Partilhar via

Multiple Formats Discussion Continued...

  • Artigo

I just have itchy fingers tonight, and can't help but blog a bit more. Peter Galli over at eWeek posted a piece in which I was quoted along with extensive input from Gary Edwards (late of the OpenDocument Foundation).

In the piece, Mr. Edwards talks at length about all the work he is doing to win business away from Microsoft. (That was the part I didn't like as much.) But, there were some fascinating other parts to what he said. (I think the incredibly good parts of the article were my quotes.<grin>)

First, he noted that ODF and Open XML could be converted to CDF. That couldn't be a better endorsement to one of my oft-returned-to themes...translation. The whole point of greater openness in document formats is that it is easier to translate between them.

Second, Galli reported on what Mr. Edwards hear in a discussion with IBM abouttheir Lotus Symphony product.

During that discussion, Heintzman outlined IBM's strategy of Web-centric cloud computing, where Lotus Symphony desktop documents are converted on the fly to an appropriate CDF profile, and then zoomed into the IBM cloud of Web platform applications and services, he said.

What Edwards and his colleagues took away from that discussion was the importance of the W3C CDF technologies to the IBM Cloud—Lotus Symphony desktop strategy as, once ODF desktop documents were converted to a CDF profile, many of the current ODF interoperability problems disappeared at that higher level

Once again, it is not about the document formats - it is about the applications and the business models behind them. IBM is SOOOOOO attached to ODF as the one-and-only document format, that they are going to translate it into <gasp> another format so that it can fit into "the IBM cloud" - in other words, into the rest of their business model.

At the end of the article, IBM is quick to try to distance themselves from Edwards and what is said in the article. It could be, because the points made in the article would seem to completely contradict the arguments they are making in favor of ODF.

I promise, my next few blogs will be about something other than IBM. I'm falling into a myopic pattern.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    December 04, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 05, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    December 05, 2007
    And for this juicy news about IBM's plans, you rely on Gary Edwards, who abandoned ODF because he has a product planned for... you guessed it, CDF?  Not a chance that this is complete self serving mumbo jumbo, is there.  No, it fits a message you want to get out, so you repeat it and then critique IBM's veracity due to it. Please, go along with you instinct in the last paragraph.  You have many valuable insights to share, so don't get stuck in the anti-IBM partisanship.

  • Anonymous
    December 05, 2007
    Thanks for the long comment Gary. I don't know if I have much to comment back. Wu MingShi - You are correct that Brian is at least 9 orders of magnituded more technical (and probably smarter) than me. But, my guess is that he would completely agree with my points which have absolutely nothing to do with the tech side of CDF. The whole point is not whether or not CDF is a good format, or ODF is, or Open XML is, or whatever - it is that the arguments in favor of a single document format are bogus. I'll ask Brian to look at these comments and see if he has the time to drop in a comment. If he disagrees with me - he should say so. Ben - It is not that I am relying on Gary Edwards for IBMs plans. I'm relying on one of the top reporters in the software industry who has an (at times quite annoying <grin>) habit of seeing through the spin to find the news. The thing about my discussions around IBM is that they are not based on a dislike of that company. In fact, I have tremendous respect for how smart those guys are. The thing is - I look at the business model as the driver of decisions rather than technical or societal good will. I have absolutely no problem with their wanting to have an IBM cloud wiht the intent of putting Microsft, Google, and anyone else out of business. That's the whole point about competition yes? But, I will call out what I see and how I interpret it. That said - I do need to look around at some other issues. (although I thought I wrote a really good piece on accessibilty that seems not to have driven nearly as much traffic.) Thanks all - good stuff!

  • Anonymous
    December 07, 2007
    "I have absolutely no problem with their (ed. IBM) wanting to have an IBM cloud wiht the intent of putting Microsft, Google, and anyone else out of business. That's the whole point about competition yes?" If there are no competitors, there's no competition; no competition = market stangation and monopoly. The question is, where should the competition be? You might say business model. Turns out the most "competitive" business model (almost 4 billion people) is a totalitarian regime, often brutal. A business model that operates independent of the previous one is corruption (also going on 4 billion people.) It has no tech focus and no societal cares. It is also stangant where it cannot co-opt ideas from others. If you were thinking the best business model is democracy, or for the US, a republic, because it's working OK for you and me, note that it only has around 1 billion participants. If you're not thinking of societal good will, you may be aligned with the 4 billion. If you make good tech decisions, you can end up in Google's current position (cap $223B) without having a prior monopoly (foolishly) hand you a pre-built large market (cap $323B)

  • Anonymous
    December 17, 2007
    The comment has been removed