Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Office 2007 to Support ODF - But Not OOXML
Andy Updegrove writes "About two hours ago, Microsoft announced that it will update Office 2007 to natively support ODF 1.1, but not to implement its own OOXML format. Not until Office 14 is released (no date given so far for that) will anyone be able to buy an OOXML ISO-compliant version. Why will Microsoft do this after so many years of refusal? Perhaps because the only way it can deliver a product to government customers that meets an ISO/IEC document format standard is by finally taking the plunge, and supporting 'that other format.' Still, many questions remain, such as when this upgrade will actually be released, how good a job it will do, and whether the API Microsoft has said it will make available to permit developers to supply 'save to ODF' default plugins will be supported by a patent non-assertion promise allowing implementations under the GPL (the upgrade supplied by Microsoft will not allow ODF as the default setting)."
They have yielded this little bit because they have to but it is too little too late.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Chances of it having several Microsoft-specific "add-ons" that are patent-encumbered and not supported by the actual ODF spec: Approaching 100%.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Not even they are going to implement it until the next full office release. You have to admit, that says a lot about the standard.
Honestly, the first thing I thought when I saw this article was that it had to be some kind of April Fools article come late.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
You can say all negative things you will about it, but this is a great victory for ODF.
-- Cheers!
- Will ODF spreadsheets be functionally equivalent to CSV?
- Will ODF text be functionally equivalent to plain-text ASCII with line breaks?
- WIll ODF presentations be JPEG renderings?
- Will ODF import and export take hours?
- etc.
I've occasionally been accused of having an evil mind, but I'm sure that professionals given weeks or months can come up with better kneecapping plans than the above amateur hipshots.Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
It may be that Microsoft is serious about supporting ODF, but I would not be surprised if it is somehow "crippled" or poorly implemented within the word processor and spreadsheet. Somehow I don't feel that you will be able to open an .odf made in Word with OpenOffice and there will be no "artifacts" or some loss of formatting, and vice versa of course. There are already issues with odf's opening across operating systems (usually a font issue causing discrepancy in formatting), and I am sure that Microsoft will use this opportunity to "make its case" for the "superiority" of its native format, whatever that format may be.
If this will not be, it will be a most astute business move. Making their office suite cost less would be even better.
For every present, there is a past
I think they are begrudgingly supporting ODF since their customers are demanding it, but making the implementation just irritating enough (and, I would guess, incompatible with many features of Office) that users will be inclined to just work in docx (which OpenOffice and others cannot read perfectly, if at all).
Very true but this is the foot in the door people have been waiting for. The problem I have always had was not opening up DOC docs but not being able to trust the ones I send from OO. Now that I know MS office can read ODF I can safely make and send them out with out worrying. Making ODF common is step one. Making DOC and XLS uncommon is step two. Making DOC and XLS so uncommon that people go through the hassle of converting them is step three.
It could also back-fire. If users are required by business requirements to exchange files as ODF, and MS Office makes this difficult while OO.o makes it default, it's more incentive to switch.
Obviously Microsoft is counting on this to let them sell MS Office to governments as "ISO compatible" until they can properly implement the OOXML standard, while still trying to keep everyone using their proprietary formats. It's a risky gamble, and with Office 14 having no announced release date, not one I'd be comfortable making.
http://www.mhall119.com
Office 2008 for Mac may have the version 13 identifier.
http://www.mhall119.com
Sorry, but most people actually couldn't give a crap about standards. Most people just want a functional suite of office applications that works more or less the way they've come to expect such programs. Most people aren't even aware that there is such a thing as a file format, or that there are different types of them.
Most people also want to be able to easily exchange documents with other people. That's part of the reason why Office is so well entrenched. Sure, you can download a copy of OO to open an ODF file, but if you're running a business, you don't want to make your clients do that, because it's a hassle. Nearly everyone has Office, and practically nobody has OO (this is in rough marketshare percentages).
Don't get me wrong. I would rather have a clear, open standard with a decent existing implementation that's not tied to the whims of a vendor. But I and people like me really are a very small part of the market.
Success for them for sure. Say's nothing about the success/failure for the people actually buying it.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
(or of course like Orcs in Warcraft III we really really have misunderstood them ...).
Andy
Actually their EEE with HTML worked great! Customers are so locked into IE6 they can't upgrade to IE7 without doing a complete standards-based rewrite.
I'm more scared of them supporting ODF than I am of OOXML. How do we know they aren't going to try to do what they successfully did to Netscape. They could easily add a bunch of their own stuff into ODF so that nothing but Office would be able to read the ODF files Office puts out.
If however they are really trying to comply with ODF then hats off to MS for being serious about embracing standards.
Why shouldn't they support both formats?
First OOXML is not approved by the ISO yet. So by Office 14, the ISO will approve of a final format and OOXML support can be added to Office 14 and I am sure Microsoft will release retropatches for older Office versions to support it as well. Most likely going back as far as Office 2000 or Office 97.
Microsoft knows that OpenOffice.Org, Star Office, IBM Lotus Symphony, and other office suites already support ODF, and Microsoft does not want Office 2007 to be the pink elephant that does not support ODF, and Office 2007 users couldn't open up ODF format documents from friends and coworkers, and would flock to Office 2007 alternatives to open them up. Microsoft knows that would cut into Office 2007 sales as most ODF office suites are free to download and use.
Microsoft also knows that many governments have already decided to support ODF format documents, and if Office 2007 doesn't get ODF support, sales will go to Microsoft's competitors.
There have been massive online campaigns for ODF and against OOXML, this is Microsoft's way of silencing critics of Office 2007 that it does not support a true open standard.
Microsoft knows that MS-Word and PDF documents have already started to be replaced with ODF documents. Also the old RTF format no longer meets the needs of Internet documents anymore and MS-Word format is just a modified RTF format. Just as Adobe lost control of who uses the PDF standard, Microsoft knows that they can get control of the ODF format from Sun/IBM etc as well.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I'm not so sure. They can only lose share to quite capable (and free) alternatives. Its not the empty marketplace it was 5 years ago.
If Microsoft's options are:
Plan A) Lose market share and goodwill by making things as awkward as possible, making a hash of the implementation or making their products look poor.
Plan B) Lose less market share by having a crack at making the ODF implementation they can one top of the base of their current line.
Its probably a good bet that someone not interested in playing law suit marketing can see the benefit of having the best, most extended (with proprietary extensions) ODF format they can.
When I say this sounds like a good sign...
But almost every time stuff like this happens, Microsoft eventually ends up playing their old tricks.
It would be cool if they surprised us this time, but they have far too great a credibility dept for me to think anything particularly good will come from this move.
I stole this Sig
Microsoft claiming to be the victors over Open Source makes about as much sense as claiming to be victorious over Extreme Programming.
Open Source is not a product. It is not a company. It is not an individual. It is not a group. It is not an entity. Open Source is a development model.
The only way that Microsoft could be "victorious" over Open Source is if they were to originate a superior development model that attracted more developers to it.
Since that has not happened, I'm really not sure what sort of victory they are talking about.
On the other hand, they could be trying to say that they are victorious over products developed using the open source model.
But even this is a strange thing to be saying because the game never ends. They may be selling more of Microsoft product X than there are installations of Open Source product Y, but is that a permanent situation or a temporary one? If history tells us anything, it is the latter.
The sad sick truth of the matter is that Microsoft's precarious position is due entirely to lack of competition, a situation that it worked very hard to create. If Microsoft were but one 800 pound gorilla among many 800 pound gorillas, then the product quality engendered through the process of competition would mean that Open Source products would have a very hard time of it.
But because Microsoft has been so successful at defeating its competitors, it has nowhere to go but down. Growth of a company is dependent upon its markets. It can't grow bigger than the markets it serves. The bigger a percentage a company has of a particular market, the more difficult it becomes to grab more of that market. This is why Microsoft's strategy has always been to violate anti-trust regulations in order to conquer new markets.
Unluckily for them, they can't do that anymore. Since they cannot expand, that leaves them in the precarious position of having to defend their position within the markets they have already conquered, and as anyone can tell you, you can't win a defensive war. The most you can hope for is that the enemy gets tired and goes home, and that doesn't happen in free markets. There is always another enemy coming right behind to take a shot at you.
So not only are they not "victorious" over Open Source, they aren't even going to be able to maintain their current position. That isn't to say that the company is doomed, only that much like the British Empire, their glory days are at an end.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
But idiots like you think ODF is a god format?
It specifically allows someone like Microsoft to rape it - BECAUSE IT LACKS SO MANY STANDARD FORMAT implementations...
Microsoft will turn ODF into a virtual equivalent of OOXML (think ODF/MS) if it is the standard. Ink content ODF/MS format, Voice tagging OSF/MS format, etc etc etc...
So again to read any non ODF written standard, MS will write it and you will still be using MS specifications in the long run.
And no one else here thought of this before?
It's okay, I too wonder what the hell people's problem with twitter actually is.
He has multiple accounts? So fucking what? His posts aren't that great? Again, so fucking what?
Is twitter some sort of child molester and I missed the memo, or is it really just that some number of ACs really have nothing better to do than search out all of his posts and whine about him because... um... just because?
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Disclaimer: I'm new here!
Why, precisely does it matter as whom he posts? Even if all these accounts are, as is apparently the consensus, belonging to twitter, shouldn't you be rebutting his POINTS instead of his name? You spend two and a half paragraphs attacking his accounts, and half of one line giving a statement that says, in essense "oh, yeah, and your argument doesn't make sense either." Sounds like an ad hominem to me.
If I were someone coming in without an opinion, I would see someone making a statement backed up by data, as much as you may contest its validity, followed immediately by an unprovoked attack on the person who made the statement.
Like I said, I'm new here. Care to tell me why, exactly, you choose to respond against the man instead of against his data?