The battle between the OpenDocument Format and Microsoft's Open Office XML was long, and here and there rather nasty, but it appears as if we finally have a winner. The company behind OOXML already conceded by announcing it would implement support for ODF in Office 2007 SP2, but now it has also said it quite literally: ODF has won.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-17
Not quite.
As soon as Microsoft released a MSOffice product which claimed to support ODF, and use it as the default format, with a view to allowing governments to purchase MSOffice because it had support for standards, then the first thing that would happen if the MSOffice would be subjected to a complaince test.
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/OpenDocument_Compliance_Testing
Imagine that ... a test to see if a given program complies with a standard or not.
This is so foreign to "Microsoft think" that most Microsoft supporters would probably not even realise that such a possibility existed.
If Microsoft claim that certain features of an Office suite are not supported by ODF ... but other Office suites which did use ODF did support that feature ... then in that way also is Microsoft's claim demonstrated to be false. It is just that Microsoft haven't bothered to implement it.
Anyway ... if MSODF did not pass the compliance tests, or did not include some features that other ODF Office suites did support, then what you would have is an Office suite from Microsoft that implemented file saving poorly, and several alternatives that cost a lot less which implemented it correctly ...
Any fair tendering process for a government purchase would either reject non-compliant MSOffice with MSODF, or if it didn't such a decision would be trivially easy to appeal ...
The only way for MS to compete in this arena is to implement ODF correctly.
Edited 2008-06-19 23:34 UTC
Member since:2006-12-16
Quote: "Any fair tendering process for a government purchase would either reject non-compliant MSOffice with MSODF, or if it didn't such a decision would be trivially easy to appeal ..."
And you believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus don't you? Trivially easy to appeal? If that was the case, Microsoft should never have been able to hijack the recent ISO process for OOXML approval as an ISO standard. But - they did. Money talks. Shall I remind you of the Massachusetts debacle? I didn't see anyone appealing the decision to out the IT guy there, or kill off ODF and replace it with OOXML.
I agree that it *should* be an easy thing to appeal [and win], but what happens in fantasy, and real life are generally quite often opposites.
Dave
Member since:2006-01-16
Sorry but no. M.$ is still the monopoly when it comes to office suites (at least market share wise) and that means that THEIR format will dictate what will be used.
What M.$ did was very wise from their perspective. They seem to be cooperating, and the governments will have no reason to switch to non M.$ office suites now (price not withstanding, this is irrelevant to governments, because the people who decide what to buy are in 99% corrupt, they get a slice of the price).
What this means is that from now on, Office XXX will be used in governments with "but they support ODF" excuse, but the ODF they support will not be the ODF we support.
Simple as that, and pretty damn smart. You have to give them credit for these things, no other company even comes close to their evil geniality(tm)(R)(c).
Member since:
2006-10-25
Exactly.
If they implement ODF, but slightly off spec or with *cough*mistakes*cough*, then you would have ODF and MSODF.
You won't see Microsoft concede to release their grip on your data. Only when a significant number (say 10 percent) actually care if they can open their archived documents easily in 10 years and/or without paying money for the latest (possibly only available) version of MS Office will real standard implementation be dominant in the market. Which will make the data inter-operable, increasing competition, which will be beneficial to everyone - except Microsoft.
That is exactly why Microsoft has not, and will not concede. They will eventually lose, but you will not see them give up. If they did they would likely be facing shareholders in court.
When what is best for a corporation is not best for society or best for the advancement of the market that that the corporation operates in - the corporation is bound by law to maximize profit, even if that means stymieing advancement, even to such extremes as using all their power to actively damage their current markets if they believe will result in larger quarterly earnings.
Edited 2008-06-19 22:06 UTC