RSSMicrosoft's Interop Chief: People Should Choose Their Own Standards
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published June 15, 2007, 3:21 PM
In an interview with BetaNews earlier this week, Microsoft General Manager for Interoperability and Standards Tom Robertson volunteered to present his company's present stance on the perennially controversial topic of interoperability, and the degree to which it can be reasonably achieved without giving away trade secrets.
While discussion continues among members of the International Standards Organization over whether to ratify ECMA's recommendation that Microsoft's Office Open XML format be adopted as an international standard, Robertson told us in response to a question about who truly determines standards, that Microsoft believes people make the final decision - not companies, not countries, and perhaps not really agencies.
The controversy over whether the prevalence of Microsoft Office in the workplace locks customers into the company's proprietary format and precludes their ability to choose alternatives, first heated up in September 2005.
At that time, the State of Massachusetts issued a kind of unofficial proclamation that was nonetheless heard loud and clear: "The Commonwealth defines open formats as specifications for data file formats that are based on an underlying open standard, developed by an open community, affirmed and maintained by a standards body, and are fully documented and publicly available."
The Commonwealth made that statement by way of voicing its support for OpenDocument Format (ODF) as its choice for systems to be used by its employees. Since that time, California has added its voice to the debate, treating the Massachusetts statement as a kind of state worker's information bill of rights.
So Microsoft took the surprising tack of trying to demonstrate its OOXML format met all four of the Commonwealth's stated criteria, thus far with some success in California. The loss of individual states as customers may not make a serious dent in Microsoft's revenues from Office licenses, though the symbology of these real and potential losses was treated seriously, as though it would resonate among future customers...and among European judges and commissioners who are still deciding the fate of Microsoft's business there.
Tom Robertson came to us with a message about Microsoft's approach to achieving interoperability, the four-pillar structure of which is almost certainly not coincidental. As he explained to us at length, his company adopts any or all of four internal toolsets - methodologies for approaching the general goal of interoperability, some toolsets to more varying degrees than others.
First is the notion that software should be designed to interoperate with other software "out of the box," which Robertson says is a principle that the company took to heart with the development of Windows Vista.
"I would say that standards need to be determined by the market - that at the end of the day, people should have the ability to choose the technology that best meets their needs." Tom Robertson, General Manager for Interoperability and Standards, Microsoft |
Third is a concept which the company calls "Access to Technology," and which encompasses its IP licensing programs - some of which were brought about at the urging of the European Commission.
Commercial licenses give corporations and individuals access to Microsoft's proprietary technology, while more community-driven programs identify certain areas where the company is more willing to share ideas with developers and open source groups.
The concept also encompasses the company's Open Specification Promise, which is a unilateral statement pledging that it will refrain from suing individuals and companies for the non-infringing use of those patented technologies it makes openly available, so long as those parties pledge in turn never to take legal action against Microsoft.
The fourth "toolset" in Microsoft's internal kit is the promotion of standards, which was ratcheted up a few notches this afternoon with Robertson's and partner Jean Paoli's publication today of an open letter supporting ODF's and OOXML's co-existence as international standards, so long as ODF proponents pledge to abide by the principle of offering choice to consumers.
It was a long and detailed preamble, which you've just seen summarized here. We pick up on our interview with Tom Robertson at the point where we started discussing the efficacy of the standards process in enabling Microsoft to achieve its goals, after the jump:
Next: "I do wonder whether standardization is the most appropriate way..."
I've made my comment on this matter here:
http://www.betanews.com/...mong_Formats/1181922127
If OXML built on the ODF standard as a foundation rather than presented itself as an alternative, then perhaps we could go somewhere on this.
Since it creates an alternative proprietary route, we can't.
Hopefully ISO will not ratify OXML as a standard.
Score: 0
If the determination of a standard were left to the market, there would be no standard. Vendors have no incentive to produce products that work with competitor's products. Only when customers demand that vendors meet a standard will compliant products be produced.
A lot of buildings burned down before fire hoses and fire hydrants were standardized, and if there were more than one standard they would still be burning down.
If you look at products where the customers just take what the market offers all you see are islands of incompatibilty with plastic tabs that don't do anything but stop brand A from accepting brand B refills. You can call it busines as usual, customer-lock-in, or in some situations monopolistic anti-competitive behavior, but what it means is that you pay more than you would if there were a standard.
And please note I said a standard, singular. Multiple standards is an oxymoron.
Score: 0
It's about money. Those who have it and those who don't, but wish they did. Microsoft has lots of money and they want even more. Only players with deep pockets can change the way the game is played.
Free and freedom are nice words, but they only apply if you have money. IBM, Cisco and Google have lots of money so they are free to do as they like, they are real players in the game. We call this game capitalism. You may have wonderful ideas and great products, but until you get the money it means zip. So off you go to one of the players, hoping to find a source of money, so you can get into the game.
Score: 0
And so say Borg of Microsoft.
How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a light bulb?
None. They've declared dark a standard.
Score: 0
Wow, I'd really like to use my own "Z" standard for electrical outlets, and then tell everyone to start building their appliances to run on it! And this has been another episode of how "Microsoft doesn't get it." Thanks for tuning in!
For the counterargument, read Rob Weir:
The question we face today is whether we want to carry forward the mistakes of the past and the extensive and expensive logic required to maintain this inherently unstable duct tape and bailing wire Office format, or whether we move forward to an engineered format that takes into account the best practices in XML design, reuses existing international standards, and is built upon a framework of dependencies that ensures that the format is not hostage to a chain of technologies that can be manipulated by a single vendor for their sole commercial advantage.
Score: 0
Wow, I'd really like to use my own "Z" standard for electrical outlets, and then tell everyone to start building their appliances to run on it!
...and you could. If it was better, people might actually use it. If not, who cares?
Just another example of how Zaine doesn't get it.
Apparently, in your delusional world, choice and options are Bad Things™. Most of the rest of us like having a couple of options.
Score: 0
Ouch, the stupid, it burns!
...and you could. If it was better, people might actually use it. If not, who cares?
Ever heard of ANSI? ICEA? NTCIP? Your blathering ignorance on every issue is both amusing and tiring, my friend. And as usual, you never address the issue, but just spew your same old troll-bait.
Score: 0
And as usual, you never address the issue, but just spew your same old troll-bait.
Sorry. Should I instead take your methodology of simply cutting and pasting the testimony from the latest "experts"?
Or perhaps I should be "mature" like you and throw up some stupid childish little website?
Ever heard of ANSI? ICEA? NTCIP?
Gee. You mean the folks certifying standards? Where MS just voted to get ODF certified?
Nope, never heard of 'em.
Typical response I'd expect from you.
You claim I don't address the issue,. when your own response is nothing more than a childish troll. You throw out a few acronyms and insult the poster who doesn't agree with you.
Pure genius.
My kids are smarter than you, and *far* more mature. Not really a stretch for anyone, really.
Score: 0
Did I wake up in an alternative reality today???
"...Microsoft believes people make the final decision - not companies, not countries, and perhaps not really agencies.". After locking up the market for decades, can you feel the sizzle under MS' feet?
Funny how a little heat from people, government and agencies will do to giant bullies.
Score: 0
Granted MS has a firm grip on many "standards". Over a decade of market penetration has done wonders for making MS Office standard fare.
While it sucks they have locked everyone into using Word, etc.; It's a done deal. You can't un-ring a bell.
Big business isn't simply going to toss themselves under the bus, and convert to some half-baked new format tomorrow, to bail themselves out of lock-in. It doesn't work like that.
No big deal for Joe Sixpack to start using ODF. Huge deal for a company or state with millions, if not billions of existing documents in Word format to do so.
Score: 0
That's just it. As long as they don't migrate to the deeply flawed MS-OOXML format, they can convert all their .doc files to ODF with high accuracy. Businesses only get locked in if they start using MS-OOXML with all it's problems, coding mistakes, dependencies, and contradictions.
Score: 0
Ain't gonna happen. Nobody wants to convert anything.
Score: 0
Pheew! What happened to Christopher Lloyd and that bell.
Score: 0