IBM move reopens Open Office XML debate
Summary: If other companies stand with IBM on this, Microsoft's vision of a politicized and corporate-controlled standards process may yet be overturned.
IBM's decision, following extensive wiki discussion, to reconsider its membership in standards bodies like Ecma could re-ignite the debate over OOXML, the Microsoft Office format the ISO approved as a standard last summer.
On his own blog, IBM vice president for Open Source Bob Sutor wrote "IBM is more committed to open standards than ever before" because "they provide more options, better products, and insurance against being locked in by any one vendor or provider."
Insurance against being locked in is the key phrase there.
Even if it doesn't reopen the debate in fact, the decision certainly reopens it in spirit, as IBM's complaints about process echo those opponents of OOXML put forward before the ISO.
What makes this even more important is that the approved OOXML standard has yet to be implemented by Microsoft or anyone else. Thus we still have a standard which does not exist.
Here's the real irony.
- Before submitting its Office format as Office Open XML, Microsoft held it as proprietary.
- To make OOXML a standard, Microsoft allowed others to implement it.
- But with no one (including Microsoft) implementing it
- Microsoft could simply change the format and go back to having it be proprietary.
It will be as if the recent battle never happened.
Andy Updegrove noted twice on his ConsortiumInfo blog that the IBM wiki recommended "governments regulate intellectual property component of standards" and it will be interesting to see how far that goes.
Most important for the whole reform process is what other companies, like Google, Oracle and HP, say in response. IBM still has just one vote on standards bodies.
If other companies stand with IBM on this, Microsoft's vision of a politicized and corporate-controlled standards process may yet be overturned.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Which side attacked?
The strategy: governments (and perhaps other organizations) could mandate that formats used for saving documents had to have standards certification. If Microsoft's formats didn't qualify, Office wouldn't have the features especially likely to encourage purchase.
This is commercial competition by other means because actual customers insisted on continuing to buy Office.
Assuming that requiring standard formats was not a Microsft intiative, then an effort to avoid having formats go through such a process would not be directed against Microsoft. Only an admission of failure of a means of attack.
Who knows, perhaps Microsoft's competitors and antagonists can redirect their efforts to designing and making available a product people prefer to Office.
Logic and Reason?
Might I remind you sir that this is ZDNet, logic and reason are not welcome here.
ODF as a format is universally supported
approved file format.
That format is ODF.
But to the lowest commn denominator?
Why not have the others come up to you, not you having to go down to them.
Is the ODF actually stagnating features/innovation?
That's one solution
That's always been my problem getting Microsoft Office files to accommodate the features that they're not made for, such as full tables-within-tables in a wordprocessor.
However, when you have market power you don't need to have a good file format.
When your new format
Ecco
You peeled that banana, in any language!
It's a good question, though
If the standards couldn't handle newer features or options, and a standards body doesn't approve of them later on, then are you forced to leave out said features?
For instance, if a CAD package added new features or functions, say a nested block within a drawing, something no one else had done, your file is no longer compatible with open, agreed on standards.
What do you do?leave an obvious selling feature out of you software packeage, or have your own format?
Features That Fragment.
@Koz
and it still can't crack the market share? It's not
that bad converting documents. Why is it still
selling like hotcakes? Because it's better. That
simple. When someone makes a better office maybe
people will pay attention.
Office isn't the top package out there because of
Monopolistic practices. When did MS "bundle" office?
I certainly don't remember them EVER doing that. Dos
6? No Office. Win 3.1? No Office. Win 95? No
Office. Need I continue? Oh, and they took the
market from WordPerfect by being the better product.
Sort of why IE4 wiped the floor with Netscape
Communicator. Blame whatever you want but that's how
it happened.
Get a bigger hook.
To kozmcrae
Office has *NEVER* been included in Windows. Not ever. Period. Office has always been a product costing around $500-$700 depending on time and version.
In point of fact, Office now costs what Word Perfect's word processor OR Lotus 123 OR dBase III used to cost.
So yes, Office won because people liked it better, not because it was a freebie. IE was always a freebie and still is. Not Office, not Word.
No, you do what MS does, you join Oasis.
I really would like to see the list of things that ODF won't support. It can't be that "massive" as most imply, since OO (with ODF) already supports the vast majority of .doc, .xls already. About the only list would be the OLE and other programming hooks, and advanced macros, etc.
ODF is not stagnating, it is under active development, and EVERYONE, literally, EVERYONE would be beyond happy to include every (logical) change MS wants/needs/desires. That's all everyone has wanted forever.
TripleII
But the bicycle can't take 1000 people to London.
sometimes just shiny and transitory. Think about that 8 track
player from the 60s.
I also think that ODF hampers innovation in the same way that
plain text hampers innovation, which would be not at all. It
may only save a subset of all information and you may call that
lowest common denominator. If ODF is designed correctly then
it presents a value which exceeds rtf and plain text and
presents a reasonably low barrier to adoption. It isn't the end,
it's the base.
OOXML walked its own path in terms of its cross-references. It
was big. It had some dicey bits. The national bodies had real
objections that were swept under the rug. I have my doubts
about any one who promulgates a standard and then reserves
certain permissions in its license. Well, that would be my $1.97
critique of OOXML. Bottom line is ISO has given it a number
and, so far, its writer, presumably the one who knows best how
it's supposed to work, is passing on making a conforming
implementation. Microsoft spent a lot of money to get to where
it agreed with its critics: OOXML was not workable, yet. We do
recall that Microsoft sat in on the OASIS committee that crafted
ODF?
MS could have contributed to ODF, if they wanted ...
But Microsoft steadfastly refused to be involved with ODF.
And, going forward, MS is free at any time to contribute to the ODF standard to ensure that it supports features they want to include in MSOffice.
The reason MS does not participate in ODF? Simple - they can't have exclusive control over it - it would be controlled by everyone (including Microsoft), and it would be a truly open format that everyone could easily implement. And that would be horrible for Microsoft (but great for consumers), as they would lose their Office lock-in, and actually have to compete on merit.
Shame, really, because I think MS is fully capable of competing on merit, and win, because MSOffice is certainly more full-featured than OpenOffice or other products.
Shame also because competition always benefits customers.
But, alas, competing is not in Microsoft's busines plan. The overwhelming majority of their revenue is derived from their Windows/Office lock-in duopoly.
Logic and Reason 2
My thoughts were that logic and reason are not welcome in politics .
That female VP candidate being a prime example.
RE: IBM move reopens Open Office XML debate
The requirement that Microsoft seek standards approval...
<br><br>
The objective, at least by most American state governments, had nothing to do with discouraging the use of Microsoft products, it was just a requirement to protect the availability of public data. (That's not to say all government entities were that free of ulterior motives--several foreign governments had it as an objective to discourage <i>any</i> American-controlled formats.)
<br><br>
Granted, it's not paranoia when people really are after you, but as far a I'm concerned, any means by which an attack on Microsoft can be made is a good one, even if the attack was incidental rather than part of some grand conspiracy.
<br><br>
Finally, Microsoft's competitors <i>have</i> designed and made available a product a lot of people prefer to Office: OpenOffice. Try it. If you can get past your prejudices, I expect you'll like it.
I did and did not like it...
Crashed the wrong pad