Another take on the recent Burton Group report
The Burton authors released this study “to help catalyze and advance the debate” between OOXML and ODF before the February ISO standards vote, Creese blogged. So, debaters, what’s your take on Burton’s findings?
Reviewing the reader comment/discussion thread following Mary Jo Foley's article, I'm reminded of Hillary Clinton's "Well, that hurts my feelings ... but I'll try to go on" comment, during the recent New Hampshire debate.
I spent 13 years of my career working for Lotus, Groove (long before Microsoft acquired it), and Macromedia. I am very familiar with Microsoft's competitive modus operandi. I also think Microsoft is playing well with others on Open XML, and that a lot of the anti-Microsoft flaming in this context is self-defeating.
» Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML | All about Microsoft | ZDNet.com
6 comments:
Possibly despite all your experience you have not understood the issues. It also appears that you have not fully grasped the capabilities of either format.
The primary issue of substance to all competent and professional people involved in IT strategy is the maximisation of choice and flexibility for their organisation; ISO 26300/ODF provides that where choosing Microsoft OOXML quite clearly does not. The DIS 29500 version of OOXML that may emerge as an ISO standard in February may be competitive in those regards with ISO 26300, but there will be zero implementations of it.
ODF already has multiple implementations on multiple platforms. Choosing OOXML because its best for Microsoft Office is making the heinous mistake of assuming Microsoft Office will retain its dominance in the longterm, and that an organisation can only be effective in using the most expensive of tools.
Maybe Microsoft Office is the Rolls Royce of office suites, but how many companies do you know that issue Rolls Royces as company cars?
Thanks for sharing your perspectives, but I don't agree with the Rolls Royce analogy, especially for organizations that need software support and maintenance.
Peter,
Just because you say OOXML is better, doesn't mean people will believe it.
I understand the burton group is trying to seem independant with this report, but come on. Do you really think computer professionals will fall for the FUD and BS?
the ars technica people have debunked your burton report thoroughly - please see - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080114-analyst-group-slams-odf-downplays-microsoft-iso-abuses.html
I wonder how you expect to regain any credibility after this?
Thanks for sharing your perspectives. I encourage you to read the comments from Burton Group CEO Jamie Lewis in response to the ARS Technica post.
Hi Peter,
where would I find the comments from Jamie Lewis you refer to above ?
Sorry for the delayed response -- Jamie's comments:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/574009779831?r=515001089831#515001089831
Post a Comment