Office 2.0: Questions for Esther

Office 2.0: Questions for Esther

Summary: Next week at the inagural Office 2.0 Conference in San Francisco, I will be kicking off the proceedings, interviewing Esther Dyson.

TOPICS: Microsoft

Next week at the inagural Office 2.0 Conference in San Francisco, I will be kicking off the proceedings, interviewing Esther Dyson. The concept of Office 2.0 is not simply an alternative to Microsoft Office. It's a rethinking of how productivity software is created, packaged and distributed. It's building for the Web and collaboration from the ground up. Conference organizer Ismael Ghalimi describes Office 2.0 as follows:

Imagine a computer that never crashes, or gets infected by a virus. Imagine a computer onto which you never have to install any application. Imagine a computer that follows you wherever you go, be it at school, at work, abroad, or back home. This computer does not exist today, but it will in the future, and this future might be much closer than you think.

In the interview, I expect Esther to draw on her long experience thinking about software and usage models. If you have questions you think I should ask her, send them along via TalkBack on this post or email. 

Check out the conference schedule and the speaker list. I will be blogging from the event, which is on October 11 and 12.

Topic: Microsoft

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • some questions.

    "If you have questions you think I should ask her, send them along via TalkBack on this post or email. "

    1) Why is zdnet a little anti-Microsoft?
    2) Why does zdnet sensationalize some articles?
    3) Some of the bloggers write biased articles with incorrect information that they want to pass as facts. What has zdnet done to make sure that this does not continue to go on.
    • ZDNet questions

      Can you please be specific and cite articles that are examples of your points...
      • What???

        Personally I don't think ZDNet is slanted one way or the other, and even if some of the writers are, who cares? It's a blog and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and even if that opinion is in favor of an opposing viewpoint of a reader I think it's very fair to have these comment sections so that people can voice their different opinions. Creates both an article and a forum for the topic where all voices can be heard and no single viewpoint is declared the final word, the readers can decide for themselves based on everything they read between the article and the comments as well as their own knowledge that probably attracted them to the article in the first place.
        • Dan - I'll give you examples

          "and even if some of the writers are, who cares? It's a blog and everyone is entitled to their opinion"

          WHO CARES!!!!!!!
          These same bloggers then call them journalists.

          Let me write an article on my view point. Well, first is the person technically knowledgeable, has he/she provided both viewpoints of a story. Examples, I got plenty however I am very busy today and will take time after work to compile a few instances and give examples.
          • Ooook...

            So journalists aren't entitled to their opinions in a blog? Funny, I thought this was America, silly me.

            Anyone who takes any single article they read online as the absolute final word on any subject deserves whatever becomes of that way of thinking.

            By the way, can you honestly point out one single journalist, reporter, tv news network, news website or the like that doesn't insert their opinion into what they report????

            They report, they ponder, they proclaim but it's up to the reader to filter it all. Anyone who thinks they should be able to reliably trust any one single source for 100% unbiased and 100% accurate writing of a story is putting too much trust into their fellow man if you ask me. Besides, as with any story, it's like art, all in the eye of the beholder anyway. Any journalist could write the who, what, when, where and why, but the "what" will be interpreted differently by whoever reads it. The "why" is a constant source of debate in any subject.

            Journalists should make it clear when they are stating facts or opinions, and many don't do that, but all in all, do your own homework.
  • Several questions

    1. Why does everyone both in the tech media and the people actually developing stuff like this think that end users are just dying to get programs off their drives and onto the web? I'm not looking forward to that transition at all and will resist it to the end.

    2. If I'm offline, say like a writer who goes up to a cabin to write, and takes his laptop, he's going to want the word processor on his computer, not online. Wi-fi isn't everywhere folks. Despite what companies want us all to believe, their are plenty of "dead-zones" still out there or places with poor service at best. What about the millions who either live or work in remore areas?

    3. What happens when someones ISP has an issue and there is no service in their area? If they have no programs on their computer they will get little done if all those Web 2.0/Office 2.0 apps are online and they can't reach them.

    4. So you take all the programs off the computer, move them online, doesn't that make actual servers more of a target to attacks than the end users computers? If you take away the thrill of attacking and/or infecting millions of end users doesn't that just invite deviants to concentrate their efforts on the companies providing the web based apps? What if they succeed? Then we all have no apps to use!

    5. In an age of privacy issues, companies giving search results over to government, email providers reading emails in order to get inside their users heads, and dozens of other examples that could be listed...Who wants potentially sensitive or private documents stored on some companies servers, even if as temporary files?
    Doesn't that give hackers even more reason to want to get into that server? Why attack people on a one virus at a time scenario when you can just go for the motherload of information and sell it to identity theives, goverment agencies, and anyone else who wants it as well as wreak havoc? I think they'll really be getting their kicks then.
    The V.A. and others have lost data with millions of peoples info on it, and sure, that was from a stolen laptop, but who's to say some disgruntled employee won't sell out everyone?

    6. Why is it that as technology progresses people keep trusting it with open arms (despite it's often horrific track record) when usually all it does is make us more vulnerable to attack?

    I don't mean any of these questions in a hostile manner, I really do want to know the answers to these questions.
  • user generated stuff

    How will IT departments and workers take advantage of the type of tools that have fueled the user generated content movement in the consumer space?

    How can hosted user generated applications (composite apps made up of reusable widgets) succeed in the competition with popular full-featured monolithic tools for enabling more productive workflow solutions?