell you what a strategically bad position
Apple will be in if Microsoft has the power to dictate that OLE/COM be the linking
mechanism of choice on the Mac ... and you know it too!
So vote with your support. The Apple approach has merit and deserves support.
Without friends, Microsoft will whomp on Apple and the rest of the industry using
their installed Windows base as a club. If you think that Microsoft would not abuse
their power if they had no competitor in this area, please think again. Microsoft’s
record proves otherwise. OLE/COM won’t go away. I need an alternative.
That’s why my company will support OpenDoc/SOM and applications that use this
standard.
Think. - Stephen Johnson, Menlo Park, CA
We’re not done yet with our coverage of OpenDoc and OLE. We will bring you
hard information on the SOMissue in particular. As I’ve been talking with those who
have been using it, it sounds like SOM is quite cool, and not the burden that Jeff warned
it might be. We’ve been working on getting some Apple OpenDoc experts writing
articles for us, but they’re so busy working on OpenDoc itself that it’s tough to get
them to take on any additional responsibilities. So, if you’re reading this, and you’ve
written an OpenDoc part, write us a real-life-story article about it. Write us at
editorial@xplain.com - Ed stb
Something has to be done
Apple insisted at WWDC that they would do everything they could to get system
7.5 in the hands of as many users as possible. If the pricing in MacWeek is correct, I
believe that they have changed their minds.
MacWeek says that a single user version of 7.5 will cost $135. I realize that the
street price will be lower, but it won’t be low enough. There are a great many users
who are still using system 7.0.1 because the $79 upgrade cost was too high. Given
this, how can Apple expect end users to pay $135 for system 7.5.
I think something must be done. I think the price of system 7.5 has got to be
lower.
We are working on two products which require PowerTalk. We made this decision
because Apple took the position that they would price system 7.5 to get it into the hands
of as many users as possible. If the user base doesn’t upgrade, they won’t have
PowerTalk. If they don’t have PowerTalk, they won’t buy our products. It’s quite
possible that we will have to spend months rewriting our software to work without
PowerTalk. This is not a prospect that I find exciting.
Why the change in direction? Why isn’t system 7.5 priced lower than system 7.1
so that as many users as possible upgrade to the new system?
- Howard Shere, President
Green Dragon Creations, Inc., Water Valley, MS
Howard_Shere@GreenDragon.com