<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:,2008:/1/tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-</id>
  <updated>2008-12-03T21:32:57Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for Microsoft Releases Interop Docs: Is This What Data Portability Looks Like?</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.23-en</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=6675" title="Microsoft Releases Interop Docs: Is This What Data Portability Looks Like?" />
    <published>2008-06-30T17:30:14Z</published>
    <updated>2008-06-30T23:25:47Z</updated>
    <title>Microsoft Releases Interop Docs: Is This What Data Portability Looks Like?</title>
    <summary>Microsoft Releases Interop Docs</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Marshall Kirkpatrick</name>
      <uri>http://www.readwriteweb.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="Features" />
    
    <category term="Microsoft" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p><img alt="microsoftlogo.jpg" src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/microsoftlogo.jpg" >Microsoft is <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/jun08/06-30InteropUpdatePR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases#">announcing this morning</a> the release of thousands of pages of technical documents concerning its most prized software, with the stated goals of facilitating interoperability and data portability.  Office, Sharepoint and Exchange are all covered in the documentation, which should make it easier for 3rd parties to write applications that can extract, read, write to and transform Microsoft-published user data.</p>

<p>Is this what data portability looks like?  Or are these steps just being taken to fend off legal challenges concerning unfair monopolistic practices?  Does that matter, really, if the effect is the same?</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[<h2>Context</h2>

<p>Now that Bill Gates is gone, as of last week, a new era has officially begun at Microsoft.  Skepticism runs deep, however, and no one is sure whether the giant company's recent rhetoric about openness and a new light-weight future are for real.  </p>

<p>Insiders working to advance the community of standards based openness tell us that they are getting a better feeling from Microsoft than many armchair critics would lead us to believe is warranted.  Some analysts have even begun to wonder whether the old tropes about Microsoft as closed and rival Google as open are as applicable today as they used to be.</p>

<p>Still, we wonder whether releasing technical documentation about existing products is really a move towards data portability.  It could be framed as another step to keep Microsoft, and its data protocols, in the center of the market.  That's where the company is right now, though, and the documentation being released does seem to allow 3rd party application developers a way to extend a hand to Microsoft customers in order to guide them out into the larger online ecosystem.  </p>

<p>This documentation may be necessary for Microsoft to play at all in <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/forrester_ria_enterprise.php">the future of more usable applications</a>.  Opening up programmatic access to Microsoft user data is either a brave or necessary step to take.</p>

<p>We also wonder how Microsoft's data openness initiatives will relate to <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_live_mesh_first_look.php">Live Mesh</a>, the latest contender for the "future of Microsoft" crown.</p>

<p>We look forward to reading more discussion about today's announcement from the development community interested in leveraging Microsoft technical documentation.</p>]]>
    </content>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59122</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59122" />
    <title>Comment from MyMesh on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>MyMesh</name>
        <uri>http://mymesh.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://mymesh.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Either way, it's a good solid first step by Msft, which well deserves a big clap of hands, in our humble opinion... :-)</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T18:12:20Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59124</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59124" />
    <title>Comment from Joe on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>Joe</name>
        <uri>http://llcoperatingagreement.blogspot.com/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://llcoperatingagreement.blogspot.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Public companies, by their nature, always look out for #1.  Obviously the move by Microsoft is not altogether altruistic.  But if it leads to better interoperability between documents create on open source or free software and those create by Microsoft's Word / Excel, then I'm all for it.  The only thing keeping me tethered to a copy of MS Office on my machines is the dread of being unable to exchange documents having 100% compatible functionality with somebody using MS software.  When that fear abates, then I can jettison the Microsoft stuff junking up my machines.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T18:30:01Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59125</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59125" />
    <title>Comment from Marcos Marado on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>Marcos Marado</name>
        <uri>http://friendfeed.com/mindboosternoori</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://friendfeed.com/mindboosternoori">
        <![CDATA[<p>Right right... Where is it? Knowing Microsoft, I have to see to believe. And, until now... nothing. How much will we have to wait?</p>

<p><a href="http://boycottnovell.com/2008/06/27/microsoft-interop-drag/" rel="nofollow">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/06/27/microsoft-interop-drag/</a></p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T18:33:19Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59126</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59126" />
    <title>Comment from Todd on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>Todd</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>They conducted a systematic, and successful, campaign to destroy OpenDocument:<br />
<a href="http://www.linux.com/articles/61481" rel="nofollow">http://www.linux.com/articles/61481</a></p>

<p>The "Open Source" page at microsoft.com requires that you install SilverLight:<br />
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/default.mspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/default.mspx</a></p>

<p>Their "Port 25" website features all of 30 odd Open Source projects for downloading ( the site has been up since 2005 ) and is written in .NET<br />
<a href="http://port25.technet.com" rel="nofollow">http://port25.technet.com</a></p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T18:38:56Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59127</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59127" />
    <title>Comment from Bob Uva on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>Bob Uva</name>
        <uri>http://bobdotnet.wordpress.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://bobdotnet.wordpress.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Microsoft Office and Windows are used so extensively and have such a huge market share that I can't but applaud Microsoft on their efforts to open technical information. They certainly have a commercial interest in seeing their software  used (what company wouldn't). Having worked with their software development environments over the years, I've seen the good and bad of technical documentation. Overall, however, Microsoft has been exemplary in delivering technical info to their development community. It's good to see their openness extended toward the wider community of developers and architects.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T18:41:58Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59131</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59131" />
    <title>Comment from Bob Uva on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>Bob Uva</name>
        <uri>http://bobdotnet.wordpress.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://bobdotnet.wordpress.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>I'm not one to get into polarizing threads between pro- and anti-Microsoft viewpoints, and I've certainly voiced to plenty of co-workers my concern and dislike of the market-control behavior that Microsoft has attempted over the years. But I think it's worth replying to Todd's comment since I know there are a lot (in the hundreds at least) of open-source .NET tools available (www.codeplex.com) that my colleagues and I regularly use in our .NET development.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T20:50:36Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59133</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59133" />
    <title>Comment from Ben Kepes on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>Ben Kepes</name>
        <uri>http://friendfeed.com/benkepes</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://friendfeed.com/benkepes">
        <![CDATA[<p>First a disclaimer - I'm not an MS apologist - it is amazing however to see the vitriol that flies whenever MS makes moves to try and be more open - sure they're a big business that looks out for number one but that doesn't mean that everything they do is evil</p>

<p>give 'em a break guys!</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T21:53:53Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59139</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59139" />
    <title>Comment from Geoff McQueen on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>Geoff McQueen</name>
        <uri>http://www.internetrix.net</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.internetrix.net">
        <![CDATA[<p>As a developer selling a CRM and workflow style application, we've had to work very, very hard, with a lot of trial and error and massive frustration to integrate with Exchange since the 2000 version.</p>

<p>Thankfully, Microsoft implemented a "potentially" standard interface to Exchange mailboxes, which include appointments, tasks and of course emails, in the form of WebDAV.</p>

<p>The problem, of course, was an almost complete lack of documentation. MSDN contained documentation showing you a simple example, but it took a heck of a lot of searching, not to mention around 8 weeks of trial and error by an intern to put together something reliable. Given the massive market share of Outlook in the corporate world, providing this functionality - pushing appointments from the CRM directly into people's appointments, via the server so we didn't need to make plugins work with the perpetually unstable Outlook - is essential to providing a useful solution for customers. It is one of the first questions I get from prospective customers - does it integrate with Outlook.</p>

<p>I know a lot of the audience to this blog may be shrugging their shoulders and wondering why MSFT applications - particularly over-bloated and unstable ones like Outlook and its server-related stack of Exchange and Sharepoint - matter in the face of Google Docs and a plethora of great Wiki solutions, but in the real world, this sort of decision by Microsoft is a massive deal - now web app vendors developing agile, user friendly applications can stitch an output layer into the platform people actually use, and give them the best of both worlds: an awesome, AJAX driven, Web 2.0 application which has social features and have it actually work in the *business* context that most IT users around the world use.</p>

<p>As for motivations, I think MFST has realised that it isn't ever going to dominate world's IT in the web era like they did in the PC era. This is reality. They're doing the adapt or die thing, and by helping developers to generate value for clients and their users without them having to re-learn everything they've ever known, they're defining a place for their on-premise, corporate IT solutions without expecting their clients to make an all or nothing decision.</p>

<p>For me, being able to thrive without having to completely unseat an 8000 pound gorilla is pretty appealing - I'm realistic enough to know others will need to unseat the Gorilla, and I'll continue to make darn sure our applications play nice with other mail, calendar and task vendors offering decent APIs too!</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T22:26:59Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59140</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59140" />
    <title>Comment from Marcos Marado on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>Marcos Marado</name>
        <uri>http://friendfeed.com/mindboosternoori</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://friendfeed.com/mindboosternoori">
        <![CDATA[<p>Ben I would love to belive in that, but unfortunately I cannot. Just take a look on why are they are doing this in the first place... They had to, in order to make the BRM on OOXML end as it did, and all that process of trying to aproove OOXML as an ISO standard, by itself, shows well what they really want regarding to documents, standards and interoperability...</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T22:30:09Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59145</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59145" />
    <title>Comment from David E Y Sarna on 2008-06-30</title>
    <author>
        <name>David E Y Sarna</name>
        <uri>http://www.hshco.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.hshco.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>The GoogleGazer, googlegazer.com/ has a detailed post on the subject of Microsoft's approach to release of documentation. See <a href="http://googlegazer.com/2008/06/30/microsoft-is-not-so-open-and-not-so-free/" rel="nofollow">http://googlegazer.com/2008/06/30/microsoft-is-not-so-open-and-not-so-free/</a> (Microsoft is not so open, and not so free).</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-06-30T23:37:13Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59235</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59235" />
    <title>Comment from Ben Kepes on 2008-07-01</title>
    <author>
        <name>Ben Kepes</name>
        <uri>http://friendfeed.com/benkepes</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://friendfeed.com/benkepes">
        <![CDATA[<p>More on this one - <a href="http://diversity.net.nz/when-youre-big-its-easy-for-people-to-throw-rocks-at-you/2008/07/02/" rel="nofollow">http://diversity.net.nz/when-youre-big-its-easy-for-people-to-throw-rocks-at-you/2008/07/02/</a></p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-02T00:21:50Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59241</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59241" />
    <title>Comment from Marcos Marado on 2008-07-01</title>
    <author>
        <name>Marcos Marado</name>
        <uri>http://friendfeed.com/mindboosternoori</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://friendfeed.com/mindboosternoori">
        <![CDATA[<p>I think you missed the point. If MS "makes moves to try and be more open", then I'm happy with it. I just don't believe that this is a case where they're trying to be more open - at all.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-02T00:39:50Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675-comment:59239</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.6675" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_releases_interop_docs.php#c59239" />
    <title>Comment from Marcos Marado on 2008-07-01</title>
    <author>
        <name>Marcos Marado</name>
        <uri>http://friendfeed.com/mindboosternoori</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://friendfeed.com/mindboosternoori">
        <![CDATA[<p>I think you missed the point. If MS "makes moves to try and be more open", then I'm happy with it. I just don't believe that this is a case where they're trying to be more open - at all.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-07-02T00:44:18Z</published>
  </entry>

</feed>