Microsoft Office for iOS Said to Launch in Early 2013, Offer Only Basic Functionality

[WilliamLondon]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

The biggest problem with most people here is you're all stuck in this either/or mindset. Simplicity overrides complexity. If you can't learn it in 5 seconds, it's not worth learning at all.

The way I see it, if you want to bang out a nice looking document quickly, you'll use Pages. If you want granular control over every single thing in a complex document, you'll use Word. Both have their place depending on what you want to do.

The other thing I think is interesting is that it seems to me that word processing isn't a functionality that has a lot of innovation left. Microsoft would have you believe otherwise, but if there is additional functionality that people can and would use if it were developed, just how big is that market?

I'd love to see some studies of usage of Word comparing the amount of functionality the vast majority of people actually use on a day to day basis - I contend it's not much more than is already available in products like TextEdit for most everyone's word processing requirements, certainly Pages covers it. I think Word is overkill for the vast majority of users.

This is I'm sure a big fear of Microsoft's, because if people and companies start to look at this, they'll quickly realise that it's possible to save money by moving to simpler tools (or suites like OpenOffice?) to get the job done and come up with workflows that allow people to view and edit each others documents regardless the original products which created them.

[divinox]

Originally Posted by subsonix

That remains to be seen, putting a full size keyboard on top of that form factor reveals that two keys sticks out over the edge, ie the keyboard is significantly smaller. IMO as always when a sector gets disrupted, the reasons and what causes it is often only observable in hindsight. I know that MS vision of it is that tablet = regular computer, I'm not so sure about that.[COLOR="#808080"]

You are talking about a single product, i am talking about a product category. Thus, i fail to see your point. The surface is not, and will not, be the sole W8 tablet device. In fact, i never even said anything about having a keyboard cover at all. I said that tablets, with the right external equipment, could - for many - replace the desktop/laptop, providing a more flexible solution for a large group of users. Furthermore, thanks to the new architecture, Metro-applications can be built using a various technologies, making re-use of program logic possible. Moving forward, the so called fragmentation between x86 and ARM will be pretty much a non-issue i would say. Or rather, a very minor one for those who develop applications for the Win8 platform. In this sense, W8 will be a regular PC operating system, regardless of form factor.

Yes, some offerings will be more restricted than others, but this is hardly an issue given that the end choice is in the hands of the user. Its akin to complaining that your car doesnt have wings, when planes do. Need wings, buy a plane. If a car suffice, well, there you go.

----------

Originally Posted by subsonix

How many people that care about a full featured version of Word and use it alot will actually want to use it on a tablet though. Windows RT has more in common with iOS, and is not Windows 8 really.

No idea. I do have an idea of how important Office is in the enterprise world though. And i do know that it matters for decisions to invest in tablet technology. Being able to use Office on a tablet (and do so effectively, regardless if you have the full package or key parts) is, by many, deemed as critical. Not because alternatives does not exist, but because Big-IT does not want the mess that comes with it. Office just works, and does so largely by being standard. This is huge, and something people miss when comparing use cases across applications.

In the end, it is not Joe Schmo that decides whether BigCorp. deploys iPads or W8-tablets. If it were, Apple would be fine. But, looking at how things currently are, MSFT have plenty of aces on hand.

[Krazy Bill]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Because they are a software company

Then somebody needs to tell Balmer that his folks have run amuck inventin' those silly xboxes.

[subsonix]

Originally Posted by divinox

You are talking about a single product, i am talking about a product category. Thus, i fail to see your point.

The iPad have been hugely successful, significantly more so than other tablets released before it, and is carving out a market for tablets. Obviously it's not it's included keyboard that has been responsible for it's success, it seems to me like a strong indicator that a keyboard or a more desktop like OS is not what the market wants.

Originally Posted by divinox

No idea. I do have an idea of how important Office is in the enterprise world though. And i do know that it matters for decisions to invest in tablet technology. Being able to use Office on a tablet (and do so effectively, regardless if you have the full package or key parts) is, by many, deemed as critical. Not because alternatives does not exist, but because Big-IT does not want the mess that comes with it. Office just works, and does so largely by being standard. This is huge, and something people miss when comparing use cases across applications.

In the end, it is not Joe Schmo that decides whether BigCorp. deploys iPads or W8-tablets. If it were, Apple would be fine. But, looking at how things currently are, MSFT have plenty of aces on hand.

Sure, but do people use their tablets for that task? Up until now, not at all since Office has not been available. Office is one application, so much more exist that are important, client software to company services, CRM, inventory data bases etc etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is, yes Office may be important, but there are already tools available that does Office. A tablet brings nothing new in that regard, except a lesser typing experience.

[DavidFoster]

Originally Posted by Bill Killer

Under what basis is Office becoming less relevant? I think it's pretty obvious that its as popular as it's ever been.

I used to use Office quite a bit, but find myself using it less and less everyday. If Microsoft thinks I will buy a Surface tablet just to get a mobile version of Office they are out of their mind. Well, I guess they are, since Ballmer is still running the place. Just google his predictions regarding the iPhone and the iPad? Not much of a visionary. Brute-forcing Office as it is today onto a Surface RT is like trying to put a round peg into a square hole on an IQ test.

I think plain text-oriented word processors are evolving in a positive way and they possess wonderful portability and cross-platform compatibility. Only a very tiny minority of computer users worldwide need all the capabilities and features crammed into Word or Excel. On the whole it makes more sense to compose text in a simplified editor and then format using sophisticated style sheets all at the end. Highly regimented, routine documents are probably better dealt with using form editors and I foresee easily adaptable HTML5 web-based apps perhaps moving into that space. Using Word to fill out forms is total overkill and most of the zillions of form-based templates made using Word that are used in industry today were designed by complete morons. These ill-suited bureaucratic creations likely cost us million$ in wasted time and lost productivity every single day.

[Wolfpup]

Dang, I was momentarily excited. If it was actually good, I'd buy it, but if it's just some front end for a web site...umm...no.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by WilliamLondon

The other thing I think is interesting is that it seems to me that word processing isn't a functionality that has a lot of innovation left. Microsoft would have you believe otherwise, but if there is additional functionality that people can and would use if it were developed, just how big is that market?

Yeah, there isn't much that can be added to a word processor that'll make it any more functional than what it already is. Word is about as complete as it's ever gonna be on that front.

But there's always room for improvement, new technologies that can be leveraged, and plenty of different ways to express that functionality. Touch based, tablet, mouse and keyboard. MS could toy with the formula endlessly if they wanted to, releasing iterative upgrades every couple of years.

As long as MS can give people reasons to upgrade, they'll have a market.

I'd love to see some studies of usage of Word comparing the amount of functionality the vast majority of people actually use on a day to day basis - I contend it's not much more than is already available in products like TextEdit for most everyone's word processing requirements, certainly Pages covers it. I think Word is overkill for the vast majority of users.

This is I'm sure a big fear of Microsoft's, because if people and companies start to look at this, they'll quickly realise that it's possible to save money by moving to simpler tools (or suites like OpenOffice?) to get the job done and come up with workflows that allow people to view and edit each others documents regardless the original products which created them.

I've got Office 2010, and...hell...I don't think I even use a quarter of what's in there. I'd say 95.764% of the people who use Office don't need it. It's overpowered for what they're using it for. iPages would work perfectly for them. It'd work perfectly for me even, but I don't have a Mac yet, so...

On the other hand, it is what people are used to, even if it is more than what they need. If they like using it, they like using it, regardless of how overkill it is. Office is about the closest thing outside of Windows that's nearly ubiquitous in the computer scene. Everyone will keep using it, even if there is cheaper, easier software they could be using.

[SellYourMacBook]

I hope it's released soon !

[Bill Killer]

Originally Posted by DavidFoster

I used to use Office quite a bit, but find myself using it less and less everyday. If Microsoft thinks I will buy a Surface tablet just to get a mobile version of Office they are out of their mind. Well, I guess they are, since Ballmer is still running the place. Just google his predictions regarding the iPhone and the iPad? Not much of a visionary. Brute-forcing Office as it is today onto a Surface RT is like trying to put a round peg into a square hole on an IQ test.

But just because you use less and less of Office doesn't mean it's becoming irrelevant. It's still the standard in businesses throughout the world, and for many outside of the Apple world, it's considered required know-how in any new hires. Apple fans may love it, but iWorks has made little-to-no progress in stealing Office's thunder.

I have no intentions to buy a Surface either, but when the iOS version of Office is released, it's game over. Office will officially solidify itself as the standard for both PC and mobile devices.

I think plain text-oriented word processors are evolving in a positive way and they possess wonderful portability and cross-platform compatibility. Only a very tiny minority of computer users worldwide need all the capabilities and features crammed into Word or Excel. On the whole it makes more sense to compose text in a simplified editor and then format using sophisticated style sheets all at the end. Highly regimented, routine documents are probably better dealt with using form editors and I foresee easily adaptable HTML5 web-based apps perhaps moving into that space. Using Word to fill out forms is total overkill and most of the zillions of form-based templates made using Word that are used in industry today were designed by complete morons. These ill-suited bureaucratic creations likely cost us million$ in wasted time and lost productivity every single day.

This is the big problem with iWorks, and the "simplicity is always better" mindset. I agree that for a lot of my papers and reports, a simple Word processing unit works fine. But I do need to engage in more complicated calculations and more detailed reports every now and then, and when this happens, Pages/Numbers simply isn't an option. Numbers is woefully underpowered and useless for anyone in financial markets, and Pages is great only for document creation, not document sharing. If I need to make simple documents, both Word and Pages work great. If I need more complex documents, Word works. Not Pages, but Word. So, I'd rather have an overpowered piece of software that will serve me when I need to get more out of my reports than having to make do with a far less capable piece of software, in that regard.

[Tech198]

Originally Posted by Bill Killer

But just because you use less and less of Office doesn't mean it's becoming irrelevant. It's still the standard in businesses throughout the world, and for many outside of the Apple world, it's considered required know-how in any new hires. Apple fans may love it, but iWorks has made little-to-no progress in stealing Office's thunder.

Of course... There's no way iWorks can be good as Office. Even if it is a suite., MS Office is a better suite, and always will be.

[Bill Killer]

Originally Posted by Tech198

Of course... There's no way iWorks can be good as Office. Even if it is a suite., MS Office is a better suite, and always will be.

The only software that I think Apple completely kills Office is Outlook vs. Mail/iCal. Outlook is a mess.

[Aluminum213]

Microsoft wants to subscribe to their service in order to use a dumbed down version of Word and PowerPoint?


I'll stick with pages and keynote, thanks

[WilliamLondon]

Originally Posted by Bill Killer

when the iOS version of Office is released, it's game over.

You think Apple cares whether iWork is better than Office? I think they'd prefer very much not to have to build a suite of products that duplicates some/most of the functionality of Office. They build software so their hardware products have something to run, it's why they built the OS, otherwise their devices are mere door stops or useless desk accessories which look quite pretty.

If Microsoft were truly to commit to building a top of the line product for Apple products (both OS X and iOS), I'm sure Apple would be happy to let them take the top spot - it only makes their hardware more valuable. But, Microsoft will never do that, it'd give people yet another reason to walk away from Windows, which is why the Apple version(s) of Office will *always* pale in comparison to the Windows version.

So, Apple will continue to step up to the plate and offer iWork as a substitute, so users will *always* have a suite of office products that perform ~80% of the functionality of Office (covering about 95% of all users' needs) to use on Apple hardware.

[divinox]

Originally Posted by subsonix

The iPad have been hugely successful, significantly more so than other tablets released before it, and is carving out a market for tablets. Obviously it's not it's included keyboard that has been responsible for it's success, it seems to me like a strong indicator that a keyboard or a more desktop like OS is not what the market wants.

iPad has been successful, yes. Hardly hugely successful though. Relative everyone else, sure, but given the lack of competition that says little. (and if it wasnt clear, i am talking enterprise now). Tablets themselves are cheap. Dead cheap. The thing holding massive deployment back are sufficient use cases. Evidently - and correct or not - iPad has not been able to provide that (in the eyes of Big-IT).

Sure, but do people use their tablets for that task? Up until now, not at all since Office has not been available. Office is one application, so much more exist that are important, client software to company services, CRM, inventory data bases etc etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is, yes Office may be important, but there are already tools available that does Office. A tablet brings nothing new in that regard, except a lesser typing experience.

If Big-IT tell them too, yes, they do. Lets face it, BYOD is a fad (Big-IT hates it and devices are cheap, regardless) and in the end, there is very little end-user control.

As for the rest, if MSFT can sell W8-tablets on Office, all others will follow. Two-sided markets work like that. Build it (i.e., the userbase) and they (i.e., developers) will come, so to speak. And no, no other tool does Office. Word processing? Yes. Presentations? Yes. Spreadsheets? Yes. But Office strength lies in its de facto standard. If not for that, I am sure that we would have had way better software solutions out there than what we currently have.


(Unless you meant tools as in other computing devices. And for that my answer is twice the devices = twice the maintenance = twice the agony for Big-IT... not counting that the devices themselves cost money).

----------

Originally Posted by WilliamLondon

You think Apple cares whether iWork is better than Office? I think they'd prefer very much not to have to build a suite of products that duplicates some/most of the functionality of Office. They build software so their hardware products have something to run, it's why they built the OS, otherwise their devices are mere door stops or useless desk accessories which look quite pretty.

If Microsoft were truly to commit to building a top of the line product for Apple products (both OS X and iOS), I'm sure Apple would be happy to let them take the top spot - it only makes their hardware more valuable. But, Microsoft will never do that, it'd give people yet another reason to walk away from Windows, which is why the Apple version(s) of Office will *always* pale in comparison to the Windows version.

So, Apple will continue to step up to the plate and offer iWork as a substitute, so users will *always* have a suite of office products that perform ~80% of the functionality of Office (covering about 95% of all users' needs) to use on Apple hardware.

Honestly doubt that MSFT has held back Office for Mac for strategic reasons. Economic, perhaps, but that is a different matter. What reason have they had to in the end? Should also remember why MSFT started developing for Apple to begin with (was hardly out of the kindness of Bill G's (massive) heart).

[Glassed Silver]

Originally Posted by AaronTheYoung

My experience shows me seamless back and forth from Pages to Word 2010 on my PC via Box.net. I'm not a the heaviest Word processor, but I frequently develop Court documents and letters without one single problem in compatibility.

My experience with Pages doesn't suck at all. I expected far less compatibility and more problems and instead, I've found none.

A few of the partners at our firm (and we have picky ones) use their iPad for word processing the same way. We don't do much work with Numbers or Keynote, but haven't had as much need for those types of document development on the iPad.

I too believe that MS should make as great a product as they can. Unfortunately, it's all about making money and doing the basic functionality with a subscription will problem bring them in quite a bit of cash. If it doesn't, they'll have rethink their strategy. I hope they have time to do all that.

Well, I agree, for common and basic documents, Pages et all work fine, however, once you're getting documents to work on that are a little more complex, ALL Office alternatives screw up with the MS formats.

I too love iWork, don't get me wrong, but I mainly use it for simple Microsoft format files and creating Apple proprietary documents and also PDFs, which by the way, iWork is really awesome at.

Glassed Silver:mac

[2ndchancephones]

Originally Posted by Krazy Bill

Nobody uses it except soccer moms for the occasional garage sale flyer. The world needs 100% MS-Office compatibility and Pages fails at this.



And there was a time when Apple was just a computer company…

I agree...I have tried using Pages and numbers and just don't like them. Granted, I have used Office for the better part of 15 years. My entire organization uses Office as I'm sure most do and trying to get them to use Pages or Numbers is not gonna happen.

[Wolfpup]

Originally Posted by 2ndchancephones

I agree...I have tried using Pages and numbers and just don't like them. Granted, I have used Office for the better part of 15 years. My entire organization uses Office as I'm sure most do and trying to get them to use Pages or Numbers is not gonna happen.

I've found Pages and Numbers Hoooooorible on iOS. Not sure if I could stand them on OS X or not, since I don't need to since I've got OpenOffice and Microsoft Office.

But like Pages and Numbers on iOS have a mind-numbingly stupid way of handling files. The way you have to "import" and "export" files from your iOS device AFTER and BEFORE you use iTunes to copy files in and out. That's already a clunky method, but for some reason Apple adds this entire clunky process on top of that that nothing else needs. I mean Pages/Numbers together are like what, half a GB, and Documents to Go is like 8MB, and works better lol. Pages/Numbers also use screen space really poorly, and don't remember zoom levels right, etc.

Pages/Numbers still aren't as bad as "Podcasts" though lol

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by Avatarshark

Honestly I hope basic functionality means I could edit, save, upload and download file from device, like with file apps or at least skydrive option.



The thing is that all of my documents are using the new standard of .docx

And there's a number of apps out there which provide the ability to open and edit .docx files. Oh, and the ones spit out by Office aren't actually *standard* .docx files. (At least not prior to Office 2012. I'm not positive about it.)

[Wolfpup]

Originally Posted by tbrinkma

And there's a number of apps out there which provide the ability to open and edit .docx files. Oh, and the ones spit out by Office aren't actually *standard* .docx files. (At least not prior to Office 2012. I'm not positive about it.)

Huh...I'd thought .docx was proprietary. Did Microsoft release it? Hmm wonder if it's as open as ODT?

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by Wolfpup

Huh...I'd thought .docx was proprietary. Did Microsoft release it? Hmm wonder if it's as open as ODT?

Yes. They released their internal doc specification to a standards committee (complete with undocumented values that tell the new word to behave like Word 95). They then proceeded to load the various national standards bodies with Microsoft employees and partners to push the standard through a fast-track process usually reserved for proven specifications with multiple interoperable vendors, and bogged down the final objection reconciliation process so that less than 200 of the more than 2000 errors which had been identified were *mentioned*, much less debated or actually voted on. In the end, the new standard codified, the long-standing Excel leap-year bug, and many other completely undocumented features.

(As a side-effect, many national standards bodies were completely stalled for most of a year afterwards because they required a certain percentage of members to vote in order to have any decision be binding, and all those new, MS-friendly members suddenly stopped doing *anything*.)

As of late last year, MS Office had better support for the ODF standards than it did for the ratified standard versions of its *own* document formats.

Note: I only posted a summary of events, but it's accurate. If you want to see just how a big company can 'game' a standards process, read up on it.

[Wolfpup]

Originally Posted by tbrinkma

Yes. They released their internal doc specification to a standards committee (complete with undocumented values that tell the new word to behave like Word 95). They then proceeded to load the various national standards bodies with Microsoft employees and partners to push the standard through a fast-track process usually reserved for proven specifications with multiple interoperable vendors, and bogged down the final objection reconciliation process so that less than 200 of the more than 2000 errors which had been identified were *mentioned*, much less debated or actually voted on. In the end, the new standard codified, the long-standing Excel leap-year bug, and many other completely undocumented features.

(As a side-effect, many national standards bodies were completely stalled for most of a year afterwards because they required a certain percentage of members to vote in order to have any decision be binding, and all those new, MS-friendly members suddenly stopped doing *anything*.)

As of late last year, MS Office had better support for the ODF standards than it did for the ratified standard versions of its *own* document formats.

Note: I only posted a summary of events, but it's accurate. If you want to see just how a big company can 'game' a standards process, read up on it.

Wow, that's all crazy and sort of hilarious! I sort of remember reading about some of that now that you mention it. Thanks for explaining that!