YearOfTheLinuxDesktop wrote:

Sourcecode wrote:


Here is the Adobe side of the story just to even it out..

On Microsoft, PDF and the threat to open standards

It also states in that post that PDF is in fact an ISO standard.



the comments in that page say it all on how weak the Adobe's side of the story was. it is clear that Adobe didn't want MS to include PDF support because that way they would have lost all their precious money from Acrobat sales since most people use Adobe just to save office documents in PDF. they tried masquerading their choice as a "fear
 of open standards being threatened" however it looks like they failed.




I never said that Adobe was write to do so. I just wanted to have both sides so folks don’t make a blind assumption.

I don’t make a decision based on blog comments.. Even then considering that there is not really that many comments period.

Compared to the sheer number of PDF and Office users that’s nothing.

It’s clear to me at least that MS was gunning position for their own XPS standard, and it would put them in a position to undermine PDF through bundling and other processes. We all know the MS history here, so I won’t get into why I believe they would.. they just would. Why would they develop XPS if they did not want it to be the defacto standard…

Anyway no rights, no wrongs but they both could have sat down and fixed the issue so that their customers and IP from both sides would benefit and be secured.

But we still have not answered the OP’s original question…

Why did MS not just go with PDF instead of developing their own format? They could have worked with Adobe for that. So why didn't they....

Ahhhh... same coin different side me thinks..