foobar on computers, software and the rest of the world


OOXML and RTF: Two anti-competitive strategies, two bad ideas

, posted: 4-Jan-2008 09:53

There was a very good article posted by Rob Weir a couple of days ago, which today is discussed on Slashdot as well. It makes an interesting comparison between OOXML (Microsoft's new proposed office document standard) and the much older RTF standard. It argues that Microsoft will use OOXML to further lock in their customers, and to continually make it difficult for any competitor to produce OOXML compatibility, while officially being able to claim 'standard compliance', just like they have done in the past with RTF. And since Microsoft has shown its strategy with RTF in the past, why - the article asks - should we assume anything else from Microsoft today?

As it turns out, Microsoft had proposed the RTF 'standard' as a means for document exchange between office suites. However, because they were the only one controlling and defining this so-called standard, they forced any competitor to constantly play catch-up, delay their product offerings, and remain in effect permanently at a disadvantage. This lead to a 2004 anti-trust complaint of Novell against Microsoft. Novell starts by summarising the benefits of an open standard for the exchange of documents:
...a truly standard file format that was open to all ISVs would have enhanced competition in the market for word processing applications, because such a standard allows the exchange of text files between different word processing applications used by different customers. A user wishing to exchange a text file with a second user running a different word processing application could simply convert his file to the standard format, and the second user could convert the file from the standard format into his own word processor's format.
Then it gets to the core of the issue:
...Microsoft knew that if it controlled the convertibility of documents through its control of the RTF standard, then Microsoft would be able to exclude competing word processing applications from the market and force customers to adopt Microsoft Word, as it soon did.
For some reason, the world left Microsoft in control of the RTF 'standard'. Consequently, Microsoft took full advantage of those powers that had been vested in them:
The specifications for RTF were readily available to Microsoft's applications developers... Microsoft withheld the RTF specifications from Novell, however, forcing Novell to engage in a perpetual, costly effort to comply with a critical "industry standard" that was, in reality, nothing more than the preference of its chief competitor, Word. Indeed, whenever Word changed its own file format, Microsoft unilaterally and identically changed the RTF standard for Windows, forcing Novell and other ISVs constantly to redevelop their applications.
What does this have to do with OOXML, you may ask? After all, the specifications for it are published, right? Well, the current version is. However, Microsoft has clearly stated that they will balance competitive innovation with the real interoperability needs of customers and partners (taken from a Microsoft press release). So, Microsoft sees it as perfectly legitimate to NOT adhere to the standard whenever they please. They determine what that 'balance' is. They determine what the 'real interoperability needs' are. As the article states:
Whenever Word changes, OOXML will change. And if you are a user or competitor of Word, you will be the last one to hear about these changes. ISO does not own OOXML. Ecma does not own OOXML. OOXML, in practice, is controlled and determined solely by the Office product teams at Microsoft. No one else matters
And further:
Consider that Microsoft has recently proposed over 1,700 changes to the OOXML specification, including fixes that presumably will be made into a future Office 2007 fixpack. Microsoft knows what these fixes will be. The Office developer teams know what these fixes will be. But if you are a competitor of Microsoft's in this space, do you know what these changes are? No. Microsoft has decided to keep them a secret, claiming that the ISO process allows them to withhold interoperability information from competitors in what they maintain is an "open standard".
Great! So here we are again. You would think we all have learned from RTF. But apparently, some people have not. The strategy pursued by Microsoft is crystal clear. Let's close with a few more words from Novell, by quoting from their complaint about RTF:
In this manner, Microsoft gave Word a permanent, insurmountable lead in time-to-market and made document conversions difficult for users otherwise interested in running non-Microsoft applications. Many WordPerfect users were thus forced to switch to Microsoft Word, which predictably monopolized the word processing market....
There you have it. Can a leopard change its spots? Why should we believe for a second that Microsoft's intent is not exactly the same with OOXML as it was with RTF?


Tag(s):           


Other related posts:
New Zealand's national broadcaster (TVNZ) discriminating against non-Windows users?
Microsoft Office to support ODF
OOXML gets ISO blessing - bad for all of us








Comment by William, on 14-Jan-2008 16:02

Hey foo!

Have you seen this.... backward compatibility be damned!

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/microsofts_half_hearted_support_for_old_office_formats


Add a comment

Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted. E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.

Are you a registered Geekzone user? Login to have the fields below automatically filled in for you and to enable links in comments. If you have (or qualify to have) a Geekzone Blog then your comment will be automatically confirmed and placed in the moderation queue for the blog owner's approval.

Your name:

Your e-mail:

Your webpage:

foobar's profile

 
New Zealand


  • Who I am: Software developer and consultant.
  • What I do: System level programming, Linux/Unix. C, C++, Java, Python, and a long time ago even Assembler.
  • What I like: I'm a big fan of free and open source software. I'm Windows-free, running Ubuntu on my laptop. To a somewhat lesser degree, I also follow the SaaS industry.
  • Where I have been: Here and there, all over the place.




Google Search


Recent posts

Attack on net neutrality right...
Munich already saved millions ...
Iceland's public administratio...
More Apple madness (follow up)...
Apple demonstrates: With great...
Smooth sailing with the Karmic...
Censorship in New Zealand: Wid...
Image roll-over effects withou...
How about: Three strikes and Y...
UK government supports open so...


Top 10

How to write a Linux virus in ...
(11-Feb-2009 06:33, 458158 views)
Follow up: How to write a Linu...
(12-Feb-2009 08:10, 64382 views)
A truly light-weight OS: Writt...
(3-Feb-2009 10:39, 46499 views)
The 'Verified by Visa' fiasco ...
(20-Jun-2008 09:59, 32275 views)
EEE PC with XP is cheaper than...
(9-May-2008 06:50, 20209 views)
11 reasons to switch to Linux...
(4-Feb-2009 09:24, 20120 views)
Would you use Google App Engin...
(8-Apr-2008 20:02, 19405 views)
Censorship in New Zealand: Wid...
(16-Jul-2009 12:11, 18857 views)
Django Plugables: Tons of plug...
(11-Apr-2008 03:24, 16803 views)
Slow file copy bug in Vista: A...
(21-Dec-2007 12:18, 15932 views)