451 CAOS Theory 
A blog for the enterprise open source community
The silver lining in OOXML approval
Jay Lyman, April 3, 2008 @ 4:42 pm ETI kept waiting to weigh in on the ISO approval of Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) format, searching for some kind of silver lining for open source. Sure, there are those that say technical and interoperability issues will limit uptake of the standard. But this is Microsoft and Office we’re talking about, so it seems clear that there will be some pretty widespread adoption. While Microsoft will likely be penalized to an extent for any perception or reality of gaming the system, this will also be limited largely to its most ardent opponents. So we’re still in need of some truly silver-tinted lining.
Then I saw Paul McDougall’s report on the nations that represent emerging markets and how they voted against OOXML approval as an ISO standard. (Fittingly, Gartner’s Michael Silver is quoted, so this works as ’silver’ lining on a couple of levels). OOXML opponents were headlined by Brazil, India and China (the BRIC minus Russia, which along with the U.S. and three-quarters of nations voted in favor). Others in opposition included South Africa and Venezuela. While they may not represent the most lucrative markets at present, these are in many ways the markets of the future. Why? First and foremost because they represent brand new users. They also lack some of the more elderly technology characterisitcs, such as a preponderance of proprietary software. These are new markets with new users and they are among the biggest opportunities for all IT vendors right now.
They also make up a more level playing field for Linux and open source software. This has emerged as a trend across desktop, server and office software with global popularity of OpenOffice and Open Document Format (ODF), ISO approved since 2006. In our report, CAOS 5-The SMB market opportunity, we found that opportunity is limited, particularly compared to the enterprise market and particularly in the case of Linux. However, one big exception was emerging markets, where both Linux and open source are better positioned and even at an advantage sometimes against Windows and other proprietary software.
There will certainly be adoption of Microsoft’s OOXML, and this highlights the need for ODF interoperabiity and support. However, we may find that in these emerging and greenfield markets, Microsoft faces its fiercest competition from ODF and open source.
Categories: ODF
Comments RSS feed | Trackback URI
Silver is extremely close to Microsoft. It’s almost like quoting Microsoft itself). Search on the Web to find out just how close the two are.
Be careful of others like O’Kelly, who are on Microsoft consulting contracts.
Sadly enough, your post says nothing about the fiasco (even crime) that was involved in the OOXML lobby.
Thanks for posting Roy,
I agree, as stated, with Silver’s point that open source is in a better position in these markets compared to North America and compared to MS.
I did link to a story regarding the ongoing investigation into the lobbying and the process. I also think that MS will penalized by some users, organizations, communities and countries for how this played out, regardless of whether there are any formal verdicts.
JL
The approval of OOXML only shows that MS is still able to coerce countries into voting for them. I see MS in pushing forward its on standard and will rely on the Open Source Community to make OpenOffice.org interoperable with OOXML.
While nations such as China, India, and South Africa may represent a good and fertile ground for OpenOffice, etc., it still the shadow of MS has to be on everyone’s mind. I also see the approval of OOXML as a signal to many of MS’ partners to go with the MS standard and not with ODF.
THanks for posting Roni,
There’s no question that ISO approval will help drive OOXML adoption, particularly in North America and other MS-established markets. However, I think the no-vote from these emerging markets shows us that things have changed, and that there is ample opportunity for the more open alternative.
As for MS partners, they, like governments and organizations around the world, will have to choose whether they want the standard supported by MS or the standard supported by Sun, IBM, Google, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle and many others, both open source and proprietary. That choice alone is further evidence that things have changed.
JL
The OOXML approval process was not a technical nor nationals interest. It was a “commercial issue”. I’m from Panama City and Panama voted yes only because a TLC (Free Trade Agreement) that it’s on it way with the USA. Microsoft is the most powerful American company and possibly over the world and Panama don’t want USA get mad at it right now and voted yes on the OOXML ISO vote. Sorry for my english
At least Panama and the rest of the world has more of a choice this time around. Thanks for posting.
JL
this highlights the need for ODF interoperabiity
It actually changes absolutely nothing for ODF. ISO standard or not, OOXML is — as is well documented — merely XML window dressing on Microsoft’s proprietary formats. That means it *is* a proprietary format, impossible, for technical reasons, for anyone else to “interoperate” with.
Look into it, and watch. It’s easy to pontificate. If you set yourself to understanding the spec and what would be involved in just parsing an OOXML document in all its technicolor variety, you’ll find many places where it precribes formatting behavior “like Word 95″, etc.
I’m saying the spec is incomplete, and that for that reason no one will be able to produce a full converter. All we’ll ever get is what we have now: near compatibility. The network effects of Microsoft’s products continues unabated.
ISO adoption is just a marketing checkoff. It would have been better if it had failed, because nonadoption would have highlighted to the digitally illiterate that using OOXML cuts you off from an emerging worldwide standard. But adoption will continue as it would have without it, because competing with Microsoft — and to some extent surviving in the marketplace — requires some degree of compatibility.
Thanks for posting, jkl,
I think you’re right. I would simply say the more compatibility, the better. I also believe open source and open standards are the best, fastest way to the most compatibility.
JL
Unfortunately I’m afraid that this will have negative impacts on ODF uptake. A lot of governments are in the process or have already issued some regulation that requires the use of a standardized document format for all government data. Even if OOXML is technically proprietary, legally it does now comply with those regulations, and cannot be dismissed on that ground. And unfortunately that means that lot’s of people in the administrations that don’t like change or that still believe the “no-one ever gets fired for choosing MS” mantra will choose for MS Office rather then an alternative. This means that a lot of potential uptake and acceptance by the public at large will not be created.
It’s not because people who care realize that OOXML is not such a good spec, that people in the field will care. For a lot of them it is now simply an official standard and that’s that!
Thanks for weighing in,
Let’s remember that ODF is also a standard, and it’s been ISO approved and adopted by governments around the world for longer than OOXML.
JL
Russia abstained.
Thanks for the clarification, Mordecai.
JL
[...] the ODF-OOXML world turns Jay Lyman, May 23, 2008 @ 2:06 pm ET Oh the drama. Most of us knew ISO approval of Microsoft’s OOXML format was not the end, but more of a beginning in the ongoing fight for [...]