Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

Andrew Grossman

Sonia’s pointed post earlier today spurred my thoughts on Adobe’s efforts to sic the European antitrust squad on Microsoft to keep PDF generation out of Office. But rather than argue over Microsoft’s position as a monopolist, I’m inclined to look towards the consumer surplus destroyed here by competition law.

(But first, I should add a new update: in response to Adobe’s threatened legal action, Microsoft agreed to yank PDF features from Office.)

Many Windows users need to generate a PDF from time to time–probably not enough to justify purchasing Acrobat. And so they rely on friends and colleagues to translate their files, a process that can run into all sorts of problems (e.g., fonts, formatting, metadata, etc.) and is annoying for everyone involved. (Trust me.)

Apple addressed this need nicely–any user can print a PDF from any application in Mac OS X. (I should note that Apple’s implementation of this feature is far, far different from Microsoft’s, in that OS X’s graphics system is based on PDF. I’m not sure that this matters.) Since the mass adoption of OS X, I’ve seen a lot more PDF files coming from Mac users. For most of these users, Acrobat–which is stuffed with useless, annoying, and puzzling features as badly as any Microsoft application–is just overkill. But a low-cost way to generate PDFs is really attractive and proves to be really useful–far more so, I suspect, than most users imagined initially.

This is, essentially, the sort of feature that Microsoft aimed to bring to its Office suite. Until, that is, Adobe threatened legal action, exploiting Microsoft’s (one-time?) status as a monopolist. (What kind of legal action? According to one report, “It’s unclear whether that action would be in the form of a complaint to the European Union or a formal antitrust suit.”)

A cynical person might say that Adobe is keen to protect its monopoly in PDF generation on the Windows platform. After all, for a consumer who doesn’t need all the whiz-bang features of Acrobat, $0 compares very well to $150+. (There is the Ghostscript-based PDF Creator application, which is free, but it is, in my experience, buggy, unreliable, and extremely subject to software entropy.)

At the moment, Adobe has a lock on this market and it shows. Acrobat 6 and 7, for example, are almost as bad as Word 6 on the Mac a decade ago, and innovative features have been few and far between in recent releases of Acrobat Reader and Standard–which nonetheless continue to bloat to impressive levels. (Acrobat Reader 7 on my computer is 101 MBs, about twice the size of my web browser and email client combined.) Instead, Adobe has focused its development energies on the high end of the market, pre-press and other areas in publishing, and to great success. This does nothing, though, for regular users, who don’t need to do…whatever it is that prepress folks do with their thousand-dollar copies of Acrobat. Competition at the low-end of the market would be a good thing, for consumers anyway. We could use some price competition and better software.

I’m not going to say that Adobe is being shortsighted and that, in the end, PDF-generation capabilities in Office could lead to increased sales of Acrobat as users look to ‘move up.’ I assume that Adobe recognizes its interests better than I do and that it expects to lose piles of money if Microsoft embraces (and extends?) PDF.

But so what? Is that how competition is supposed to work? And isn’t competition what antitrust is supposed to protect?

Yes, and that’s exactly why Adobe is running to the antitrust authorities, which in Europe are only too happy to do its dirty work.

June 2, 2006 | Comments |

Luis Villa

Question, which I've seemed to get conflicting answers to: does adobe give away a plugin to generate PDF from existing versions of office? I know such a plugin exists, but some pieces of coverage of this story have implied that the plugin is free, while others have implied that the plugin is not available stand-alone and hence is expensive.

Steve R.

I think that we are overlooking a critically important concept; reverse engineering. First, I need to state that I do not know how M$ is actually implementing its PDF compatibility,so my comments may or may not be applicable.

If M$ is "borrowing" Adobe PDF code then I would have a limited degree of sympathy for Adobe's position. However, if M$ is using its own "clean room" code to generate a PDF compatible document then I don't have any sympathy for Adobe.

To use the proverbial automobile analogy: if I own a Chevy and I design an adapter that allows me to use a Ford fuel pump in the Chevy; neither Ford nor Chevy should have the ability to prevent me from using the pump with that adapter.

Gary McGath

If Microsoft is using or reverse-engineering Adobe code, Adobe hasn't used that as an argument yet. PDF is a published standard, and lots of people have written their own PDF-generation code.

By threatening this suit, Adobe has done serious damage to itself. Up to now, it was assumed that PDF was an open format that anyone could generate. Now Adobe is saying that it can yank permission to generate PDF's, creating uncertainty for everyone. This increases the attractiveness of alternative formats.

Ted

If the Government would have gone forward with the breakup, all this would have gone away -- the finding of fact in the antitrust case would no longer be binding on third parties, because the situation would have been remedied by the removal of the monopoly.

Since Microsoft convinced the Bush administration to drop the case, Microsoft remains a monopoly and remains subject to special treatment under the law. This is good and just, but certainly not as efficient or good as a structural remedy would have been.

Consumers don't lose when monopolists are restricted. Consumers lose when monopolists are allowed to destroy competition unabated.

The consumer surplus that you claims is destroyed actually is not destroyed. Users who really, really want this PDF generation feature have many choices: Open Office, Adobe plugins for Office, switching to a Mac and OSX, etc. If users don't view lack of integrated PDF creation as sufficient stimulus to migrate away from MS's Monopoly Office product, it must not even be that important of a featuer, no?

short url

e2c5e8221917 Nice site short url short url

hot and horny girls

ed4d6dd518ec Very good http://hornygirls.da.cx hot and horny girls
http://handjobs.da.cx mature handjobs
http://redhead.da.cx sexy redhead
http://hotmodels.da.cx nude hot models
http://milf.da.cx milf hunters
http://hotnakedgirls.da.cx ecw hot naked girls
http://girlsgonewild.da.cx girls gone wild pic
http://schoolgirls.da.cx asian schoolgirls
http://tiffanyteen.da.cx tiffany teen nude
http://topless.da.cx olsen twins topless

tramadol

81e31de21f46 Hello! http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

tramadol

81e31de21f46 Hello! http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

tramadol

81e31de21f46 Very good tramadol tramadol

Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

Welcome

Archives

Search

Categories

Contributors

Tech Policy

Tech News

Bloggers We Like

Our Sites

Where We Work

Podcast Feeds

Sponsors