Response to Ars Technica's Article on the ODF/OOXML Report

Blogger: Guy Creese

Five days ago Ars Technica issued its view of the Burton Group ODF/OOXML report and made it clear that they disagreed with its findings, going with the headline, "Analyst group slams ODF, downplays Microsoft ISO abuses."

We've had some questions from Burton Group clients and others about the article, so I thought it would be worthwhile to go through where we agree, where we disagree, where Ars Technica mischaracterizes what we said, and where it's wrong.

First, a point on which we agree:

• Microsoft's Large Market Share Will Have an Impact: Ars Technica states,  "Statistically, the large market share of Microsoft's office suite will likely ensure that OOXML becomes the industry de facto standard...." We agree. As we state at the beginning of the Analysis section, "... many enterprises are not that caught up in the standards debate; they just want to use what works for their needs. Microsoft Office 2007 defaults to storing documents in OOXML format, so, by migrating to Office 2007, many companies will let Microsoft make the decision for them."

Areas where we disagree:

• Microsoft Doesn't Want to Foster Interoperability: Ars Technica states, "...the veracity of Microsoft's stated intentions to foster interoperability shouldn't be accepted at face value." It's a fact that Microsoft has historically used proprietary file formats and capabilities to gain market advantage over competitors. However, this attitude is dysfunctional in today's more standards-centric world, and we believe that Microsoft--ever the hard-nosed realist--recognizes that. Microsoft has changed its stripes in the past when it made business sense to do so. In the early 1990's it was not partner-friendly, somewhat similar to Apple's go it alone strategy; in the late 1990's it realized that expanding the partner ecosystem would in the long run make it more money, and so it built a large partner network. While Microsoft is not as ODF-friendly as Ars Techica would like it to be, it is definitely getting away from a proprietary lock-out strategy. Mary Jo Foley noted in her blog on January 17th that, "Microsoft is going to put the binary-format documentation on the Web; make a binary-to-OOXML conversion tool available as an open-source license on SourceForge; and make the documentation available under its Open Specification Promise (which is basically MicroSpeak for a pact not to sue)."
• Microsoft Is Consistently Gaming the Standards Process: Ars Technica says, "...there is unequivocal evidence that Microsoft bought votes for OOXML in Sweden and there are compelling allegations that the company has done so in other countries." We noted the Swedish episode in the report, but disagree on the question of degree. The Ars Technica headline, "Microsoft ISO abuses," gives the impression that they are systemic and widespread; we think they are isolated instances. What viewpoint you take probably depends on the story playing in the back of your mind. We think Microsoft is too much of a hard-headed realist to jeopardize votes and market perception by packing the court; others figure Microsoft is just plain evil and has been effective at hiding its nefarious activities. Same set of facts, two different interpretations.
• Sun Is Unfairly Attacked: Ars Technica said, "...the report aggressively attacks Sun with allegations that are completely speculative and unsubstantiated." Multiple interviewees in the ODF camp told us that it was virtually impossible to get anything into ODF in the early days if it wasn't also in OpenOffice.org: that despite all the talk about ODF being open, it was apparently a case of a vendor pushing its own agenda--the same charge that is typically leveled at Microsoft.

Areas where Ars Technica mischaracterized what we said:

• No Mention That ODF and OOXML Will Eventually Give Way to Standards Supporting Hyperlinked Documents: This was probably the most important point we made within the report, and one which Ars Technica neglected to mention.  As we note at the beginning of the Analysis section, "Software as a service (SaaS) productivity applications are bringing mashups and dynamic web-based documents into the enterprise, challenging the long-held idea that a document must be monolithic and static. Over the next decade, standards being put forth by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) may ultimately dominate the document standards domain...."
• Google Apps Report Was a "Scathing Condemnation": Ars Technica says, "...Burton Group issued a report with a scathing condemnation of Google's enterprise productivity suite...." True, we advised our enterprise clients not to adopt it yet, as it was lacking in areas such as role-based administration and records management. However, I wouldn't characterize this paragraph within the report as a "scathing condemnation": "Because the solution is weak compared to best-of-breed point solutions, it will not displace many already installed applications. However, it will appeal to organizations that are comfortable with the SaaS delivery model and are looking for basic features and nothing more, as well as organizations making their first steps in trying out ECM
  and collaboration solutions. In addition, it will serve as a collaboration add-on to Microsoft Office, which is how Google uses it internally." Interestingly, the adoption curve has played out as we called it--large enterprises have stood on the sidelines, with a few of them trying it out in departments, while some SMBs looking for a low-priced alternative to Microsoft Office have adopted it.

Areas where Ars Technica is wrong:

• Burton Group Makes Money Installing SharePoint: Ars Technica says, "Burton Group earns revenue from consulting on enterprise collaboration software installs (think SharePoint) and likely has its own agenda." While Burton Group has a consulting arm, it helps clients draw out a strategic IT roadmap, based on the client's environment and preferred architecture. We do not install software for clients. We do work for Java-centric clients; we do work for Microsoft-centric clients. True--we do have an agenda, which is to advise clients on what would be best for them in a vendor-neutral way. Given that 30% of the client calls into our Collaboration and Content Strategies practice have to do with SharePoint 2007, it would be foolhardy for us to ignore and not write about what Microsoft is doing in this space. However, SharePoint 2007 does not do everything well--the blog and wiki support is pretty dismal, and don't even think of using it for digital asset management--and we tell clients that.

Comments

[niggaofthecentury]

burton group = paid off

[David F. Skoll]

Meh... You really sound like Microsoft apologists. Who funded the original report anyway?

[Andrig Miller]

I think that you have missed much of what has been documented regarding Microsoft's behavior in the ISO standards process. The sudden increase in membership in many (including the US national body) national standards bodies, that all happen to be Microsoft partners, and have no expertise in OOXML, ODF or document format related standards. This along with the large increase in countries becoming P members, just to be able to vote on OOXML, goes much further than you admit in the report, in terms of abusing the ISO standards process. In fact, the large increase in P members, substantially has halted the work of the JTC1 committee, because the countries aren't members that really care about all the other work the committee has to do.

This really isn't about what story might be playing in your mind, but a real look at first hand accounts, and the results of those in bogging down the work of the ISO.

I have always respected the work of The Burton Group, precisely because your research is not funded by vendors (which you should point out, because everyone assumes otherwise), but in this case, at least where Microsoft's behavior in the standards process is concerned, I believe you have really missed the mark.

[Wiktor Wandachowicz]

I as a researcher and academic teacher in the field of Computer Science, am worried by the findings at:

http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/

To me OOXML specification is fine as the documentation of Microsoft format. But as for ISO standard, in the 6000+ pages long form... Well, it is not. Not taking into account the current state of industry, existing practices, and existing ISO standards, inventing new XML formats for storing dates - is silly at best.

If the stripped-down proposal of OOXML passes in ISO, there would be *NO* program implementing such a "standard". Well, it could benefit MS Office 2007, because it would be able to read documents (containing a subset of possible .docx elements), but it would most probably emit back documents not compatible with the "standard".

Also note that recently SP3 for MS Office 2003 blocks older Office formats (.doc/6.0/97 etc.). In my eyes this is one of the steps that would force users to finally upgrade their old PCs with new boxes filled with (of course) Vista and Office 2007. Note the word "force".

For reference:
* http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938810/en-us
* http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080103134307872
* http://fussnotes.typepad.com/plexnex/2008/01/is-2008-already.html

[W. Anderson]

It is unfortunate that The Burton Group see most every issue from a Microsoft perspective, and refuse to accept reality, e.g. in the documented evidence of many attempts by Microsoft to subvert the ISO certification of ODF, or that country after country and industry after industry are codifying the ODF document format for their national standards.

They would not even address the fact that China and Japan have formally announced plans to either use ODF or make their national document standard compatible with ODF "only". This has an obvious effect in International trade and business from the great eastern dragon all the way to most all countries in Central/South America and European Union (EU).I have been fortunate enough to get these reports first hand in countries "outside" USA which have not been tainted, skewed or suppressed by entities like Microsoft and The Burton Group.

FUD will fail.

W. Anderson
wanderson@nac.net

[W. Anderson]

It is unfortunate that The Burton Group see most every issue from a Microsoft perspective, and refuse to accept reality, e.g. in the documented evidence of many attempts by Microsoft to subvert the ISO certification of ODF, or that country after country and industry after industry are codifying the ODF document format for their national standards.

They would not even address the fact that China and Japan have formally announced plans to either use ODF or make their national document standard compatible with ODF "only". This has an obvious effect in International trade and business from the great eastern dragon all the way to most all countries in Central/South America and European Union (EU).I have been fortunate enough to get these reports first hand in countries "outside" USA which have not been tainted, skewed or suppressed by entities like Microsoft and The Burton Group.

FUD will fail.

W. Anderson
wanderson@nac.net

[Garaband]

"We noted the Swedish episode in the report, but disagree on the question of degree
[...]
"We think Microsoft is too much of a hard-headed realist to jeopardize votes and market perception by packing the court; others figure Microsoft is just plain evil and has been effective at hiding its nefarious activities. Same set of facts, two different interpretations."

How does the degree matter? This shouldn't happen AT ALL.

And I fail to see how "Microsoft [would not be] packing the court" is the same "set of facts" as the rest of us, who see that Microsoft HAS packed the court, a fact which you conceeded earlier.

Your credibility is evaporating.

[G Fernandes]

Hah! And what about this (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080116214144572)? A point-by-point rebuttal with FACTS v/s opinions.

Oh, but then I forget - you ARE a bunch of consultants aren't you? Paid for your opinion?

So what if it's wrong? The customer pays for it anyway!

You're really a bunch of pathetic Micro-serf apologists.

At least do some research and back your statements with facts - not vague statements like 'Multiple interviewees...'.

ALL experts (note the word expert - which is a world away from the word consultant) who have REVIEWED (something that you seem to have failed miserably at) the OOXML specification have CONCLUDED that it is a memory dump of Microsoft Office binary data structures.

Of course it might be a bit too much to expect a bunch of consultants to know what they talk about. But then that's just the way it is I suppose.

[Ed Matthews]

The Open Document Format Alliance and Groklaw have a more in depth look and rebuttal than Ars.
According to Groklaw's PJ, and from my own reading of it, "this is by far the most comprehensive response."
I have yet to see a response to it.
I agree with Andrig on where you are vs. the mark with MS's behavior and intent--missed it.
Groklaw
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080116214144572

[David F. Skoll]

Did anyone at the Burton Group read http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections? If not, your customers who fund your reports are getting ripped off. If you did read it... anyone care to respond to its technical points?

[TG]

You people are either paid off, or totally out of whack with reality.

I think it's very admirable that you believe Microsoft is finally going to be more open about all their proprietary duplicates of every standard out there, but if there's anything that's going to make them open up it'll be the EU courts and the rising threat of Linux (in every other country than the USA), not good business sense.

Ars accused you of downplaying Microsoft's involvement in stuffing the ISO ballots and you've done that once again, only you've admitted to a bit more this time around:
"The Ars Technica headline, "Microsoft ISO abuses," gives the impression that they are systemic and widespread; we think they are isolated instances."

Oh. So you're saying Microsoft only corrupted the process a teeny little bit? In a few places?
Well, that's perfectly alright then. Nothing wrong with that.

But the fact is that Microsoft's attempt to control the ISO process was nothing less than a global DDoS attack on the standards organization and brought the whole consortium to a grinding halt right after the 2007 summer vote, because all the croonies MS put into the boards all across the world at the last minute have not voted since.
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20071016092352827

Their attacks on the ISO to bend it to their will was so blatantly obvious that even the mainstream media picked up on it.

I, for one, refuse to believe that Microsoft's intentions are anything but despicable, and have been so through this entire process. If OOXML was really so great and so open, they wouldn't need to use these dirty mafioso tactics in the first place!

It's not exactly difficult to get a standard approved, as long as it meets the requirements of openness.

[Wu MingShi]

[On quoting Mary Jo Foley on the point of interoperability] Mary Jo Foley has a lot of qualities not found elsewhere, but technical competency in evaluating whether Microsoft Interoperability effort is as good as it claim is not one. She is used as a red herring here.

And ...

Microsoft is a realist, and a better businessman. The realist says that they might be heading towards a future where everything is standard based, the businessman says it is not to our advantage (given our current position in the market), its better to stop this, or we have to make sure we give away as little as possible, as late as possible to make the most out of our current advantages. If they don't do that, they will squander their advantage and I will be the first to call Steve Ballmer a fool for losing what Bill Gates had built over the years.

With that in mind, it is the work that counts, not soundbites.

[Thomas Zander]

Re; "Multiple interviewees in the ODF camp told us that it was virtually impossible to get anything into ODF in the early days if it wasn't also in OpenOffice.org: that despite all the talk about ODF being open" The good thing is, anyone can become a member of OASIS and thus anyone can become a member of the ODF TC. And the mailinglist is open and still archived (I bet you know where to find it, you should, you know). So if you have any cases which back up the allegations you made, I expect emails to be quoted. See; you are not just trying to make Microsoft and OOXML look good; you are at the same time trying to make ODF look bad. And ODF is developed completely in the open. So if you make any allegations against it, you *can* provide proof. And since you can, but you don't actually do so, I'm assuming you don't actually have any. Now please consider this; Your business is to give your opinion. And if your opinion is what you sell, your credibility is your market value. I would conclude that you should jump to the occasion to *proof* your opinion is actually based on truth. Since all these people that replied here have already seen the proof and disagree with you. Which kind of makes your sales-goods loose its value. So, what about going over all those growlaw archives, those rob weir blogs, hell even my blogs! And then again state your position. If you change your mind, we know you actually care about the truth. If you don't, be sure to provide more documentation then we can find on the internet (which is some 1000 pages of event descriptions, not to mention the archives of *all* the ODF discussions etc etc etc). To proof us armchair analysts wrong. As another poster said; FUD doesn't survive in todays connected world.

[John Drinkwater]

“Mary Jo Foley noted in her blog on January 17th that”

I do have to note that your evidence to counter Ars’ point came about *after* you posted your report.
Please, what evidence did you have for your point before the 17th?

“Multiple interviewees in the ODF camp”
Names would be nice, what is the ODF camp, people who have endorsed ODF once? OASIS members?

“"Microsoft ISO abuses," gives the impression that they are systemic and widespread; we think they are isolated instances.”
You might want to use something called an Internet search engine to find more than a few isolated instances.

It’s really depressing that as an independent research and advisory service you can’t back up one statement from your report with hard evidence.
Why don’t you review the Becta report here,
http://publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=35275
to learn how to make a reasoned argument?

[MrCopilot]

Okey Dokey, I guess that wraps all that up then. No need to mention Groklaw's analysis, nope ignore that, nothing to see here.

Few Isolated Instances, Let's See, I could post 50 URLs but here is a good recap http://www.fanaticattack.com/2007/stuffing-it-up-odf-and-ooxml-document-format-battle-iii.html

Scathing Google Apps Report, This is the part that makes it scathing.It cautions IT managers not to be tempted by Google's siren call of low price and low maintenance, going so far as to say that switching to Google Apps could be a "career-limiting move."

This entire post is ridiculous, just collect your check and shut up, no amount of damage control will undo what your report stated. Recommending MS Products is good for business, we all understand why you did it. No need to explain.

[Mike Hense]

Votes by a country for OOXML can be bought by Microsoft. Why not such a bunch of consultants?