| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft pledges (yet again) that it wants to be interoperable | |
|
||
| Time: 12:39 EST/17:39 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft’s “significant” announcement on February 21 turns out to be not so significant at all. Microsoft is promising — for the umpteenth time — that it will share all the protocols and programming interfaces needed to allow interoperability between its products and others. Why is Microsoft going through the motions yet again? It’s all about next week. From February 25 to 29, ISO is slated to hold a long-awaited ballot-resolution meeting regarding whether or not Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) document format should be awarded ISO standards status. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:42:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/21/2008 2:21:28 PM |
|
Whatever. Their statement gave me a good laugh. And, strangely enough, the entire Internet as a collective thinks this is just the usual MS lip service that they're coincidentally paying just before the ISO BRM about OOXML. As the old saying goes, "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose."
|
| #2 By 92283 (64.180.201.131) at 2/21/2008 4:44:20 PM |
|
Microsoft is Satan because they don't want to give away their expensive IP away for free?
Asshat. |
| #3 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 2/21/2008 8:56:50 PM |
|
Just like to thank the EU for taking all of 35 minutes to fully digest this information before uttering their trademarked "we're skeptical" motto.
anti america - proven yet again. |
| #4 By 86292 (193.129.71.197) at 2/22/2008 4:03:16 AM |
|
"anti america - proven yet again."
Wow, are there really Americans still so clueless of the world that they equate failing to show unquestioning subservience to America and its businesses as being anti American? |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/22/2008 8:11:32 AM |
|
#4: parkkker and mini-moore are two of the most clueless people here, and the answer to your question would be "yes".
|
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/22/2008 8:37:15 AM |
| #2: Man, you're just flat out stupid. It's was MS who (for at least the fourth time now) talked the talk about interoperability. To achieve that, they'll have to open the kimono at least a little. But you're the smartest person on the planet, so please tell us all how you achieve interoperability while not disclosing any communications protocols??? |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/22/2008 8:50:55 AM |
|
Ars Technica had a good write-up here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080221-eu-to-ms-well-believe-it-when-we-see-it.html |
| #8 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 2/22/2008 9:15:15 AM |
| Translation: The EU has to crucify US companies like Google and MS to give pussy European companies an advantage they neither earned nor deserve. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/22/2008 9:33:29 AM |
|
Groklaw has a good article on it here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080221184924826 #8: Really? Just curious, but what other US companies are the big, bad EU stepping on? And how, exactly, is the EU 'crucifying' Google? You know, it's really quite simple: if you want to stay out of jail, don't break the law. |
| #10 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 2/22/2008 10:47:04 AM |
|
#1 Pointing out the Masses believe something doesn't mean that something is right.
#2 The concept if IP is way over many of these peoples' heads #4 The EU creates laws to limit competition under the guise of protecting the consumer. But hey if those under the EU like their high unemployment power to them. #6 Interoperability implimentation is in the eye of the beholder. MS has tons of internal (not publicly documented) API's that it has used for years. This just in, it owns the software. Some of these API's are known by software devs and MS has always had a "use at your own risk" approach. Once API's are published and Software depends on them MS can no longer change things at the drop of a hat. Quite frankly having developed software for years MS bends over backwards to help Dev's work with MS Software and I'm more than happy to take w/e else they provide and not complain. Its truely sad that so many haven't a single clue about what publishing these "protocols" for example will end up costing Microsoft in support, upgrades, and reduced internal productivity. #8 Not really. Its under the guise they are protecting their consumers since apparently their consumers are obviously too dumb to choose what service providers & products to use. #9 Those laws have nothing to do with protecting one's rights to life, liberty, and property. This makes them bad laws and good campaign slogans. But yes you are right, its the market they must compete in so they should adapt or just leave the market. This post was edited by MrHumpty on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 10:47. |
| #11 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 2/22/2008 11:11:27 AM |
|
#10: " Its under the guise they are protecting their consumers ".
Boy "guise" is the right word. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/22/2008 12:06:07 PM |
| #1: By the same token, it doesn't make it wrong either. Perhaps the skepticism is due to MS' habit of making interoperability statements and then reneging on them. |
| #13 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 2/22/2008 12:25:35 PM |
|
<ADDMoment>
OK first I'm going to start a internet craze and explain the proper use of the apostrophe when a word ends in an "s". It is only reduced to a single apostrophe (as opposed to 's) when the word is a plural. For example If someone's name is Jim Roberts and you are refering to his Book you would say "I bought Jim Roberts's book." If you were talking about his family's house you would say the "Lets all go to the Roberts' house." since you are refering to his entire family. Not trying to nit-pick #12 but it seems the entire world could use a proper explaination. </ADDMoment> #12 The problem is the public's perception of what is interoperabilty and to what level is deemed "fair." Microsoft will never satisfy the likes of most internet opiners (and I assume you would fall into this category) because they are protecting their IP by keeping some secrets to themselves. When MS makes a broad statement "we will make it easier to interoperate with MS Word" for example. To satisfy that statement adding a single API to the published set is enough. What the world hears when MS Says that is "We will release every single possible API hook we have that any other MS software uses to interface with MS Word." You are always going to be doomed to disappointment when you think that way. |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 2/22/2008 12:54:04 PM |
|
#13: Thanks for the punctuation tip. MS's looks so awkward though.
What you describe is the difference between the spirit and the letter of an agreement. Nobody expects MS to open up all their APIs but they must open up eneough to actually enable the interoperability taht they keep talking about. Plus, MS has a habit of redefining terms to suit itself. In this context, MS has defined interoperability to mean that you pay MS money and they will show you how to interoperate with them on their terms. There is still an imbalance of power & obligation. The public perception is filtered through everyone's understanding on common concepts. To the public, interoperate means I do some work, you do some work and we get to talk to each other. In MS Land, interoperate means you do all the work, pay some money and you can talk to them. That's seen as unfair and is rightly rejected. Then there's the fact that MS has said all of this before with little actual effect, and the timing of these announcements seems suspiciously close to external events that would impact MS negatively. Lastly, if MS is so in love with interoperability, why does it not directly support ODF within Word? Why is their ODF support dependent on a 3rd-party, half-baked and possibly never completed plug-in implementation? |
| #15 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 2/22/2008 2:40:36 PM |
|
#14 Against my better judgement I'm going to invest my time in responding to your arguments
"open up eneough to actually enable the interoperability taht they keep talking about." TBH I often wonder if people have actually built tools to work with MS products. They have the most extensive and easy to use API's through CoM/.Net and straight Dll's to work with nearly every single one of their products. This again supports what I was saying above... you want everything. "In this context, MS has defined interoperability to mean that you pay MS money and they will show you how to interoperate with them on their terms" This is true for every single software company out there. Every software company's idea of interoperability revolves around what they are willing to offer & support at what price. There is a amazing amount of interoperabilty provided by MS to nearly all their products that is free and openly documented and supported through communities (MSDN). Since you want More doesn't mean they are "redefining" terms. Again if they provide a single api even if you have to pay for it. That is Interoperability. If they didn't offere interoperability to work with and on their software they wouldn't be nearly the successful company they are today (Apple comes to minde). "There is still an imbalance of power & obligation" It is not an imbalance. They own their IP. They choose how to license its use and its terms of use to the masses. If anything MS goes out of its way to make working with/on/adding to their products insanely easy because they realize that the more options the user the more likely the user is to purchase the software in general. They set the terms because it is theirs. "The public perception is filtered through everyone's understanding on common concepts" Public perception is that protecting one's IP is a act of greed and distaste for the community. Personally I want the inventors and incubators of technology to be compensated for their work. Working to maintain control of trade secrets etc. is fine and if it becomes overbaring the consumers will migrate to something different and better. This post was edited by MrHumpty on Friday, February 22, 2008 at 14:41. |
| #16 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 2/22/2008 2:41:32 PM |
|
Cont'd
"To the public, interoperate means I do some work, you do some work and we get to talk to each other. That's seen as unfair and is rightly rejected" Which is exactly what MS does and has been doing. But since they own the IP they set the terms on which you operate. Your senario depicted above is satisfied by everything MS does... it's just not up to the point that you would prefer. The fact that sometimes they want monetary compensation to have more indepth access to their IP seems perfectly fine with me. Since people pay it the price must be fair. "Then there's the fact that MS has said all of this before with little actual effect" Welcome to the concept of marketing. Companies rarely under estimate what they will do. Being on both ends of that fight internally before the marking/management always writes checks the producers can't cash. You never know if they had intended to do something only to realize that the costs of doing so would outweigh the costs of actually doing it free. Then they choose to charge for it and if they find that there is no market to even charge for it they decide not to do it all together. That's business and somebody's gotta do it. "and the timing of these announcements seems suspiciously close to external events that would impact MS negatively" Find me a company that's publicly reported on and I'll show you where they all do this. It is not even remotely limited to MS and to think so is quite sad. "why does it not directly support ODF within Word" Quite obviously because there is no real market force making them bother with it. They have financed the creation of filters etc. to allow Office to read ODF documents if the users adds the addon (notice the ability to interoperate and have Word read any document format). Quite frankly just because a standard exists does not mean it must be implemented and since so very few people actually use the major supporters of ODF I don't see Microsoft tripping over itself to get-er-done. "Why is their ODF support dependent on a 3rd-party, half-baked and possibly never completed plug-in implementation" Time to consult with my Magic 8-Ball about whether or not you've ever actually tried to use the plugin. |
| #17 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 2/22/2008 2:47:50 PM |
|
#3 "America" or more correctly "Americas" is/ are (a) geographical term and indicates a continent; the word America comes from Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian explorer. United States of America are a political entity.
#8 Indeed the standards in Europe are different than here; for example be reassured that if you get checked by a doctor in Europe the results of the exams will not be available to everybody willing to pay for, Insurance companies come in my mind first. |
| #18 By 1748998 (216.151.130.170) at 3/24/2014 9:56:40 AM |
| Se onde la bandera roja despus de los juegos del domingo fueron tan malos para los corredores, que empez con un weight loss sentido del humor travieso. fat loss factor discount <a href=http://fatlossfactor20x.com>fat loss factor review</a> fat loss factor program <a hrefs="http://fatlossfactorreview56.com">fat loss</a> Would you also benefited from the air options. Things to Do in theWeight Loss Valley, and thank goodness for this economy? |
| #19 By 1705005 (216.151.130.170) at 3/28/2014 2:09:48 PM |
| The ban was imposed during the development of the online casino handles information on injuries to key players and learned the difference las vegas nfl odds between a cost of playing right away! mobil online casino http://aussiecasinokings.com - internet casino online casino <a hrefs="http://aussiecasinokings.com">casino bonus utan insättning</a> It's an incredible 90 percent were conducted in the online world, participants can now avoid hours of the season. |
| #20 By 1748998 (216.151.130.170) at 4/1/2014 1:48:17 PM |
| Raid players who saw his action as inspiration.They can cast the level of trust with his partner on" Morning Joe" speed and" non-victims. garcinia cambogia reviews http://empoweringsisters.com - garcinia cambogia extract reviews pure garcinia cambogia extract reviews <a hrefs="http://affordableairpurifiers.com">pure garcinia cambogia reviews</a> But this season should tell you at any given day as his A-5 couldn't catch the attention of new games about protein folding and nutrition shared a common constructive approach towards China, so the computer. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:42:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
