Microsoft's 'Open' Debate Is Nothing of the Kind
|
They say it takes one to know one. In the heated debate over so-called open technologies and formats, IBM and Microsoft know each other quite well. |
Early Feb. 14, Microsoft released a letter, "Interoperability, Choice and Open XML," charging that IBM has led a "global campaign" against the OOXML (Office Open XML) format. While FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is thick on both sides, Microsoft's own campaign, which, by the way, predates today's public letter, may be spreading the heaviest FUD.
Coincidentally, about the same time Microsoft published its letter, I was speaking with Ken Bisconti, IBM's vice president for Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software, about open standards and open computing. That conversation turned out to be excellent context for understanding both companies' positions (Microsoft presents its side in the letter and in an eWEEK news story).
The stakes are high for Microsoft and OOXML, which the company wants to see certified as an open standard by ISO (International Organization for Standardization). So, it's not surprising that Microsoft is pushing back against IBM, which was the sole dissenter opposing the Ecma standard certification of OOXML and which has posed some resistance in the ISO process.
IBM's so-called campaign says more about what IBM understands about Microsoft as a monopolist, having been one itself. In the glory days of big server computing, IBM had a massive mainframe monopoly, which it aggressively protected. Some of the tactics rightfully ascribed to Microsoft, such as advocating proprietary interfaces, were made against IBM decades ago.
Roger Kay, founder of Endpoint Technologies, described IBM as a "reformed monopolist" that could well have good experience understanding Microsoft tactics for advocating proprietary interfaces and formats.
Bisconti conceded that IBM might understand "the way another vendor is trying to protect a monopoly position."
Cutting Through the FUD
Behind Microsoft's rhetoric and FUD there is a clear effort to advocate proprietary interfaces that protect the monopoly.
Microsoft contends that OOXML is "open" because of licensing terms, Ecma certification and possible future ISO adoption. In a recent conversation, Jean Paoli, Microsoft's general manager for Interoperability and XML Architecture, applied another "open" definition, in that other vendors could and would adopt OOXML, also making the format available on other platforms.
Paoli could be right someday, but that's not the case today. OOXML is closely tied to Office (arguably a monopoly product), which is closely aligned with Windows (a monopoly product as determined by U.S. courts). From that perspective, at least some of Microsoft's position about open standards is nothing more than pure FUD.
"Open" is a term Microsoft defines for its own benefit. Microsoft also creates FUD around the definition of "choice." From today's letter:
"[IBM's] campaign to stop even the consideration of Open XML in ISO/IEC JTC1 is a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives—and without regard for the negative impact on consumer choice and technological innovation. It is not a coincidence that IBM's Lotus Notes product, which IBM is actively promoting in the marketplace, fails to support the Open XML international standard."
Microsoft's contention about "choice" is hallow. This is the same company that used marketing about choice to combat Apple's iPod and iTunes in 2004 and 2005. Strange, since kicking loose its PlaysForSure partners and releasing Zune and the Zune Marketplace, Microsoft is no longer talking about choice—even though its directional change limits the choice previously advocated about music services and devices. Microsoft's "choice" included a proprietary interface, Windows Media Audio, tied to its major monopoly product.
Microsoft's FUD about Lotus Notes has a ring of truth. IBM isn't backing Open XML, instead favoring ODF (OpenDocument Format). Microsoft accuses IBM of pushing back against Open XML for competitive reasons. But there is another explanation that is more plausible: IBM backs what it sees to be the more open of the two formats. ODF already has received ISO certification.
Microsoft fails to acknowledge that its products don't support ODF. Sure, at Microsoft's behest several open-source companies created a single ODF word processing translator for Open XML, but that is a long way from supporting ODF. If IBM is guilty of anything, Microsoft's format support position is little different.
If Microsoft truly advocated openness—rather than to preserve a proprietary interface protecting its monopoly products—the company would purely support XML or work with groups like OASIS that have labored to create standards for productivity suite file formats. In its truly open form, XML isn't constrained by formatting. Microsoft's insistence on formatting—a proprietary interface approach protecting its monopoly products—makes OOXML closed compared with XML.
Pre-Internet Model
Maybe there is an IBM campaign, but if so it comes from a former monopoly that understands the "closed" tactics monopolies use to protect their dominant products. More importantly, as a Microsoft competitor, IBM recognizes the opportunity to catch a revolutionary—if Web 2.0 advocates are to be believed, revolutionary—change in informational computing.
The Web platform (e.g., Web 2.0) is to Microsoft what Microsoft was to IBM in the early 1980s. Initially, the PC didn't appear to be a threat to IBM's mainframe monopoly, because of the huge functional differences between the products. But the PC proved a competitor by shifting computing informational relevance to a lower-cost device with broader appeal. Microsoft's position is similar. While companies like Google don't make operating systems, the supporting Web platform is shifting informational relevance from the heavy software applications to lighter clients, browsers and even widgets.
On the Web platform, vendors freely publish interfaces and so extend their capabilities to other products and services—and visa versa. In the consumer services market, while Microsoft builds and extends "Live" as a tightly integrated service, Web platform companies reap the benefits other companies' development efforts through shared and published interfaces.
"Microsoft is one of the few vendors where we spend a lot of time because of proprietary interfaces," Bisconti said. "With companies like Google, the discussions are more about branding, because the interfaces are published."
Microsoft instead pursues an approach of advocating proprietary interfaces, whether they be file formats, APIs (application programming interfaces) or DRM (digital rights management) systems.
For IBM, this new world of openness offers huge commercial benefits.
"You don't have to build your own ecosystem because the ecosystem is already there," Bisconti said. He contended that Microsoft's approach with big Office and Windows releases is a "pre-Internet model. In our eyes, the pre-Internet model has a limited lifespan."
Kay isn't surprised by IBM's position. "As a reformed monopolist, Big Blue has learned the value of collaboration," he said. "They've learned that the world doesn't end if you don't do everything yourself."
IBM is reformed, but always at risk of returning to old habits.
"Monopoly never goes entirely out of the blood," Kay said. "Monopoly is like alcohol. It's got an addictive sensation, but it's no good for you."
Comments (21)
With all the negative comments of Microsoft from you in every single entry , I drown into a pool of sorrow
Posted by Craig | February 14, 2007 10:30 PM
Craig
I am glad to see someone else does not like what "Microsoft watch" is turning into these days.
More like Microsoft Bash don't you think ?
And yet some people see nothing wrong in these stories at all, and I just don't understand them !
How they can be so blind and are willing to be led by the nose by Joe Wilcox and all the Linux and Mac users who constantly rubbish Microsoft just because they are microsoft.
Posted by Neil | February 14, 2007 10:44 PM
For you people out there who feel like Craig the place I would HIGHLY recommend is http://www.windows-now.com/ as the place to read UNBIASED reporting on all things microsoft and other things as well !
Posted by Neil | February 14, 2007 10:52 PM
Balls you got, Neil,
You promote a compete blog in a comment HERE?
Tell you what if they leave you do that, that's free speech and no bias.
How do you say Windows Now is no biased when that's a fanboy name? They pay you to drive clicks from here. hehehe
Brick
Posted by Brick | February 15, 2007 12:45 AM
@Neil
I looked at Windows-Now and it looks like they have nothing critical to say about Microsoft. That's unbiased?
Posted by HG | February 15, 2007 1:09 AM
Brick
No they do not pay me at all !
HG
Why do they HAVE TO say something critical about Microsoft to be unbiased.
When it is called for Robert Mclaws tells it like it is !
Surely that what you need, not someone who will take the rinse out of someone just because their microsoft or whoever it might be !
Surely you guys want the most important thing in the world .... THE TRUTH !
That is why I like windows now they tell like it is... no pandering to someone who wants microsoft to be the "Bad Guy" or for that matter the "Good Guy", just the truth of the matter !
Posted by Neil | February 15, 2007 1:42 AM
Neil;
I think you finally found your cohunes'. When you took over this Column, I thought you pitched Microsoft so many soft balls that you were some how on their payroll. I'm glad to see Microsoft Watch finally WATCHING. Even if it is just a little bit.
I've been a Microsoft watcher since the middle 90's. The company deserves every criticism it gets in the areas of Protectionist and Predatory practice. They are Proprietary from the word go. Anyone who cannot see that is willfully ignorant.
I say you would do well to be MORE critical, not less. While Microsoft has done a lot of good for Personal computing, they have certainly taken care of themselves at every turn.
During the DOJ days, for instance, they managed to keep Internet Explorer in the OS while the Lawyers wrangled over verbiage and used the Technological Naiveté of the Courts to their advantage. In the end Microsoft came out with a cadre of Lawyers paid for by their customers in the form of vastly inflated software prices. Now those Lawyers intimidate us with Licensing and Patent issues and Microsoft incurred no significant penalties for tying IE to its OS (which was all they wanted in the first place). Who's the winner here? Certainly NOT Joe and Jane computer user!
Microsoft likes to talk about Innovation. I'd be thrilled if they got back to doing it! What they have done for the last 10 years is buy Software Companies that ALREADY HAVE an innovative product and integrate it into an existing Microsoft Product. Who out there REALLY believes that's innovation? That's buying out your competition!!
I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. They need to be watched very closely by those who know enough about the Industry to see what's really going on. The Courts and News Media cannot appreciate Microsoft's maneuverings because they don't know enough about Computing to sort Fact from FUD.
I'm glad to see you call Microsoft on their Stuff. Keep it up. We need more Voices of Clarity as MS will clearly be Rolling out FUD 2007.
Posted by GB | February 15, 2007 6:30 AM
Let us look positively around our computing environment. If not because of Microsoft , Linux would unlikely to sharpen their desktop.
Admittedly, I am still able to run Win98 on a PII machine with good performance but not the case for Unbuntu. However I think Scalix is much better than Exchange 2007 which crawl like turtle.
My point is we have to weight both for what they are capable of. Don't just do one-sided hammering.
I am very surprised that EWEEK still continue to hire Mr Joe Wilcox for his extremed and negative style in filling up his column. If Eweek is subscription based , I will immediately cancel and get the refund .
I am an Asian but I though westerner is more open. But turn out it is not true..
Paris Hilton may be notorious but sometime she smile innocently
Posted by Craig | February 15, 2007 8:49 AM
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Anything that comes out of Microsoft as standard, is met with sceptisism and IBM plays it's own game. Is this though always the CASE for Microsoft? Absolutely not. Take SOAP for example, the basis for Web services. Microsoft co-developed the initial versions -and actually came up with the concept- with IBM and is still a leader in the W3C org, defining the all the WS specs. It's tookit implementation of the specs, is also absolutely conformat.
Posted by evan | February 15, 2007 9:47 AM
Joe Wilcox can't spell worth a damn! Truth is, he does everything else with great unbiased conviction and...it shows. I go to Foley - Thurrott - Bishop - McClaws - Bott - Daily Rotation - Inquirer - Zheng - Mini-Microsoft and MSFTExtrememakeover and...none compare to Wilcox's fearlessness, depth and prolific -ness (spell check that, Joe!)...not to mention the ability to keep it interesting. (Let's face it, MSFT is ONE, BORING MONOPOLY).
Posted by Mobutu Ubuntu | February 15, 2007 10:53 AM
Some good bits here. I liked this analysis.
Posted by Roy Schestowitz | February 15, 2007 1:40 PM
Funny MS should complain Lotus Notes doesn't support OXML. So what ? It is NOT a standard yet. The issue here is providing support for ODF, which IS a standard already. How many standards do we need for interoperability ? One should be enough. Current versions of Notes support ODF, I believe. All MS has to do is adjust their applications to support ODF natively. End of story. Betcha they won't do that unless dragged kicking and screaming into the world of open standards. If they ALSO want to support OXML, go for it. Customers will soon enough decide which format to use when saving their documents. Analogy ON....imagine a single optical drive manufacturer who comes out with a new, proprietary format for the MEDIA (e.g. GreenRay) and who require that all new media be written in GreenRay, or they will not work on their hardware. (This new proprietary format will be submitted later to the appropriate bodies for approval as a new "standard".) In the current world, this will not work, because there are alternative media formats. But imagine if the optical drive maker has 90% of the device market. All other non-GreenRay media and drives are now obsolete, as the media will not work on 90% of the new drives, therefore making data transfer between different drives impossible. Do you hear any objections to this concept ? I guess so ! ....analogy OFF. That is what we have here. A monopolist wanting to insist their proprietary format be given equal standing with an already agreed-upon OPEN format, and due to the size/volume of that monopoly, it will naturally push all others aside. Stop them in their tracks, now. One open format, and that is all we need. If a certain cash cow dries up, well, no one ever said monopolies last forever.
Posted by Brian | February 15, 2007 6:25 PM
Craig
The Eweek editor (Scot Peterson) is just as bad, in November last year Mr. Peterson did an article here entitled "Vista Ready ? Not for Me !" where he tested Vista RC1 when Vista had alreay gone "RTM" !
And he knew that RC1 had "bugs" in it, it was widely publicised at the time it did have heaps of bugs.
Peterson never mentioned anything about Release Candidate in his heading at all !
Joe Wilcox and Scot Peterson are tarred with the same brush !
Mobutu Ubuntu
Yes you are Joe cannot spell that well actually you only have to check his article "Gauging Vista's Integrity" the very comment was that "originally" Joe had it as "Gaging Vista's integrity".
You are I allowed due to the fact that we are NOT journalist's and that Joe Wilcox is SUPPOSED to be one.
Why I say that is because "journalist's" are supposed to report "Factual" news, and NOT biased reports made up to look like news and provoke people.
Posted by Neil | February 15, 2007 7:18 PM
Joe you are making yourself look sillier with every article on this topic. Given your obvious lack of knowledge of what XML is you really should move on to less technical topics.
Posted by David Taylor | February 15, 2007 7:59 PM
David , you are damned right. Joe could not command fluently on his "technical" topics.
The gravity of his comments swinging everywhere.
Joe , try Jerry Pournelle Chaos Manor
at :http://www.jerrypournelle.com/ and you will understand how to present technical stuff in a fun and readable way .
Hope that you can improve
Posted by Craig | February 15, 2007 8:58 PM
The king of the desktop must die! Long live the Poeple!
Standards Hi-Jacking: make the very best tool for working with the standard, and once everyone is using it, add some really great propritary features that aren't part of the standard and don't have to be used, but that most users won't be able to resist. And if your software is the only software that can interoperate with those features, you have control of the standard.
Microsoft isn't the onlyone who's done this, but it's one example of what they do. MS has been involved in some good projects like SOAP, but a few good deeds can only cover up a few bad deeds, and should never be license to return to bad practices.
It's not their friendly and helpful programmers you have to worry about, it's the leaders who give permission to do good once in a while but insist on blocking competition instead of trying to compete with them.
Anti-Inovation. Some good ideas have been bought by MS and driven into the ground. I'm sure some of them were meant to be successful, and just failed. But others were certainly bought for the sole purpose of blocking competition.
The biggest problem with MS is that their ARROGANCE. They are in control and no one can do anything without their permission. Dictatorship at it's worst.
MS won't let others make compatible products w/o permission, and they won't give permission w/o having absolute control. So many software product makers have been joining forces to get to a point where the MS controled software won't be needed. "If your hand offends you, cut it off... it's better then dieing because of it".
Everyone else will work together w/o MS. The king of the desktop must die. Long live the people!
Wm
Posted by Name Example | February 16, 2007 1:49 AM
Microsoft released a letter complaining that IBM is unduly influencing "pubic procurement" mandates...sounds like a strange fetish or someone forgot to proof-read before they wrote this one...(the email newsletter that is)
Posted by Ardent Observer | February 16, 2007 2:49 PM
I am a lonely chap. I never had a father figure, so I look up to Bill Gates to be my role model. I cannot believe you do not print the TRUTH. The truth that he DOES LOVE ME. I know the restraining order was his idea, but that just shows HOW MUCH HE CARES about me.
So you can imagine puberty HIT ME PRETTY HARD. I get ANGRY a lot over other peoples opinions or views. I get really mad when people are calling Microsoft because that is the child of bill gates and I bill gates IS MY DAD TOO.
SO STOP DOING IT!!! Stop having your own opinions, I will not have it. You will learn to LOVE my dads OS or I will GET MAD!!!
Neil
Posted by Neil | February 17, 2007 7:57 PM
This guy who proports to be me is a "Nut case". And cannot be believed !! He has not got anything to say against my arguements so he takes it out on me.
The Real Neil
Posted by Neil | February 18, 2007 2:29 AM
Will the real Neil shady please stand up..
please stand up..
please stand up..
To be honest Neil, I couldn't tell the difference in postings. You mean to say that wasn't you posting just earlier? You gotta laugh...
Posted by William | February 18, 2007 5:27 PM
William
You are a real smart**** are ya !
Just like the imposter (or probably the same person) !
Posted by Neil | February 18, 2007 6:59 PM