Bob Sutor: Regarding OOXML and the need for change
April 2 2008
They managed to make it happen. IS29500 has passed, and Microsoft now has an ISO standard in Open XML.
Clearly, I'm disappointed in this outcome. Microsoft's publicly-stated attitude of "standards are great, let's have more of them!" did not and does not make sense in the space where there are already established standards. With the blessing of the ISO, it's not clear what will really happen in terms of Office 2007 adoption. It remains to be seen what products actually implement the standard as it is now approved. There's a long road between here and the supposed document nirvana envisioned by MS. And there's a fair bit of fallout from the overall process.
Bob Sutor captures some of that fallout as an opportunity:
I believe that thousands of motivated yet pragmatic people will now move on to fix the systemic issues I've identified, with fresh evidence of why it is necessary. There are now, as there have always been, much bigger issues than OOXML itself. For that reason, we are still in the early phases of the worldwide movement to true open standards.There is other fallout, though, worth examining. Last week, IT World ran a story headlined, "Study sees Microsoft brand in sharp decline". It says:
Microsoft's brand power has been in sharp decline over the past four years, an indication the company is losing credibility and mindshare with U.S. business users, according to a recent study by market research firm CoreBrand. According to the CoreBrand Power 100 2007 study, which polled about 12,000 U.S. business decision-makers, Microsoft dropped from number 12 in the ranking of the most powerful U.S. company brands in 2004 to number 59 last year. In 1996, the company ranked number 1 in brand power among 1,200 top companies in about 50 industries, said James Gregory, CEO of CoreBrand. ... Among its peers in the category of Computers, Peripherals and Computer Software, Microsoft is second to IBM in brand power, with Toshiba a close third, Gregory said.While a direct connection between brand erosion and the OOXML process may not be possible to make, what is certainly true is that buyers change their perceptions of a company that executes a scorched earth win-at-all-costs plan in every aspect of their business. Other emergent enterprise vendors have a "Don't be evil" approach that seems to be able to support a successful business model. Which type of vendor would you prefer to partner with for the long term?
Link: Bob Sutor: Regarding OOXML and the need for change >
Post a Comment
- 2
Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 4/2/2008 8:13:42 AM
"Prior to learning of the temporary suspension on March 28, 2008, IBM was not aware that the EPA or US Attorney's office were considering any action against IBM". See { Link }
My personal opinion only: A post-sale protest in one sale seems a heck of a lot different from systematic approaches.
- 3
Don McNally http://dmcnally.blogspot.com | 4/2/2008 8:31:36 AM
Google may have some problems of their own, at least if the complaining that Steve Gillmor is doing about the way shared feeds in Google Reader and Gmail contacts interact gets traction. Basically he is saying they are reverse engineering a social network without approval from the users, and that such a practice may be close to "evil."
All of that is not to say that the OOXML standard approval process hasn't been at least flawed.
- 4
Axel | 4/2/2008 8:41:48 AM
Call me naive, but if a standard is really not good, it will simply not succeed.
Its one thing to get "fast track" approval in an international standard gremium - which shows similar flaws as for example international trade talks or UNO security meetings, by the way.
Another thing is to motivate people and companies to use that standard in a productive way. Even among Microsoft experts I talk with, OOXML isn't popular.
There is more and more interoperability. A lot of those servers out there are *nix. And humankind isn't perfect. Even in smaller companies some people do use a Mac for their job. I know such cases personally, located high in the foodchain of their organization.
So Microsoft needs interoperability. And OOXML is a part of that story. If it sucks, Microsoft will have a problem.
- 5
Steven | 4/2/2008 8:44:40 AM
@1: That tiny (aka nonsubscriber version) WSJ story does seem to leave out a bit of detail....
{ Link }
- 6
Bill Brown | 4/2/2008 10:28:35 AM
So the ban is because they contested a bid award? Is Boeing going to get slapped with a ban on federal contracts because they are protesting the Air Force contract with Airbus et al?
Or is there more to the story than CNN is reporting?
I thought protesting was part and parcel in the bidding process when that amount of $$ is involved.
- 7
Henrik Pedersen | 4/2/2008 12:21:48 PM
(I)
(S)old
(O)ut
In my opinion, that is the truly sad part of this story.
ISO as a unbiased organisation that defines/aproves standards for the greater benefit of the rest of us is history.
As many people (wiser than me) has pointed out, there is only one winner in this, and it shure is'nt Joe Average, or his small software company.
@4 I think history has shown that the best standard wins. First thing that pops in to mind is Betamax versus VHS.
Sorry but its a sad day. I can only hope that the individual countrys organizations will use the two month period two launch formal complaints about the process. Eg. Norway.
- 8
Henrik Pedersen | 4/2/2008 12:24:58 PM
>>As many people (wiser than me) has pointed out, there is only one winner in this, and it shure is'nt Joe Average, or his small software company.<<
The point about the clever people was ment point out the technical details that the OOXML-standard is missing. Sorry.
- 9
Chris Mobley http://www.bleedyellow.com/blogs/uhclem/ | 4/2/2008 1:40:43 PM
@4 "If it sucks, Microsoft will have a problem."
That hasn't stopped them before. All they need is the claim of it being ISO standard to they can feed the giant marketing machine.
- 10
Ian White http://www.ianwhite.net | 4/3/2008 8:07:32 AM
@7 neither VHS, Betamax or V2000 (remember) were standard (ie officially accredited), VHS became de-facto after commercial wars. Which wins ODF or OOXML will depend on user use.
- 11
Henrik Pedersen | 4/3/2008 10:27:52 AM
@10
You're right about them not being a standard.
My point was that the superior technology does'nt necessarily come out on top, when the all mighty dollar/yen/euro etc. is involved.
- 12
Brian Medcalf | 4/3/2008 8:10:33 PM
Isn't the best format to embrace as a standard the one that 90% of users use?
I am certain that even within IBM there is probably < 2 % ODF docs.
- 13
Timothy Briley | 4/4/2008 10:08:51 AM
@12 -
"Isn't the best format to embrace as a standard the one that 90% of users use?"
Not when one company is in control of the "standard" and has the means, motive, and desire to manipulate it in order to lock other companies out. It's called vendor lock-in. Nowadays that is considered a bad thing. Unless you're a Mac user. ;)
- 14
C. Rushing http://www.healthylittleones.com | 4/4/2008 3:11:21 PM
@12
"Isn't the best format to embrace as a standard the one that 90% of users use?"
PDF is great for publishing, but not so good when it comes to editing and collaboration. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to find that within Microsoft they had more ODF standard compliant documents than OOXML standard compliant documents.
While a direct connection between brand erosion and the OOXML process may not be possible to make, what is certainly true is that buyers change their perceptions of a company that executes a scorched earth win-at-all-costs plan in every aspect of their business. Other emergent enterprise vendors have a "Don't be evil" approach that seems to be able to support a successful business model. Which type of vendor would you prefer to partner with for the long term?
IBM? -> { Link }