On TV.com: CALIFORNICATION'S Hank Needs to Get Hurt
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

February 21st, 2008

Countering the Microsoft cynics

Posted by John Carroll @ 9:52 am

Categories: Microsoft, Programming

Tags: Microsoft Corp., Open Source Movement, Iso standards, OpenDocument Format (ODF), Corporate Law, Process Improvement, Quality, Business Operations, Emerging Technologies, John Carroll

Microsoft announced today plans to expand its interoperability principles, committing itself to higher standards of openness and portability in pursuit of interoperability nirvana. Fellow blogger Mary Jo Foley was skeptical, noting that Microsoft has said as much in the past, and since then made noises about patents it owns which may relate to Linux (my take: it does, but so what?) and that antitrust authorities had to pry documentation for its protocols from Microsoft’s clenched fists.

I found out about the announcement because I woke up this morning to find mail from Steve Ballmer in my inbox. That isn’t anything too special, as the mail was sent to all Microsoft employees, a group among whom I count myself.

I have been saying for quite some time, however, that Microsoft needs to make this kind of commitment (most recently here, but the list is far longer than that). Microsoft’s interests as ecosystem-builder aren’t furthered by closed protocols, and the market has changed because computing is such an essential part of our daily lives that we no longer accept companies locking our information up in boxes that only they can unlock. The open source movement is a valid response to the reality that, in a world where computing is as ubiquitous as oxygen, we need to have access to the details of how we interact with that computing infrastructure.

So, given my past track record of advocating exactly the kinds of things Steve Ballmer and Ray Ozzie have committed the company to implementing, and given that I AM a Microsoft employee, I have one simple question to ask readers:

Do you think I am atypical for a Microsoft employee?

I don’t think so, and I talk to Microsoft employees with a fair bit of regularity. Anecdotal evidence exists which belies the notion that the latest announcement is just pre-ISO-vote bluster. Ask yourself this: what are the odds that the Microsoft of 1995 would have released something as comprehensive to the outside world as OOXML? Love it or hate it, but its a simple fact that Microsoft has released more information about its present AND past office document formats than it has EVER released before.

Ms. Foley has pointed to a slide created by Sam Ramji, Director of Platform Technology Strategy, as proof that Microsoft isn’t really serious about interoperability, and just wants to tie the world into its own technology. I think that misses the point entirely. Microsoft is a maker of PLATFORMS. If you can write against Microsoft technology as easily as you do against non-Microsoft technology because you’ve fully documented everything and made binding to its technology from any development tool easy, then the decision as to whether to write to Microsoft technologies or non-Microsoft technologies is as divisive as whether to write your user interface in HTML or XUL, or use ODF versus the ISO-ratified variant of PDF, or the choice to use ANY technology that competes for the hearts and minds of developers, corporations, service providers, and indirectly, end users.

Would it be nice if Microsoft didn’t announce this as close to the ISO ratification vote as it is? Yes, it would be, but lets not ignore the fact that events sometimes create the necessary existential churn that make clear a better path towards the future. That applies to private individuals as much as it does to 75,000-person business entities like Microsoft.

Microsoft is a wildly successful company that makes billions in PROFIT every quarter. Smart executives are very careful about moving the apples around the apple cart. In spite of that, it is my sense (and I say this as a Microsoft employee privy to internal communications) that Microsoft’s upper management realizes now that moving those apples around in a well-documented and standardized fashion is NOT detrimental to the company as a whole.

That’s why I am willing to give Ballmer more benefit of the doubt than Foley.

John CarrollJohn Carroll has delivered his opinion on ZDNet since the last millennium. Since May 2008, he is no longer a Microsoft employee. He is currently working at a unified messaging-related startup. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

Email John Carroll

Subscribe to A Developer's View via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 53 Talkback(s)
Not the issue ...
"Microsoft didn't make GPL rules. People with a crazy notion that proprietary software is somehow unethical did."

Microsoft didn't make GPL rules, and it's not responsible for them. Agreed. (Read the rest)
Posted by: Golodh2 Posted on: 02/27/08 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Benefit of the doubt  Yagotta B. Kidding | 02/21/08
Can take years to build trust  John L. Ries | 02/21/08
Im sorry Mr Carrol but  Quebec-french | 02/21/08
I'm sorry Frenchie...  BFD | 02/22/08
I have no problems with "Frenchies" translation  Ole Man | 02/22/08
Well...  BFD | 02/22/08
At least we don't ride the coat-tails  Ole Man | 02/23/08
20 years of monopolist's broken promises  ThePrairiePrankster | 02/21/08
A promise followed by threat  j.m.galvin | 02/21/08
No change  John L. Ries | 02/21/08
RE: Countering the Microsoft cynics  tombalablomba | 02/21/08
please....  Linux Geek | 02/21/08
MS doesn't have to release any code at all  John L. Ries | 02/21/08
It's not cynicism...  Anton Philidor | 02/21/08
Of course...  John L. Ries | 02/21/08
Not really  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 02/21/08
Effects  Anton Philidor | 02/21/08
True, but...  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 02/22/08
but...  aussieblnd@... | 02/22/08
Resolving the difference.  Anton Philidor | 02/22/08
Companies are not dummy consumers  TristanGrimaux | 02/22/08
Lest we not forget: "Linux is a cancer"  D. T. Schmitz | 02/21/08
RE: Countering the Microsoft cynics  bcmoore87 | 02/21/08
Are you insane?  aussieblnd@... | 02/22/08
ROFL!  thx-1138_@... | 02/22/08
software deflation  bcmoore87 | 02/22/08
RE: Countering the Microsoft cynics  wanderson | 02/22/08
let them keep their stinking stacks  Professor8 | 02/22/08
The other shoe!  aussieblnd@... | 02/22/08
Microsoft is not to be trusted...  twessels@... | 02/22/08
RE: Countering the Microsoft cynics  Serpamac | 02/22/08
Office 2007?  BFD | 02/22/08
The Halloween Documents  Ole Man | 02/22/08
What's the first step in writing an OS from nothing?  BALTHOR | 02/22/08
So we are the cynics, now?  TristanGrimaux | 02/22/08
Not denying that in the least  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 02/23/08
I could use strong language but I won't  Old Timer 8080 | 02/22/08
Redmond was FORCED, this wasnt by choice no matter how hard u spin it  zeke123 | 02/22/08
You can't be serious!  thx-1138_@... | 02/22/08
Debuning Microsoft's 4 new interoperability principles  zeke123 | 02/22/08
Microsoft  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 02/23/08
Cynics proven correct ... again.  Golodh2 | 02/22/08
And whose fault is that?  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 02/23/08
Not the issue ...  Golodh2 | 02/27/08
Them boys in Missouri says "show me"  Ole Man | 02/22/08
Already brain washed  stomfi@... | 02/22/08
I honestly do believe that you, yourself, are sincere but...  odubtaig | 02/23/08
Who is surprised? Who did not expect?  Ole Man | 02/23/08
re  jimk_z | 02/24/08
RE: Countering the Microsoft cynics  grail@... | 02/24/08
This is a joke isn't it?  Jeremy W | 02/25/08
Wait and see  Tom in Toronto | 02/26/08
RE: Countering the Microsoft cynics  ppyo | 02/26/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Recent Entries

Top Rated

Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors

Archives

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads