The Future As Seen By Me In 2010
Well looky here, things one has scanned in eh. (ignore the photo, that's some guy that made some accounting software, not sure what became of him ;) MIKE RIVERSDALE is fuming. The expensive headphones he bought in Sydney three weeks ago have just died. His first reaction is not to randomly spill expletives into his coffee, but to use his iPhone to vent his frustration to his Twitter con- tacts, under the moniker Miramar Mike. "I will also put, 'What should I do?' It's a conversation. I'm reaching out to the people following me." The council predicts hand-held digital devices such as smartphones will rule the world in 2040. They already rule the life of Mr Riversdale, whose company WaveAdept helps businesses adapt - their computing sys- tems to allow staff to work from anywhere - and with anyone. In order of fre- equency, he uses his iPhone to tweet (1136 followers; 8363 tweets since joining), e-mail, make phone calls and use online services, such as checki
Yeah, I've heard that argument before (perhaps at Foocamp?) and I think that's a separate issue.
ReplyDeleteWith web office providers the file format still matters because,
1) 95% of existing office apps are on the desktop, so they'll need a documentation (either through reverse-engineering or standards) in order to be able to migrate peoples content online.
2) If you ever want to switch between providers in the future then the providers will need to agree on some kind of format (Eg. standards). If they don't then you may be putting your content in one company's proprietary format, with all the same issues that we have now (interoperability, portability, competition through standards like we have in web browsers).
3) There's a lot of live collaboration office suites coming out now (Google Office, AbiCollab, etc.). Little snippets of file formats are being sent as data ... effectively making an Office protocol. If you ever want to be able to script against a web office (like we do with RSS -- we might want to be able to mash up content with 3rd party services) then they'll need documentation.
In all these cases each provider can come up with their own way of doing it, but I'm reminded of what Tim Bray (co-creator of XML) said: "The world does not need two ways to say: This paragraph is in 12 point Arial with
1.2em leading and ragged-right justification".
So it's not about removing innovation, or anything like that -- it's about removing pointless differences, and that's where standards matter and where the ISO failed.
(of course I'm a Wellingtonian too -- if you ever wanna talk about this stuff let me know dude :)
As far as my limited understanding goes the big deal is that:
ReplyDelete(a) MS Office based solutions can no longer be excluded from govt projects on the grounds that they are not "standards compliant" (not that most governments care, but more of them are beginning to)
(b) By getting a bad standard through the process they discredit the standards bodies, and muddy the water of what it means to be "standards compliant" which supposedly works in their favor.
(c) As businesses start to add "standards compliancy" to the list of things they want in a solution, companies delivering MS Office based solutions will be able to tick that box in the RFP.
You are correct in that Microsoft really wants people to stay within the Microsoft ecosystem, and use *their* cloud based solutions, eg Sharepoint, and that winning this battle will help them achieve that.
However the need for companies to interop with others who are MS refuseniks will mean that MS will have to compete primarily on feature set rather than on
However I don't share your confidence about most people having migrated their data out of local silos within 5 years. Privacy and security concerns will likely prevent that.
Whoops, didn't finish that sentence. "Feature set rather than data-formats". But of course those two things only make up a small part of the competitive matrix.
ReplyDelete