Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Accuses Google Docs of Data Infidelity
Hugh Pickens writes "For years Google has been pitching migrations from Microsoft Office to Google Docs, arguing that Docs makes Office 2003 and 2007 better because users can store Microsoft Office documents in Google's cloud and share them in their original format. Now eWeek reports that Alex Payne, director of Microsoft's online product management team, says that moving files created with Office to Google Docs results in the loss of data fidelity, including the loss of such data components as charts, styles, watermarks, fonts, tracked changes, and SmartArt. 'They are claiming that an organization can use both seamlessly,' Payne writes. 'This just isn't the case.' Meanwhile, Google defended its original 'Docs makes Office better' in a statement, noting that it has made a lot of improvements to the web editors in Docs with its recent refresh, and promising that functionality will only get better as Google integrates the DocVerse assets into Docs. 'It says a lot about Microsoft's approach to customer lock-in that the company touts its proprietary document formats, which only Microsoft software can render with true fidelity, as the reason to avoid using other products,' says a Google spokesperson."
That's because the formats are 'open' in the sense that they are poorly documented and difficult to implement. Opening your formats is one thing - assisting others to actively achieve interoperability is another
Well, if true, I guess you could count my (rather large) organization as one that would never used Google Docs. Tracking changes alone is a feature used extensively by our business departments.
I honestly don't think any web-based document system will can compete with MS Office (desktop version). If you've ever worked for any type of large business lately, word processing is WAY past the basic formatting options I've seen in any online suite.
The unfortunate thing is that teachers and professors all see the student issues due to the failure of the MS products, yet continue to insist on their use, blaming it on the incompetency of the students rather than the incompetency of MS.
MS products are good in firms that have the resources to insure all machines are homogeneous and up to date, firms that require a high level of collaborations of complex non-technical documents(This does not include most educational places). Otherwise, at least for documents, OO.org, Google docs, or LaTeX should be the norm. For spreadsheets OO.org, and especially Google, has some stuff lacking. For presentations, I think everything but Keynote pretty much sucks.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
"'It says a lot about Microsoft's approach to customer lock-in that the company touts its proprietary document formats, which only Microsoft software can render with true fidelity, as the reason to avoid using other products,' says a Google spokesperson.""
While M$ bashing is commonplace here I really think this attitude towards them is short-sighted as hell. Office is one of the one things I'll give credit to Microsoft for doing fairly decently. They're a for-profit software company, don't forget that.
Microsoft's approach involves selling software and client retention. That's not even something I could call evil in the same terms that google seems to be claiming. You want free? You lose functionality. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Google, however, is an advertising company, not a software company. Will they offer a product that doesn't in some way use your data for their means? I highly doubt it.
Henceforth - google's argument is similar to ford being angry that they can't use a honda engine in their vehicles while also admitting they have a superior product.
Because you know damn well that the moment Google Docs achieved true fidelity with MS Docs, then MS would turn around and change the specs again, thereby breaking fidelity...
C|N>K
Wow, Microsoft is really digging deep on that one. I don't have any problems tracking document changes. We use the strike-through and different colored text for each contributor. So I know at a glance who changed what.
If you need legal change tracking, you're not going to be using web-based software anyway. Besides, if there's a big call for that feature, I bet Google can figure out how to supply it.
I think the days of desktop software are winding down. Google can be far more nimble with Docs than MSFT can be with Office. And the features that the MS guy mentioned, only small minority of users find those at all useful.
Taking a swipe at Google just informed thousands people that you can move .docs around with GoogleDocs. Doesn't seem real bright.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"Uh, if Google cannot make their Docs applications compatible with Office formats, how is it Microsoft's fault?"
Because they keep everything a secret - thats been their way of destroying opposition.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
This also works as a good filter for companies I wouldnt want to work for; if they ask you to re-send in .doc format you probably dont want to work there anyway
Google has too many half-assed projects it cannot or doesn't fully support.
So, exactly the same as Microsoft, then?
... and then they built the supercollider.
This just goes to show that when you use Microsofts software, you are locked to using their products and their products only. Because the format is closed, other parties will always be playing catchup and can never guarantee 100% compatibility. So Googles snarky comment at the end reveals just how lethal lock-in can be. You are locked in, with no way out.
I can understand that you might resent loosing data in a migration or usage of another tool, but put the blame FIRST with Microsoft and THEN with yourself for having allowed yourself to get locked in.
In any other part of your business, you would avoid lock-in at all costs. Would you tolerate that your floors could only be provided by ONE company and that it means no body else can put in a carpet without it breaking gravity? Would you allow your truck fleet to be provided by only ONE company and have that company know it? A common trick in the trucking branch is when it is time to place a new order is to invite the truck company to your place of business and have a few rival trucks parked in sight. Just a hint that you and the sales rep know there is competition out there.
In IT? You happily invite the MS guy to give you a new deal in your all MS office that can only deal with MS formats... yeah. What is the word in the sales rep mind? Bonus? Sucker?
Governments do this all the time, they give their divisions rules that they must buy from a supplier who has won the bid. And gosh, once they have the bid for the next couple of years, service just goes out of the window. How surprising. Especially when you just know that the quality of service under the previous contract will play no role whatsoever under the new bidding round. Ever wonder why government often does so badly in efficiency? They think lock-in is a GOOD thing. You know how you get good service from a supplier? Make him sweat as to whether your next order will be going to him. It is how the game is played.
Really, take a long hard look at your own company. How certain are you that you can access your own info without aid from a third party? A paper archive is easy. No matter who supplies the binders, you can read it. Tape drives? How certain are you they continue to be compatible? Are your records required by law actually readable? Can you afford to ditch a supplier who doesn't make business sense anymore? Can you get the best deal if the supplier knows you need him?
Why do you think MS sells Windows for ever higher prices? They know they got you by the short and curlies.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
if you're going to be a grammar troll you could at least be right. Policies is the subject in the second sentence and it's plural, are is correct.
This is rich! Microsoft's software has the poorest interoperability capability of all Office Productivity suites.
Why should MS bitch about this when it's own software cannot even open basic documents created in other office productivity suites?
If the format was just slightly difficult to understand, one person would have figured it out. If it was quite difficult, a team of people would have figured it out.
.doc file, that speaks volumes for the format's obfuscation.
That several teams, talented individuals and the combined power of the internets haven't figured out how to fully and correctly render a fairly simple
"It says a lot about Microsoft's approach to customer lock-in that the company touts its proprietary document formats, which only Microsoft software can render with true fidelity, as the reason to avoid using other products..."
And, "... valuing customer lock-in over actual innovation."
Microsoft is EXTREMELY abusive, in my opinion. In this case, most of the customers can't fight the extremely expensive hassles Microsoft creates, and they pay Microsoft again and again as the company changes its file formats.
I think all file formats should be in the public domain. Any company that doesn't open its formats should face anti-trust action.