Microsoft and Apple Facing Off Over Office for iOS Subscription Revenues, Not SkyDrive

[Max(IT)]

Originally Posted by lunaoso

It's all about branding. So many people say to me "why isn't word on iPad?" And I always respond with "Get Pages, it's similar and a great app made by Apple." And the usual response is "$10!??!??!? That's way to expensive! Stupid Apple."

People woul pay $10 for word because of the familiarity of it from windows.

If you are speaking about "people", they are not going to pay 10$ for MS Word also, just because most of them used to have it illegally installed on their pc.

A true pro user who need a text editor with some capability (and maybe a good compatibility with the desktop version) can judge by himself what is the best app in the Store, Pages, word or whatever, and pay for it.

[Liquorpuki]

Originally Posted by bungiefan89

Don't get me wrong, Microsoft Office works MUCH faster and with less lag than OpenOffice.org, and it has way more bells and whistles than TextEdit, but I'm still a little perplexed as to why Microsoft Office is in such high demand in the corporate world. Perhaps it has something to do with Notes being such an outrageously bare-bones text editing application?

Because it's been the standard in the corporate world for decades. Corporations have spent substantial amounts of money to train employees how to use it. Doc, xls, mdb, etc are file formats employees are expected to be able to create, open and modify without screwing up.

Apple, Google, all the other companies that put out Office competitors are not going to unseat Office from enterprise. They don't care enough to put in the effort. They shouldn't either because they're not actually vested in the software market - the Office competitors they put out (iWork, Googledocs, etc) only have to be good enough to draw users into buying the complements they actually make money off of (hardware, ads, etc). They don't have to be as feature rich or ubiquitous.

[Max(IT)]

Originally Posted by skaertus

Agreed.

Apple should consider some concessions here if it wants iOS to become serious in terms of productivity. Or it may stuck with Facebook, Instagram and Angry Birds for being forever just an expensive toy.

And what is making iOS "serious" should be MS Office ???
OMG you're kidding, aren't you ?

[Mikey7c8]

Can I just say that if office for iOS was to sync up with Office365 then it would considerably beef up that offering.

Makes things interesting that's for sure.

[lunaoso]

Originally Posted by Max(IT)

If you are speaking about "people", they are not going to pay 10$ for MS Word also, just because most of them used to have it illegally installed on their pc.

A true pro user who need a text editor with some capability (and maybe a good compatibility with the desktop version) can judge by himself what is the best app in the Store, Pages, word or whatever, and pay for it.

I agree with the pro users, but average people who are using their iPad as their only device for the most part, which is a good amount of people from what I have seen, will go for Office because it is known to them. Unless they have been brought up as apple users, they have no idea what pages, keynote and numbers are and would go for the well known word, PowerPoint, excel combo. As a "techie" guy (including pretty much everyone else on here to an extent) understand the differences and at least know what both products are. You can say the same for most people. They generally go with what the see in ads, what they've used before, or what their friends are using.

[skaertus]

Originally Posted by Max(IT)

And what is making iOS "serious" should be MS Office ???
OMG you're kidding, aren't you ?

No, I'm not.

As much as you may hate Microsoft and despise Office, it is the standard for office productivity and that means a lot for the enterprise environment. I am not talking individuals; you may find the iPad perfect for your particular productivity needs, and a small business might benefit from the apps available for the iPad. However, several large companies would only consider the iPad as a productivity tool if it had Microsoft Office running. So, Microsoft Office is one of the requirements (not the only one, for sure) for making the iPad a serious contender in this environment.

[sinsin07]

Originally Posted by seek3r

Microsoft spent 2 quarters of Apple's profit last year on R&D alone (literally an order of magnitude more than Apple did on the same BTW)

LOL so that explains Windows 98, Windows ME, Vista and Windows 8. Thanks for the clarification.

[seek3r]

Originally Posted by sinsin07

LOL so that explains Windows 98, Windows ME, Vista and Windows 8. Thanks for the clarification.

Don't be dim. However else you feel about MS, MS Research is pretty awesome. They perform badly needed corporate blue sky (we used to have more, when Bell Labs and Xerox Parc were at their heights for ex). IBM and Intel top MS as far as tech companies go, but that's about it on that kind of work. They also produce a lot of useful tech that MS either sells, licenses, or tries out. Just off the top of my head on the dev and product side of things things like the Kinect came out of their labs, and whether or not it was the most successful gaming device in creation you can bet it will make MS money in many places outside gaming too as they license the tech, code, and sell the devices for many, many uses.

Apple's a much narrower company than MS, they really can't afford the breadth of research, nor do they need it, but it does mean that such spending doesnt dampen their net profit announcements.

[Gordy]

Originally Posted by Stella

LOL.

No, its actually the reverse, still way more PCs being used than those two products combined.

This won't happen for a loooong while yet.

It's already happened

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ust_20percent/

[raremage]

Originally Posted by Leonard1818

Do you work for a large company that provides you a cell phone?

I worked for a "large Central Florida entertainment and hospitality company" and was the engineer responsible for introducing Blackberries into the environment around 1998. I've worked for other large enterprise environments along the way, and currently I run a small firm that specializes in communications and collaboration consulting to environments of varying size.

So yes, I have and beyond that, I have some expertise in the space.

I recognize that some companies still provide devices to employees. Many are shifting to an expense model, where employees provide the device and the company (a) pays a set expense per month for the employee to pay their own bill, and (b) wants to manage the devices that the employees are bringing to work.

The BYOD direction is taking hold. Assuming the old model of company-provided devices will continue into the long term is lacking a forward-looking direction.

Further, I find it interesting that one would assume that Microsoft would suddenly be able to achieve penetration into the enterprise market - specifically in the smartphone space - due to the availability of office on a phone when they have never been able to achieve critical mass previously. What factor suddenly makes this happen?

[Stella]

Originally Posted by Gordy

It's already happened

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...ust_20percent/

No where in that article does it say that iPad and iPhone usage exceeds that of PCs, which what the original poster claimed.

(iPhones aren't a competitor to a PC anyway , iPads are).

[sinsin07]

Originally Posted by seek3r

Don't be dim. However else you feel about MS, MS Research is pretty awesome. They perform badly needed corporate blue sky (we used to have more, when Bell Labs and Xerox Parc were at their heights for ex). IBM and Intel top MS as far as tech companies go, but that's about it on that kind of work. They also produce a lot of useful tech that MS either sells, licenses, or tries out. Just off the top of my head on the dev and product side of things things like the Kinect came out of their labs, and whether or not it was the most successful gaming device in creation you can bet it will make MS money in many places outside gaming too as they license the tech, code, and sell the devices for many, many uses.

Apple's a much narrower company than MS, they really can't afford the breadth of research, nor do they need it, but it does mean that such spending doesnt dampen their net profit announcements.

So what. At the end of the day research is to generate profits.

[Gordy]

Originally Posted by Stella

No where in that article does it say that iPad and iPhone usage exceeds that of PCs, which what the original poster claimed.

(iPhones aren't a competitor to a PC anyway , iPads are).

The article states that the microsoft windows share of the computing device pie is now 20% with Apple at 24%. Android being the largest with 45%. So of these devices most do not have even the option of installing office onto the device. (Macs in the Apple share do at least get that option)

Everyone of those could be considered a lost sale to microsoft.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Gordy

The article states that the microsoft windows share of the computing device pie is now 20% with Apple at 24%. Android being the largest with 45%. So of these devices most do not have even the option of installing office onto the device. (Macs in the Apple share do at least get that option)

Everyone of those could be considered a lost sale to microsoft.

Your are confusing market share and install base.

[Stella]

Originally Posted by Gordy

The article states that the microsoft windows share of the computing device pie is now 20% with Apple at 24%. Android being the largest with 45%. So of these devices most do not have even the option of installing office onto the device. (Macs in the Apple share do at least get that option)

Everyone of those could be considered a lost sale to microsoft.

Think about it again : iPads and other tablets exceed the usage of all the PCs in the world?
(I'm excluding iPhones because they don't complete with PCs )

You seemed to forget, all the PCs that are:
- personally owned by consumers - quite a portion owning multiple computers
- being used in businesses - i.e., on people's desks.

Sorry, but there's is absolutely no chance of all tablets, let alone iPads exceeding PC use, even if you just considered those PCs being used for home use.

Like BaldiMac said above - install base vs marketshare.

Marketshare can be very misleading. Marketshare lags install base.

[Gordy]

Originally Posted by Stella

Marketshare can be very misleading. Marketshare lags install base.

That is true. However, with this case how many people are buying new copies of office for older pcs etc? Most companies and consumers buy a copy of office when they buy the computer, not several years down the road.

In terms of devices sold this year that can run software like office. So smart phones , tablets, laptops and desktops, what percentage of them is office now available? My answer is less than 50% and shrinking.

(Note I'm only including phones as there is a large portion of the buying market that could see a need to do "office" on their phones. I wouldn't for one , but there has to be a sales opportunity in the many many millions surely?)

[Liquorpuki]

Originally Posted by Gordy

That is true. However, with this case how many people are buying new copies of office for older pcs etc? Most companies and consumers buy a copy of office when they buy the computer, not several years down the road.

In terms of devices sold this year that can run software like office. So smart phones , tablets, laptops and desktops, what percentage of them is office now available? My answer is less than 50% and shrinking.

(Note I'm only including phones as there is a large portion of the buying market that could see a need to do "office" on their phones. I wouldn't for one , but there has to be a sales opportunity in the many many millions surely?)

Office is available on desktops and laptops, that's not going away

Office isn't available on the 2 key mobile ecosystems (iOS and Android). These mobile ecosystems cover smartphone HW, which IMO isn't that practical to have Office on, and tablet HW, which is practical but doesn't have Office on yet, partly because the tablet market as we know it is less than 3 years old and partly because it's a budget SW market

Tablet users have switched to Office substitutes in its absence (iWork, Documents to Go, etc) but whether that's because Office is becoming irrelevent or because they have no choice, you can't really draw any conclusions about yet

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by basesloaded190

It's a slippery slope if you let one developer in with different rules than what the rest are playing by.

The problem is that 1/3 of your revenue is a lot to ask just to host a an app on what is basically a monopoly app store (as in no other stores need apply short of having to jailbreak your devices to do it). I've said this all along. Apple doesn't get 1/3 of the desktop M$ Office (nor should they). I don't know why developers are so willing to give the largest corporation in the entire world an entire third of their revenue. People whine and cry about the idea of the highest tax bracket going up a few percentage points (ironically still less than what Apple is asking), but it's A-OK to hand over 1/3 your revenue to Apple because they do SO much for you.

I don't blame Microsoft for thinking the "Apple Tax" is too high. I blame Apple and other developers for thinking it's a fair deal. If there were other app stores, I'd say fine. But zero competition = charge whatever you want and that's not a good deal for consumers or developers alike.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

The problem is that 1/3 of your revenue is a lot to ask just to host a an app on what is basically a monopoly app store (as in no other stores need apply short of having to jailbreak your devices to do it). I've said this all along. Apple doesn't get 1/3 of the desktop M$ Office (nor should they). I don't know why developers are so willing to give the largest corporation in the entire world an entire third of their revenue. People whine and cry about the idea of the highest tax bracket going up a few percentage points (ironically still less than what Apple is asking), but it's A-OK to hand over 1/3 your revenue to Apple because they do SO much for you.

I don't blame Microsoft for thinking the "Apple Tax" is too high. I blame Apple and other developers for thinking it's a fair deal. If there were other app stores, I'd say fine. But zero competition = charge whatever you want and that's not a good deal for consumers or developers alike.

As opposed to Amazon's Store where they lose the same 30%. Or Google Play where they lose the same 30%. Or retail box distribution where they often end up paying more than 30%.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

As opposed to Amazon's Store where they lose the same 30%. Or Google Play where they lose the same 30%. Or retail box distribution where they often end up paying more than 30%.

You forgot one. Hosting your own site as most desktop software authors do (not 30%).

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

You forgot one. Hosting your own site as most desktop software authors do (not 30%).

Absolutely. It is generally cheaper to do things yourself. But I'm sure you can see from my examples that Apple's 30% is a competitive rate in contrast with your original claims.

[StyxMaker]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

I'm sorry, the web says you lie. We already have a million different ecommerce sites with a million different payment systems and the world still works and people order more and more stuff online everyday.

Apple introduced IAP as a reaction to more and more developers implementing IAP and seeing a possible source of revenue. Don't think this has anything to do with user experience, it's all about generating more money for Apple.

While the web may say he is mistaken, it cannot say he lies.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Absolutely. It is generally cheaper to do things yourself. But I'm sure you can see from my examples that Apple's 30% is a competitive rate in contrast with your original claims.

My original claim is that Apple is holding a virtual monopoly on the storefront for iOS devices. You can claim that's their right, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the reason people have to pony up 30% to play ball with no other options. Software developers (including Microsoft) may find this unreasonable and in Microsoft's case, very much so given the clout they hold for M$ Office (like it or not, it's huge and they've done a good job, IMO of making it look good and work well on the Mac since 2004).

Now if Apple allowed open software distribution for iOS computers (and since the iPad came out, they ARE now computers, not just "phones" and "iPods"), I'd have no issue with them charging 30% since you'd have an alternative option (and no jailbreaking isn't a reasonable option, IMO). But 30% with no other options (other than not developing for that platform) isn't exactly lightyears from extortion, IMO. Similar logic is what lead to anti-trust laws in the first place. It just seems these days our most definitely not-corrupt and no-for-sale government () doesn't seem to give a crap about consumers anymore. Too bad Roosevelt isn't still around....

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

My original claim is that Apple is holding a virtual monopoly on the storefront for iOS devices. You can claim that's their right, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the reason people have to pony up 30% to play ball with no other options. Software developers (including Microsoft) may find this unreasonable and in Microsoft's case, very much so given the clout they hold for M$ Office (like it or not, it's huge and they've done a good job, IMO of making it look good and work well on the Mac since 2004).

Now if Apple allowed open software distribution for iOS computers (and since the iPad came out, they ARE now computers, not just "phones" and "iPods"), I'd have no issue with them charging 30% since you'd have an alternative option (and no jailbreaking isn't a reasonable option, IMO). But 30% with no other options (other than not developing for that platform) isn't exactly lightyears from extortion, IMO. Similar logic is what lead to anti-trust laws in the first place. It just seems these days our most definitely not-corrupt and no-for-sale government () doesn't seem to give a crap about consumers anymore. Too bad Roosevelt isn't still around....

Hey! I just realized who I was replying to. It's been a while. Still railing against Apple's monopoly, tossing around antitrust claims, and highlighting government corruption. Even throwing around extortion. Not sure if that's new! Good for you!

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Hey! I just realized who I was replying to. It's been a while. Still railing against Apple's monopoly, tossing around antitrust claims, and highlighting government corruption. Even throwing around extortion. Not sure if that's new! Good for you!

I'm simply pro-consumer and small guy developer, not pro-mega corporation. I'm pro-union for the most part as well (OMG )