Why Microsoft deserved to lose the OOXML standards vote
Summary: I believe that the world is big enough for multiple file-format specifications. I don't think the Open Document Format (ODF) deserves to be the only format sanctioned as an "open standard." That said, I also believe Microsoft deserved to lose the ISO standard fast-track vote that was tallied this weekend. Here's why.
Microsoft lost its bid to fast track its Office Open XML (OOXML) file-format specification. (It's next-to-impossible to tell from Microsoft's press release announcing "Strong Global Support for Open XML as It Enters Final Phase of ISO Standards Process," but it did lose.)
As readers of this blog know, I believe that the world is big enough for multiple file-format specifications. I don't think the Open Document Format (ODF) deserves to be the only format sanctioned as an "open standard." That said, I also believe Microsoft deserved to lose this vote. Why? 1. Lobbying is legal. But certain lobbying tactics are not. Microsoft officials admitted that one of the company's employees behaved inappropriately in Sweden, attempting to influence partners to vote for OOXML approval. It's good Microsoft admitted that this was wrong. But it still makes me wonder whether company officials did the same in other countries and were just not caught. And if anyone thinks Microsoft was the only company engaging in lobbying around this standard battle, you need to stop drinking the IBM Koolaid.
2. Microsoft has a history of changing specs at will and leaving developers in the lurch. It's true you can teach an old dog new tricks (especially when the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys general and your competitors are all watching to make sure the dog is behaving properly). But when a specification is created and maintained by a single company or entity, it's more prone to being manipulated and abused.
3. Openness is in the eye of the beholder. Microsoft considers OOXML open, yet so far, it hasn't been able to get its own Mac Office product to interoperate with the new OOXML formats in Office 2007. Microsoft has enlisted a number of its new friends to build OOXML-ODF converters, but it has done so only an attempt to "prove" to standards makers that OOXML isn't the island that it is.
Microsoft isn't throwing in the towel: It is predicting it can overcome objections by the time the final tally is taken for ISO standardization. Between now and then, both Microsoft and IBM and other ODF backers will, no doubt, continue to lobby as to why OOXML should/shouldn't become an ISO standard.
In spite of the rhetoric on both sides, Microsoft wants OOXML to gain ISO standardization so that it won't lose out on government contracts that require "open," standards-based products. Microsoft's competitors don't want Microsoft to obtain ISO standardization because they see this loss as a chance for them to finally lessen Microsoft's 90-plus-percent market share in the desktop-productivity suite business.
This battle's not about interoperability, motherhood and apple pie: It's about Microsoft wanting to keep its desktop-suite monopoly and its competitors seeking ways to break Redmond's stranglehold on this part of Microsoft's business.
What do you think will happen next? Will Microsoft triumph in its OOXML standards quest in the end? Why or why not?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
What I think is funny . . .
Even though they included .rtf in their older products, I don't see very many people using it. They used the .doc format. The same would have happened with ODF and OOXML . . .
They're their own worst enemy, sometimes . . .
They can't use ODF.
Document formats are not rocket science and ODF was designed to support all
Tell you what...
As a second test, there are convertors out there to convert from Office to ODF. Again with PowerPoint, Visio, and to some extent even Excel (with macvros) you will see that the conversion simply is not possible as many things are not supported in ODF format.
In fact, I don't beleive ODF can support any sort of macros and in the business world thats a show stopper.
Been there, done that
This isn't a new discussion. I've had several very nice dinners free thanks to colleagues who made the exact challenge you do above.
The difference was that they had the huevos to put their money where their mouths were, so when their presentations imported and displayed perfectly they paid up instead of pretending it never happened.
Bull
Well, unless of course we are talking about the simplest presetations possible. When I open complex PowerPoint persentations in OpenOffice timings are changed, transitions and MANY animations turn to crap, videos and audio files do not work properly, links in the poresentaiton and to external documents works about half the time.
No, when I do have to make a conversion like this it really means import into OpenOffice and then spend hours rebuilding the presentation to get it anywhere close to what it originally was.
Don't blame the tool
Whereas none of the ones I've loaded, including ones the creators swore would never run in anything but MS, ran fine.
Sounds like PEBKAC. Of course, talk is cheap. YMMV. HAND.
Different versions of Powerpoint
I do it all the time
As for losing formatting, is this the rock solid preservation of formatting you are talking about?
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/
Ignore all of it, scroll to #13, see how Office 2007 preserved formatting.
[B]Open it with any of Excel 97/2000/XP/2003, then open it in Excel 2007.
...
The differences are :
* vertical axis all set to automatic scale/min/max.
* also impacts the number of
horizontal gridlines in the background.
* chart title font not the same weight
* chart title incorrectly positioned vertically.
* legend border incorrect.
* legend entries incorrectly positioned.
* spacing between the plot area and the legend.
[/B]
TripleII
I've done it, quite successfully
I've done the same with several Excel spreadsheets (the most recent of which was my d 5 yr old daughter's soccer schedule), as well as several Word documents (including large documentation files). All opened and rendered flawlessly in Open Office.
All that said, there are a minute amount of very advanced featured in MSOffice that have no equivalent in Open Office. But 99% of users never use those, let alone are even aware that they exist.
Also, MS keeps changing the file formats, to keep people locked in and on the upgrade treadmill, and competitors playing catch up.
Simply put, based on my own extensive experience, for the vast majority of situations, Open Office opens and runs MS Office files just fine.
Then your presentations are very simplistic.
Really, so your videos worked? You audio files played properly? All your links in the pres and to OLE based documents worked? ALL animations and transitions were unchanged? There were no changes in timing?
Not a CHANCE and we both know it.
Ever consider...
Or someone is ...
You report having nothing but trouble.
Either "hard to load" presentations are very rare, or you're trailing the bell curve.
Me, I vote with William of Occham.
Know more about PPT than I?
Really? Care to name them Professor? <NT>
No_Ax_to_Grind authored 2 coloring books about PowerPoint?
What version of OOo did you try?
BOFH
Xunil, No_Ax makes some broad claims.
the way I see it
my posts/emails do not come close to any professional documents/manuals or even non tech stuff I've done over the years. they are quickly formulated and typed on the fly. error rates can be high. this is very common among even the most highly qualified professionals with whom i've ever collaborated.