« Innovation at Nokia: Thinking ahead with the Nokia 770 | Main | Core, Complement, and Context: Channeling Geoffrey Moore on Open Source »

02 May 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c57b753ef00d834fe4f3a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Microsoft Discusses Open Standards (versus Open Source Software):

» Can You Name This Company from Bytesfree
Wow, I just came across some really forward-thinking statements from a company in 2003 on the topic of open standards. Can you name this company? An open standard is a publicly available specification which details certain technical functionality tha... [Read More]

Comments

Roy Schestowitz

Have a look at this one, which is older.

"Microsoft: For example, we should take the lead in establishing a common approach to UI and to interoperability (of which OLE is only a part). Our efforts to date are focussed too much on our own apps, and only incidentally on the rest of the industry. We want to own these standards, so we should not participate in standards groups. Rather, we should call 'to me' to the industry and set a standard that works now and is for everyone's benefit. We are large enough that this can work."

http://www.os2site.com/sw/info/comes/px09509.zip

W^L+

In your opinion, is the anti-openness viewpoint a top-management view, or is it pervasive throughout the company?

The company will have some management transitions in the next few years, so a top-only view would suggest that waiting is in order, rather than a confrontational approach.

Wesley Parish

"I find it kind of funny
"I find it kind of sad
"That the dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I've ever had."

And:

"(3) it is vendor and product neutral (i.e., open standards are not tied to the products or services of any particular vendor, and implementation of the standard is not limited to particular hardware or software products), and"

"So, if we require full fidelity with the legacy documents, we will need to “utilize and duplicate the output of those applications.” Additionally, ECMA 376 fully admits that this is outside the scope of this specification in that the possible behaviours of legacy documents “cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office open XML Standard.” It goes to show that the large 6000+ page document will not contain all the information we need for the legacy documents, and this means we should look elsewhere for this interoperable information."

Very little needs to be added at this point. "Hoist on their own petard", and what a thunderous and smelly one it was too.

stephe

@ W^L+: I think it's a lack of understanding in the senior ranks that grew through a time when they didn't need to be open that they can't get over at this time. And culture comes from the top. So while there a lots of people that are willing to explore being more open, they're prevented from so doing. Waiting won't help. Education will (hopefully) help.

@ Roy: This is an older meme when they thought that being the de facto technology (based on a vendor centric spec) was a good lock. They needed a little more history. And they're getting that now.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Essays

Creative Commons License

Blog powered by Typepad