
Why doesn't Windows include native PDF reader support? - wglb
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00001943.html
======
a2tech
Because Adobe pitches a fit about anything MS does to make working with PDF's
free. You may not be aware of this but MS Office 2003 was supposed to have the
ability to save to PDF builtin-but Adobe threw a huge hissy fit about MS
cutting into their markets so MS took it out (there has been an add-on
available as a download since it was released-but Adobe insisted the
functionality not be included by default)

~~~
blasdel
They make an insane amount of money from the way that _enterprises_ spend
hundreds of dollars on Acrobat Professional licenses for every single
computer. Sometimes they wise up and implement a baroque license management
server where they only have to pay for a fraction of the licenses, but it
still costs an insane amount of money.

When it gets used, it's almost exclusively for "Print to PDF". _Power Users_
will use it to combine PDFs, and maybe do some shitty doodling. Occasionally
the awful PDF forms functionality gets used, but they usually learn their
lesson (easy to make one worse than an MS Access app!)

It's the calf to Microsoft's Office cash cow.

~~~
nitrogen
PDFCreator? Ghostscript? What's wrong with corporations? (I guess that's why
startups can be so successful)

~~~
thaumaturgy
Based on some similar experiences with a corporate client:

\- Purchasing-level decisions have to be approved by someone who worries less
about the money being spent now than the situation the company will be in
later. In other words, if I offer a free alternative to expensive commercial
software, they'll be concerned that even though they'll save a few hundred or
thousand dollars now, they'll be hamstrung if I ever leave, or if the free
software vanishes.

\- These decisions are also often made by individuals who are not all that
technically inclined, so they're suspicious of what they see as "amateur"
versus "professional" (or commercial, or enterprise) software.

\- They're concerned about compatibility with their business partners.

\- They find many of the things that we like about the representation of free
or open source software -- names like "Mozilla", "Firefox", "Thunderbird",
"Foxit Reader", the FreeBSD daemon -- to be amateurish and annoying.

Yes, that leaves the door wide open for startups. However, there's a reason
why this tends to be the pattern as businesses go from "startup" to
"enterprise".

~~~
gaius
Not to mention that your startup can't spare the people for a (completely
unnecessary in most cases) 6-month pitch/RFP/proof-of-concept process.

Basically the incentives of the typical purchasing department are not well-
aligned with the interests of the corporation as a whole.

~~~
thaumaturgy
> _Basically the incentives of the typical purchasing department are not well-
> aligned with the interests of the corporation as a whole._

I don't know about "typical" purchasing departments (or personnel), but in the
example I was giving, they actually are working in the interests of the
corporation.

My point was that the interests of the corporation -- in this example -- are
different from the interests of those who devote more of their time to their
computers.

Here's one more anecdote: this same client recently replaced my inexpensive,
well-tuned, up-to-date, carefully-configured OpenBSD firewall for their
network with an off-the-shelf SonicWall device. That annoyed me, to say the
least, and I'm of the opinion that the move has made their network less secure
overall. On the other hand, I also realize that now they have a device with a
simple, easy-to-understand interface, so when they choose to replace me with a
full-time employee, they won't have to worry about whether the employee has
any OpenBSD experience. It also guarantees that I'm not hiding any funky
backdoors in their firewall, and hey, if there is a network incursion, then
they can go after the SonicWall company ... versus not having anyone to catch
the fault in the case that the OpenBSD box gets rooted.

I don't want to come across as mean here, but honestly, if someone can't
understand why corporations aren't using more open source software, then they
don't have much experience with corporations.

------
dwwoelfel
Twelve years ago, Microsoft found itself in a courtroom opposite the US
Department of Justice for including native internet browsing support. The
conclusion of that case was that Microsoft is not allowed to add "products" to
their operating system. I think a PDF reader constitutes a product.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft>

~~~
jrockway
And since then, they've included anti-virus software, a firewall, video
players and codecs, and so on. I don't see how a PDF reader would be any
different than Windows Media Player.

~~~
sliverstorm
anti virus and firewalls are much closer to basic OS functionality- it's like
self defense, but for software. That is much less objectionable than competing
with Netscape was, which was the biggest software war of the time (that I know
of)

Or, you can look at it from the POV of firewalls and AV is needed to fight
flaws in their product. Should they be prohibited from defending their own
product, even if it isn't a direct patch => resolution but a prevention?

------
chaosmachine
I'd say they're probably trying to avoid another massive fine from the EU.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_compet...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case)

------
larsberg
Isn't this the same industry that screamed bloody murder when MSFT decided to
produce a free anti-virus for Windows 7?

~~~
caf
Microsoft produced a free antivirus for MSDOS 6.2, if memory serves.

------
bmalicoat
This is the main thing I dislike about Windows. In OS X I constantly use PDFs:
print to PDF, export as PDF, quickly preview PDFs. In Windows those things
either require 3rd party software and/or way more time to launch programs.

~~~
DenisM
You make "third party software" sound complicated.

Here, free PDF reader with annotations, blazingly fast:
<http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/>

~~~
weaksauce
In osx you get print to pdf, reorder pdf's, remove pages from pdf's, add pages
to pdf's, etc... for free out of the box. In addition using skim (3rd party)
you get an excellent, fast, opensource, notetaking pdf reader.

Not saying that foxit is not good, I use it all the time in windows, but it is
not a full featured free pdf utility.

~~~
JadeNB
> In osx you get print to pdf, reorder pdf's, remove pages from pdf's, add
> pages to pdf's, etc... for free out of the box.

Wow, I've been missing out! I use PDFLab to do all but the first of these
tasks; I didn't realise OS X had a built-in solution. How do I do it?

~~~
weaksauce
Use preview.app with the sidebar pulled out and you can just drag and drop
pages around. Also you can delete pages from there and add in pages from other
preview.app instances. You can also rotate pages from there too.

~~~
JadeNB
Beautiful—I didn't realise. Thanks!

------
joubert
Microsoft has a competing format: XPS

------
dsspence
Pdf technology is a native part of Apple's drawing system Quartz in OS X:
<http://www.prepressure.com/pdf/basics/osx_quartz> .

That might explain its relative ubiquity.

~~~
pasbesoin
The Skim PDF reader/annotator takes advantage of this (as I understand it).
Not having a Mac, I haven't tried it, but when I read about it a year or two
ago, I became quite envious.

<http://skim-app.sourceforge.net/>

------
barnaby
Interesting that after all this time MS still haven't fixed this bug. I mean,
I realize the patch is probably a business agreement rather than some code,
but still.

------
p858snake
Didn't adobe have the rights for PDF till recently when they made it open
source?

~~~
jws
PDF became an open standard in 2008, but before that the format was still well
specified and openly published.

~~~
p858snake
It may of been well known, but anyone that tried to use it would of had to
abibe by the license owner's wishes. Which according to other comments was
Adobe not wanting it included which meant they couldn't without a lawsuit
being introduced.

~~~
nitrogen
In most cases, unless a patent applies, if you don't get your information from
the licensor (i.e. you create a "clean room" implementation) the official
licensor of a format has no say in how you distribute your product. But, with
the number of software patents granted accelerating, this approach appears to
be less and less viable.

------
jonsen
Would it reduce the amount of .docs floating around the Word Wild Web?

------
white_eskimo
Export to PDF functionality is native in Word 2010 Beta

------
RyanMcGreal
Foxit Reader?

~~~
bmj
That's not the point--Mac _natively_ can render a PDF. You have to download a
separate reader on a Windows machine.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Consider:

"Heck, you don't even need to build it into the OS. Just make it an optional
download such as your Save As PDF add-in for Office."

And:

"Your customers are tired of the exploits and the complications that so many
of today's PDF readers include."

The authors are asking Microsoft to write an application that reads PDFs and
isn't Adobe Reader. My point is that such an application already exists, is
free to download and use, and is both faster and more secure than Adobe's
reader.

~~~
blasdel
Foxit has had some pretty blatant security vulnerabilities -- straight up
unprompted local code execution:
<http://blog.didierstevens.com/2010/03/29/escape-from-pdf/>

It does a mediocre job of rendering, and isn't faster than Acrobat if you
strip out all of Adobe's lame plugins ( _we put plugins in your plugins so you
can extend while you embrace!_ )

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I didn't know that about Foxit Reader; thanks for sharing. Still, there's no
reason, given the author's own requirements, why a PDF reader has to come from
Microsoft rather than a competent third party. Granted, Microsoft has gotten
better at security in recent years, but they're hardly exemplary at it.

