OpenDocument/Web-based app pressure mounts on Microsoft

OpenDocument/Web-based app pressure mounts on Microsoft

Summary: Last week, while Mashup Camp was taking place, a reader from Israel responded to my blog regarding Microsoft's support (actually, the lack thereof) of the OpenDocument Format.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Microsoft
4

Last week, while Mashup Camp was taking place, a reader from Israel responded to my blog regarding Microsoft's support (actually, the lack thereof) of the OpenDocument Format.  Microsoft recently got a lot of mileage in the press when it announced that it would be backing the development of an open source project designed to bridge the compatibility gap between Microsoft Office and OpenDocument Format -- an alternative to Microsoft's file formats (including the forthcoming Office Open XML format due to ship with Office 2007) for saving and retrieving documents created with word processors, spreadsheets, and presentation software.

But even though the announcement tasted great on first blush, it proved to be less filling when Microsoft admitted that while it was backing the development of the software, it would not be supporting its use if end users needed help with it. Also not clear is who would support it, if anyone.  With the reader's permission, here is a copy of the email he sent to me:

I think the right perspective for this story is less in discussing the details of this "support" (which are extremely lacking), and more in its significance in the power play between Microsoft and its customers. What Microsoft is saying is more or less:

As you know, Microsoft has two main modi operandi with regards to adding features to its software: one is developing the feature in-house, building it into a product and supporting it. The second is loosely supporting the development, by three different third-party companies in three different countries, of an open-source plug-in the user has to find, download and install and comes with no support. For this specific feature (ODF support), we've decided on the second way.


This is so convoluted, arbitrary and just over-the-top silly that I can think of only two ways one could possibly stand up and say it with a straight face: either he thinks his listeners are fools who would believe anything (which I'm assuming is not the case); or he knows he holds so much power over his customers he can say pretty much anything and get away with it, like a feudal noble addressing his serfs.

Microsoft is of course fully entitled to refuse to support ODF. What it's doing here, however, is both telling and inexcusable. Microsoft, with this announcement, is making a mockery of its customers (and the press, for that matter). Microsoft patronizingly assumes it's enough to throw them a bone (in the form of a convoluted, unbelievable story) instead of offering the functionality they demand. I sincerely hope that Microsoft's customers are better consumers than what Microsoft assumes.

The more they accept this patronizing attitude from Microsoft, the less respect they will get from it.

Uri Sivan
Aviv, Israel 

Ultimately, my sense is that customers will get the respect they deserve particularly as more goverments both inside and out of the United States (the last of which was Belgium) begin to seriously consider and/or adopt ODF as their standard file format. Looking back over the last year and a half or so, Microsoft has demonstrated a proclivity to take baby steps on the file format issue first, gauge the public's reaction, and then take more baby steps if necessary third (starting the cycle again). To be honest, that's what I'd do too (if I were Microsoft).  Why give away more than you may have to? 

Google's recent registration as a supporter of the OpenDocument Alliance will probably be a factor as well.  Not just in when Microsoft decides to officially support ODF (did you notice that I said "when," not "if?") but also in how quickly its Live strategy yields a Web-based competitor to the bumper crop of browser-based alternatives to Microsoft Office (at least two of which now come from Google -- spreadsheets and word processing). 

At this point, Microsoft's choice is about as open as Intel's was when the chip manufacturer repeatedly said it wouldn't bow to pressure from AMD to go the 32/64 hybrid route and instead, routinely extolled the virtues of the purely 64-bit Itanium (co-developed with HP) as the only path for customers to take should they feel the need for a 64-bit architecture.  The parallels in terms of the technology being shunned and the one being hung onto  (AMD64:OpenDocument, Itanium:desktop productivity) are uncanny.  Microsoft is simply too smart to not web-based productivity applications and support for ODF warmed up in the bullpen should its starting pitchers falter.

Disclosure: In the spirit of media transparency, I want to disclose that in addition to my day job at ZDNet, I'm also a co-organizer of Mashup Camp and Mashup University. Microsoft which is mentioned in this story, was a sponsor of both recent events. For more information on my involvement with these events, see the special disclosure page that I've prepared and published here on ZDNet.

Topic: Microsoft

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

Talkback

4 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Reputation and product.

    Start from the assumption that Microsoft wants to sell copies of Windows and Office.

    Then assume that, in the competition with prior versions of each product, features are an essential contributor to sales.
    (Prior versions are the only meaningful competition.)

    And then consider that formats can be necessary to features.

    Then you can draw the inevitable conclusion that Microsoft must be relentlessly opposed to ODF.


    But the company also has to be seen as a good citizen. And not to ignore the wishes of its customers.

    Microsoft acknowledges that those customers may have a (misdirected) interest in ODF, and wishes to reassure them that they can still purchase Office without inconvenience.

    The closer this remains to a theoretical reassurance, the better for Microsoft. Support for the plug-in is about as theoretical as you can get.

    So Microsoft can sell Office to organizations that do not (yet) wish to foreclose ODF.



    The sale is made and Microsoft is happy. The customer sees the new version of Office, likes the new features, sees that they rely on Microsoft formats, forgets ODF exists, and is happy.

    In Microsoft terms, a win-win.
    Anton Philidor
    • Microsoft is like the old IBM

      Microsoft relentlessly drives customers towards its products in all spaces despite what the customer might actually want or need.

      IBM used to do this as well. Eventually that behavior resulted in massive losses. Microsoft needs to serve the customer by recognizing that the customer might actually want or need products from other companies.

      Microsoft's technical arguments fall flat when you look the existing formats that they support. Why are they so loath to add ODF? It is the first format that might actually get traction and they wish to retard it as much as possible by leveraging their market power.

      To heck with what a customer might want. I've grown weary of Microsoft telling me how I should do all things computing. I prefer companies that wish to help do what *I* want.
      mosborne
    • Your premises were broken. I fixed them.

      NT
      dave.leigh@...
  • Reputation and product.

    Start from the assumption that Microsoft wants to sell copies of Windows and Office.

    Then assume that, in free market competition, features are an essential contributor to sales.
    (Any choice the customer makes that's not the product you're pushing is meaningful competition.)

    And then consider that standards-compliant formats and interoperability are necessary features, required by the users with the checkbooks.

    Then you can draw the inevitable conclusion that Microsoft must be relentlessly committed to supporting ODF.

    The company also has to be seen as a good citizen. And not to ignore the wishes of its customers.

    Microsoft therefore must acknowledge that those customers may have a well-considered interest in ODF, and wishes to reassure them that they can still use the standards-compliant format without resorting to purchasing the competition's product.

    The closer this remains to actuality, the better for Microsoft. Support for the plug-in is about as weak as you can get, but it's better than nothing.

    So Microsoft can sell Office to organizations that require ODF.

    The threat of marginality is averted (for now). A sale is made and Microsoft is happy. The customer uses ODF as per preference, and is less than happy at the crappy implementation.

    Microsoft's reputation is threatened. The customer concludes that Microsoft can't deliver a format that is seamlessly provided by every other publisher in the market. He switches to StarOffice and is happy.

    ==OR==

    Microsoft -- faced with the imminent loss of customers who have concluded that Microsoft can't deliver a format that is seamlessly provided by every other publisher in the market -- suddenly announces improved support for ODF and makes it a fully supported format that can be set by the user as the default in his preferences.

    Either way, in customer terms, a win-win.
    When you've got a choice, customer terms are the only ones that count.
    dave.leigh@...