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)."

Typical Tactic

[snl2587]

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:Victory

[Uncle Focker]

Why would they need ISO approval to add their own extensions to their implementation of the standard? Is this some clause in the rules of the ISO that I've missed?

Q: Will this signal the end of Excel dominance?

[r_jensen11]

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]

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

Oh, and MS Office 2008 for Mac will not.

Re:Sinking Ship.

[baggins2001]

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:Larger question

[mysticgoat]

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.

To be in control of their own future

[benjymouse]

I know that the common perception on slashdot is that ODF is the only format we need because of its OO heritage. That is frankly a naïve position. The format was backed by IBM, Oracle and Sun for a reason. Right now MS' selling point for Office is features. Some would call it bloated - but MS Office still has more features than OO. That may not be that important to the vast majority of users, but it is a selling point nontheless.

Imagine a situation where MS could not leverage the feature advantage, because the standard persistence format could not represent the advanced feature set. Ink comes to mind; it's actually part of OXML but there's not anything like it in ODF. Representatives for Microsofts competitors could fight any extension (invoking the "err on side of caution" argument) of the format until OO/StarOffice was prepared to implement the feature as well. But that would actually stiffle innovation and hurt the customers who could actually realize a productivity gain from new features.

By creating a situation where we have two formats and already a situation where one is larger and with more features specified, Microsoft has got a situation where they can let the "conservatives" drive (or not) ODF, and Microsoft can be the primary driver of OXML, although they can now only make suggestions and requests. In short they have a situation where they stand a better chance at exposing the hidden agendas of their competitors representatives should they ever try to hold back Microsoft innovation in Office for compettitive reasons.

I don't believe for a second that the motives of IBM, Oracle and Sun were always free of hidden agendas. Of course they saw their involvement (and influence through merits) in ODF as a way to gain some control over the future of MS Office. Office has always been one of MS' best cash cows.

You can argue that we don't need any more innovation in the office productivity area. But that would be an opinion and not something you should base a standard upon.

It's about sales

[aduzik]

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.

Re:A bit misleading

[pembo13]

I'm not sure I would call changing how a basic data type is represented to be minor.

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

[RealGrouchy]

Before this announcement: "MS Office 2003 is unable to read this file format (docx). Please upgrade to Office 2007."

After this announcement: "MS Office 2003 is unable to read this file format (odt). Please upgrade to Office 2007."

- RG>

Re:Victory

[howlingmadhowie]

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.

Word processing vs. Page layout

[overshoot]

That's called a bug. Word processing files should look exactly the same across platforms and versions, with exceptions given for missing fonts or other referenced data.

You're confusing word processing with page layout. If you want total control over presentation, use FrameMaker -- that's what it's for.

At the other end of the spectrum, you can use LaTex and various front ends and again have total control over appearance across platforms, but without the user having to worry about the details. Word processing is in between and compromises on both layout and content orientation.

Re:What people want

[DannyO152]

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.

Re:can't create reality with your keyboard, twitte

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Not a crime to reply; just reply-on topic and without accusations that are irrelevant to the point under discussion. Seriously, it makes perfect sense to me that someone be karmically punished for obsessing over someone else's posting habits as opposed to discussing the topic at hand.

Aside from that, even if he /were/ gaming the moderation system, it seems that he's only succeeded in having multiple accounts with bad karma... not a terribly effective 'gaming', wouldn't you say?

Aw damn. This is the second post like this I've made -- now I'm doing it too! Crap! Bring on the karmic punishment!

Re:Sinking Ship.

[willyhill]

1) You can turn it off, you know.
2) What files can Office 2007 not open?
3) File corruption? Can you point me to some reference that backs that up? I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I haven't heard about it being any better or worse than 2003 in that regard, except that 2007 has better recovery options. In my experience, Word files sometimes get borked when edited over an extremely slow network connection or VPN link, but the few times that's happened to me I've been able to recover from it.

This issue has become so great that department managers have been asking me if we can go to OpenOffice.

Ah, so that's why your post is +4 and I was modded down "troll". I'll have to remember in the future not to try to disturb the reality distorsion field. Microsoft is selling billions worth of Office licenses? Nah, they're dying.

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

[SanityInAnarchy]

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:Sinking Ship.

[Randall311]

I have to strongly disagree with this. I have had the complete opposite experience with O2K7, it's been nothing short of outstanding. The ribbon interface was tough to get the hang of at first, but after a week of heavy use it's been a blessing, the user interface is far more intuitive than the cluttered drop down menus we grew up with. If someone was learning for the first time it would be a breeze, the reason it took me a week was I had to unlearn everything I've been used to.

I've never once not been able to open my files with O2K7/8 or have had any problem sharing files.

Not a single corrupted file in many hours of use. The recovery system works fine in the event of a power outage or reboot without saving. I don't know where you're getting your data, but given my experience I'd say one of us is in the minority here. Given some of the other responses to your post I'm thinking it's you.

How long until ODF includes

[Chrisq]

From FTA:
Moreover, it would also join both the OASIS working group as well as the ISO/IEC JTC1 working group that has control of the ISO/IEC version of ODF.

How long until they bribe the working group and we find that ODF includes specifications like "word wrap like office 95"?

Re:Sinking Ship.

[SanityInAnarchy]

It also is part of why I tend to ignore stuff like this. That page has fifteen different marks which could be used to indicate sarcasm. It's a bit early to pick one.

I'm usually competent at detecting sarcasm from context. The trick is to actually make it exaggerated enough that it can't be anything but sarcasm. This becomes a problem when a zealot might make the same statement seriously -- it is plausible that someone would have a spare Windows Server license to use for something like this, or that they would use their company's work servers to collaborate with their wife.

Not smart, but plausible.

Re:Wow

[pilybaby]

I think it makes sense from an MS point of view to support ODF first over OOXML.

They probably figure that few people are going to switch to another office suite due to the lack of support for OOXML, but that they might switch if ODF isn't there. So if they implement ODF then people will be happy either using existing Word formats or ODF and they can continue using MS Office. Then later on they can move people over to OOXML and not use the existing Word format as default.

The interim period isn't going to hurt them that much anyway because not that many people will be able to use ODF on a wide scale because people wont have had the chance to change their office application to one that supports the new format. People will continue to use Word formats because that what their customers and partners can open.

There is going to be a slow ramp up to any leveragable mass of users of a new format (and hence potentially new office application), but you might as well minimize your risk by implementing it at the same time, or before your competitors, so your users have less reason to switch.

I think it only doesn't make sense for a marketing finger pointing POV, but I think it makes better business sense.

Ballmer not, Gates hot

[master_p]

Ballmer seems a very uninspiring person, especially for the position of Microsoft CEO. I long for the days where Gates was the CEO...his geeky looks played well with the idea that Microsoft creates technology. Ballmer looks like a used cars salesman.

A: There's no reason anymore not to drop MS Office

[SgtChaireBourne]

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.

Actually StarOffice and OpenOffice have always had better support for legacy formats, including those legacy formats from MS. Now both have VBA support as mentioned in other posts here. And now that MS has dropped support from its old formats, it's not a question of if businesses are going to drop MS Office, but only a matter of when... unless they get the fishook called SharePoint in their gullet. If you have old MS documents, rely on those old MS documents and you can't keep old versions of MS Office or extend the 'rental period', then you have to switch suites to one that can read the old formats.

A further advantage of StarOffice/ OpenOffice is that macros can be written in python or javascript. That means you can have your macro programmers with a comp sci background. And you can have them participate in web development and other projects. You are at the same time then less likely to hire MS boosters who will run their little MS anti-technology jihadz [groklaw.net] against you from inside your own office, work is so much easier without them around. You get programmers that can participate in more than one area.

So it kills two birds (or three) with one stone. Both javascript and python are used in web development and XML tools handle OpenOffice's main format, the OpenDocument Format, there is much less overhead in integrating document management and web apps and less need for disparate skill sets. Win-win situation.

Further, in addition to all of the above advantages, you then gain a position where you can change platforms or maintenance contract at will.

There's no reason not to drop MS Office any more.