Interesting take on the open standards war between IBM and Microsoft...
Category IBM/Lotus
From Microsoft Watch: Microsoft's 'Open' Debate Is Nothing of the Kind
Seems that Microsoft is having to defend on multiple fronts these days...
Behind Microsoft's rhetoric and FUD there is a clear effort to advocate proprietary interfaces that protect the monopoly.
Microsoft contends that OOXML is "open" because of licensing terms, Ecma certification and possible future ISO adoption. In a recent conversation, Jean Paoli, Microsoft's general manager for Interoperability and XML Architecture, applied another "open" definition, in that other vendors could and would adopt OOXML, also making the format available on other platforms.
Paoli could be right someday, but that's not the case today. OOXML is closely tied to Office (arguably a monopoly product), which is closely aligned with Windows (a monopoly product as determined by US courts). From that perspective, at least some of Microsoft's position about open standards is nothing more than pure FUD.
"Open" is a term Microsoft defines for its own benefit. Microsoft also creates FUD around the definition of "choice." From today's letter:
"[IBM's] campaign to stop even the consideration of Open XML in ISO/IEC JTC1 is a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives--and without regard for the negative impact on consumer choice and technological innovation. It is not a coincidence that IBM's Lotus Notes product, which IBM is actively promoting in the marketplace, fails to support the Open XML international standard."
Microsoft's contention about "choice" is hallow. This is the same company that used marketing about choice to combat Apple's iPod and iTunes in 2004 and 2005. Strange, since kicking loose its PlaysForSure partners and releasing Zune and the Zune Marketplace, Microsoft is no longer talking about choice--even though its directional change limits the choice previously advocated about music services and devices. Microsoft's "choice" included a proprietary interface, Windows Media Audio, tied to its major monopoly product.
Microsoft's FUD about Lotus Notes has a ring of truth. IBM isn't backing Open XML, instead favoring ODF (OpenDocument Format). Microsoft accuses IBM of pushing back against Open XML for competitive reasons. But there is another explanation that is more plausible: IBM backs what it sees to be the more open of the two formats. ODF already has received ISO certification.
Microsoft fails to acknowledge that its products don't support ODF. Sure, at Microsoft behest several open-source companies created a single ODF wordprocessing translator for Open XML, but that is a long way from supporting ODF. If IBM is guilty of anything, Microsoft's format support position is little different.
While I don't expect that ODF will supplant OOXML for quite some time (if ever), I am starting to see that it's becoming a viable alternative for those who don't want to be tied into a single vendor's offerings and product schedule. I can't blame Microsoft for wanting to offer up their specs as a standard, as it's becoming increasingly common to see government organizations opt for non-vendor-specific offerings. And I think it's wise that IBM is trying to redefine the playing field rather than trying to fight the overwhelming numbers that Office currently has.
The times, they are a-changing...
From Microsoft Watch: Microsoft's 'Open' Debate Is Nothing of the Kind
Seems that Microsoft is having to defend on multiple fronts these days...
Behind Microsoft's rhetoric and FUD there is a clear effort to advocate proprietary interfaces that protect the monopoly.
Microsoft contends that OOXML is "open" because of licensing terms, Ecma certification and possible future ISO adoption. In a recent conversation, Jean Paoli, Microsoft's general manager for Interoperability and XML Architecture, applied another "open" definition, in that other vendors could and would adopt OOXML, also making the format available on other platforms.
Paoli could be right someday, but that's not the case today. OOXML is closely tied to Office (arguably a monopoly product), which is closely aligned with Windows (a monopoly product as determined by US courts). From that perspective, at least some of Microsoft's position about open standards is nothing more than pure FUD.
"Open" is a term Microsoft defines for its own benefit. Microsoft also creates FUD around the definition of "choice." From today's letter:
"[IBM's] campaign to stop even the consideration of Open XML in ISO/IEC JTC1 is a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives--and without regard for the negative impact on consumer choice and technological innovation. It is not a coincidence that IBM's Lotus Notes product, which IBM is actively promoting in the marketplace, fails to support the Open XML international standard."
Microsoft's contention about "choice" is hallow. This is the same company that used marketing about choice to combat Apple's iPod and iTunes in 2004 and 2005. Strange, since kicking loose its PlaysForSure partners and releasing Zune and the Zune Marketplace, Microsoft is no longer talking about choice--even though its directional change limits the choice previously advocated about music services and devices. Microsoft's "choice" included a proprietary interface, Windows Media Audio, tied to its major monopoly product.
Microsoft's FUD about Lotus Notes has a ring of truth. IBM isn't backing Open XML, instead favoring ODF (OpenDocument Format). Microsoft accuses IBM of pushing back against Open XML for competitive reasons. But there is another explanation that is more plausible: IBM backs what it sees to be the more open of the two formats. ODF already has received ISO certification.
Microsoft fails to acknowledge that its products don't support ODF. Sure, at Microsoft behest several open-source companies created a single ODF wordprocessing translator for Open XML, but that is a long way from supporting ODF. If IBM is guilty of anything, Microsoft's format support position is little different.
While I don't expect that ODF will supplant OOXML for quite some time (if ever), I am starting to see that it's becoming a viable alternative for those who don't want to be tied into a single vendor's offerings and product schedule. I can't blame Microsoft for wanting to offer up their specs as a standard, as it's becoming increasingly common to see government organizations opt for non-vendor-specific offerings. And I think it's wise that IBM is trying to redefine the playing field rather than trying to fight the overwhelming numbers that Office currently has.
The times, they are a-changing...
| Permalink |
Comments
Posted by Duffbert At 17:45:17 On 15/02/2007 | - Website - |
there is nothing to supplant as far as OOXML is concerned. OOXML is not really in the marketplace. Did you mean .doc? The .doc format is the only MS format that is/will be widely shared for the next 5 years. Given the debacle of Vista and the very very slow uptake expected for Office 2007 the only MS "standard" will be .doc binary formats not OOXML..for along time .. probably forever. MS will not have the ubiquity they did last time around. Their success at establishing their .doc monopoly last time is their undoing this time around.. the binary formats are now entrenched and an albatross around their neck... ensuring a glacial uptake to OOXML
More and more people switching to alternate OS's only further ensures wider adoption of ODF and less adoption of OOXML. The next version of Office on the Mac will no longer be compatible with the Windows version - by intent. Macro compatibility is gone. One of the benefits they claimed has disappeared - a direction they chose to take.
By suggesting OOXML is already entrenched your falling into the trap. If you want to share your documents even now and in the future then ODF will be the more widely supported format from players like Google and all the other Web 2.0 players etc. Microsoft's proprietary game doesn't work in the new world order. ODF is easier and more desirable for inclusion in the web world - who wants to take the time and effort to include a 6000 page spec that leaves them open to lawsuits and patent infringements from a company that intentionally hid API's in order to give themselves an advantage? Nobody...if people want to share docs with Notes or Google etc the .doc binary or ODF or PDF formats will be the choices.
For example once Notes 8 is out I'll be able to take documents and push them up to Google docs and get them back...I may be able to do that with .doc but I'll won't be able to do it with OOXML.
IBM was smart enough to realize years ago that open was the new world order and figure out how to leverage it to be inclusive and not exclusive..why bother developing on Visual Studio for example when you can develop on Eclipse tooling and target 3 OS platforms and the correspondingly larger market..just bad business if your starting out or creating new products and projects.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Ok maybe that was more than one point :)
Posted by Stephen Hood At 08:15:04 On 15/02/2007 | - Website - |