Microsoft's Closed Book on Open Standards
|
The software giant is using its old standards playbook to push proprietary formats. Is it an overworked approach? |
Microsoft achieved two format milestones today: Submission of its XPS format to Ecma for so-called standards ratification; Commonwealth of Massachusetts proposal that, if approved, would adopt Microsoft's OOXML (Office Open XML) format as an acceptable standard. Massachusetts' proposal entered public comment phase today, ending in about 10 days.
The two format moves are intimately intertwined and reflect a larger Microsoft standards efforts. But Microsoft's strategy is deeply rooted in the past, rather than truly providing an "open standards" conduit for the future. To date, there is very little open about any of Microsoft's standards efforts, in part because the company's definition radically differs from the broader definition of "open."
For example, in Massachusetts, before there was an OOXML format, Microsoft argued that its Office binary formats met the Commonwealth's standard of openness because of their widespread use. Microsoft more typical defines standards as those set by its own products, which hugely differs from the approach taken by true standards bodies like ISO (International Organization for Standardization).
Standards, at least as defined by Microsoft, are cornerstones to the company's success. For example, there are many reasons why Windows succeeded and many of them are even more applicable to Office. Early on, Microsoft recognized the power of standards, and it successfully made Windows a de facto standard for software developers and hardware manufacturers. Windows became the standard platform around which third-parties built stuff.
With Office, Microsoft reached critical mass because of file formats. The early days of productivity software were wrought with mayhem. People would create files with one program, which couldn't be opened using a different application. As Office's popularity increased, there came a point where its formats became an adopted—granted, proprietary— standard, which created huge sales pull for the software. I remember talking to many customers in the late 1990s who chose Office to ensure file format compatibility.
Fast forward to the late 2000s and Microsoft is beset by two problems;
- The success of the older, binary file formats drags on the advancement of more fluid and flexible information processes.
- The Web platform (aka Web 2.0) increasingly establishes development standards and stands at the cusp of wrenching free ties to Microsoft proprietary standards, such as its binary file formats.
Microsoft seeks to solve these problems by releasing proprietary, XML-based OOXML and establishing it as as an accepted standard—and that simply isn't the same as creating a truly open standard.
Microsoft has long been in the position of establishing standards, and very much in a one-way fashion. Rather than truly open standards, where there is no single controlling company, Microsoft standards put the company in a commanding position—and this applies to recent OOXML and VC-1 standardization efforts.
True standards typically originate by a more organic process and one achieved by common consensus for the good of all people. Microsoft takes the PR position of goodwill by submitting its proprietary formats to standards review. However, there often are attached strings or there is some direct benefit going back to the company. Microsoft isn't in the business of goodwill but making money.
OOXML is a great example. Microsoft's primary OOXML development priority wasn't openness but rather backward compatibility with its Office binary file formats. This primary goal should be indication enough about how closed is Microsoft's so-called open format. The primary objective isn't interoperability with other formats but with Microsoft's own proprietary formats. While Microsoft fully documents OOXML, and as such claims openness, the format uses proprietary schemas.
Microsoft's standards ratification process reveals something about the extent of openness. The company chose to seek OOXML standards approval through Ecma rather than ISO. Same now applies to XPS, which competes with Adobe's PDF (Portable Document Format).
ISO links are to government, whereas Ecma is more aligned with business. The difference is significant. Ecma members are businesses, which have a concerted interest in the ratification of their standards. ISO members represent about 160 countries. It's standards processes are so thorough and internationally accepted, ISOs often become laws in their locales. Ecma's strong business ties and streamlined approval processes strongly favor corporations like Microsoft.
Microsoft is now seeking ISO ratification for OOXML but only after obtaining Ecma approval as springboard. By contrast, ODF (Open Document Format) already has ISO approval, which has increased its credibility among many government agencies evaluating desktop productivity suites like Office and OpenOffice.
Microsoft's goals aren't difficult to understand. The company seeks to establish its formats as standards so that it can continue to obtain the sales benefits of the past. But just because Microsoft says a format is open or Ecma stamps its approval doesn't make it so.
The approach is surprisingly old school, as Microsoft clings to establishing its own standards at a time when many government agencies and some businesses seek more openness. They don't want to be dependent on a single vendor's technology and they want the flexibility to be able to mix products and technologies together from different vendors. The latter is an important mandate of governments, many of which are bound by law to offer all business suppliers fair chance to sell their wares. Isn't that what RFPs (Request for Proposals) are all about?
Still, Microsoft's standards play in Massachusetts may pay off. The Commonwealth's willingness to accept OOXML, following its Ecma certification, reverses an earlier determination that the format doesn't meet standards of openness. Between the earlier rejection and newfound acceptance, Ecma approval is the only significant change to OOXML.
If ISO refuses to approve OOXML—and Microsoft has launched a huge campaign for approval—it likely would mark a turning point about how governments and some businesses define "open" and "standards." If OOXML passes the process, Microsoft will be able to use its playbook to win standards approval for other proprietary formats—open by name, anyway.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet." Or in this case, that which we call open would still stink.
My apologies to the Bard.
Related Posts:
- The Pointless Office Converter Delay, Microsoft Watch, May 29, 2007
- When Is 'Open' More Open for Microsoft?, Microsoft Watch, May 17, 2007
- Microsoft's Open Debate Is Nothing of the Kind, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 14, 2007
- Understanding OOXML and PDF Standards Approval, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 5, 2007
- Closing Up the Open Format Debate, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 4, 2007
- Document Format Wars Go Public and Get Personal, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 8, 2006
- The Pointless Converter Debate, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 5, 2006
- Microsoft's Interoperability Trust Problem, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 16, 2006
- Interoperability: Is Microsoft All Talk?, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 15, 2006
Comments (18)
Joe writes: "Microsoft isn't in the business of goodwill but making money."
Apple does involve itself in the open standards process--you could argue that they couldn't influence technology otherwise--but it sure doesn't prevent them from making money.
Posted by HG | July 3, 2007 12:44 AM
Let me ask something very simple here. Java has achieved ECMA and ISO standard. How is that different with what Microsoft is doing? Isn't java developed and essentially controled by Sun. I am confusing something? Should I name more standards that came out this way? How is that different with the PDF standard?
Posted by evan | July 3, 2007 4:11 AM
Acting in this way in long run US will loose IT leadership.
For me it's so easy to understand.
What is broken in your brain to miss this simple one?
sorry for my poor English.
Posted by AR | July 3, 2007 5:42 AM
->Evan: I think you're confusing "Java" with "JavaScript".
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | July 3, 2007 6:56 AM
Excellent analysis Joe.
Posted by Marco | July 3, 2007 8:59 AM
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Embrace an industry standard. Extend it with features specific to Microsoft servers or clients. Watch as the "standard" slowly dies because it's no longer cross platform. Have top execs make speeches about the importance of industry standards. Then introduce a Micrososft replacement that is "better" and 100% proprietary.
Any questions?
Posted by gharri | July 3, 2007 9:21 AM
AR,
Quote;
"Acting in this way in long run US will loose IT leadership."
-------------------------------------------------
Well put.
"Maybe Microsoft's stronghold grip on the desktop is slipping after all."
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9739128-7.html
Developers cooling on Windows desktop, study finds. Perhaps all the lock in in Vista is starting to backfire.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 3, 2007 1:38 PM
ODF has severe deficiencies that are overlooked by the Microsoft haters.
The #1 deficiency is that Sun holds patents on it.
From Wikipedia:
"The Sun OpenDocument Patent Statement [25] applies to a future version of ODF only if Sun participates in development of that version.
If Sun does not participate, then the assurance not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation will not apply."
Posted by NotParker | July 3, 2007 3:57 PM
NotParker;
While you maybe correct, your Wikipedia statement is taken out of context. The full link is here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
And the current version, which is very good, seems to be free enough.
here is some taken out of context from the same wiki post;
"The OpenDocument specification is available for free download and use.
Key contributor Sun Microsystems made an irrevocable intellectual property covenant, providing all implementers with the guarantee that Sun will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the OpenDocument specification. This Statement is not an assurance that an OpenDocument Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party.[15] The covenant is limited to versions of the OpenDocument specification on which Sun has participated to the point of incurring an obligation."
Posted by chips b malroy | July 3, 2007 4:35 PM
I am also going say, as a potential M$ hater, that the ODF current version is FREE, whereas the MS "open" version uses patented non free protocals and is not free.
Future versions of ODF may not be needed. Or Sun could just open source them as they have Java in the future. Then again, the Open Source community could just develop their own Free standard in the future, should they need to go futher than the current ODF standard, if Sun does not go along. My guess, any future version of ODF will be free as well.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 3, 2007 5:47 PM
Here is a great post on MS back in the XP days, they would have gone wild now with Vista;
http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm
The Title is; Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going
Nothing has changed, if anything Vista is much worse than XP.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 3, 2007 10:16 PM
After saturating the market with their binary closed formats, Microsoft is now listening to requests for an open standard with interoperability with other platforms and they've delivered. The mass market is still going to prefer using Microsoft Office software - the OpenXML format won't change that (nor will OpenDocument).
"Standards" are what the majority of people actually use, NOT what some governing body would like it to be. The vast majority of people use Microsoft Office - that's the "industry standard".
It's funny how people like to criticize Microsoft for skewing from the W3C specifications in Internet Explorer too (not like any web browsers fully comply anyway). The "W3C Recommendations" are just that - recommendations and guidelines. They are NOT set in stone. Microsoft rewrote the book on HTML rendering specifications to various degrees in previous Internet Explorer versions, and the browser has since become the standard to which the majority uses, despite what the governing body would have it be. Internet Explorer 7 has changed a fair bit to include better support for CSS for improving interoperability, but does it really *need* to comply with specifications made by the W3C? While loud voices may be heard decrying this statement, they are in the minority. For the vast majority of people, that answer is no.
People just have to accept that as the truth.
Posted by Waethorn | July 4, 2007 1:22 PM
Waethorn :
[QUOTE]
"Standards" are what the majority of people actually use, NOT what some governing body would like it to be. The vast majority of people use Microsoft Office - that's the "industry standard".
[/QUOTE]
You're waving a straw-man and saying de-facto standards are standards. A de-facto standard is not the same as an open standard.
And all that you've said about IE blatantly ignores factual history. Netscape WAS the market leader until Microsoft crippled them - see the DoJ anti-trust case against Microsoft.
Microsoft crippled innovation in the PC software industry for the past 10 years - see proof in the same DoJ anti-trust case.
Microsoft subverted HTML and JavaScript by adding incompatible proprietary extensions that prevented other browsers from displaying content in the same manner that IE displayed content - again see proof in the DoJ anti-trust case. You may remember the phrase "best viewed in IE".
There IS a fully compliant browser. It's called Firefox. Of course, even this browser must resort to hacks to enable pages using Microsoft's proprietary crap to display in a sane manner. Clearly Microsoft is to blame for creating an environment that necessitates such hacks.
It's funny how certain people do NOT acknowledge a basic economic fact - a monopoly ALWAYS charges more money for a lower quality product and stifles innovation in the field it plays in.
It's really really funny how certain people of questionable technical knowledge pompously protect a monopoly and gladly consume it's crap.
In fact it's so funny that I can only feel sad for these certain people.
Posted by G Fernandes | July 5, 2007 6:56 AM
I'd just like to say something about OXML, De-facto standards and OpenOffice vs. MS Office:
While some of you are looking for OPEN standards because it's open or free, Microsoft is looking for the costumer by it's tools. That's the reason they maintain themselves as market share leader, they focus on the user. As some of you said, OXML is for the CUSTOMER to be able to interoperate, not to cheer with it's competitors.
Anyway, MSOffice 2007 tools are getting even better and far away from OpenOffice from the user point of view. For some, MSOffice worth it, for others no way. That's freedom.
Posted by Olavo | July 5, 2007 11:09 AM
I've used MS Office 97, MS Office 2000, and MS Office 2003. They've all been way overkill for what I require of them. I suspect this is true for most Office users. For what reason would you pay Microsoft's upgrade prices again and again over the years? In my experience, it's for file compatibility, NOT for new Office features.
I couldn't care less about the new MS Office 2007. That's why I've switched over to OpenOffice.org and abandoned any idea of maintaining file compatibility with Microsoft. It has everything I need and then some. Office 2007 has nothing I need that I can't get from OpenOffice.org.
As for file formats and exchanging documents with others, I'm perfectly happy to rely on PDF or HTML or XML or ODF. (I can even generate .DOC files.) I shall no longer be held hostage by Microsoft.
Posted by Richard | July 5, 2007 11:46 AM
Richard;
Nice point about OpenOffice. I have been using it for awhile, and its a great Office Suite which does far more than I need it to. For most people, even Abiword, which is also cross platform, would do enough. Abiword is fine for doing very basic things as in writting a letter. Both are free.
Red Hat wants interoperability without patent pledges, Microsoft says no;
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070705-red-hat-wants-interoperability-without-patent-pledges-microsoft-says-no.html
MS really has never wanted and still doesn't want interoperability, Lets face it, without all the lock in, MS would have to play on a level playing field. It will be the Governments of the world that will be the first to require some measure of interoperability from MS. The EU could be the first one.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 6, 2007 3:58 AM
Isn't a standard that which is most widely adopted and not what a few "experts" say the standard is? (Standards is as standards does.)
Posted by J | July 9, 2007 1:15 AM
My letter to Microsoft this morning....
Re Microsoft's "Open Standards".....
You two in this article - are just so full of shit.....
Tom Robertson
GM Interoperability & Standards
Microsoft
Jean Paoli
GM Interoperability & XML Architecture
Microsoft
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/letters/choice.mspx
All I can say with your lying and spin doctoring (what was originally called in Australia - spinning bullshit)...
Is that you have made me a complete advocate of the REAL open source software, and a true hater of American Corporations.....
I can't even be bothered to tell you to go fuck yourselves.... I am instead going to work 10 x as hard to sink you and this company for lying to me, and for trying to manipulate me.
In fact I shall start distributing Open Office CD's (at my own expense) to everyone in my own town.... and those beyond....
I am also going to start taking big shots at you two in the press...
And I am going to ask my government to ditch Microsoft - for lying and producing bad software.
These just some of many things I am doing to take on scumbag Americans, in their scumbag American corporations.....
Regards
Shane
Posted by Shane | September 10, 2007 7:23 PM