"I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a relationship between the two things," he said. "This does come from the top. I think in the way this is being communicated inside of Microsoft, it places a lot of requirements on developers and product managers to behave in a certain way -- and if they don't do that, they'll be in a lot of trouble with [Chairman] Bill [Gates] and [CEO] Steve [Ballmer]."

Gilpin acknowledged that he has always been skeptical of Microsoft's intentions toward being more open and transparent, but in the past two years, he said the company "has really changed its stripes around interoperability."

In a blog post on Thursday, Hilf himself noted that Microsoft's new commitment has evolved over time, though he called the changes to Microsoft's strategy "broad-reaching" and said they "go above and beyond any prior incremental changes in Microsoft's DNA."

These changes are not only happening because of market forces that have given rise to the success of open source, but also because Microsoft has suffered from its own proprietary legacy. Aside from its embroilment in lengthy and costly antitrust cases both in the United States and overseas, a lack of support for open standards and interfaces also have hurt the adoption of its technology. By being more open, the company could also be more successful in areas where it has struggled, like the Internet, analysts said.

For example, when Microsoft created a new version of its Internet Explorer browser, IE 7, to keep up with the latest Internet standards -- and to compete with Mozilla's Firefox browser -- many people who'd built sites to work with previous versions of IE found they no longer worked because they had been designed to support Microsoft's proprietary technologies. In trying to do the right thing and support more open and generally supported technologies, Microsoft found that its own proprietary software got in the way of its best intentions.

In fact, the changing business models on the Internet that have made Google so successful are another example of where Microsoft could have benefited if it had embraced open standards and more technological transparency sooner, Selby said. Google right away gave developers access to APIs to create a community around its Web-based products and services -- and used this fact to criticize Microsoft, he said.

Microsoft's decision to be more open takes a bit of the wind out of the sails of that argument, he added. "It's a simple way to do the right thing and also manage a poke in Google's eye," Selby said.

Providing more open access to technologies also could give Microsoft leverage if it is indeed successful in its bid to purchase Yahoo, which recently said it would open up more APIs to developers in its own pursuit of Google.