"Microsoft told Wall St it's reconciled to the fact the seven-year-old Windows XP will occupy more of the client revenue mix than Microsoft would have preferred, while revenue for the full year will grow less than the year just closed. With the 'wow' clearly failing to materialize in fiscal 2007, Microsoft was left to pronounce itself 'broadly happy' - not blown away - with Windows Vista sales."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-04
" 'It's about whether IBM will be able to get government mandates for an ISO standardized format for which they will be the only suppliers with a enterprise-quality product.'
"Replace "IBM" with "Microsoft" in this sentence, and you've got it about right. "
Um, no. Microsoft isn't trying to force government mandates of a particular standard. They were on the ISO ODF committee and voted YES for ODF's fasttracking. They then voted YES for ODF's ANSI ratification. IBM, on the other hand, voted no for OOXML's EMCA ratification, and is doing all they can to block OOXML's ISO ratification.
IBM and Microsoft's actions are in no way similar.
As for "stacking the committees", I've seen allegations that both sides are engaged in that. You act like IBM has a halo over its head and wings on its back while Microsoft has horns and a pitchfork. Any article based on Rob Weir's blog, such as the article you cited, is disseminating IBM propaganda and isn't worth much.
But if you want to get to citing blogs, try this one on for size: In the Dutch OOXML committee, the IBM is not only voting "no" but he says that he won't provide any reasons for fear that his concerns will be fixed and facilitate OOXML's ratification.
http://blogs.infosupport.com/wouterv/archive/2007/07/20/Working-to-...
"The IBM rep states that 'he will just say no', and also stated that he will not provide any technical comment because that would allow the comment to be fixed, hence opening the door to making Open XML an ISO standard."
Member since:2005-07-02
Right, it's trying to maintain its
That's why it's against government mandates, because it knows that, in order to provide for the greater good, governments must avoid lock-in. This is why you see government support for ODF.
Of course. They have put their weight behind ODF, a true open standard. I think at this point the battle lines are clearly drawn. MS/OOXML on one side, everyone else and ODF on the other. I know you care about preserving Microsoft's market dominance, but I personally prefer truly open standards.
It's ridiculous to claim that there should be two office document standards. There should be one, and it should be ODF. But it seems MS cannot accept that the Office doc standard could be one other than their own.
Then I'm sure you won't mind giving us links to substantiate these allegations. After all, you may claim that Weir's blog is propaganda, but at least he provides verifiable figures. Where are yours?
Member since:2006-06-02
Interesting juxtaposition. I realize, of course, that you understand the issues are much deeper than any variety of bloggers ruminations and selective observations. That is clear in your post.
I do find fascinating irony in your comment "IBM and Microsoft's actions are in no way similar. " These companies actions are in no way similar because the motivation is in no way similar.
Microsoft is trying to protect its stranglehold on businesses, governments, and consumers. They are doing this by naming thier proposed "standard" to appear open and similar to ODF, and also trying to appear supportive Open Source with a filter project on SourceForge. I will give Microsoft credit for that, even though it smells rather ripe. Microsoft voting yes for ODF's fastracking is a hollow attempt to make their efforts appear "interoperable" and "open".
IBM's motivations are certainly not altruistic. They are motivated by profit, and protecting their investment. The difference is IBM is pushing for a Common Sense solution. IBM is addressing the stark realities we see in the digital world. The irony is that open standards benefit everyone, customers and solutions prividers alike , EVEN MICROSOFT..
Microsoft has a very poor track record when it comes to tuly listening to customers. In this battle between OOXML and ODF, the simple core is the customer's needs. What all customers want is to be able to work without concern for which platform they, their partners and customers are using. Users want the content they create and distribute to be appropriately used without the additional inconvenience of filters, or without the encumberance of another half-baked EULA.
Microsoft would do well to join in so that users can freely do as they want with their own content. Microsoft should work at making the best tools for users to create and use their own content, truly meeting the needs of the customers. The problem is Microsoft does not do well in the tool making arena. The halcyon days of proprietary formats is swiftly moving into the archives of history while Microsoft is looking more like a beached whale.
Member since:2007-02-17
A very questionable claim, at best.
OpenDocument efforts to create an open, interoperable, vendor-nuetral, cross-platform common standard to support all features of Office files began as early as 1999, and work to make it a standard began in about 2000/2002 timeframe:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/odf-adoption/OpenDocumentHistory
http://old.opendocumentfellowship.org/Articles/HistoryOfOpenDocumen...
Microsoft sat in on all the development process, offerred not one word during the whole time, then simply refused to support the format, despite Microsoft's engineers saying that it would be trivial to implement.
Microsoft's initial statement for their lack of support for OpenDocument (even though it would be trivial for Microsoft to implement, and it had been a long, long time coming) was that "there is no demand".
When it became clear that there was in fact demand, Microsoft then claimed "it does not support our leagcy documents" ... despite the fact that Microsoft's legacy document formats are deliberately obscured by Microsoft, and Microsoft could have added support in OpenDocument for any feature they wanted merely by saying so during OpenDocument development. The Sun ODF plugin for Office nicely demonstrates the falsehood of this second position of Microsoft's.
Microsoft's latest spin is to try to frame the debate as purely an "IBM vs Microsoft" squabble, which is interesting spin in the light of OpenDocument actually being a freely-available royalty-free ISO standard based originally upon a format from Sun Microsystems, and heavily modified over a period of more than five years by a multiple-organization committee. IBM's Notes product did not support this format until it was well developed.
The fact that Microsoft have totally changed their tune no less than three times on this topic underlines the fact that the Microsoft-speak is all spin.
The real characterisation of this issue is that Microsoft is all about desperately trying to keep its monopoly, proprietary position in document formats alive.
The real characterisation of the issue from a government perspective is that government should not be beholden to a single source supplier, and that government (and other public-interest bodies) needs sovregnity over its data.
http://conferences.aoir.org/viewabstract.php?id=482&cf=5
Edited 2007-07-23 04:48
Member since:
2005-07-02
Replace "IBM" with "Microsoft" in this sentence, and you've got it about right.
MS was a member of OASIS, BTw. As far as Office 2007 goes, there is already an ODF filter for it, courtesy of Sun.
In any case, that does not excuse Microsoft stacking the committees with friendly representatives in order to push their own format, instead of agreeing on a *true* open, cross-platform format. I guess you might be as "agnostic" as your nickname suggest.