Microsoft Office 2007 to Support ODF - But Not OOXML

Andy Updegrove writes "About two hours ago, Microsoft announced that it will update Office 2007 to natively support ODF 1.1, but not to implement its own OOXML format. Not until Office 14 is released (no date given so far for that) will anyone be able to buy an OOXML ISO-compliant version. Why will Microsoft do this after so many years of refusal? Perhaps because the only way it can deliver a product to government customers that meets an ISO/IEC document format standard is by finally taking the plunge, and supporting 'that other format.' Still, many questions remain, such as when this upgrade will actually be released, how good a job it will do, and whether the API Microsoft has said it will make available to permit developers to supply 'save to ODF' default plugins will be supported by a patent non-assertion promise allowing implementations under the GPL (the upgrade supplied by Microsoft will not allow ODF as the default setting)."

Embrace and Extend

[TheSpoom (715771)]

Chances of it having several Microsoft-specific "add-ons" that are patent-encumbered and not supported by the actual ODF spec: Approaching 100%.

Doesn't even need to be patent encumbered

[Fallen Andy (795676)]

All MS will do is implement full ODF 1.1 plus microsoft "extensions" (sic) a la the farce with Java. Since many users will bite the baited hook the result will be endless cycles where OpenOffice etc. have to play catchup to hack in the same extensions.

(or of course like Orcs in Warcraft III we really really have misunderstood them ...).

Andy

Re:Embrace and Extend

[ClickOnThis (137803)]

Chances of it having several Microsoft-specific "add-ons" that are patent-encumbered and not supported by the actual ODF spec: Approaching 100%.

But if Microsoft did this, wouldn't they render moot the very openness compliance that their government customers are demanding?

Hm ... maybe I have answered my own question.

Look, I have to wonder if such a strategy wouldn't backfire on Microsoft in the long run. I would assume the customer base that wants this feature is aware of the tricks MS might try to play, otherwise why would they be dragging MS (kicking and screaming) towards open formats?

And yet, this whole issue does seem to bear a similarity to the perfunctory implementation of support for POSIX standards in Windows NT many years ago. I'm not up on the details, but as I recall MS implemented it merely to appease government customers who wanted it as a condition of running NT in their environments. Could ODF support be the same? Not an attempt to E^3 (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) ODF, but just a temporary measure to maintain compliance with government mandates until their own OOXML monster is released on the world?

Wow

[Darundal (891860)]

Not even they are going to implement it until the next full office release. You have to admit, that says a lot about the standard.

Re:Wow

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

Man, if I was a MS shareholder, I'd be fucking livid. OOXML supporting software won't be available for a long time, and after this move, all the people who care enough about using ISO supported standards are going to be entrenched in ODF.

Which means that all the administration costs, travel expenses, bribe money, etc that they spent to have the OOXML standard pushed through was just thrown away for nothing, even though they got what they were aiming for.

Talk about mismanagement. Hey Ballmer, why don't you try hitting yourself with the chair this time. Might knock some sense into you.

Re:Wow

[mrslacker (1122161)]

Talk about mismanagement. Hey Ballmer, why don't you try hitting yourself with the chair this time. Might knock some sense into you.

Will this do?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7412417.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Wow

[Gauthic (964948)]

That gentleman certainly had some balls, knowing full well that any retaliation fire would be in chairs, not eggs.

Re:Wow

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

MS had to know that they weren't going to actually be able to support this standard for a long time (if ever). This isn't "you win some you lose some". They won in every objective they set. It was bad goals, not bad execution.

Re:Worse than that

[lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310)]

no - and the mac is not 13 either - http://apcmag.com/microsoft_to_skip_unlucky_office_13.htm [apcmag.com]

April Fools?

[Raul654 (453029)]

Honestly, the first thing I thought when I saw this article was that it had to be some kind of April Fools article come late.

Typical Tactic

[snl2587 (1177409)]

So, in case anyone was still thinking that OOXML being confirmed as a standard wasn't a bad thing...

And as far as supporting ODF goes, I'd applaud Microsoft for taking a step in the right direction if they weren't constantly declaring themselves the victors over Open Source. I only wonder how they'll spin this.

Re:Typical Tactic

[snl2587 (1177409)]

I think they are begrudgingly supporting ODF since their customers are demanding it, but making the implementation just irritating enough (and, I would guess, incompatible with many features of Office) that users will be inclined to just work in docx (which OpenOffice and others cannot read perfectly, if at all).

Re:Typical Tactic

[mhall119 (1035984)]

It could also back-fire. If users are required by business requirements to exchange files as ODF, and MS Office makes this difficult while OO.o makes it default, it's more incentive to switch.

Obviously Microsoft is counting on this to let them sell MS Office to governments as "ISO compatible" until they can properly implement the OOXML standard, while still trying to keep everyone using their proprietary formats. It's a risky gamble, and with Office 14 having no announced release date, not one I'd be comfortable making.

Victory

[tsa (15680)]

You can say all negative things you will about it, but this is a great victory for ODF.

Re:Victory

[Uncle Focker (1277658)]

At least until we get into the extend and extinguish phases.

Re:Victory

[howlingmadhowie (943150)]

i don't think microsoft can risk it. picture what would happen, if they came out with a buggy and mangled implementation of odf. ibm, sun and goodle, not to mention the eu and the governments of so many other countries would rip them to shreds.

i'm not denying implementing odf is a bad decision in the eyes of the share-holders. announcing support for odf is however something subtly different. maybe microsoft's scared of repercussions because of the corruption in the standardisation process for ooxml.

Re:Victory

[peragrin (659227)]

Well they won't be able to call it ODF, but unless someone complains MSFt will anyways.

Sort of like how SCO still claims to own UNIX when the Open group owns the trademark, and Novell owns the copyrights.

Re:Victory

[prockcore (543967)]

Nonsense, ODF has it written in the spec to allow proprietary extensions. MS can add whatever they want and still call it ODF.

Re:Victory

[_Sprocket_ (42527)]

Microsoft Bob.

Larger question

[overshoot (39700)]

More to the point, how badly will they cripple the ODF support?

• Will ODF spreadsheets be functionally equivalent to CSV?
• Will ODF text be functionally equivalent to plain-text ASCII with line breaks?
• WIll ODF presentations be JPEG renderings?
• Will ODF import and export take hours?
• etc.

I've occasionally been accused of having an evil mind, but I'm sure that professionals given weeks or months can come up with better kneecapping plans than the above amateur hipshots.

Re:Larger question

[mysticgoat (582871)]

I think what matters most is that MS has committed itself to providing ODF compliance, even if that is a bit limited way, by the end of the first quarter of 2009.

This means that businesses who have been delaying the normal computer upgrade cycle (sometimes for years) now have a clear pathway: they can immediately migrate to OpenOffice under existing WinXP licenses on new hardware, or they can jump directly to an enterprise Linux with OpenOffice. Either way, they can move forward knowing that before they have finished the rollout, the documents they are producing will be compliant with the Microsoft universe.

The timing of this is great for the USA economy. It is much less costly to do a major rollout in a slack period, and we can count on slack for the rest of 2008. It will be easier to hire the needed tech support people, and if the rollout involves moving to Linux, it can be done with a lot less expense in hardware than the cost forecasts of even last year. The time and cost for retraining staff can be more easily absorbed during the competitive lull. Then when the economy gets back on track in 2009, these companies will be very well positioned for fast and strong growth.

I applaud Microsoft for biting the bullet and coming out with this news now. Perhaps now USA IT departments can get out of these doldrum eddies and start making headway again.

What people want

[Reality Master 201 (578873)]

If they don't give people what they want, which is honest standards, they will just speed migration away from them.

Sorry, but most people actually couldn't give a crap about standards. Most people just want a functional suite of office applications that works more or less the way they've come to expect such programs. Most people aren't even aware that there is such a thing as a file format, or that there are different types of them.

Most people also want to be able to easily exchange documents with other people. That's part of the reason why Office is so well entrenched. Sure, you can download a copy of OO to open an ODF file, but if you're running a business, you don't want to make your clients do that, because it's a hassle. Nearly everyone has Office, and practically nobody has OO (this is in rough marketshare percentages).

Don't get me wrong. I would rather have a clear, open standard with a decent existing implementation that's not tied to the whims of a vendor. But I and people like me really are a very small part of the market.

Re:What people want

[DannyO152 (544940)]

The most people you speak of are the ones who buy Office one license at a time. A lot of people, to be sure, but Office makes its big bucks with the site purchases. At these places, there are gatekeepers who may have been alerted about the long-term costs of non-standard file formats (and may already be approving FOSS deployments) and will darn well drop the product from the approved list if the vendor is playing games.

OOXML is not an ISO standard

[lkcl (517947)]

well - only if microsoft is able to buy their way through the standards process will anyone be able to buy an OOXML ISO-compliant version.

UKUUG is currently waiting on the UK judicial system to decide whether to do a judicial review of the British Standards Institute's recent decision to ratify OOXML.

clonking "comments" together in blocks of 100 for vote "yes no", towards the end of the (only) 5 day process, smells a bit fishy. especially as the comments weren't actually reviewed as having been actioned / corrected (in the 6,000 page document).

the BSI came up with something ridiculous like 900 comments on the 6,000 page document.

it's all incredibly fishy - long story. far too much to fit into one silly slashdot comment, so i'll stop.

Results for eggs

[pacroon (846604)]

So I guess speaking Hungarian and throwing eggs at Steve Ballmer actually did pay off.

Re:Results for eggs

[Uncle Focker (1277658)]

Throwing chairs might have yielded results faster.

Re:Results for eggs

[RealGrouchy (943109)]

Choose your weapon wisely; it's hard to throw an egg back.

- RG>

Q: Will this signal the end of Excel dominance?

[r_jensen11 (598210)]

A: No, because companies are already so deep with old .xls files and macros built for said files that they will still be unwilling to transition from Microsoft Office to StarOffice.

That, and StarOffice just doesn't feel polished compared to MSOffice.

I seriously think that the macros built around companies' documents & spreadsheets are what's keeping them locked in to MSOffice, not the file format, per se

And for all you OO.o fans out there, don't even bother getting started; StarOffice is essentially OO.o, but with better support for MSOffice formatted documents, plus it has better tools like its thesaurus. OO.o may be nice for you, but there's a reason why Sun can sell StarOffice, and it's not because Sun's evil, and it's not *just* about tech support.

Re:Q: Will this signal the end of Excel dominance?

[mhall119 (1035984)]

OO.o 3 will include support for VBA macros [openoffice.org]. That should help.

Oh, and MS Office 2008 for Mac will not.

Re:Q: Will this signal the end of Excel dominance?

[AmaDaden (794446)]

Very true but this is the foot in the door people have been waiting for. The problem I have always had was not opening up DOC docs but not being able to trust the ones I send from OO. Now that I know MS office can read ODF I can safely make and send them out with out worrying. Making ODF common is step one. Making DOC and XLS uncommon is step two. Making DOC and XLS so uncommon that people go through the hassle of converting them is step three.

Not embrace and extend, but embrace and squeeze

[darealpat (826858)]

It may be that Microsoft is serious about supporting ODF, but I would not be surprised if it is somehow "crippled" or poorly implemented within the word processor and spreadsheet. Somehow I don't feel that you will be able to open an .odf made in Word with OpenOffice and there will be no "artifacts" or some loss of formatting, and vice versa of course. There are already issues with odf's opening across operating systems (usually a font issue causing discrepancy in formatting), and I am sure that Microsoft will use this opportunity to "make its case" for the "superiority" of its native format, whatever that format may be. If this will not be, it will be a most astute business move. Making their office suite cost less would be even better.

Re:Not embrace and extend, but embrace and squeeze

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Well, I guess the answer to that is, if you want a format that maintains your formatting perfectly down to the pixel across all implementations of the standard, then you had better go with PDF (or TIFF). But if you want a format you can easily edit and pass between colleagues, without worrying too much about how the formatting is going to be a little off, then go with ODF, DOC, or some other word processing format. No word processing format looks the same across all platforms. Even something as simple as using a different printer can cause problems with the same version of MS Word opening it's own doc files. If formatting is so important that you can' have things be moved around a little bit, then use PDF.

MS BJ's

[JeremyGNJ (1102465)]

Jeeeze you people are harsh!

I think that Microsoft could announce tomorrow that they are giving out free blow jobs to anyone who uses Linux. As soon as the first blowjob was given out, someone would find something negative about it.

Re:MS BJ's

[Uncle Focker (1277658)]

But what if the hooker they hired kept biting your dick? That's not very pleasant...

Re:MS BJ's

[Zero__Kelvin (151819)]

"I think that Microsoft could announce tomorrow that they are giving out free blow jobs to anyone who uses Linux. As soon as the first blowjob was given out, someone would find something negative about it."

What are the chances that you would remain virus free if you accepted free blowjobs from Microsoft? ...

(Just because one is paranoid, doesn't mean M$ isn't out to get you)

Re:MS BJ's

[Uncle Focker (1277658)]

or of them biting down and demanding to be paid to let go.

That's one way to achieve vendor lock-in.

Correction on "save to" capability

[Andy Updegrove (956488)]

Kevin J. O'Brien, reporting in the International Herald Tribune [iht.com], reports that the ODF update will in fact permit users to "adjust Office 2007 settings to automatically save documents in the rival format." A knowledgeable source tells me that this report is likely to be accurate.

Andy

A bit misleading

[harlows_monkeys (106428)]

The summary is a bit misleading. Current Office 2007 documents fail to validate as transitional OOXML because of some very minor differences. For example, the final standard changed an attribute value from "yes/no" to "true/false".

All major ODF implementations, including OpenOffice, fail to validate against ISO ODF 1.0 for similar reasons.

Thus, to make some big deal of Microsoft not immediately slipstreaming in an update to Office to 100% conform to OOXML, while ignoring the fact that OpenOffice still doesn't fully conform to ODF so long after ODF 1.0 was ratified is a bit hypocritical.

It's about sales

[aduzik (705453)]

Office is Microsoft's biggest-selling product by revenue, even more than Windows. Since governments are mandating open formats, Microsoft has no choice but to implement ODF if they want to keep selling those lucrative enterprise agreements. Getting OOXML approved as a standard format was a huge win for them to be sure, but governments could (and will) just as easily standardize on ODF, especially given all the problems with OOXML. Microsoft used to rely on file format lock-in as a sales tool, but it seems now compatibility and (gasp) quality are Microsoft's selling points for Office. They're doing what it takes to maintain those huge sales.

Will be in Office 2007 SP2, link to press release

[quazee (816569)]

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/may08/05-21ExpandedFormatsPR.mspx [microsoft.com]

Also, ODF will be allowed to be configured as the default format for documents.
SP2 will also include support for PDF and XPS export.

Why Microsoft supports the ODF format

[Orion Blastar (457579)]

First OOXML is not approved by the ISO yet. So by Office 14, the ISO will approve of a final format and OOXML support can be added to Office 14 and I am sure Microsoft will release retropatches for older Office versions to support it as well. Most likely going back as far as Office 2000 or Office 97.

Microsoft knows that OpenOffice.Org, Star Office, IBM Lotus Symphony, and other office suites already support ODF, and Microsoft does not want Office 2007 to be the pink elephant that does not support ODF, and Office 2007 users couldn't open up ODF format documents from friends and coworkers, and would flock to Office 2007 alternatives to open them up. Microsoft knows that would cut into Office 2007 sales as most ODF office suites are free to download and use.

Microsoft also knows that many governments have already decided to support ODF format documents, and if Office 2007 doesn't get ODF support, sales will go to Microsoft's competitors.

There have been massive online campaigns for ODF and against OOXML, this is Microsoft's way of silencing critics of Office 2007 that it does not support a true open standard.

Microsoft knows that MS-Word and PDF documents have already started to be replaced with ODF documents. Also the old RTF format no longer meets the needs of Internet documents anymore and MS-Word format is just a modified RTF format. Just as Adobe lost control of who uses the PDF standard, Microsoft knows that they can get control of the ODF format from Sun/IBM etc as well.

I think I speak for a lot of us

[quantaman (517394)]

When I say this sounds like a good sign...

But almost every time stuff like this happens, Microsoft eventually ends up playing their old tricks.

It would be cool if they surprised us this time, but they have far too great a credibility dept for me to think anything particularly good will come from this move.

Re:Sinking Ship.

[baggins2001 (697667)]

They may be selling it like pancakes, but I have also seen an upsurge in dissatisfaction.
1) Why do I have to learn a new interface?
2) Why is user X not able to open my files. Why can't we open our shared files?
3) Why is our file corrupted.
This issue has become so great that department managers have been asking me if we can go to OpenOffice.
Current plan is to minimize purchases of systems with Office 2007 and switch to OO next year, after the new version with file sharing comes out.

Re:Sinking Ship.

[by Anonymous Coward]

Office 2007 has some really excellent improvements over previous versions of office. Not the least of which is the awesome Sharepoint integration.

I agree! I can't count the number of times I've been writing a letter to family and needed the wife to put in a few words. With the new Sharepoint integration its been a snap for us to collaborate on docs together (like the grocery list). All it took was an extra server, and new licensing seats. ~

Re:Sinking Ship.

[fosterNutrition (953798)]

You missed the ~ at the end of the sentence. In case you haven't seen the sigs and small discussions about it, the tilde (~) has been repurposed to indicate sarcasm.

Re:Sinking Ship.

[pjt33 (739471)]

I can't tell if this was sarcasm or not.

In that case I'm surprised you've even heard of sarcasm.

Re:An Empire in Rapid Decline, said Time Magazine.

[clampolo (1159617)]

I'm more scared of them supporting ODF than I am of OOXML. How do we know they aren't going to try to do what they successfully did to Netscape. They could easily add a bunch of their own stuff into ODF so that nothing but Office would be able to read the ODF files Office puts out.

If however they are really trying to comply with ODF then hats off to MS for being serious about embracing standards.

Re:An Empire in Rapid Decline, said Time Magazine.

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

How do we know they aren't going to try to do what they successfully did to Netscape.

Oh please, let them try. Have you forgotten that Mozilla rose from the ashes of Netscape, and Firefox from the ashes of Mozilla?

If however they are really trying to comply with ODF then hats off to MS for being serious about embracing standards.

It might be the first time they've done this in good faith...

But then, look at IE. It took some serious competition, in the form of Firefox, but IE finally did shape up and start adding features (tabs) and reasonable standards compliance.

All we really need, then, is an ACID test for ODF, in which we can show that OpenOffice, KOffice, Google Docs, and even isolated projects like AbiWord and Gnumeric do better than Office, thus shaming Microsoft into doing it right. That assumes they don't get it right the first time, although that does seem unlikely.

Re:An Empire in Rapid Decline, said Time Magazine.

[holloway (46404)]

All we really need, then, is an ACID test for ODF, in which we can show that OpenOffice, KOffice, Google Docs, and even isolated projects like AbiWord and Gnumeric do better than Office, thus shaming Microsoft into doing it right. That assumes they don't get it right the first time, although that does seem unlikely.

This is what Rob Weir has proposed [opendocume...owship.com] (he's an ODF chair).

Re:They walk on ice.

[truthsearch (249536)]

"Retail sales of Office products from January through June [2007] were roughly double those of Office 2003 during its first six months on the market and up 59.6 percent from Office sales for the first six months of [2006]" - Source [cnet.com]

Not exactly the failure you describe.