Posted on 03/21/2002 12:24:28 PM PST by quimby
Giant Killing: Microsoft's Achilles Heel
Comment: File Formats a go-go
By Arron Rouse, 21/03/2002 12:37:05 BST
LIKE SO MANY OTHER OFFICES, ours here is filled with PCs and various pieces of electronics hardware. There's the main PC used for work. There's a second PC on the network, built from parts left over from upgrading the main PC. They both run Windows. In a dank corner of the office there's an old Cyrix 166 that would be running Linux if it were ever switched on. And there's a Psion Revo Plus that goes in a pocket whenever its owner is on the move.
But for all the hardware we've got around, there is also an air of disappointment. Being a long-term technophile, I have a nagging feeling that the main PC should be running Linux. But, in all practicality, it can't. It's not that the machine isn't capable, it's not that Linux isn't capable. The problem is a simple one. All of my customers use Microsoft Office.
Ask almost any other freelancer and they'll say the same thing.
The Microsoft Monopoly
The frustration started in 1994. That was the year that the office got its first PC, up until that time everything had been running quite happily on a heavily upgraded Amiga 1200. The PC started out as dual boot Windows 3.11 and OS/2.
OS/2 was lovely. It was stable. It was fast. It was doomed. All of my customers were using Microsoft Office; that was why the PC was bought in the first place. Eventually OS2 was deleted from the system. The Microsoft monopoly had begun to set in.
These days, unless you're running Office, you're isolated. Sure, you can surf the Web, send email and listen to MP3s, but try to do some simple work. The first thing you know there's a Word document in your inbox describing the project.
Doing the Rounds
Visiting customers, it quickly became apparent that the majority of people only use Office, Outlook and IE. Some quick research uncovered the statistic that roughly 90 per cent of commercial users only use those programs. Speaking to sys admins confirmed this.
The people who aren't using just those three programs are a pretty mixed bunch: developers, artists, project managers, engineers and so on. But they still only make up roughly 10 per cent of the users. A fair number of them aren't using Windows systems to do their work.
Breaking the Monopoly
It's no secret that Microsoft has started to price hike. The news has been filled with stories of how licences are going to nearly double in price over the next few years. The Civil Service here in Britain has started to question the value of staying with Microsoft. Various government organisations around the world have been making similar noises. One Finnish city has decided to switch to Linux .
Switching to a free OS seems to make perfect sense. Why should tax payers have to cough up for thousands of copies of Windows when there's a perfectly good free alternative?
The answer is simple. File interoperability. Switching to Linux (or any other OS for that matter) is going to be a major headache. It's not the OS, that works fine. Making sure that your files are compatible with everyone else's is the headache. It's the reason my Amiga had to go. It's the reason OS/2 got dropped from my first office PC.
Codeine for File Transfer
Up until now, the big problem for anyone in business is that their files had to be Office compatible. The only way to guarantee that was by running Office. Now things can change. The simple way for the change to happen is for all the other producers of office software to pick a standard file format other than Microsoft's. That by itself could turn the tide.
To understand why, you need to understand a little about the way that governments work. If a government department uses a particular system, it tends to insist that its suppliers use a compatible system. So any government that started to use the new file format would be likely to insist that all of its suppliers also used that file format.
The question is how to persuade governments to switch to the new file format. Which is much simpler than you might expect. Governments have to follow procurement rules. Public pressure could be enough to make them switch. If any one department refused to use the new file format it is likely it could be sued for making policy decisions that favoured a single supplier.
Who Benefits?
The only people to lose out would be Microsoft. If the file format is open, hardware doesn't matter. Apple would get a look in. Sun would get more of its kit sold. Even Palm and Symbian gain an advantage. On the software front, WordPerfect and SmartSuite stand a good chance of selling in decent quantities again.
Governments would get the advantage that they could pick and choose their software. Consumers wouldn't have to buy Windows and Office for their home PC just so they could take documents home; Linux and OpenOffice.org would do fine.
Making a Permanent Change
The major fly in the ointment is Microsoft who, going on previous behaviour, wouldn't take it lying down. Its most likely response would be embrace and extend. It would try adopting the new file format and start making additions to it so that only its software was capable of doing certain things.
That can be nipped in the bud easily. The new file format should be licensed in such a way that licensees cannot make changes to it.
Move Fast
A free office file format could well be the arrow for Microsoft's Achilles Heel. There is nothing to stop the major players in the industry from doing it, particularly IBM/Lotus, Corel and Sun. Now the only question is, can they be persuaded to?
If they move fast enough they'll be able to catch the public sector's mood. If they do it now, the IT world will get its biggest shake-up in years.
Arron Rouse is a Contract Technical Author and Business Analyst. He has been in the industry since 1986.
Pure BS. Anyone ho can use MS software can easily adapt to other software. Many govenments at all levels are switching to linux.
The simple way for the change to happen is for all the other producers of office software to pick a standard file format other than Microsoft's. That by itself could turn the tide.
The government should encourage competition, not support it thru their actions and then bring anti-monopoly lawsuits.
I'm pulling for star office's verson 6, but will support any alternative. Monopolies all eventually stifle innovation and progress.
Can you say "Java"?
MS will deny and delay until they have an "almost" the same equivalent and then do its normal "screw you" thing.
Monopolies always end up stifling competition. Thanks for your knee jerk post.
Interesting factoid.
Yes, that was in the article. I suspect you didn't read the article or don't care about monopolies.
Right you are. Though the authors solution my not be a panecea, the "achilles heel" point is spot on. This is one reason MS has increased their release frequency, to create incompatabilities.
A couple of years ago I used StarOffice on my Solaris, SCO, and BSD machines. At the time, StarOffice converted to/from the MS Office suite nicely. I don't know what happened after the latest MS Office release or whether they've (MS) modified their file format(s)... again.
Micosoft keeps moving the to induce incompatabilities.
Micosoft keeps moving the bar to induce incompatabilities.
I vibrant economy isn't created by companies "winning" and then resting on their past achievments. This is the attitude that has Disney pushing for eternal copyrights so they can just recycle Mickey forever instead of doing something new.
I would point one thing out to all of the people who seem to like the idea of Microsoft "winning". When Microsoft controls enough licences and patents so that you can't really operate well in society without giving them a cut of your money, they've essentially become like a government agency with the ability to tax. I find it interesting that a lot of anti-government people don't seem to mind having a company in that role. And, no, "Don't use the software if you don't want to pay Microsoft." isn't any more clever of an answer than answering tax protests with the statement, "Don't like income taxes? Don't have any income." or "Don't like paying car fees or tolls? Don't drive." or "Don't like property taxes? Don't own property that can be taxed."
Of course I read the article. That's why I posted a reply. As for not caring about monopolies, when it comes to being troubled about world-impacting issues that keep me up nights (and there are a lot of them) Microsoft's monopoly hasn't even made my list.
I do care about having and serving my clients, though.
The author consistently blurs the barriers between OSs and Apps. Even the idiotic DOJ and their frivolous lawsuit didn't charge this fantasy.
Does Microsoft have the market as far as office productivity suites are concerned? You bet you a$$ they do, but it was after they kicked the crap out of Corel's WordPerfect, which after many years of non-innovation themselves wasn't so "perfect". The market worked. The people weren't happy with WordPerfect and its (at the time) non-GUI interface. Since, they have tried to catch up on the interface and have done and arguably decent job. But, they lost out to a product that consumers preferred: MS Word.
In addition, Office is available for Mac too, something the Microsoft foes rarely acknowledge because it takes away from their argument that Microsoft doesn't make their apps avaialbe to anyone but Microsft users.
Another point: At least in the US, there is a regulation (FAR 91?) that stipulates that the government CAN NOT (repeat CAN NOT) compete with corporations and further specifies that the government's purchases are based on "Best Buy" (not lowest price or a vindictive assault on a corporation just to change the market place to this authors liking). Now, maybe the UK doesn't have such procurement regulations, but the US does and Microsoft has duly conformed to those procurement regulations.
Another note on government procurement: My aunt has been in government procurement for 35 years (she practically helped write the book) and she has explained repeatedly...it is "BEST BUY" that gets the contract. This means the best value for the money spent which includes price, support, and operation.
Ex-AG Reno is full of sh*t (something that most of us agree on) when it comes to talking about Microsoft. The procurement process took place, and the BEST BUY was Microsoft. On one hand, they acknowledge that Microsoft makes the best software at the best value (price and support). On the other, they accuse them of providing a product to the buying public that is too high-priced and isn't as good. Pardon me? If the software sucked and it was too expensive, then why would the government be buying it. If Mac (or Linux, or Solaris) or AppleWorks (or WordPerfect or WordStar) was so good, then why wouldn't they have bought that? The hypocrisy is astounding.
I will tell what, if I was Bill Gates, I would cash all my stock out, buy an island and tell all of you "knobs" to F OFF! A little "Atlas Shrugged" action on your a$$! There just a bunch of envious punks that's all.
Flame away....
What are Star Office and WordPerfect up to? What's the problem?
When Office started out they competed against the Gods -- Lotus 123 and Wordperfect. At one time WordPerfect had more employees than Microsoft.
The article asserts a monopoly where one does not exist. The government (errantly, IMO) found only a monopoly on "single-user, Pentium-based PCs". It never (let me repeat: NEVER!) concluded or found that Microsoft had a monopoly in office productivity suites.
This is one of the many reasons why the author's point are ill-made.
I concede that the have a kick-ass market share. But, that never has been the quotient for finding a monopoly. At least, not until Judge "Pinhead" Penfield Jackson created this falsehood.
Now, the author is taking an enormously narrow (and highly arguable) legal finding and extracting it to everything that Microsoft does? You must admit that is horrible logic; textbook fallacy!
Company executives know that failure is defined as trying to direct traffic the wrong way on a one way street. On the other hand government executives know that failure is a predefined condition for promotion. Given that, I can see you plan being implemented (and failing and costing the taxpayers a bundle - as usual).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.