As expected, yesterday was dominated by questions and queries around the news that Microsoft was funding and contributing to (not code) a plugin for Microsoft Office that would support the Open Document Format. I had emails and IMs coming in most of the day, and discussed the news with a couple of customers. In a serendipitous coincidence, we were able to snag Sun’s Simon Phipps for his reaction in our RedMonk Radio podcast to discuss the news, as he happened to be IMing both Cote and I as we got close to recording time. It’s a bit rambling, but there’s some interesting discussion in there, IMO.
From all of these conversations, and some other commentary in the industry, a couple of answers or clarifications seem to be in order. I’ll tackle them in no particular order.
- Is Changing the Default “Save As” Impossible?
Several readers have written in to correct me on the assertion I made here:As I understand it, however, having queried Microsoft on this (and they should feel free to correct me if I got it wrong) changing the default “Save As” behavior is not possible. Well, technically it’s possible, but not without locking virtually everything else in the File menu down; a solution that is not likely to be acceptable to wide audiences.
Simon touched on this in his own response to the news here, saying:
This is clearly inferior to the OpenDocument Foundation plug-in for Word, which elegantly adds ODF as another, peer file format so you can open, save and work with files in a natural way.
These corrections are due to the fact that I was not sufficiently clear in my remarks. What I had intended to say was not that changing the default “Save As” behavior was impossible univerally, but merely with the plugin that Microsoft was announcing. Other plugins, as Simon notes, are sure to demonstrate that adequately. My apologies to those who were mislead by that, and my thanks to those who corrected me.
- Competing Plugins?
One of the problems in discussing either the Microsoft plugin or the OpenDocument Foundation plugin that Simon mentions is that I haven’t seen them. As I discuss at the start of the podcast, most of my analysis of the situation is based on descriptions and research of the tools as opposed to – as is my custom – actual usage. The primary reason for this is access: important portions of the Microsoft plugin, such as ODF export, have yet to be completed, and the OpenDocument Foundation has not yet been made available. So it’s important to remember that most commenters, myself included, are doing the best we can with limited information.That said, several people have asked me if Microsoft’s plugin is the best ODF can hope for as far as Microsoft Office is concerned, and my answer to that is no. Whether it’s the OpenDocument Foundation or another third party, if there is sufficient demand – which I believe yesterday’s announcement should prove there is – first class ODF support within Office is probably inevitable, regardless of what Microsoft chooses to deliver. Which brings us to support of those plugins.
- Who will support the Microsoft ODF plugin?
In the comments to yesterday’s post, Portugal’s Jaime Cardoso asked what I thought was a very good question, saying:With this plugin, MS Office will support ODF and, therefore, will not be excluded of the public RFPs that demand ODF support but, will that plugin be able to be integrated in Software distribution platforms like the MS SMS server? Will the patches and upgrades of the MS Office platform respect and not break the mentioned plugin?
We touched on this during our briefing, but apart from the fact that Microsoft doesn’t intend to provide commercial support for the plugin I don’t have the answers that Jaime is looking for. Microsoft’s Jason Matusow, in a follow up comment, has promised to see that these are followed up on, saying:
I am not part of the Office team, but am part of the core team working on this project. I will make sure to raise the issue internally so that we are able to address it effectively for customers.
But all of the discussion around support begs the question of whether or not the usage of the term support – my piece was entitled “Microsoft Office to Support ODF: The Q&A” – is justified. In his response to the news yesterday ZDNet’s David Berlind argued that it was not, saying:
But, on the other hand is the question of support. While Microsoft is sponsoring the development of this open source code, the code itself is coming from third parties and is not officially supported by Microsoft. According to a Microsoft spokesperson, Microsoft will take bug reports and it will be a Microsoft product manager’s job to relay the bug reports to the open source developers working the code, but Microsoft will not support the code or taking responsbility for its malfunction. This may be OK for a certain segment of Microsoft’s customers. But there are very large segments of customers — particularly in the government and corporate spaces that explicit support matters to — where any announcement that’s not officially supported in any of the existing support plans registers as little more than lip service.
As I discussed with David via email this morning, I take his point, but would defend my usage of support by saying that I’m using it in the context of open source. Microsoft is contributing funding and some sort of guidance – project management I was told, along with architectural advice according to Jason – which is a form of support. Much as we might say that IBM supports Linux or Sun supports GNOME by donating developer time and effort, so too would I claim that by funding this open source project Microsoft is supporting ODF, if indirectly. David and Jaime’s points on support are well taken, however, and point potentially to a significant third party opportunity to provide either support or a custom plugin for Office customers seeking commercial support for the ODF.
- Should Microsoft Just Join the ODF TC or Alliance?
Microsoft Monitor (Jupiter) Analyst Joe Wilcox asks that question, saying:But I scratch my head and wonder: Why doesn’t Microsoft just more directly work with the OASIS group with respect to reducing the technical issues?
Sun’s Phipps echoes that point, calling that in his del.icio.us comments a “great question.” I’m not so sure it is, but maybe we could cut a deal: Microsoft hops on the ODF bandwagon when Sun joins Eclipse 😉
In all seriousness, however, I’d personally love to see just that happen. As discussed yesterday, I’ve asked all along for Microsoft to support ODF as a first class citizen – alongside its own format if it truly believes the divide cannot be bridged – and clearly Microsoft involvement directly with the OASIS TC would be the surest route to that happening.
But unfortunately what I personally would like to see happen and what might be most logical from a macro perspective is more or less irrelevant; this is still a matter of incentive. As ex-Microsoftie Stephe Walli has pointed out previously, this is on some level, a very simple equation:
The economic purpose of a standard is to enable multiple implementations. Standards enable product substitutions to be made. As Tim Bray points out, Office represents a huge amount of the profitability of the corporation. Honestly encouraging multiple implementations is the wrong thing to do from a business perspective. The Board of Directors should be loudly questioning this strategy if that is Microsoft’s intent.
What ODF needs to do, in my opinion, is change that equation – and this announcement may be the first indication that that’s occuring. Simon’s headline gets it right – Microsoft will have to be dragged into this kicking and screaming. And as much as I might argue the point on a personal level, it makes perfect business sense. If we want Microsoft to participate in ODF more deeply, they need to be given an incentive. And that incentive, as seen in this case, is by threatening to close certain markets to them if they don’t comply. Economics will dictate their participation, and the economics were on ODF’s side in this case. If they continue to be, Microsoft will likely make more concessions; if they’re not, they won’t. Pretty simple.
As always, happy to address other questions or concerns that folks might have, and greatly appreciate the input so far.
