Microsoft Office Mobile arrives for iOS(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Microsoft Office Mobile arrives for iOS
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/hell-freezes-over-microsoft-office-mobile-arrives-for-ios/
65 comments
I struggle with the move towards everything being subscription based. Very quickly it becomes difficult to quantify just how much it is costing to own, and maintain ownership of a license for a piece of software.
If I see an application that is $50, I can quickly quantify that into hours I need to work for this to be paid off. I can compare the value I am getting to the amount of currency that I expend on it. I know that if I need to in the future, it will always be there for me to rely on.
If I see a service that is $12 a month it becomes a much harder game. Sure it might be worth it for the first month, but the second one becomes a much harder decision. Do I unsubscribe, and lose all the data that I have stores, or do I pay another $12 and hope that it continues to be useful to me in the future? In the future I might need to sign up again, which is a lot more hassle than it is worth.
All of these "small" subscriptions are beginning to cost me more than I'd like.
If I see an application that is $50, I can quickly quantify that into hours I need to work for this to be paid off. I can compare the value I am getting to the amount of currency that I expend on it. I know that if I need to in the future, it will always be there for me to rely on.
If I see a service that is $12 a month it becomes a much harder game. Sure it might be worth it for the first month, but the second one becomes a much harder decision. Do I unsubscribe, and lose all the data that I have stores, or do I pay another $12 and hope that it continues to be useful to me in the future? In the future I might need to sign up again, which is a lot more hassle than it is worth.
All of these "small" subscriptions are beginning to cost me more than I'd like.
That's one of the reasons why companies love them. People subscribe for a few months, stop using it as much but forget or don't bother to unsubscribe. The entire gym industry is based on this principle.
OTOH, companies love to buy them too. A predictable monthly cost that can be budgeted, that is directly tied to the number of employees? Yes, please. Doesn't make as much sense for consumers, but Office 365 isn't aimed at them.
Yes, that is true. Although Microsoft are trying to get consumers on to Office 365 too - they got rid of their 3 computer home license to push the Office 365 home package which runs on 5 devices. Personally I don't think that's a great idea - I think too many people are going to think about the cost of a subscription and decide it's not worth it. Buying a license as a one off cost with your new computer is easier to swallow imo.
Yeah, I was surprised how reasonable the Home family pack was last time I went shopping. Not sure of the price, but it was definitely under $200 for 3 installs. Now they want $100 a year for 365. You get more for the money (Mac support, 5 installs, Access) but it will definitely end up costing a lot more money.
It really depends on what the prices are. With your example, it's obviously a bad deal. But in this case, Office 365 is $150 a year ($12.50 per month), while the packaged version of Office Professional is $400. So you get a good 2.5 years of use out of it before the curves cross.
I'm still running Office 2007. Bought it for $50 as a student and it's still fine.
I recall reading somewhere that Office's biggest competitor was its previous version.
This is most definitely true for Microsoft and Adobe. Hence, they're both switching to subscription models.
Yes, and there is exactly the dilemma. After I buy Office, I expect to not upgrade it for at least 5 years, if not 10. (but surely not only 2.5)
A great example for me was Boxcryptor, a solution to encrypt files in your Dropbox with encFS.
It used to be software. You buy it for $50 or whatever and use it. Now they are transitioning to a service model where you pay $40/year/user forever.
Their reasoning was transparent: they aren't selling enough perpetual licenses. I get that, but it's annoying to me
It used to be software. You buy it for $50 or whatever and use it. Now they are transitioning to a service model where you pay $40/year/user forever.
Their reasoning was transparent: they aren't selling enough perpetual licenses. I get that, but it's annoying to me
I wish Microsoft had decided to separate into several companies way back during the US v. Microsoft case.
Office is actually a great product and Excel in particular still is the best available spreadsheet around. But Office has been hamstrung by being part of Microsoft; in particular by not supporting iOS or Android or online (until being forced to). If Office was its own company, I'm sure these platforms would have been supported years ago.
I feel like Microsoft is one of the rare cases where the whole is actually less than the sum of its parts.
Office is actually a great product and Excel in particular still is the best available spreadsheet around. But Office has been hamstrung by being part of Microsoft; in particular by not supporting iOS or Android or online (until being forced to). If Office was its own company, I'm sure these platforms would have been supported years ago.
I feel like Microsoft is one of the rare cases where the whole is actually less than the sum of its parts.
Office would do well without the rest of Microsoft (in fact possibly even better), but I'm not sure the rest of Microsoft would do well without Office. Office is a huge stable cash-cow that allows Microsoft to experiment on things like Kinect without having to worry if they aren't always profitable.
You could argue the same thing with Apple and iOS. iOS would be better if it weren't so tied to OS X, but I'm not sure the rest of Apple would be in anywhere near the same position (or even still around) if it weren't for the big iOS and iPod cashcows.
You could argue the same thing with Apple and iOS. iOS would be better if it weren't so tied to OS X, but I'm not sure the rest of Apple would be in anywhere near the same position (or even still around) if it weren't for the big iOS and iPod cashcows.
They bought Kinect. And if Office is the cash cow, why are its limitations then defined by other Microsofts interest?
Apple and iOS isnt really comparable because the integration between the two is possible only because they are both from the same vendor. In that particular example, its adds value to both products, which is the opposite of the dynamic between Office and Windows, where the value is decreased.
Apple and iOS isnt really comparable because the integration between the two is possible only because they are both from the same vendor. In that particular example, its adds value to both products, which is the opposite of the dynamic between Office and Windows, where the value is decreased.
iOS would be better if it weren't so tied to OS X
Why is that?
Why is that?
Two main reasons:
1. If people could develop for it on other platforms it would significantly increase the number of people able to write iOS apps globally, particularly people from lower socio-economic groups. In the short term it doesn't make a big difference, but there are millions of people in India and China that can't afford even an entry level Mac, and I think in the long run this is detrimental to the ecosystem.
2. Many iOS services are tied into the Apple ecosystem, such as messages, notes, facetime etc. If they weren't using iOS to try to get people onto OSX then these services would be more likely to be cross platform and therefore far more useful.
1. If people could develop for it on other platforms it would significantly increase the number of people able to write iOS apps globally, particularly people from lower socio-economic groups. In the short term it doesn't make a big difference, but there are millions of people in India and China that can't afford even an entry level Mac, and I think in the long run this is detrimental to the ecosystem.
2. Many iOS services are tied into the Apple ecosystem, such as messages, notes, facetime etc. If they weren't using iOS to try to get people onto OSX then these services would be more likely to be cross platform and therefore far more useful.
I think it's more of a push to full stack Apple-only solution than being tied to OS X.
I wish Apple cared for OS X that much.
I wish Apple cared for OS X that much.
It's the same problem with Office. MS are using Office to help keep big business on a full MS stack - Windows, Sharepoint, Windows Server etc. And it's business that really matters to Microsoft. If Office were to be split off, they would be more likely put it on all smartphones, Linux, write a better OSX version etc, but it could weaken Microsoft's position wrt its other products.
It would probably be great for consumers if these companies took the attitude of making their products work best in a full stack, but still play nicely with everyone else's products, but they seem believe (rightly or wrongly) that it is in their own best interest to push for vertical integration and implicit or explicit lock-in.
It would probably be great for consumers if these companies took the attitude of making their products work best in a full stack, but still play nicely with everyone else's products, but they seem believe (rightly or wrongly) that it is in their own best interest to push for vertical integration and implicit or explicit lock-in.
Absolutely. I have nothing to go on other than gut feelings for this, but it almost seems like if Microsoft had been broken up, all of the individual companies that would have been created would not only have ended up shipping better products, but may have been collectively even more profitable than Microsoft is now.
Usually when a company offers a wide range of products that work especially well together, that's a good thing, but somehow Microsoft has ended up crippling themselves. Even from a purely nontechnical marketing perspective, it seems like every single thing that they've made that has had "Windows" in the product name that was not the OS itself (Windows Phone being a prime example), has suffered from the association.
I feel like Windows Phone could have been much more successful if they had just called it something else. It also seems like Xbox may have been much less successful if they were required to call it Windows Box or WindowsTV or whatever. It's just a dumb marketing thing that has nothing to do with technical details of the product, but it makes a huge different in how potential customers view that product.
Usually when a company offers a wide range of products that work especially well together, that's a good thing, but somehow Microsoft has ended up crippling themselves. Even from a purely nontechnical marketing perspective, it seems like every single thing that they've made that has had "Windows" in the product name that was not the OS itself (Windows Phone being a prime example), has suffered from the association.
I feel like Windows Phone could have been much more successful if they had just called it something else. It also seems like Xbox may have been much less successful if they were required to call it Windows Box or WindowsTV or whatever. It's just a dumb marketing thing that has nothing to do with technical details of the product, but it makes a huge different in how potential customers view that product.
Would Xbox even exist? The Xbox 360 certainly wouldn't, because the 'Entertainment' division was subsidised by the rest of Microsoft. It was only 3 years into the war against Wii and PS3 that the Xbox 360 started to win and then Kinect blew all else out of the water.
The cash helped make that possible.
On the downside, it's a shame the Microsoft Courier tablet was killed just before the iPad was released.
The cash helped make that possible.
On the downside, it's a shame the Microsoft Courier tablet was killed just before the iPad was released.
The cash is still doing that. Its not like its profitable. But it could have been, Ballmer just does the same dumb thing over and over again. He attacks a competitor and tries to poison the profitability in a market, with no plan or intent to make a profit. He was going to kill Sony and spend a lot money trying to do that. He was going to kill Google, yet fails to realize that Bing heavy resource consumption is simple too expensive to be price competitive.
They dont innovate, they attack and poison the well. I really dont understand why stockholders put up with jungle boy acting out like that. I whish Nicrosoft would just focus on its wn products and profitability, but i doubt Ballmer will ever be a big enough man to take that road.
They dont innovate, they attack and poison the well. I really dont understand why stockholders put up with jungle boy acting out like that. I whish Nicrosoft would just focus on its wn products and profitability, but i doubt Ballmer will ever be a big enough man to take that road.
Very true. A similar case would be Adobe, who relied way too much on flash for so much time and started working on html5 tools only once iOS got entranched.
Interesting article on Adobe's recent strategy here: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/10/adobe-cloud-strategy/
The pricing makes sense. But not from the perspective of what's best for Office. It makes sense in that Microsoft doesn't want Apple to take a 30% cut.
With regards to the mentions of Office and Excel on Android...
Android spreadsheets which are Excel compatible are something I am interested in. There's a few options - Documents To Go, Quickoffice, Olive Office...
Two years ago I started to write a spreadsheet which could handle Excel format on Android without network access. I used the Apache POI libraries. I could handle pre-2007 Excel files OK (XLS), but post-2007 (XLSX) was more of a challenge. I learned the hard way of Android's famous 2^16 methods per Dalvik executable file limit while doing the project, and discovery of the existence of that limitation put the project on an indefinite hiatus. I tried to get around the problem - I pulled a lot out of the schema but it was still over the 65536 method limit. One option available would be custom class loading of multiple Dex files, which would be a pain. Another possibility is some kind of cloud solution where XLSX files would be uploaded to a server - something I have little interest in.
The remnants of my project are here - http://bit.ly/1abDbhK - although there is not much there, just a very, very bare skeleton of a spreadsheet which can handle XLS (pre-2007 Excel) files. I have to update the README though since the API of the Apache POI libraries have changed - it still works with the archived and still downloadable, circa-June-2011 POI libraries though.
Android spreadsheets which are Excel compatible are something I am interested in. There's a few options - Documents To Go, Quickoffice, Olive Office...
Two years ago I started to write a spreadsheet which could handle Excel format on Android without network access. I used the Apache POI libraries. I could handle pre-2007 Excel files OK (XLS), but post-2007 (XLSX) was more of a challenge. I learned the hard way of Android's famous 2^16 methods per Dalvik executable file limit while doing the project, and discovery of the existence of that limitation put the project on an indefinite hiatus. I tried to get around the problem - I pulled a lot out of the schema but it was still over the 65536 method limit. One option available would be custom class loading of multiple Dex files, which would be a pain. Another possibility is some kind of cloud solution where XLSX files would be uploaded to a server - something I have little interest in.
The remnants of my project are here - http://bit.ly/1abDbhK - although there is not much there, just a very, very bare skeleton of a spreadsheet which can handle XLS (pre-2007 Excel) files. I have to update the README though since the API of the Apache POI libraries have changed - it still works with the archived and still downloadable, circa-June-2011 POI libraries though.
Nice, and they already styled it to look like iOS 7!
It will look perfectly at home on iOS 7.
Is Apple setting up iWork for iCloud (very Microsoft-y naming here) subscription based or free if you happen to have an iCloud account? I ask because these two applications/SOCs would be direct competitors with MS having the advantage
iWork applications and apps are paid but dirt cheap, cloud sync is free for first 5GB storage. Pages handles MS Word formats well, even full "track changes" interop from iPad, so you can round trip office docs from a train.
> Pages handles MS Word formats well
Does it? The people that I've known to try this have all complained to me about problems. Not sure if this is a compatibility issue or Pages itself (and not sure if it's just my small sample of friends).
Does it? The people that I've known to try this have all complained to me about problems. Not sure if this is a compatibility issue or Pages itself (and not sure if it's just my small sample of friends).
Long time Pages user - It does handle Word reasonably well, just as Numbers handles Excel, and Keynote handles PPT. But as with most import/export functionality it has quirks so that you cannot use it exclusively. It is not useless, but not perfect. Depends on the document.
I'd say Keynote<-->PPT is the best of the bunch, followed by Pages<->Word. VBA Excel macros are hard to port.
I'd say Keynote<-->PPT is the best of the bunch, followed by Pages<->Word. VBA Excel macros are hard to port.
Microsoft is opening up - Linux VMs, SDKs for Android / iOS, Office everywhere. The religion has been cast off (finally) at Microsoft and its going where the developers and users are.
I'd love it if that were true, but I'm not sure how much has really changed.
They have always allowed Windows to run in a VM on Linux - it's just the special free VM packages that didn't run on Linux before.
They have also always had Office on Mac - it's the best way to make sure no other office suite can get off the ground, and makes Office documents more industry standard.
If they were to release Office for Linux, then that would be something.
They have always allowed Windows to run in a VM on Linux - it's just the special free VM packages that didn't run on Linux before.
They have also always had Office on Mac - it's the best way to make sure no other office suite can get off the ground, and makes Office documents more industry standard.
If they were to release Office for Linux, then that would be something.
Doesn't Libre Office do pretty well in the Linux space?
It does do well, and for personal use it's fine (far better than Open Office ever was), but it's just not on the same level as MS Office. When you start getting into document tracking or Macros things start to break down, and the general usability is not as good - especially for Excel vs Calc.
I'm happy with Gimp for image manipulation and indie games (I've got a 3DS and a Windows partition on my desktop for that), but I still boot into Windows or fire up a VM on my laptop to run MS Office (or watch Netflix).
I'm happy with Gimp for image manipulation and indie games (I've got a 3DS and a Windows partition on my desktop for that), but I still boot into Windows or fire up a VM on my laptop to run MS Office (or watch Netflix).
If only Microsoft released Office for Linux and Apple let OSX run (in a VM or otherwise) on non-Apple hardware the world would be a much better place.
If Apple let OS X run on other hardware the OS would suffer with them having to spend time supporting so many different configurations. If they didn't their reputation would suffer.
Microsoft building Office for Linux would be a complete waste of time and money. The majority of Linux users would complain that it was expensive, closed source, and continue using the free, open alternatives.
Microsoft building Office for Linux would be a complete waste of time and money. The majority of Linux users would complain that it was expensive, closed source, and continue using the free, open alternatives.
> The majority of Linux users would complain that it was expensive, closed source, and continue using the free, open alternatives.
I don't know what you're user base you're sampling but the vast majority of Linux users are not opposed to closed source ( Steam, VMWare, Humble Bundle ) and are quite willing to pay for quality software.
I don't know what you're user base you're sampling but the vast majority of Linux users are not opposed to closed source ( Steam, VMWare, Humble Bundle ) and are quite willing to pay for quality software.
It's hard to say. I get the sense that there's a huge disconnect between the demographics of all Linux users, and the impression one might get of those demographics by doing a survey of blogs, forums, mailing lists, online polls, etc.
For example, if you just read the most popular Linux forums, you could easily get the impression that every single Linux user despises Ubuntu with every fiber in the fabric of their being, and that they would never use any closed source product under any circumstances, and that they would only consider paying for anything if what they were paying was itself 100% open source.
As far as I can tell, though, that's not necessarily the case at all, with the Steam/VMWare/Humble Bundle cases being well-known counterexamples. As far as I can tell, nobody really knows. The Humble Bundle cases are interesting because Linux users have historically paid more than users from other platforms, on average, but is that because most Linux users want more closed source Linux software, or is it because a subset of Linux users want to encourage more closed source, and are voting with their wallets to demonstrate that?
Anyway, nobody knows. But if you are correct that the vast majority of Linux users are not opposed to closed source, then that would imply that pretty much the entire online Linux community is a hugely disproportionate misrepresentation of Linux users as a whole. Given that Linux as a platform is far more reliant on having a healthy online community than other platforms, that would be a big problem. However, my gut feeling is that you are correct, and that the online Linux community is a vastly disproportionate subset of Linux users, and that it's unfortunate that the online community is so dominated by one particular type of user.
For example, if you just read the most popular Linux forums, you could easily get the impression that every single Linux user despises Ubuntu with every fiber in the fabric of their being, and that they would never use any closed source product under any circumstances, and that they would only consider paying for anything if what they were paying was itself 100% open source.
As far as I can tell, though, that's not necessarily the case at all, with the Steam/VMWare/Humble Bundle cases being well-known counterexamples. As far as I can tell, nobody really knows. The Humble Bundle cases are interesting because Linux users have historically paid more than users from other platforms, on average, but is that because most Linux users want more closed source Linux software, or is it because a subset of Linux users want to encourage more closed source, and are voting with their wallets to demonstrate that?
Anyway, nobody knows. But if you are correct that the vast majority of Linux users are not opposed to closed source, then that would imply that pretty much the entire online Linux community is a hugely disproportionate misrepresentation of Linux users as a whole. Given that Linux as a platform is far more reliant on having a healthy online community than other platforms, that would be a big problem. However, my gut feeling is that you are correct, and that the online Linux community is a vastly disproportionate subset of Linux users, and that it's unfortunate that the online community is so dominated by one particular type of user.
As much as I'd love to live in a Free Software world, I'm happy to just take steps toward it by using proprietary software on top of a Free operating system. The ability to run the OS on any hardware I want (within reason), swap in and out components like DEs, and run any compatible software I own on it is more important to me personally than the apps being open source.
I don't think Apple would have to provide support for running it in a VM. How much damage do you think it would do to their reputation if people were complaining that running it in a VM was unreliable? 95%+ users wouldn't care (they would dismiss it as nerd problems), and the other 5% would be happy if it was good enough to run things like Safari for testing. If they ever want to be taken seriously in a business environment (outside of the creative industries) I think it would be wise of them to consider this. It can't be much worse for their reputation than completely blocking it.
I don't think Microsoft building Office for Linux would be a waste at all. Photoshop, Office and Steam games are the big three I see from Linux users complaining about a lack of software. Not all Linux users are fanatical about free software. The question is - what is more important to Microsoft, Office ubiquity or keeping corporates on Windows?
I don't think Microsoft building Office for Linux would be a waste at all. Photoshop, Office and Steam games are the big three I see from Linux users complaining about a lack of software. Not all Linux users are fanatical about free software. The question is - what is more important to Microsoft, Office ubiquity or keeping corporates on Windows?
Does anyone have any insights on who really uses these kinds of apps on their phone (and how)? Whether it's MSO, iWork or GDocs I can't find any productive use for them other than a quick lookup. Even editing a simple 10 page document is just a huge pain and there's really no piece of mind that it'll look good on a desktop device.
Corporate types like to be able to read documents sent to them via email on the train or in the pub. I have seen an impressive number of edits done to documents and long emails typed on blackberrys by people in the pub in the past.
The process will be much more reliable on an official MS set of apps, and for many companies that's worth a lot of money.
The process will be much more reliable on an official MS set of apps, and for many companies that's worth a lot of money.
I regularly round trip proposals and contracts using Pages on the iPad (with a Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover).
It's not a huge pain, it's straightforward; and you can render to PDF as well if you're concerned about appearance.
It's not a huge pain, it's straightforward; and you can render to PDF as well if you're concerned about appearance.
I imagine it is more aimed at the quick look up. Check a document in a meeting and things like that. Review someone else's work, etc.
Keynote for iOS has been incredibly useful for me in the past. My office's meeting rooms each have a TV with an AppleTV connected into them, so I just use my iPad to stream the presentation.
Hell freezes over? The trade press has mentioned this was in the works for awhile.
Microsoft actually makes some decent iOS apps. A company of 100k will have different groups with different beliefs/approaches. It's like the thread earlier this week about a particular person's experience with the group he was in after 8mo.
Microsoft actually makes some decent iOS apps. A company of 100k will have different groups with different beliefs/approaches. It's like the thread earlier this week about a particular person's experience with the group he was in after 8mo.
Being a 'free' download looks like a good compromise for Microsoft and bad for users. Apple wasn't going to make a pricing exception for Microsoft (30% to Apple). So Microsoft just shifts the 'purchase' to the web.
Now if we could just get Google to play nice and release apps for Windows Phone...
I expect BlackBerry apps would be first, since they still have the larger market share [1].
[1]: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2482816
[1]: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2482816
The numbers are trending in MS's favor. Q12012 share for BB was 6.8 now only 3. Windows Phone in Q12012 was 1.9, now 2.9
Not rocket growth but the trend clearly points to MS being the weak #3.
Not sure how the existing install base for both effects this conclusion. Sales are only 1 piece of the puzzle.
Not rocket growth but the trend clearly points to MS being the weak #3.
Not sure how the existing install base for both effects this conclusion. Sales are only 1 piece of the puzzle.
For a vanishingly small market share? Not worth the effort. The web app works just fine.
It should be noted that this is apparently an iPhone-only only app in terms of resolution. Which kind of makes it not super useful (in addition to requiring an Office 365 subscription).
Highly editorialized title. It was quite an expected move.
It's an allusion to Steve Jobs' somewhat notorious "hell froze over" introduction to iTunes for Windows, from 10 years ago (... wow). This was also a widely anticipated introduction but it still seemed a little subversive.
http://news.cnet.com/Apple-launches-iTunes-for-Windows/2100-...
http://news.cnet.com/Apple-launches-iTunes-for-Windows/2100-...
[deleted]
Their commercial stating that the iPad can't have Office just became obsolete.
Some 600 million iOS devices have been sold. Microsoft is ultimately a software company (despite the recent "ape what Apple does" corporate direction. Microsoft would be worth treble if it diverged into self-interested divisions years ago), and this makes complete sense.
$80 subscription for Office 365 is too expensive for someone on a student's budget.
Sorry, $80 for a four year subscription? Because that's what the Office 365 for Students deal is. That's $1.66 per month.
Seems pretty in-budget for a student.
Seems pretty in-budget for a student.
Then charge us per month - don't ask for a freaking down payment.
Does it have an NSA backdoor?
Microsoft is clearly aware that most people with a tablet already have something by Apple or an Android device and that trying to use Office to sell them a Windows RT device isn't going to work.
However enticing organizations to "upgrade" to Office 365 (which comes with a regular subscription fee and better long term profits) to get a version for the tablet they already have might actually move some 365-licenses.
I say they are making the best of the situation.