Microsoft Accuses Google Docs of Data Infidelity 178
Hugh Pickens writes "For years Google has been pitching migrations from Microsoft Office to Google Docs, arguing that Docs makes Office 2003 and 2007 better because users can store Microsoft Office documents in Google's cloud and share them in their original format. Now eWeek reports that Alex Payne, director of Microsoft's online product management team, says that moving files created with Office to Google Docs results in the loss of data fidelity, including the loss of such data components as charts, styles, watermarks, fonts, tracked changes, and SmartArt. 'They are claiming that an organization can use both seamlessly,' Payne writes. 'This just isn't the case.' Meanwhile, Google defended its original 'Docs makes Office better' in a statement, noting that it has made a lot of improvements to the web editors in Docs with its recent refresh, and promising that functionality will only get better as Google integrates the DocVerse assets into Docs. 'It says a lot about Microsoft's approach to customer lock-in that the company touts its proprietary document formats, which only Microsoft software can render with true fidelity, as the reason to avoid using other products,' says a Google spokesperson."
Re:Google vs Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because the formats are 'open' in the sense that they are poorly documented and difficult to implement. Opening your formats is one thing - assisting others to actively achieve interoperability is another
Web Based Document Editing (Score:2, Insightful)
I honestly don't think any web-based document system will can compete with MS Office (desktop version). If you've ever worked for any type of large business lately, word processing is WAY past the basic formatting options I've seen in any online suite.
What fidelity (Score:5, Insightful)
The unfortunate thing is that teachers and professors all see the student issues due to the failure of the MS products, yet continue to insist on their use, blaming it on the incompetency of the students rather than the incompetency of MS.
MS products are good in firms that have the resources to insure all machines are homogeneous and up to date, firms that require a high level of collaborations of complex non-technical documents(This does not include most educational places). Otherwise, at least for documents, OO.org, Google docs, or LaTeX should be the norm. For spreadsheets OO.org, and especially Google, has some stuff lacking. For presentations, I think everything but Keynote pretty much sucks.
Seriously? (Score:1, Insightful)
"'It says a lot about Microsoft's approach to customer lock-in that the company touts its proprietary document formats, which only Microsoft software can render with true fidelity, as the reason to avoid using other products,' says a Google spokesperson.""
While M$ bashing is commonplace here I really think this attitude towards them is short-sighted as hell. Office is one of the one things I'll give credit to Microsoft for doing fairly decently. They're a for-profit software company, don't forget that.
Microsoft's approach involves selling software and client retention. That's not even something I could call evil in the same terms that google seems to be claiming. You want free? You lose functionality. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Google, however, is an advertising company, not a software company. Will they offer a product that doesn't in some way use your data for their means? I highly doubt it.
Henceforth - google's argument is similar to ford being angry that they can't use a honda engine in their vehicles while also admitting they have a superior product.
Yah, right, whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft's approach involves selling software and client retention.
No, their approach involves getting a monopoly on something by hook or by crook then keeping the riff raff out. The only markets they make significant money on, are the monopolies.
Grasping at straws (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, Microsoft is really digging deep on that one. I don't have any problems tracking document changes. We use the strike-through and different colored text for each contributor. So I know at a glance who changed what.
If you need legal change tracking, you're not going to be using web-based software anyway. Besides, if there's a big call for that feature, I bet Google can figure out how to supply it.
I think the days of desktop software are winding down. Google can be far more nimble with Docs than MSFT can be with Office. And the features that the MS guy mentioned, only small minority of users find those at all useful.
Taking a swipe at Google just informed thousands people that you can move .docs around with GoogleDocs. Doesn't seem real bright.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's approach involves client retention. Okay, fine. But the way they're going about doing it - making it nearly impossible to write an application compatible with their formats - is anticompetitive and very evil.
And the car analogy simply does not hold. Image files are standardized, and I can expect a .png made in Photoshop to still look the same in GIMP or MS Paint. Sound formats are the same. Even for formatted text, there exists the completely open ODF format. MS's actions in making a format so closed and proprietary that often even different versions of their own software show the same file differently are simply inexcusable.
Re:Google vs Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
"Uh, if Google cannot make their Docs applications compatible with Office formats, how is it Microsoft's fault?"
Because they keep everything a secret - thats been their way of destroying opposition.
Re:PDF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Google vs Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has too many half-assed projects it cannot or doesn't fully support.
So, exactly the same as Microsoft, then?
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if true, I guess you could count my (rather large) organization as one that would never used Google Docs. Tracking changes alone is a feature used extensively by our business departments. I honestly don't think any web-based document system will can compete with MS Office (desktop version). If you've ever worked for any type of large business lately, word processing is WAY past the basic formatting options I've seen in any online suite.
If that is so, why is MS itself releasing a stripped-down version of MS Office 2010 FREE on their cloud (presumably to compete with Google)?
Google has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
This just goes to show that when you use Microsofts software, you are locked to using their products and their products only. Because the format is closed, other parties will always be playing catchup and can never guarantee 100% compatibility. So Googles snarky comment at the end reveals just how lethal lock-in can be. You are locked in, with no way out.
I can understand that you might resent loosing data in a migration or usage of another tool, but put the blame FIRST with Microsoft and THEN with yourself for having allowed yourself to get locked in.
In any other part of your business, you would avoid lock-in at all costs. Would you tolerate that your floors could only be provided by ONE company and that it means no body else can put in a carpet without it breaking gravity? Would you allow your truck fleet to be provided by only ONE company and have that company know it? A common trick in the trucking branch is when it is time to place a new order is to invite the truck company to your place of business and have a few rival trucks parked in sight. Just a hint that you and the sales rep know there is competition out there.
In IT? You happily invite the MS guy to give you a new deal in your all MS office that can only deal with MS formats... yeah. What is the word in the sales rep mind? Bonus? Sucker?
Governments do this all the time, they give their divisions rules that they must buy from a supplier who has won the bid. And gosh, once they have the bid for the next couple of years, service just goes out of the window. How surprising. Especially when you just know that the quality of service under the previous contract will play no role whatsoever under the new bidding round. Ever wonder why government often does so badly in efficiency? They think lock-in is a GOOD thing. You know how you get good service from a supplier? Make him sweat as to whether your next order will be going to him. It is how the game is played.
Really, take a long hard look at your own company. How certain are you that you can access your own info without aid from a third party? A paper archive is easy. No matter who supplies the binders, you can read it. Tape drives? How certain are you they continue to be compatible? Are your records required by law actually readable? Can you afford to ditch a supplier who doesn't make business sense anymore? Can you get the best deal if the supplier knows you need him?
Why do you think MS sells Windows for ever higher prices? They know they got you by the short and curlies.
Re:Err right? (Score:2, Insightful)
if you're going to be a grammar troll you could at least be right. Policies is the subject in the second sentence and it's plural, are is correct.
Microsoft Google??? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is rich! Microsoft's software has the poorest interoperability capability of all Office Productivity suites.
Why should MS bitch about this when it's own software cannot even open basic documents created in other office productivity suites?
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:3, Insightful)
releasing a stripped-down version
...
You basically answered your own question or, at least, gave the seed of the answer. Microsoft, (largely correctly), sees enterprises and organizations with complex requirements and/or a substantial Office-based legacy stack as being substantially locked in. This is why enterprise versions of Office cost as much, per seat, as they do, and why Microsoft's answer to the demand for better networked collaboration at the enterprise level is basically "It's SharePoint, and yup, that'll cost you, or nothing, bitches." For some of these outfits, pretty much any program that isn't feature-for-feature compatible(including binary compatibility with plugins and macros and stuff) just isn't going to cut it, Google certainly won't.
However, enterprises in that situation are by no means the entire market. For other market segments, Google has a dangerously appealing product(in my observations of nontechnical users, for instance, they find that having their documents "just there" wherever they sit down to be a revelation. Unless you are an office drone somewhere where IT has dumped serious time and effort into making it all magically work, or your techie nephew spent the afternoon playing with Dropbox or something on all the computers you use, you don't get that with Office, even if you pay for one of the fancy versions). Further, the history of technology is littered with admittedly superior technologies that were gradually eaten from below by their "definitely not as good; but a lot cheaper/more versatile" competitors. Given that, at one point, MS was one of those competitors, they probably know this lesson.
If Google gets a viable toehold in these easier markets, this gives them plenty of time to gradually evolve their way up, picking off whatever targets happen to be softest at the time. If their document fidelity isn't good enough now, it'll probably be a bit better next year, and a bit better the year after that. Since software costs basically nothing to reproduce, the larger your audience, the cheaper (per customer) implementing a feature or improvement is.
There is probably a secondary reason as well. Even if Google's Docs ends up being a dead end, and gets quietly put on life support, and relegated to light list-making duties forever, the general lesson that people want better networked collaboration is inescapable. Microsoft will want to deliver that(though they will probably prefer to do it with an installed Office version and SharePoint Server, and fat licence fees for both). Rolling out a web-based Office 2010, cheapskate edition, allows them to test and refine their interfaces, models, and ways of doing things for distributed collaboration. Since the users won't be paying customers, they will be able to take some risks with them(and, if dissatisfaction arises, letting the message be "Oh, the web version is feature limited by design. Upgrade to Office 2010 for the Full Office Experience.") and figure out what they want future iterations of their enterprise collaboration stuff to feel like.
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:5, Insightful)
...If you've ever worked for any type of large business lately, word processing is WAY past the basic formatting options I've seen in any online suite.
If a significant fraction of the employees in your large business are wasting time on fancy formatting options, you're going to find yourself using the phrase "too big to fail" sometime in your future. Specialization is good for your business, and the fanciest needs really fall under the auspices of marketing. Let them take care of it using real tools (page layout software, for instance).
Don't settle for every secretary, intern, and team member in the company spending 28 hours each week churning over which fancy formatting options make the minutes of the other 12 hours of meetings look the best.
Re:What fidelity (Score:2, Insightful)
I see students failing papers because the Word on one machine does not read word files created on another machine in a different version.
I'm calling bullshit.
The specified format that teachers/professors use is generally the format that the on campus computers use (if you are in high school, the format is printed, not electronic), so if you are a student, you have access to write your paper, save it in the appropriate format, and electronically convey it to the professor using your school email address. Or if you live off campus, you can write in the format of choice, send to your school email address, show up on campus, convert it from the text, and send it to your professor through email. Other teachers use turnitin or some other web based service that formats text for the recipient automatically. If you are taking online classes, the format for papers will be specified, and it is the student's fault, not Word, for failure to adhere to it.
As for using googledocs for a paper, if it has graphic requirements (charts, analysis, specified formating), the student can and should be penalized for not adhering to the requirements. This makes googledocs a non-solution. Think of it as training for the real world. If your boss wants a one page, double spaced, times new roman, 11 font summary of what you did this month, you damn better well not be surprised when you get fired for turning in a 4 page email complaint about how you wanted to use googledocs instead of wasting paper.
The unfortunate thing is that you want to blame Word for your personal failures.
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if true, I guess you could count my (rather large) organization as one that would never used Google Docs. Tracking changes alone is a feature used extensively by our business departments.
Well, I think you will prefer Google Docs/Spreadsheets then. With Google Docs/Spreadsheet, revision tracking is turned on by default. Google Docs / Spreadsheets is really a collaborative platform built from the ground up.
You'll just have to be careful when you import any ongoing existing Word/Excel documents into Google Docs. It's only the importing process that will lose that info. After that, Google Docs/Google Spreadsheets will track any changes that are made within it.
And if you're really worried about losing existing tracking information, or having to maintain a large backup of old Word/Excel files separately (which you should have anyway), then don't migrate to Google Docs / Spreadsheets, and don't even migrate to any new versions of Microsoft Word or Excel. I really doubt that Microsoft's own converters between different major releases are even that smart, that they will retain that meta information during the conversion process.
That guy's online offering obviously will, otherwise, he wouldn't be bragging about it right now, but I really doubt this type of feature was working that well in the past, or that it will continue to work that smoothly in the future. Converting Word Documents between major versions was never an elegant process. In my case at least, it always seemed to lose my original formatting (and god only knows how many other things it lost, that were not immediately visible to me at the time).
Re:What fidelity (Score:3, Insightful)
You would be if you'd were curious enough to consider the issue a little more. 8^)
'Critical mass' is exactly my point. Companies A & B call their awkward, borderline anarchic process of batting emails and Word attachments back and forth a 'Workflow'. And to some degree they're right. But they never consider how else the information exchange could happen. They don't have to, because nobody else does, either.
Efficiency or appropriateness are not important. Word isn't the tool of choice because it's Good. It's not the tool of choice at all. It's just What We Use.
And that, children, is why geeks inevitably find themselves at odds with most of humanity: They simply cannot comprehend why someone would choose to continue polishing turds when there's so much else that could be done.
And they're fools, because they think there's a choice involved, when in fact what's important to most people is that no-one ever be forced to choose.
Re:Not quite. (Score:2, Insightful)
That several teams, talented individuals and the combined power of the internets haven't figured out how to fully and correctly render a fairly simple
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:1, Insightful)
I have zero love for Microsoft but they time and again push out tools that make my home and work life much easier.
I have great fondness for Linux and UNIX-like OS's in general (with a special mention to the Haiku project) but whilst I like using them at home, they're fuck-all use to me at work. If we implemented Linux at work, it would cripple the business in the short-term.
Other businesses may be able to make a successful migration but in a small/medium sized company which has seen systems and procedures grow organically and haphazardly, any attempt to transition the IT infrastructure would be foolishly epic in its failure.
Closed file formats require antitrust laws. (Score:1, Insightful)
And, "... valuing customer lock-in over actual innovation."
Microsoft is EXTREMELY abusive, in my opinion. In this case, most of the customers can't fight the extremely expensive hassles Microsoft creates, and they pay Microsoft again and again as the company changes its file formats.
I think all file formats should be in the public domain. Any company that doesn't open its formats should face anti-trust action.