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."
But is this a real usage scenario? (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, how often do the people Google is trying to cater to actually use these features? Google Docs has always struck me as a quick and easy way to get Word documents from anywhere. And I've gotta say, not many of my office reports use fancy styles, or SmartArt. Charts occasionally, yes, but the rest of those items just strike me as "meh" and SmartArt particularly strikes me as "yeah, that was cool when I was seven."
I dunno. It just doesn't seem to me like this is going to be a problem in common usage.
Err right? (Score:5, Interesting)
So this basically just states that Google Doc's data fidelity is only as good as Google makes it. So the only question businesses have is "Are Googles data fidelity policies better maintained than our own".
If yes, use it, if no, stay internal.
What Microsoft has to do with that question other than warping the question into an assumption to fear i sure dont know.
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:2, Interesting)
First one has to ask why one "rather large" organization would even entrust it's confidential documents in the first place to another rather large organization which makes its living based solely on the looking at the contents of one's emails, searches, web browsing habits and documents just to deliver advertising.
Re:PDF? (Score:1, Interesting)
No it's like throwing out an idiot who thinks that their personal crusades are more important than doing the job I'm hiring them for.
Employers aren't interested in your ideologies. When they are paying you, they expect you to stay within the bounds of your job description and your interests should be put aside and the company's interests should come to the fore. And no, some newly hired developer isn't in a position to have better perspective of the business' needs than the people who hired him.
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:4, Interesting)
I further suspect that this is a difficult thing because(in addition to probably being crufty, complex, and not as well documented as it might be), "change tracking" is partially a strictly technical problem, and partly a UI/design philosophy problem. It would be, by no means, a surprise to learn that Word and Docs have distinct approaches that simply may not be fully commensurate with one another.
Consider the analogy of programs/UIs that are basically folder hierarchy based, vs. programs/UIs that are basically metadata "tag" based. There are some basic technical challenges you would run into if you wanted to make one approach play nicely with the other(ie. parsing the metadata properly); but most of your challenges would be more about stylistic decisions concerning how best to bodge one style into the other's conventions. Should you parse the metadata and create "virtual folders" that echo a sensible folder hierarchy organization of those files? If you have a hierarchical folder tree, how best to turn that information into meaningful tags?, etc.
Re:But is this a real usage scenario? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the one hand, it seems anyone who's ever used a computer before in their life would half-way expect this sort of incompatibility to arise, given the drastically different natures of Google Docs and Office (Web based vs standalone app).
Lowering your expectations is a great way to ensure the underlying problem is never addressed . The fact that we still don't have dependable multi-vendor support for some of the world's most common document interchange formats over 15 years after they were first introduced is a bit sad, don't you think?
Google Docs has always struck me as a quick and easy way to get Word documents from anywhere.
Even if you only use Docs as a distribution system, its unreliable import / export conversion can be infuriating. Things as simple as line spacing or paragraph indentation frequently get broken, and I've yet to see an embedded object that didn't get converted to an uneditable image or just dropped without any notification. Exporting from Docs can easily reduce a professional looking document to careless looking garbage.
On the other hand, how often do the people Google is trying to cater to actually use these features? [...] And I've gotta say, not many of my office reports use fancy styles, or SmartArt. Charts occasionally, yes, but the rest of those items just strike me as "meh" and SmartArt particularly strikes me as "yeah, that was cool when I was seven."
SmartArt might be dispensable, but decent styles support is essential for all but the shortest and simplest of documents. Without it, anything but flat text quickly turns into an manageable soup of conflicting format attributes.
I dunno. It just doesn't seem to me like this is going to be a problem in common usage.
The fact that many large organizations are passing over Google Docs in favor of continued dependence on Microsoft's offerings is evidence to the contrary.
Re:PDF? (Score:4, Interesting)
I love the way the term 'ideology' is used to co-opt the debate.
There are correct uses of the term, of course. But in this example, it means, "I don't care if you're right and I'm wrong. I'm paying you to do your job my way, so shut up and do it."
In any area of business, this makes the employee exactly as smart -or as stupid- as the boss. Statistically speaking, therefore, it's a stupid approach.
Let's be clear, though: Here on Slashdot, 'Ideology' is really just code for FOSS and the principle that there is indeed a Right Tool For The Job, but that tool isn't always the most expedient. 'Ideology', therefore, sometimes means more work and potentially delayed gratification.
Of course, sometimes it means the opposite. Sometimes it means, 'quit floundering about using third-rate tools. Apply a little original thought for once in your life and accept that there are better ways to get things done.'
The wise boss knows about the risks on both sides of this equation and remains open to persuasion (though appropriately skeptical). The unwise boss, labels every thought not originating between his ears 'ideology' and ignores it.
Re:Google vs Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Web Based Document Editing (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the intended contrast was between entrusting your documents to large corporations or entrusting your documents to your own solution (developed in-house or purchased) that runs on equipment you administer and fully control.
Realistically, how many companies do that? Most companies use Microsoft Office, which they don't fully control. And most companies use outsourced servers, services, pretty much everything. A company that rolls all of its own technology is basically wasting resources.