When Is 'Open' More Open for Microsoft?

What does Silverlight have to do with OOXML? Short answer: VC-1, which is the standards approved version of Windows Media Video.

Four years ago, Microsoft pushed hard on wooing early adopters for its TV software—Microsoft TV and later IPTV. Naturally, the company wanted broadcasters to use its own Windows Media Video format.

But Microsoft faced two problems: Broadcasters adopt standard formats, and video formats used for broadcast or commercial DVD production require stability and longevity. The latter reason is one explanation why MPEG-2 has been a standard for a long time and remains so, even though successor codecs are available.

In Sept. 2003, Microsoft submitted its Windows Media Video 9 codec to the SMPTE (Society of Motion Pictures and Television Engineers) for standards ratification. By submitting Windows Media Video 9 for standards certification, Microsoft agreed to keep the codec frozen in time, so to speak. In March 2006, SMPTE published the VC-1 specification, from the Windows Media Video 9 codec.

While Microsoft TV languished and IPTV adoption pecked along, Microsoft got other useful mileage from VC-1, such as incorporation into HD DVD (alongside competing H.264). But Silverlight takes VC-1 to a whole other level of incorporation.

Silverlight is heavily dependent on Windows Media Video, including VC-1. In fact, Microsoft has made it remarkably easy for developers to take WMV formats into Silverlight. Microsoft's response to Flash video is the WMV content producers already have. The approach would ease customer adoption, but Microsoft would benefit, too, and mainly because of VC-1.

Microsoft can go to content producers and suggest that they create video in one for format, VC-1, for any kind of broadcast—television, Web or portable devices like cell phones. Whether or not Microsoft can succeed is uncertain. H.264 is front of line in part because so much commercial video production is done using Apple software. Still, Microsoft has a standards-approved format and the tools to make good use of it across many delivery platforms, including Windows. VC-1 is more open for Microsoft than other vendors.

I suggest nothing nefarious on Microsoft's part. The company merely maximizes its assets to advantage; it's an example of why Microsoft is so successful. The company could—and probably would—argue that other developers could have made similar use out of VC-1. But no other company has a monopoly in desktop operating systems, either.

Playing OOXML for Standards Approval
Microsoft's end-game strategy for VC-1 is developers, mainly around Silverlight. Microsoft has similar developer ambitions—closely tied to its products—for OOXML.

Right now, Microsoft is slogging through the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) certification process, over which there has been some bickering with OOXML opponents. Competing (OpenDocument Format) received ISO certification last year.

There is almost a desperation in Microsoft's efforts to receive coveted ISO certification for OOXML, and the company has launched two Web sites—one for community, another for developers—supporting the format. If there was true community, by the way, the sites would have organically developed.

OOXML has already received Ecma standards certification, but needs ISO approval, too. Approval would bring OOXML on a standards level with competing ODF and could help advance the Microsoft format's customer adoption.

The latter objective is similar to VC-1 and Silverlight: OOXML would be more open for Microsoft than other developers. ISO certification is important to Microsoft because:

• OOXML is the default for Office 2007
• OOXML is important for the advancement of other Microsoft strategies, such as business intelligence.
• The format will plug into some of Microsoft's future work around enterprise informational and Web services, collaboration and content archival

OOXML is much more than a file format; it's being groomed for a platform role, similar to VC-1 and Silverlight.

Enterprises and Microsoft partners should take a hard look at where Microsoft is going with OOXML and what the potential benefits and shortcomings will be. And surely there will be benefits. For Silverlight developers with content in VC-1, Microsoft has provided some great utility. OOXML role's should be similar and perhaps more so as Microsoft rolls out its business intelligence platform.

That said, enterprises should investigate about how they want to keep their information. Is OOXML truly open XML enough? Any business' crown jewel is its information. For many companies, that information is locked into proprietary, Microsoft file formats. Microsoft raises legitimate concerns about the fidelity of ODF as an open format. But is OOXML a better long-term investment?

Microsoft has big plans for OOXML, methinks, more than it will state until after the ISO process finishes. If Microsoft said more sooner, competitors backing ODF and backing off OOXML might muddy the certification process with more FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about Microsoft intentions.

Those intentions are what they've always been: To maximize customer benefits and company profits—goals OOXML critics probably share, too.

Related Posts:

• Xbox Elite Flips on the Sliverlight, Microsoft Watch, May 10, 2007
• Microsoft's Open Debate Is Nothing of the Kind, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 14, 2007
• Digital Media Bundling 2.0, Microsoft Watch, April 16, 2007
• Document Format Wars Go Public and Get Personal, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 8, 2007
• French Broadcast Chooses Windows Media, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 7, 2006