Today's announcement is a little different than the promises Microsoft has made in the past in that it is publishing the protocols and APIs, not just promising to do so. Of course, only time will tell if the protocols it publishes are lacking in some way.
What Microsoft may be coming to realize is that it is in its best interest to make that information freely available. This could spur an ecosystem of development that will give new, longer life to Windows and Office. The new APIs for Word Excel and PowerPoint is an interesting twist. Given the whole OOXML issue, yet another so-called open document format from Microsoft seems, on the surface, to be shifty, especially given that there seemed to be some softening from the ODF side of the standards community about OOXML. See ODF and OOXML -- can't we all just get along?
Go to Microsoft Subnet for more news, blogs, opinion.
Fabulous giveaways from Microsoft Subnet and Cisco Subnet
All Micronet blog posts
Sign up for the bi-weekly Microsoft newsletter. (Click on News/Microsoft News Alert.)
things that make you go hmmm.....
Providing API code, and then offering low royalty payments to those who implement it seems like another way to sell something. Would the royalties paid would be enough to reduce competetion?
Truly open would mean not charging for use of published APIs themselves. It would be fair game if they charged for CALs for connections to a database or other server.
This appears to be a sneaky way to steer clear of antitrust implications. The proper response would be to decrease price on client software and charge more for CALs, and give away the API.
Does anyone have a better idea?
Have to agree R10000
It is still a smoke screen but at least one (short) step to the right direction. It will help some application development but doesn't make any change how MS thinks business. They still have a long way to go, even Sun published in 80's how they think the system works not just API's. Fortunately I see them buying / hiring more "open source" and it will change the culture in MS, maybe slowly but.. They can keep the control same way as Linus does for kernel but have the benefits of much wider group of developers and even designers. There is nothing wrong charging of product, Linux world does that, but if they put the pressure to developers they will lose. Not that it makes any difference to MS but even I might develop for Windows if the development systems would be free, see, for example, the Intel development licenses.
"Open API" is Redmondese for
"Open API" is Redmondese for "Lock In that generates patent revenue".
Don't let them fool you for one second...
OOXML is patented like SMB, it's not an open standard that is free like ODF is. OOXML=royalty, ODF=no royalty.
Any software that opens ooxml is subject to their patent royalties.
Nothing else that comes out of their (or anyone else's) pie holes matters because of this simple fact.
Anyone that starts talking about OOXML can be shut down with "How much are the royalties that I need to pay Microsoft to use their 'open' OOXML standard? So I should pay MS for a non free standard when a perfectly good free one exists?"
They shouldn't be opening their 'standards' they should be using the same ones the rest of the world uses. It could be fixed with one office service pack that implements the standards that the rest of the industry agreed on.
Hopefully everyone sees this development for what it is, the opening move in their patent troll game. If people had any sense they'd be ditching office for open office, just like they did with wordperfect 12 years ago.
Users want to be able to open any type of document. MS isn't giving them what they want so they should go somewhere else.
-Viz
Post new comment