first step on a long road: Microsoft Office to support document conversion to ODF

Written by Andrew Rens on May 22nd, 2008

Microsoft has announced that it intends future versions of Office to support Open Document Format, the international open XML document format used by other developers so that documents produced by Office will be intelligible to other document processing software including systems supported by Novell, IBM, Canonical etc.

In other words, it is intended that future Microsoft Office software will be able to convert files to and from ODF.

That seems to suggest that Microsoft have finally come to the realisation that inter-operable formats are an important feature of desktop software.

However ODF will not be the default format of Microsoft Office Microsoft Office will not make documents created in office automatically a A user of Microsoft Office will still have to take an extra, intentional step to save a document in ODF, either by deliberately setting the application to default to ODF or by selecting ODF as the format for saving an individual document.

It is good news for people who use Microsoft products since they will, when this is implemented, and depending on how it is implemented, be able to expect to generate documents which the users of other document processing software can read, and be able to read documents generated by others . The changes to Microsoft Office to enable it to save into ODF, obviously enhances the value of Microsoft’s product to its users.

However this mustn’t be mistaken for a commitment to a global open XML standard. If Microsoft wanted to ensure a single open XML document format used around the world it would request ISO to withdraw the controversial OOXML specification.

 

Subscription based open content aggregation

Written by Andrew Rens on May 12th, 2008

Mark Surman has written about an interesting new business model: Noank. You have to read his post to understand this one.

As Mark says its an interesting proposal, most interesting is not the idea of the all-you-can-eat-buffet but the (current) undertaking to share subscription revenue with those who have open licensed their work.

That obviously offers a possible revenue stream to those who open license their work. But the approach is based on the idea that one pays subscription for content, including open content. While the the aggregator may perform a service by bundling open and closed content, it nevertheless supports the notion that one pays for content, in all contexts including education, and not just in respect of consumer based entertainment.

That is a problematic idea, especially since even “small monthly fees” do not scale well in Africa, even the most minimal charges operate as a further barrier to access to those Africans who have managed to get on-line access because most Africans don’t have access to on-line payment mechanisms.

In other words this is a new business model which may help to change the environment within which the open educational resources and access to knowledge movements operate. It provides new challenges because it attempts to extract value from open resources, but does so in a non exclusive way. It does so however by charging a subscription.While the open material will be available elsewhere without paying the premium, the existence of the subscription aggregator may undercut the incentives for open access players to create open access aggregators and services. Those unable to pay the premium, i.e. those who already have the greatest barriers to access to knowledge may face a greater difficulty in locating open content if there are fewer open aggregators.

If it works in China and Russia it promises to be a very disruptive business model, and one which seems to create a better environment than the current one for open access, however it should not be confused with open access, or with development focused initiaves.