On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Lars Nooden <[email protected]> wrote: > Alexandro Colorado wrote: >> At the same time, I dont think CA can afford to renew :) > > IMHO, choosing M$ appear to not be about making money, it appears to be > about pushing a single agenda. > > So whether they can afford to or not probably won't be a deciding > factor. However, there is no denying that the maintenace cost savings > brought by FOSS tools and the increased ROI brought by open standards > will certainly get the attention of some people: MS boosters on the one > hand, because it weakens their position. Business and technology users > on the other, because it increases their possiblities. > > We can be marketing to the few instances where MSO is still a problem. > OOo has no licensing costs and can be added along side MSO. With the > rising need for universal office formats, and the inability of MSO to > support said formats, OOo is needed even in legacy shops. > > -Lars >
I personally think that we are well beyond the convesation of non-license cost. Because companies not only think of licenses but support and external services. So we should move the marketing not to say that we are "free" but that we are competitive in pricing on implementation. I'll rather say that migrating and mantaining openoffice.org will cost around 70-86% less than say that it will be 100% free. I would love to see how much you can save training your staff in OOo than to MS 2007. Or how much in the long term will mean for your company. -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español IM: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
