I actually talk about this in the article. Merely using files is how we got out of the dependency on MS Office. Multiple efforts reverse-engineered them, including Google Docs. Yes they were undocumented, but as long as stuff has to be stored on the disk under user’s control, the overall dynamics are very different from you-can’t-see-the-files systems.
back
1 comments
Is it really so different in the service context? You could also reverse engineer the HTTP endpoints and formats used by Word Online to export data from the service. It doesn't feel all that different, except perhaps that the online service can try to detect your custom tooling and block you, whereas with static data that isn't possible.
But other than that admittedly real extra problem, the bulk of the work would still be understanding the undocumented protocols and feature semantics, then matching the feature set.
Hmm, Word Online isn't what the article is about. I'm not sure if you've read the article, but it is about social apps — like Tumblr, Reddit, HN itself, etc.
I'm using file formats as a metaphor to explain how apps built on AT protocol work (lexicons are like "social file formats"), and what this way of building enables (interoperability between social apps by default).
I did read it. I think myself and other people are getting tripped up by the title and the filesystem-oriented argument. The article opens with an icon of a .doc file, so it's natural to think about MS Word, which these days is a social app via its collaboration features.
I see. Well, my point was to start with that to give an intuition of the many-to-many between apps and data, and then transfer this intuition to social aggregated apps (which is what AT enables).