Microsoft - "No plans for retina office apps"

geoffreak

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 8, 2008
2,193
2
From TUAW:
There's someone who's kicking sand out of the Retina display sandbox, and that company appears to be Microsoft. Even though Microsoft boasted that Office for Mac is ready for OS X Mountain Lion, Macworld is reporting that users with Retina-display MacBook Pros are describing a less-than-stellar experience when using Office for Mac on one of these machine.
FFS Microsoft. We know you hate Apple, but you should at least care about the people who buy your software. At least Adobe has announced that it will add retina support.

The bright side? They also don't have public plans for another Mac office version... wait... :|
 
Last edited:

geoffreak

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 8, 2008
2,193
2
Needs citation. They don't say that in your link. The PR guy in your link even hints there will be a new one announced soon.
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting they wouldn't do that, just that they don't care enough about their Mac users to keep the product on par with the Windows version, or even publicly announce that they care about Mac users and want to support them.

That's not what it says.

Not confirming any plans is quite different from not having plans.
I cleared up the ambiguity in my first post.
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,420
759
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting they wouldn't do that, just that they don't care enough about their Mac users to keep the product on par with the Windows version.
They do keep it on par. They just don't release both the Windows and Mac versions at the same time. And it's quite normal for software developers to withhold announcement of future development plans until they're ready to go public. That's nothing new.
 

Aodhan

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2012
148
0
I expect to see more software companies and definitely a lot of websites opting to sit out the cost of making all their content Retina-ready for the tiny portion of their customers using the MacBook Pro Retina. There are just too few Retina displays out there to warrant the expense, at least for now.
 

geoffreak

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 8, 2008
2,193
2
They do keep it on par. They just don't release both the Windows and Mac versions at the same time. And it's quite normal for software developers to withhold announcement of future development plans until they're ready to go public. That's nothing new.
Maybe we aren't using the same definition of "on par". I would argue that for it to be on par, it would not only have to have the same basic featureset as the Windows version, but also support the additional OS features (autosave, versioning, retina, etc) that it runs on.

Also, while a simultaneous release would certainly show a developer's commitment to a platform, the lack of any information for release on one platform versus another tends to suggest otherwise. While Microsoft may have done this historically, it still shows the lack of commitment to Mac customers in comparison to Windows customers. Regardless of wether or not it is a business decision, the lack of commitment still stands.

I expect to see more software companies and definitely a lot of websites opting to sit out the cost of making all their content Retina-ready for the tiny portion of their customers using the MacBook Pro Retina. There are just too few Retina displays out there to warrant the expense, at least for now.
While I agree that there aren't enough retina/hidpi displays out for most companies to justify updating software, I do think they could at least acknowledge that they are investigating the possibility.
 

Gregintosh

macrumors 68000
Jan 29, 2008
1,779
417
Chicago
I expect to see more software companies and definitely a lot of websites opting to sit out the cost of making all their content Retina-ready for the tiny portion of their customers using the MacBook Pro Retina. There are just too few Retina displays out there to warrant the expense, at least for now.
That may be true, but there is no doubt that retina is the future. So at this point, it doesn't make sense to not have the support or to decide its not worth the investment (since presumably retina displays aren't going away).

I am in the process of revamping my corporate site and I am having my web designers do retina support. Why? Because when retina displays become more common we won't have to do the work later (its easier to just do it right the first time).

As far as adapting software for retina, there is no doubt that probably within a year the entire Apple line will be retina-ready. That does give them some time, but they have to jump on board eventually or people will jump ship.

For example, I have found myself using iWork more now because it does support retina. I used iWork in the past and switched to Microsoft for the compatibility with non-Mac clients, but I'd rather deal with occasionally having to convert a document into Word format than to spend my time typing on a blurry window.
 
Last edited:

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,420
759
Maybe we aren't using the same definition of "on par". I would argue that for it to be on par, it would not only have to have the same basic featureset as the Windows version, but also support the additional OS features (autosave, versioning, retina, etc) that it runs on.
Developing a version that is compatible with Mac OS is clearly something Microsoft has done since Office was first released. Developing a version that is optimized for Mac OS has never been a priority for them.
Also, while a simultaneous release would certainly show a developer's commitment to a platform, the lack of any information for release on one platform versus another tends to suggest otherwise.
No, it simply means they aren't talking about it until they're ready. They operate on their own timetable, not yours.

While Microsoft may have done this historically, it still shows the lack of commitment to Mac customers in comparison to Windows customers. Regardless of wether or not it is a business decision, the lack of commitment still stands.
It's not a lack of commitment because a developer chooses not to divulge all their future development plans, or if they choose to release different versions at different times.

While I agree that there aren't enough retina/hidpi displays out for most companies to justify updating software, I do think they could at least acknowledge that they are investigating the possibility.
Why should they? They have no obligation to disclose what they may be investigating or developing.
 

Swain

macrumors member
Nov 6, 2011
75
0
Another reason why I use iWork over Microsoft office.
I can get MS Office for like 80-100€ or iWork. I'm curious about the compatibility though because as a student. I'm having loads of documents/ppts/pdfs.

Can you enlighten me about that?
 

A Hebrew

macrumors 6502a
Jan 7, 2012
847
0
Minnesota
Of course they aren't confirming it. They want you to have to buy Windows 8 to run Office. 1 year later, when everyone who will cave has caved on it they will release Office for Mac. It is a smart business move when there is no competition close to Office.

And until some Windows-Native computers start getting Retina display there really is no reason for them to waste money on making Office Retina friendly because rMBPs are a HUGE minority in the Microsoft Office world. Adobe pretty much HAS to make their stuff Retina ready because their software is aimed at a large amount of people who purchase rMBPs.
 

throttlemeister

macrumors 6502a
Mar 31, 2009
525
35
Netherlands
Jeez. Microsoft bashing hour? Microsoft never confirms or denies plans for future updates, nor do most other large software companies.

Anyone ask Adobe lately about retina support for Lightroom 4? I have, and the official answer is: "we cannot make any comments on future updates of our products". Same thing as Microsoft is saying.

At the same time, it is virtually sure that Lightroom 4.2 will include retina support, and just as sure Microsoft will be working on a retina update. When will they admit to it? The day it is released.

Nothing new and nothing out of the ordinary, but apparently it is all that is needed to start a Microsoft bashing frenzy.
 

rikscha

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2010
675
256
London
Not to mention that MS saved Apple back then and that in fact these two companies have quite a close relationship behind the curtains. Try to think of one law suit between these two in the last couple of years.
 

AZREOSpecialist

macrumors 68020
Mar 15, 2009
2,123
932
I expect to see more software companies and definitely a lot of websites opting to sit out the cost of making all their content Retina-ready for the tiny portion of their customers using the MacBook Pro Retina. There are just too few Retina displays out there to warrant the expense, at least for now.
Excuse me, but the RMBP is not Apple's only Retina device. Arguably the most popular device to browse the web is Apple's iPad, which has a Retina display and which is out there in the tens of millions in quantity. Web developers would be foolish not to update their web sites with Retina-ready images that would look good on the iPad - and by default, will look good on the RMBP. Then there is the iPhone with it's Retina display… so when you add up the total number of Retina devices browsing the web, you are looking at probably more devices than PCs.
 

Aodhan

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2012
148
0
Excuse me, but the RMBP is not Apple's only Retina device. Arguably the most popular device to browse the web is Apple's iPad, which has a Retina display and which is out there in the tens of millions in quantity. Web developers would be foolish not to update their web sites with Retina-ready images that would look good on the iPad - and by default, will look good on the RMBP. Then there is the iPhone with it's Retina display… so when you add up the total number of Retina devices browsing the web, you are looking at probably more devices than PCs.
The iPad is 2048x1536, a resolution which does not require web pages or major software applications to be updated (well apps had to be, but app developers are in business to sell to iPad users). This is different.
 

AZREOSpecialist

macrumors 68020
Mar 15, 2009
2,123
932
The iPad is 2048x1536, a resolution which does not require web pages or major software applications to be updated (well apps had to be, but app developers are in business to sell to iPad users). This is different.
If you don't know what you're talking about, as is obvious here, you should probably not saying anything.
 

Aodhan

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2012
148
0
If you don't know what you're talking about, as is obvious here, you should probably not saying anything.
In life, you will find people may, from time to time, disagree with you. How you handle this will say a lot about you. You've said a lot.
 

terraphantm

macrumors 68040
Jun 27, 2009
3,741
553
Pennsylvania
The iPad is 2048x1536, a resolution which does not require web pages or major software applications to be updated (well apps had to be, but app developers are in business to sell to iPad users). This is different.
If every website treated the ipad as a 2048x1536 display, text would be even smaller than an rMBP at 2880x1800. The pixel density is the issue, not the actual resolution itself.
 

Aodhan

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2012
148
0
If every website treated the ipad as a 2048x1536 display, text would be even smaller than an rMBP at 2880x1800. The pixel density is the issue, not the actual resolution itself.
I am an end user, and from an end user perspective, the iPad Retina was pleasing to use on the web from day one. I don't believe web developers had to make any changes to existing web sites to make the sites look nice. The same cannot be said for the MacBook Pro Retina, from reports I have read. So while the iPad Retina did not, apparently, require web sites to upgrade, the MBPR seems to.

My point was that the iPad Retina allowed existing web sites to slide by, it required nothing of current web developers. The MacBook Pro Retina, on the other hand, does require them to upgrade. And some web developers, and some companies, may decide to sit out such upgrades for the time being, due to additional costs, at least until there is a much greater retina audience.
 

eagandale4114

macrumors 65816
May 20, 2011
1,011
1

terraphantm

macrumors 68040
Jun 27, 2009
3,741
553
Pennsylvania
I am an end user, and from an end user perspective, the iPad Retina was pleasing to use on the web from day one. I don't believe web developers had to make any changes to existing web sites to make the sites look nice. The same cannot be said for the MacBook Pro Retina, from reports I have read. So while the iPad Retina did not, apparently, require web sites to upgrade, the MBPR seems to.

My point was that the iPad Retina allowed existing web sites to slide by, it required nothing of current web developers. The MacBook Pro Retina, on the other hand, does require them to upgrade. And some web developers, and some companies, may decide to sit out such upgrades for the time being, due to additional costs, at least until there is a much greater retina audience.
You haven't looked too closely w/ the iPad then. For the most part it renders pretty similarly to the rMBP. Text and other vector graphics look great because they're resolution independent. Most pictures appear somewhat blocky unless the website is specifically developed for retina displays (Apple's own website is the only one I know of off hand).
 

Aodhan

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2012
148
0
You haven't looked too closely w/ the iPad then. For the most part it renders pretty similarly to the rMBP. Text and other vector graphics look great because they're resolution independent. Most pictures appear somewhat blocky unless the website is specifically developed for retina displays (Apple's own website is the only one I know of off hand).

I have an iPad 2, so I will concede that is possible. I was blown away by the retina iPads at the Apple store, but I haven't spent an extended amount of time with them. That other guy was right, I didn't know what I was talking about.

Still with all those retina iPads out there, and now the MacBook Pros, the web doesn't seem to be in a big hurry to upgrade to retina-friendly content.