What is Digg?39 Comments
- einfeldt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+51IMHO, the respective positions of Google and Microsoft on OOXML versus ODF really encapsulates the difference between these two companies. Google makes money from traffic. The more people who use the Internet, the better for Google. So Google has a financial stake in keeping the Internet open and free (as in freedom).
Microsoft, on the other hand, only gets a bounce to the extent that it is able to tie traffic to its flagship products: Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows. So Microsoft is ultimately threatened by truly open data formats, because those formats are not tied to any particular local software.
Google, on the other hand, is platform agnostic. It can monetize any almost any platform, although Microsoft wants to tie Internet searching to its default search Microsoft Live Search window in Vista.
So the fact that Microsoft even dares to call its proposed "standard "Open Office XML" underscores its penchant for doublespeak.
These issues might sound geeky, but to make it really, really clear for anyone, it all comes down to one word:
control.
Microsoft wants to control your data.
Google wants you to just keep cruising the Internet and having fun, and it is betting that its targeted ad searching will actually make your life more enjoyable, or at least more relevant to your life.
And no, I don't work for Google. Nor does anyone in my family. Nor am I a paid astroturfer, like many pro-Microsoft diggers. - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Google supported ODF all along, so this is not surprising. It even sent out a letter (available from the ODF Web site) to express its concerns about OOXML, which is pro-monopoly and pretty much a joke (from a technical perspective).
- malkir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16While I definitely agree with your point there are even more reasons that google would prefer odf as a standard. Google wants to document the world, scan all books and make everything searchable. A truly open standard will keep documents readable a hundred years from now. You don't want to have to go through and repeatedly scan documents each time a new document format comes out. Also if you keep to an open standard you have the benefit of being able to create algorithms specifically for searching that standard in potentially more meaningful ways. Anyway, just a couple thoughts, you're still completely right.
- dtd00d, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Welcome to digg. You can digg what you want and bury the lame. Like this comment thread.
- thomble, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Consider what HTML and the web have done for society. By reading Digg - or any other website - you are witness to the benefits of a non-proprietary markup language. Microsoft, despite any distraction or indication of the contrary, wants to retain control of how our documents are formatted on paper! They are bound to fail.
Please, do us a favor and digg down the pro-OOXML astroturfers. - grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Sort of. OOXML is actually Office Open XML (not that Microsoft would mind you confusing it).
As a file format, it is not terrible, but it is certainly not 'open'. It is only marginally less vendor locked than the doc or xls formats. It fails to completely describe the document, instead using tags like useWord97LineBreakRules. For an open format, this is unacceptable. It would be entirely appropriate for the ISO to reject the format on these grounds alone. But I think Google is just as dangerous as Microsoft because people seem to accept it without question whereas everything Microsoft does is heavily scrutinised. Both companies exist to make money for their stakeholders, and both will compromise integrity for a buck.
I too have no association with Microsoft or Google. - bscene, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12apparently you give enough of a ***** to take the time to post
ahhhhhh thud! - Rcdriver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Please, lead by example.
- interoperate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Microsoft's goal with OOXML is deceptive because by default Microsoft Office produces files with proprietary extensions to OOXML.
Hence the lie is simple, Microsoft Office 2007 can read OOXML, but don't expect users of competitive products to be able to read the standard files created by a typical Microsoft Office user. Such files will have additional proprietary extensions.
Embrace, Extend, Exterminate.
For more than twenty years Microsoft has been following the same strategy. Talk of open standards and interoperability is just that - at best talk, perhaps more aptly described, it is pure deception. - Mejogid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"Both companies exist to make money for their stakeholders, and both will compromise integrity for a buck."
In that sense, atleast, I think Google's a safer bet. They seem to be sticking pretty firmly to their philosophy of "Don't be Evil", which actually does make long term business sense (as you said, it would compromise their integrity and so they would lose in the long term). - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8An open standard will always be readable provided we still have machines that can accept the medium it is stored upon. The only time data can be lost is via arcane, implementation based data formats that tend to never be documented and die with the implementation they are tied to. Already some older MSO documents cannot be read by more modern versions. Companies and governments need to be able to read documents 50 years from now.
- noPCtoday, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Some how I can see that Google will take down Microsoft like how Microsoft took down IBM in early 90's...
- maxhrk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8google seem want to piss off microsoft(more specifically, Bill Gate or the chair thrower).
- xspinkickx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7steve ballmer is throwing a chair in his office reading this.
- MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I also make money. I think many people do. I wouldn't steal a 10 year olds lunch money in any case.
Don't be evil is not a fad or something special. My supermarket is not evil.
It's just special that we have a billion dollar company that's not evil.
All those that work there expect that. If they suddenly changed the policy to make-money-no-matter-what all those highly educated people would quit their job. Whereas, if you go to work for micorosft there is not a possibility you still have any form of integrity left. - macewan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5too simplistic a view chrup
- Onestone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You have no idea what you're talking about.
- BlackWarp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Dugg for chair thrower.
- Mejogid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4As I said, I realise this but they do seem to have a management that seems to care about more than the next year's result (this may partly be because they have said they won't listen to shareholders - who are in it for the short term - on such matters). In the long term, strong support and brand name is more important than a good year.
- grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There is a difference here in that removing the vendor lockin of the document format is a direct threat to the office cash cow. Commercially, I can totally understand Microsoft's unwillingness to go out of their way to make or support a truly open format. Office 2007 is really quite innovative with the ribbon bar. But if Open Office is attractive to me as a user now even though formatting can be a bit off in complex documents, how much more so would I lean that direction if it could format the document as it does in Word 100% of the time.
You propose that if Google was ever in the situation of choosing between their integrity and making a buck, they would choose 'Do no evil' every time. Well Google was put in this exact position when they were told by the Chinese government that search results had to be censored of they would block access. Google chose the money. Please don't think I am singling out Google here, Yahoo did the same thing (and possibly worse). - OrangeCrush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, it's "stake holders" which includes stock holders, lenders, managers, employees, partners, etc.
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The bottom line is that Google's entire business model works very well without "doing evil," whereas Microsoft depends on control of both the market and consumer's daily activities...which ultimately has to be pretty inherently evil. Power always corrupts, and there will be corruption in Google, but there's little drive for Google to be evil for the sake of profit, which is already a huge improvement.
Oh, and the whole china thing really gets blown out of proportion. First and foremost, you can't expect a "book burning" culture to be transformed overnight, and second, you can't exact any change at all if you just don't participate. Sure they're in it for money, but their method of doing so is still ultimately driven by making information available and accessible. Now, they have to make more information available if they want to make more money, so the contest between a free and open internet and government suppression will arise, with Google on the former side. Google monetizes freedom...and that's all they do, so don't expect them to be saints, either. - MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are mistaken trust with predictability.
Microsoft is safe like going into harlem shouting "poor slobs .. go get a job". You know exactly how you will be treated and how you must behave. - infamousjeff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've met some people who work for Google (noc operations folks) and they were very cool and very ANTI-MS / Linux fanboi's. The first comment is the most insightful and the comment about the open document format and algorithms is also very true.(In the short term of 20 years). We don't even know if the average person will be using what we consider now to be PCs in 20 years. But I think we can all agree that competition is good for everyone. And it's fun to watch monsters fight(MS, Google). The thing is MS is a sinking ship IMO. I just don't see how they will survive with Apple, Open Source and Google. I'm not anti-MS I just don't see how they can survive w/o being evil(patent hording etc, or patenting GOTO for visual basic lol they can keep that one).
- Macskeeball, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2it's actually "stockholders" and not "stakeholders," but good comment nonetheless.
- grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I did use stakeholders intentionally, a stakeholder being a person who is effected by the success or otherwise of a given company. It is largely made up of stockholders, but many other people indirectly make money through these organisations.
- Stonekeeper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I dont get it, why dont IBM, Google, et al join forces, FIX ooxml and re-submit it themselves?
- macewan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Much better reply to schestowitz's comment than that I was working on. Microsoft has a long way to go on earning the trust of the public and other businesses. Their miserable first attempt at ISO for OOXML just under scores their lack of understanding of the term Open.
- fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Businesses? MS already has their trust.
The Public? MS already has their trust.
The third world? That's what they have to work on. - SEN5241, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I, for one, welcome our new ISO overlords.
- chrup, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1They both want people to use their respective software - what's bad for the one, is good for the other, they are economic enemies. Of course, Google and others like Sun, Apple, etc. are pleased.
- fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I guess protecting child molestors and drug dealers isn't evil any more. (Orkut) I guess violating a contract and stealing money from people aren't evil (Adsense, Adwords, and GPay).
What has the world come to? - Alegis, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Don't fool yourself, it is a very arrogant statement that has been proven false on several grounds (most noticeable: china).
They're a good company, but still a company. Not a charity program, don't ever forget that. - tobias1482, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1"My supermarket is not evil"
Do know anyone who has ever tried getting their product into a supermarket? They're evil. They're all evil. (Whole Foods is the worst) - tobias1482, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0fanboys... meh.
- nephilimx, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Sorry to say your the one being a astroturfers
you cannot compare HTML to a XML format, HTML was a standard always changing by W3 til 1999
OOXML is just a "step" in XML's life, something will replace it in the future even if MS wins - CarzorStelatis, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1'Microsoft competitor welcomes setback for Microsoft'. This isn't news, buried.
- amar5677, on 10/10/2007, -40/+0if anyone actually gives a ***** about this, then please go jump off a cliff
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is