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."
On the one hand, it seems anyone who's ever used a computer before in their life would half-way expect this sort of incompatibility to arise, given the drastically different natures of Google Docs and Office (Web based vs standalone app).
On the other hand, how often do the people Google is trying to cater to actually use these features? Google Docs has always struck me as a quick and easy way to get Word documents from anywhere. And I've gotta say, not many of my office reports use fancy styles, or SmartArt. Charts occasionally, yes, but the rest of those items just strike me as "meh" and SmartArt particularly strikes me as "yeah, that was cool when I was seven."
I dunno. It just doesn't seem to me like this is going to be a problem in common usage.
So this basically just states that Google Doc's data fidelity is only as good as Google makes it. So the only question businesses have is "Are Googles data fidelity policies better maintained than our own".
If yes, use it, if no, stay internal.
What Microsoft has to do with that question other than warping the question into an assumption to fear i sure dont know.
Ice Cream has no bones.
I suspect the issue is preservation of "change tracking" metadata between Docs and Word, rather than change tracking in Docs, or change tracking in Word.
I further suspect that this is a difficult thing because(in addition to probably being crufty, complex, and not as well documented as it might be), "change tracking" is partially a strictly technical problem, and partly a UI/design philosophy problem. It would be, by no means, a surprise to learn that Word and Docs have distinct approaches that simply may not be fully commensurate with one another.
Consider the analogy of programs/UIs that are basically folder hierarchy based, vs. programs/UIs that are basically metadata "tag" based. There are some basic technical challenges you would run into if you wanted to make one approach play nicely with the other(ie. parsing the metadata properly); but most of your challenges would be more about stylistic decisions concerning how best to bodge one style into the other's conventions. Should you parse the metadata and create "virtual folders" that echo a sensible folder hierarchy organization of those files? If you have a hierarchical folder tree, how best to turn that information into meaningful tags?, etc.
I love the way the term 'ideology' is used to co-opt the debate.
There are correct uses of the term, of course. But in this example, it means, "I don't care if you're right and I'm wrong. I'm paying you to do your job my way, so shut up and do it."
In any area of business, this makes the employee exactly as smart -or as stupid- as the boss. Statistically speaking, therefore, it's a stupid approach.
Let's be clear, though: Here on Slashdot, 'Ideology' is really just code for FOSS and the principle that there is indeed a Right Tool For The Job, but that tool isn't always the most expedient. 'Ideology', therefore, sometimes means more work and potentially delayed gratification.
Of course, sometimes it means the opposite. Sometimes it means, 'quit floundering about using third-rate tools. Apply a little original thought for once in your life and accept that there are better ways to get things done.'
The wise boss knows about the risks on both sides of this equation and remains open to persuasion (though appropriately skeptical). The unwise boss, labels every thought not originating between his ears 'ideology' and ignores it.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Google's Spreadsheet product is actually in some respects superior to Microsoft's. Yes, it doesn't do data pivots or indents (crucial for accounting layouts), but it's integrated with (online, natch) forms and search. I haven't had much call to use Google's "word", but fire up the spreadsheets daily. In the long run, however, I think that Microsoft has hooped itself by valuing customer lock-in over actual innovation. Google will continue to improve its "office" offering, becoming "good enough" for more and more applications.