Notes2Self.net

OOXML is a lock-out strategy then?

Stephen, I have not said that OOXML is a lock-in strategy, you said it.  But you are not far from the truth : OOXML is one of the tricks used by Microsoft to try to protect the current users lock-in.

Microsoft currently has a monopoly position, and tries to protect it.  That's normal, any company would do it.

Ten years ago, the best way to achieve this was to restrict as much as possible access to the file format documentation.  This way, competitors has difficulties to compete.

But in these days of open standards and open source, after ODF was approved by ISO and started to get support from most competitors, MS had to find a way to limit the new threat to its monopoly.  As MS was working on a new XML format (after the failure of XML in Office 2003), it was tempting to call it Office Open XML (an obvious reference to OpenOffice...) and to try getting the ISO approval for it.

By doing so, MS gets two benefits :

- an ISO approval of OOXML can be used to prevent governments preferring standardised formats to turn to ODF;

- publishing (part of) the format help to attract partners, and therefore to grow the MS Office ecosystem, while claiming that the format is widely implemented (by partners using 30% of it, not by competitors needing to implement 100% of it, of course).

So no, OOXML in itself is not a lock-in strategy.  But submitting OOXML to ISO helps to protect the existing lock-in.

And I have no problem with this at all : it is a clever marketing move, and a fair way to protect MS interests.

The trouble starts when MS realises that ODF has a strong headstart, so that MS has to submit an immature document, and has no time to go through the normal ISO process.  The trouble gets worse when MS understand that the seasoned NBs will not accept a huge, poorly written document under a Fast Track process which is not made for this.

And then the story becomes ugly, when new P-members and new voting partners start to pop-up from everywhere, just to vote Yes without any comments.

This is the part of the story with which I have a problem...

Stephen

1. "Ahem, Luc how do you reconcile..."

Read again, the explanation is in the text:

"So no, OOXML in itself is not a lock-in strategy.  But submitting OOXML to ISO helps to protect the existing lock-in."

2. "I know you know the facts don't support the version you report."

Nice try, but this is a little short.  And I really don't know which facts you are referring to.

Please explain, using better arguments than "OOXML is a superb standard" or "the Fast Track process is the best way to have a good document improved".  I know you know that these are not facts, but distortions of the reality.

"Luc, first of all I don't agree that there is any lock-in in Microsoft's binary file formats. Take a look at just about any modern desktop software and you'll find it reads and writes them; and their marketing material promotes the high degree to which they can do this."

This is a silly argument, as at the same time MS claims that OOXML is necessary because OpenOffice/ODF cannot faithfully represent the "billions of legacy, binary documents".

"why don't you illustrate with an example of how soemone might be locked in then we can chew on that bone instead."

Here are two examples: look at the costs incurred by the City of Munich to get rid of Microsoft Office and their binary formats.  Or remember that Massachusetts was forced to add OOXML to its recommendations, because they wanted to avoid the same disruption and costs as those incurred by Munich.

"Secondly, even if there was a lock-in I fail to see how a strategy of documenting, publishing, standardising and granting exceptionally liberal IP terms would ever pass muster as a strategy to protect it."

Publishing OOXML is MS way to fight against ODF, which is your main competitor.  Fighting against your competitor is indeed a strategy to protect the lock-in. And about the "exceptionally liberal IP terms"... hum, just say that everybody do not agree with your view.

"Now as to facts, did you ever read this?"

Please correct the link, it is broken.

OK, now that we argued about the lock-in, no comments on the ugly part of the story ?  Which facts are wrong ?  As a starter, let me remind that this is not only "the version I report", but a version that many standards experts also report.

And about "I've never said either of the quotes you mention."

Agreed.  These are not quotes (in fact yes, the first one is a quote), but are the kind of arguments I'm used to read on many MS blogs, including yours.

The ODF alliance seems nothing but a IBM front organization.

It seems a means for IBM to publish anti-OOXML documents under a different flag. Strangely the ODf alliance publishes more documents on OOXML than it does on ODF and when looking at their publications it is very noticable that they do not have author name on them so you can't see who did the actual writing of the document.

"Luc, first of all I don't agree that there is any lock-in in Microsoft's binary file formats. Take a look at just about any modern desktop software and you'll find it reads and writes them; and their marketing material promotes the high degree to which they can do this."

Stephen, I can't read my own documents.  I'm serious.  I made them in year 2000, in PowerPoint.  After I switched away from Microsoft, I've been unable to read them ever since!  Every time I open it with something that isn't MS PowerPoint, the texts just won't render properly.

But of course, it's all their fault.  How could the OOo hackers dare not to reverse-engineer everything properly?