Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Why LO mobile version should not be ignored

On 18 November 2010 23:05, Harold Fuchs <hwfa.libreoffice@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18/11/2010 19:39, Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > On 18 November 2010 14:27, Florian Reisinger<reisi007@live.at>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > >  Has anyone "in authority" asked the PortableApps folk if they'd do a
> > > > portable LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone "in authority" asked the Android and/or Apple and/or Symbian
> > > folk
> > >
> > > > if they'd do a mobile LibO? Can't hurt to ask ...
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Harold Fuchs
> > > > London, England
> > >
> > >
> > > That would be a great idea.
> > > --
> > > Unsubscribe instructions: Email to 
> > > discuss+help@documentfoundation.org<discuss%2Bhelp@documentfoundation.org>
> > > <discuss%2Bhelp@documentfoundation.org<discuss%252Bhelp@documentfoundation.org>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
> > > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
> > > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
> > >
> > > I'd be surprised if Google hadn't already thought about it and so they
> > probably rejected it. After all they already have Google Docs and my
> > Android
> > phone has ThinkFree Office. Symbian is using K-office. The barrier of the
> > size of LO is a significant issue. If it is slimmed and phones get more
> > powerful it can happen but the longer that takes the moore likely it will
> > be
> > that it is too late :-(. Even a light weight WP based on Writer from a
> > workflow point of view and supporting odf would be better than nothing.
> > 90%
> > of people simply don't need all the functions for the things they do most
> > often and this likely what they would do on phone technology.
>
> Your comment about the size of LibO is highly relevant. I've been amazed
> ever since I first encountered OOo that it isn't in separately installable
> modules. Perhaps, if it is to make significant inroads into the developing
> markets, it needs a complete re-design to conform to the Unix philosophy of
> making small tools that each do one job well but can be easily combined.
>
> ThinkFree seems do do MS Office format only :-( It seems to be able to
> handle doc, xls etc. but *not* docx, xlsx etc.
>
> K-Office seems to be able to handle ODF.
>
> Perhaps LibO is too late for the mobile market, which would be a shame, but
> I still think a *portable* version would be an excellent "seller".
>
> --
> Harold Fuchs
> London, England


Really it's down to the Star Office heritage. Star Office originated at a
time when megalithic apps were the "in" thing. (at least with MSFT) You can
see why. Ever increasing size forces people to upgrade their hardware. New
computer new Windows sale. There was absolutely no incentive to do things
differently. Of course the developers of Star Office didn't have to do it
that way but they probably thought this is the model that is accepted by end
users so we have to have highly integrated to compete. Once it is in the
millions of lines of code it is very difficult to get off that treadmlll.
Personally I'd rather have seen the engineering effort going first for
efficiency with a set of features good enough for 90% of the market starting
10 years ago but we can't turn the clock back. And of course there is the
argument that without certain features some of the large public sector
switches might not have happened.

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQwww.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***