I think the first thing that comes to mind when you mention "word processing" is compatibility. Most of us in the real world depend on Microsoft Word - can you guys promise not to mangle doc/docx files as soon as we open it or save edits from Quip? :)
Your attitude is what makes Microsoft so prone to mangle their own doc/docx files in ways only they can understand.
By doing that, they can prevent you and everyone else from using any competing product, including this one.
I will say it again: if your document breaks it is not the fault of Quip or whatever, it is a feature of using Microsoft formats, and Microsoft revenue comes from that feature.
I could not possibly care less. I choose software based on what works (insofar as it is a tool, and that is the foremost metric by which it is just judged), and part of working involves being compatible with the rest of the documents I handle, the vast majority of which are not produced by me (or my software choices.)
If you want to compete with Word, make it righteous and compatible, and I will purchase a copy immediately.
However, given the choice between the moral high ground or a text editor that does what I need it to do (including compatibility), I will choose the latter every last time.
You still won't be able to print that last minute contract/grant/whatever from your high horse.
You not distributing closed formats (that's why i don't use M$ office, apple products or buy sony weird media that came out every now and then) is the right thing
You preventing yourself from accessing those formats are not harming them, just yourself.
Well, I'd rather get my shit done smoothly with my co-authors rather than take a principled stand and all that. Most in the academia do not wanna change their authoring tools, especially if they are 50+. And all of this is driven by one thing: most of the conferences and journals in our field want Word submissions. I don't have the hallow effect to change that. So we'd rather everybody dance to Microsoft's tune than the other way around.
