4 ms·

> Even applications like OpenOffice that were specifically designed to be clones have struggled with compatibility for decades. By embracing that complexity, an

> Even applications like OpenOffice that were specifically designed to be clones have struggled with compatibility for decades. By embracing that complexity, and the costs, we would deliver something that we knew was fundamentally hard to match > Google Apps have been announcing some variant of offline editing for almost 8 years now and it is still semi-functional. The other “real soon now” promise is “better compatibility with Office”. This has the flavor of the laundry detergent claims of “now with blue crystals”! The claim of “better” is hard to argue with but history would seem to indicate they are not getting any closer to actually being compatible, especially as Office continues to evolve It's a bit difficult when they're on purpose embracing complexity and cost of the current format, and keeping it closed source. The fact that Google is able to achieve its own network effects with a different format should actually encourage Google to not support Office, ever. For us, users, we should ensure Google docs stays compatible with open format like ".odt"

Nomentatus 10y ago
I think you've put your finger on it. Funny thing that there are laws imposing standards on so many other technologies... but not software, even re basic file formats. Hmmm. Nobody thinks software is without economic consequence, yet this remains so. Hmmm. For example, once upon a time screws were made however anyone wished to make them (and railways were whatever width the company wished.) "In 1918 Congress passed a law establishing an organization called the National Screw Thread Commission, with the goal of ascertaining consistent standards for screws. The goal of this effort, which you might guess given the timing of the law's passage, is military-related: As you might guess, the military uses a lot of screws, and inconsistencies were apparently bad enough after World War I that Congress had to do something about it. John Q. Tilson, a Connecticut congressman, argued that the measure was necessary due to the problems a lack of consistent screw thread were creating. He also made the case for businesses—who he argues also will benefit from screw compatibility." http://tedium.co/2016/09/15/screw-history-standards/ http://tedium.co/2016/09/15/screw-history-standards/

Nomentatus 10y ago

I think you've put your finger on it. Funny thing that there are laws imposing standards on so many other technologies... but not software, even re basic file formats. Hmmm. Nobody thinks software is without economic consequence, yet this remains so. Hmmm. For example, once upon a time screws were made however anyone wished to make them (and railways were whatever width the company wished.) "In 1918 Congress passed a law establishing an organization called the National Screw Thread Commission, with the goal of ascertaining consistent standards for screws. The goal of this effort, which you might guess given the timing of the law's passage, is military-related: As you might guess, the military uses a lot of screws, and inconsistencies were apparently bad enough after World War I that Congress had to do something about it. John Q. Tilson, a Connecticut congressman, argued that the measure was necessary due to the problems a lack of consistent screw thread were creating. He also made the case for businesses—who he argues also will benefit from screw compatibility." http://tedium.co/2016/09/15/screw-history-standards/ http://tedium.co/2016/09/15/screw-history-standards/