Aside for the prices, for me it's just not done to release a service pack like a month or so after the retail dropped. service packs mean that there were flaws, errors, etc... Yes i know that it's good that they release SP's, but why can't they wait and distribute a COMPLETE product. Microsoft is (al always will be) too fast to release their retail products. that's how it is y'all... thats how it is.

As a journalist, you should NOT NOT NOT insult the subject.

Microsoft is in the early phases of developing the first service release for its Office 2003 CASH COW.

Ridiculous. If you wanted to say Microsoft Office System is very expensive, then show the costs of Corel's suite, OpenOffice, StarOffice, and other alternatives. It is wrong to just make accusations and snide remarks.

And as I read this story, I actually did not learn anything. The beginning has nothing to do with the middle which has nothing to do with the end.

Service pack.
Marketing theory.
Tester data.
XML.
XML fear.

I see at least four different stories here. And they've just been piled together. Elaborate on the effects of the service pack. Explain the reason people wait for service packs. The tester data needs to either go, or somehow be linked to the creation of the service pack. And then no XML information. XML is a completely different issue.

And, yes David, I do have some experience with news writing. I'm the news editor for a newspaper, and production editor for a magazine. If one of my writers brought me this story I would grab them by the ear, drag them to a desk, and make them sit there and rewrite it while I waited.

Your work was done purely at the last minute. Outline, write, revise, rewrite, and take your time.

Since when was the term "cash cow" at all offensive? Merriam-Webster defines the term as "a consistently profitable business, property, or product whose profits are used to finance a company's investments in other areas". That doesn't seem to reflect your made-up definition of the term which spurred your rant against the author of this article.

I agree with the post of "ports" - not a very well written piece.

thechrisproject, for a moment at least I'll work with the assumption that "cash cow" is not an offensive term.
So let's say "cash cow" is a normal term, and ceterus paribus in the article, it is still very poorly written.

My post was not a rant, it was an honest critique. I showed clear proof of the errors, and I explained how they could be cleaned up. Just as any editor would do for a writer.

Now, back to the real world. Cash cow is indeed a biased term.

cash cow

n : a project that generates a continuous flow of money [syn: moneymaker, money-spinner]

-Dictionary.com

It authors choice of this world shows the authors bias towards alternative suites due to price, because Microsoft Office is a continous drain on the users funds. That's not true at all after all once the initial package is purchased updates, patches, and service packs for the programs are free.
Next you'll say "But every version costs way too much money." To counter that, does not any programs latest version cost money? See capitalism. And Microsoft does offer an upgrade version for users of a previous Office version.

And of course now you'll say, "But there are much better Office supplements out there, that people don't need it,". Well then why do people keep buying it? It's a good, solid, stable, user friendly product. Consumers after all are not stupid. They buy the better product generally, and Microsoft has been offering. Americans have always been willing to pay more for a guaranteed better product. See taste and preference. History shows that market forces (consumers) will gravitate to the better or socially acceptable product. For those of you that are old enough, Americans in the 1980's went from the large muscle cars that guzzled gas to luxurious, fuel efficient Japanese cars for a lower price.

Now to bring this back, David should not have used the term cash cow. This is a news story, hence it does not need creative adjectives, just strong adverbs. His job is to report the news, and it is not to create, or influence the news.

First rule of Journalism.
Act independently. An author should not have obligations to others or to himself when reporting the news.

Well then, Ports, you are wrong again...

Microsoft itself admits that their primary source of income each year comes from MS Office. NOT their OS line. In fact, MS has repeatidly come under fire because they push out a new office product on an every other year cycle.

Microsoft has become such a behemoth that in order to sustain itself it needs the influx of yearly and biyearly upgrade license to remain profitable.

Office 97 still contains most of the functionality that most people need and use. Very few in comparison to those actually purchasing and using the newer versions utilize any of the add-in bloat ware that has been placed into the other versions off office, 2000, XP, 2003...

By bundling a few "new features" which many dont actually use, glossing up the user interface, and then telling you through marketing just how much you need this new version, they convince the consumers to go out and buy a product they really dont need and wont fully utilize.

Its this constant revamp cycle that drives continued sales, which in turn has made the MS Office line a cash cow for Microsoft and an important life line...

So before you tear apart someone else for using the term, investigate the actual story background and material.

A quick search on the net in regards to the accounting and yearing figures for Microsoft or even searches on the Microsoft site itself will show that the authors use of the term Cash Cow here in is both appropriate and in fact a term coined to the product line for nearly a decade now.

Although I write for BetaNews, I was an MIS and marketing student at Temple University. Cash cow is a term widely referred to in textbooks and in my opinion, NOT offensive.

However, I do appreciate your criticism. You are right about one thing: when i wrote this piece, I WAS in a rush, and the only writer in the US at the time able to post. Despite that fact, I feel that I got my point across and clearly informed our readers of the service pack.

I'll strive to do better in the future. Feel free to email me personally at any time.

I never said Office was not a large part of Microsoft's revenue. Of course it is. You're putting words in my mouth.

Cash cow in this story is being used as an adjective to call Office expensive.

Constantly come under fire for releasing biyearly upgrades? That's never happened.
Home users may not use functions beyond Office 97/2000, but certaintly businesses do. Why else upgrade?

Btw, I've been a beta tester for Microsoft's Office division for a long time. I know what I'm talking about.

And of course specialization in a company for a product will eventually make that product an integral source of income for the company. As is the case for Office. And have you used Office 2003? I've been working with it since Beta 1 and it's been incredibly stable in Windows 2000 and Windows XP environments. Maybe you should do some research there. Office 2003 was fully rewritten from scratch. Not code additions like previous versions. It is a far better product, and it is worth the money to upgrade. And aren't majority of monetary decisions influenced by appearance? MS could release a version of Office that looks like the old DOS edit.exe, and another version that looks like the current, and of course the one with the nicer, current interface will sell more. People don't want to spend money on a product that doesn't appeal to them visually.

Back to the car thing, Yugo or a Datsun? Of course the Datsun, it looks nice, and you know it's not made of sheet metal and thumb screws.

Wron again? Not quite. Don't proclaim such an early victory.

Btw, if MS releases a new version of Office approximately every 2 years, how would they force consumers to upgrade biyearly? You don't think they are sliding them a rebranded StarOffice every other upgrade do you?

Word 2003 does not import or open Excel files. A major, major annoyance.

My point is just that I don't think he even meant to say that Office is expensive or too expensive. It has nothing to do with how much the consumer spends. As far as the definitions that both you and I have provided go, it just suggests that office makes a lot of money for Microsoft. Which is true.

As for office itself, I like it. I am using 2k3 right now and find it to be the best version I've used so far.

I'm all for journalistic integrity. Keep up the fight, I'm right behind you.

While we're at it, though - what about linguistic integrity?

Since when has it been ok to begin a sentence with And .... numerous times ..... in the same paragraph?

Ports. Your comments make me question your abilities and motives rather than the authors.
"Cash Cow" is not used in the article as a term for an expensive program. This is your way off base interpretation. A Cow, gives milk. A "cash cow" gives cash, ie. something that generates money. As the others have pointed out, Office is a "cash cow" for Microsoft in that it generates a lot of income.
There is no reference, or hint whatsoever, that the author meant that the program was expensive compared to the others.
"Cash cow" would not imply this to anyone, except apparantly, you.
The article is certainly not earth shaking, but it offered a little insight into what is going on with the new Office Suite. I see no evidence of bias, except your own.

Ports,

I swear you must work for Microsoft or simply have some sort of Hard-on for them. I see no where in this article that the author was bashing them on price. And seriously, what type of jounalistic magic do you expect anyone to perform when the article was only intended to alert us, the readers, of a service pack for Office 2003. This isn't a breaking news story that is meant to capture the hearts of millions. It's just simply an informative piece.

For what it's worth; when I read this article I immediately was under the impression that it was a bit insulting towards the company. That was just the 'attitude' I interpreted from the author's writing. I didn't perceive this from just 'cash cow,' but the whole writing in general.

To comment on 'linguistic integrity,' I was thinking you're meaning something more like grammatical perfection in journalistic transcriptions; something that can't really exist when it is considered practical writing, or writing loosely against standard grammatical guidelines.

Over all, I do get the article. So an SP is in the works. Perhaps then, as a HOME USER, I will upgrade when the service pack is released. Until then, I will stick with my Office 2002 (XP).

Joe
An Outside Voice