Microsoft Paying Apple 30-Percent Cut on In-App Office 365 Subscription Purchases

[kingtj]

True, but depends ....

As I keep telling people in my workplace, Office 2003 (with all of the Service Packs and other updates applied) was probably Microsoft's best release of Office. It doesn't have that (IMO annoying and confusing) "ribbon bar" menu system. And like you say, it runs very quickly on modern hardware - since it was designed back when typical hardware specs weren't as big as they are today.

On the flip-side though? The weakest part of that suite was Outlook 2003, which is pretty much unusable for corporate email today. You're typically going to want to link it to an Exchange Server which is surely running at least the 2007 or newer version of Exchange by now. Outlook 2003 clients, if they work at all with those, are running in essentially a "backwards compatible" mode that lacks functionality.

Even if all you want is IMAP mail like Gmail, it's not suitable. Even Outlook 2007 was severely lacking in IMAP compatibility - producing confusing folder structures and having issues with email deletion, etc.

Funny. Our office still uses 2003 and it works just as it did when it came out long, long ago. For spreadsheets, document creating, you really don't need much else. It's stable, amazingly fast on dual core and up PC's and dirt cheap.

 

[campyguy]

So where is Outlook? I want a better mail system and for those of us using Exchange, having Outlook on the iPhone would be awesome.

Apple's mail client works fine, but I hate not being able to drag an email into the calendar, for example. I'm sure there are several other power user features they could add (setting up simple Exchange rules, for example).

I've been using MS's OWA (Outlook Web App?) apps for my iPhone 5/iPad 3rd Gen/Air for about a year with my Office 365 P1 Plan. I'm very happy with it - email, contacts and calendar all in one app.

----------

No, but doing it from within the app gives Apple their 30% cut. MS could've taken the Amazon route if they wanted to.

They did: http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Office-Premium-Subscription-Download/dp/B00B1TEIRU

$67 plus free shipping for the PC/Mac Key Card...

 

[Michael Scrip]

Yes, and what I am also saying is that "full compatibility" with Office is far less important that a lot of people think it is. It's also an illusion for the most part. More people might be forced to figure that out, now that Microsoft is charging annual subscriptions.

"Full compatibility" is one of the reasons Microsoft Office is basically the standard today.

You don't have to worry if your document will open on someone else's computer. I think that is very important.

If you're opening a simple text based Word document in Pages... it should look fairly normal. But what happens when you make changes, save it and send it back to the original person?

Would you prefer "full compatibility" ? Or "kinda OK compatibility" ?

And Excel is even more dependent on compatibility.

"Numbers will convert the Excel file to a Numbers document, and will present warnings regarding any Excel features that are not supported in Numbers."

I don't think the person who created the Excel spreadsheet will be happy when you "convert" it to a Numbers spreadsheet and then send it back.

 

[campyguy]

Via WPCentral (http://www.wpcentral.com/deal-first-50-microsoft-store-office-365) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/MicrosoftStore/status/449249845497581568):

First 50 people to bring in their iPad starting 3/28 will get Office 365 free for 1 year.

Got mine today in downtown Portland. All it took was them taking a picture of me with my iPad, and giving them my name and a phone number. I had an option to opt out of future contacts, and I did. I didn't even have to sign anything or provide an email address. In and out in 5 minutes.

 

[kaielement]

iWork originally cost $$, as I'm sure you know. So I don't know why "1% of iOS users" would be against paying for the world's most prominent office suite. Now, I dislike Microsoft and love Apple just as much as many people here (been with a Mac for 9 years and iPhones since 2008; no MS products anywhere in between) but I really don't see why people wouldn't use Office for iPad. I'm not saying I like the subscription model, I think it 100% should be a one-time fee... but assuming you're comparing it against iWork because iWork is free isn't too accurate, because Apple had once charged users, too.

Yes I agree a one time option is what they should offer with an option to use 365 for a few more options

 

[IJ Reilly]

"Full compatibility" is one of the reasons Microsoft Office is basically the standard today.

You don't have to worry if your document will open on someone else's computer. I think that is very important.

If you're opening a simple text based Word document in Pages... it should look fairly normal. But what happens when you make changes, save it and send it back to the original person?

Would you prefer "full compatibility" ? Or "kinda OK compatibility" ?

And Excel is even more dependent on compatibility.

No, it's the illusion of "full" compatibility, which you only actually get if you are using the same version on the same platform and the same fonts. Otherwise, it's pot luck.

I don't use Office for anything, ever. Nobody has any problems "opening" my files, nor do I have any problems opening anyone else's files. Imagine that. I've opened lots of Word files in Pages, used change tracking and the like, exported them, and sent them back. No problems, no complaints.

Folks have been sort of brainwashed into believing that there's something hugely special about the Word file format that prohibits this, but it isn't true. As for Excel, it's even less of an issue, as a practical matter. I hardly ever see Excel being used to create anything more complex than a simple table. Massive overkill. I export spreadsheets out of Numbers frequently, and no Excel user has ever been the wiser.

No Office, no worries.

 

[sracer]

Folks have been sort of brainwashed into believing that there's something hugely special about the Word file format that prohibits this, but it isn't true. As for Excel, it's even less of an issue, as a practical matter. I hardly ever see Excel being used to create anything more complex than a simple table. Massive overkill. I export spreadsheets out of Numbers frequently, and no Excel user has ever been the wiser.

My file exchanging experience says otherwise... for me.

No Office, no worries.

Great!

 

[IJ Reilly]

My file exchanging experience says otherwise... for me.

How so?

I should add that all of our finished work products are PDF. Nobody gets a Word doc unless they insist and have a good reason for wanting it.

 

[Serelus]

Folks have been sort of brainwashed into believing that there's something hugely special about the Word file format that prohibits this, but it isn't true. As for Excel, it's even less of an issue, as a practical matter. I hardly ever see Excel being used to create anything more complex than a simple table. Massive overkill. I export spreadsheets out of Numbers frequently, and no Excel user has ever been the wiser.

As an Office 2013 certificate holder and part of the IT Support Team for one of the largerst shipping companies in the world, I can honestly say you couldn't be more wrong. I've spent literally weeks on certain excel documents so complex your head would explode, excel is capable of so much more, the programmability, the Azura intergration, along with an extensive API that let's you communicate with literally any high input application. Macros with so much work cut out for 1 excel document we've setup a seperate computer just so it can fill out everything properly without making your computer completely unusable.

Stop being ignorant, on an entreprise level this is a huge step.

 

[shandyman]

Your use case assumed upgrading every 4 years. Some of us have and still use Office 2003. I have and continue to install it (Office Professional 2003) on every Windows machine I own over the years without restriction. I paid less than $100 for it back then.



The subscription model works great for corporations. But for consumers, not so much. Anyone who thinks that Microsoft offers the subscription model because it is better for consumers than a purchase model is hopelessly naive.

Exactly. I'm not saying that they shouldn't let office 365 shouldn't be allowed for this, but why not give the option for people who don't want or need office 365? In addition to how the app is now, offer the ability to pay £5 via in app purchase to unlock the full use of the app, so those of us that don't want to waste money on office 365 can use it.

 

[Serelus]

Exactly. I'm not saying that they shouldn't let office 365 shouldn't be allowed for this, but why not give the option for people who don't want or need office 365? In addition to how the app is now, offer the ability to pay £5 via in app purchase to unlock the full use of the app, so those of us that don't want to waste money on office 365 can use it.

Meanwhile, retail price for the consumer version of Office 2013 is $500.
Of course they are not going to let you just pay £5 to use the full application.

Get a subscription, it's actually pretty cheap considering.

 

[shandyman]

Microsoft Paying Apple 30-Percent Cut on In-App Office 365 Subscription Purch...

Definitely, a great value for people that PAY for software. $99 a year to run office on all of my computers is a not bad at all.



Poor value for those who'd rather pirate it.

I pay £8.95 via HUP for office pro once every 3 years (or whenever a new version comes out) it covers using it on a computer and a laptop. That's much better value...

Meanwhile, retail price for the consumer version of Office 2013 is $500.
Of course they are not going to let you just pay £5 to use the full application.

See above. Additionally if I didn't use HUP, then I'd only pay £110 for office home and student, not $500. So why should I waste $100 for a year when I get it for even less than that?!?!

Surely if the company you work for have the home usage program, they have already purchased Office Licenses - you're only paying to extend the existing license. If they switched to Office 365 instead, you would be able to install office at home for free - that's the office 365 equivalent of the home usage program. This would cost you nothing, ergo Office 365 is clearly cheaper and I'm not insane.

Its a large company, I have no control over them switching. Doesn't matter if their paying, I'm still benefiting. Tons of companies, at least here in the UK use the HUP, all of my friends and family get it from their places of work. You're definitely insane if you think someone can make their company switch to office 365 just so they can use it free at home and on iPad...

Office 365 is clearly an unreasonable expense in comparison to mine and a high number of others in the same situation.

 

[Serelus]

I pay £8.95 via HUP for office pro once every 3 years (or whenever a new version comes out) it covers using it on a computer and a laptop. That's much better value...




See above. Additionally if I didn't use HUP, then I'd only pay £110 for office home and student, not $500. So why should I waste $100 for a year when I get it for even less than that?!?!

So when you said pay £5 to unlock the full app features, you meant that £5 as subscription based purchase?

 

[shandyman]

So when you said pay £5 to unlock the full app features, you meant that £5 as subscription based purchase?

No. I meant that for people that don't want to sign up to office 365 as they already own office, such as buying it via HUP, or home & student edition or whatever, can pay a one off fee to have full use of the app. I picked £5 as that's what the iWork apps cost to people that haven't got new iOS devices.

 

[unplugme71]

It's cheaper buying the home version then paying for it 3-4x that since office is only upgraded every 3-4 years.

I pay $9.95 with HUP and it's a one time fee for office professional.

 

[stewend]

subscription based software

I have been trying to comprehend subscription based software since Adobe decided Creative Cloud was the answer to everyone's needs. There is one need however that nobody at Adobe or Microsoft can answer. I run a publishing group and we have a freelance Mac that stands idle for much of the time except when we bring in some freelancers or when an editor decides they need some software they do not currently have on their pc. To pay monthly or annually to keep this unused mac ready and able for work is something that I don't appreciate. I'm more than happy to keep somewhat dated software on this mac as it is cost effective to have a spare machine around for occasional use. I've asked several reps at Adobe and they have no answer for me other than I should buy a subscription to have the latest and greatest suite of software. Does anyone else find this unacceptable? It should be up to me when I decide it's time to upgrade. Otherwise it just seems like paying ransom to a kidnapper for keeping your software alive just a little bit longer.

 

[sracer]

I have been trying to comprehend subscription based software since Adobe decided Creative Cloud was the answer to everyone's needs. There is one need however that nobody at Adobe or Microsoft can answer. I run a publishing group and we have a freelance Mac that stands idle for much of the time except when we bring in some freelancers or when an editor decides they need some software they do not currently have on their pc. To pay monthly or annually to keep this unused mac ready and able for work is something that I don't appreciate. I'm more than happy to keep somewhat dated software on this mac as it is cost effective to have a spare machine around for occasional use. I've asked several reps at Adobe and they have no answer for me other than I should buy a subscription to have the latest and greatest suite of software. Does anyone else find this unacceptable? It should be up to me when I decide it's time to upgrade. Otherwise it just seems like paying ransom to a kidnapper for keeping your software alive just a little bit longer.

Sounds like a perfect scenario to go month-to-month on the subscription. If you used that system only 2 months out of the year you would only pay $19.98. ($9.99 per month)

 

[stewend]

Subscription cost versus office standalone

Sounds like a perfect scenario to go month-to-month on the subscription. If you used that system only 2 months out of the year you would only pay $19.98. ($9.99 per month)

If you need a copy of office for home use which includes word,excel,PowerPoint,outlook I believe cost is $220. The same via office 360 subscription will cost $300 after 3 years, $400 after 4 years, $500 after 5 years. Keeping software this long for home users is not uncommon. There is a handy calculator at http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237780/Microsoft_Office_2013_vs._Office_365_price_calculator

 

[sracer]

If you need a copy of office for home use which includes word,excel,PowerPoint,outlook I believe cost is $220. The same via office 360 subscription will cost $300 after 3 years, $400 after 4 years, $500 after 5 years. Keeping software this long for home users is not uncommon. There is a handy calculator at http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237780/Microsoft_Office_2013_vs._Office_365_price_calculator

You previously said that your computer sits idle much of the time. During that idle time you don't need to be paying the subscription. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you wrote.

 

[JoEw]

$120? Are you deliberately finding the most expensive cost for Office 365 to enhance your argument? $99 for a yearly subscription, $60-$70 if you shop around.

Look 120 dollars or 60 dollars you still end up paying much more over time than outright buying the software. 60 dollars a year over a period of 5 years is $300 dollars. This whole move to subscription is to make people pay monthly indefinitely to keep using the software.

I will be sticking with my copy of office I paid for in full years ago and unless I find enough of a reason for me to shell out significantly more money for Microsoft's subscription every month for the foreseeable future.

If consumers feel the Microsoft on tablet is worth it than Microsoft succeeds and makes more money and from a business standpoint it is genius, but for most consumers and seasoned post-pc adopters i don't think many will find these prices worth indefinitely paying for.

 

[Abazigal]

Imagine if every object carried a subscription fee.



Want to keep drinking out of your coffee mug? That will just be a nominal 1¢ per sip. Wait! You just filled it and then your subscription ran out so you can't finish your coffee?! Bummer dude - suck it up.



Want to keep wearing your favorite Sponge Bob underwear? Cough up $1 per week or you're going commando kiddo.



Same goes for every object you rent. No ownership in the future. EULA for everything says you don't own anything, you lease it. And if the company wants they can remotely disable it. That will be embarrassing when you're in the middle of a big office presentation and your cloths disappear!!! But we'll all have fun laughing at you! Suck didn't pay his weekly license! Ha-ha-ha!

If paying 1 cent per sip meant that my coffee cup was always topped up with coffee whenever I want it, and if paying $1 a week for my underwear meant that it automatically expands as I grow, cleans itself and repairs any rips, it may actually be a good deal.

I am not against subscription software, I just don't think it is a good deal here, as I am a single user. It's like the whole cable tv deal, and I feel like I am being forced to buy an entire package just for a single series that I want to catch.

 

[Renzatic]

They did: http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Office-Premium-Subscription-Download/dp/B00B1TEIRU

$67 plus free shipping for the PC/Mac Key Card...

Different type of Amazon route.

What I meant was they could've nixed in-app purchases altogether. Forcing people to their own site to get a subscription, and cutting Apple out of the loop entirely in the process.

 

[IJ Reilly]

As an Office 2013 certificate holder and part of the IT Support Team for one of the largerst shipping companies in the world, I can honestly say you couldn't be more wrong. I've spent literally weeks on certain excel documents so complex your head would explode, excel is capable of so much more, the programmability, the Azura intergration, along with an extensive API that let's you communicate with literally any high input application. Macros with so much work cut out for 1 excel document we've setup a seperate computer just so it can fill out everything properly without making your computer completely unusable.

Stop being ignorant, on an entreprise level this is a huge step.

You addressed a point, but it wasn't even remotely in response to the one I made, so you have no right to the insult. Read again, try again.

 

[stewend]

subscription based software

You previously said that your computer sits idle much of the time. During that idle time you don't need to be paying the subscription. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you wrote.

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was talking about two different subscription scenarios initially in my first post, one involving Adobe Creative Cloud and the other concerning Microsoft office. My bad for mixing topics but I thought they were related in that they both promote a subscription based service.
Creative Cloud is the one where a freelance computer sits idle much of the time. My latest post quoting costs comparison was about MS Office subscription which is used continually. I hope this clears it up.

 

[Liquorpuki]

The whole sub thing is being overblown. Office Suites have been migrating to the cloud for a while now. Cloud penetration is low but according to Gartner, 60% of Office Suites are expected to be cloud based by 2022.

So you've got the following market forces setting up subs to be the primary monetization model for the Office Suite market:
1 - software is moving to the cloud which monetizes differently since it uses a service model
2 - consumers now own multiple computing devices (PC, phone, tablet, etc) so the whole one $200-400 license for one install on one device is no longer cost effective for many people

Far as I can tell, MS is just positioning itself here for the future.

There's some give and take so if you only own one device and all you need is Word, you probably won't like the sub. But if you have multiple devices, it's a deal. If you need Access or Publisher, it's a deal (that suite used to be $400). If you were planning to purchase cloud space, it's a deal (20G on iCloud = $40, 365 gives you that for free).

I'm also interested in knowing what people who advocate iWork over Office do for a living. I'm an engineer at a company of 10,000 and dumping Office for iWork would immediately stop most of our processes, make it a pain in the ass to share information with contractors and outside parties, and pretty much ensure a net loss in revenue for a period of time that'll last who knows how long. Office is so critical to workflow the company pays for training to teach employees how to use advanced features like VBA. Meanwhile if that last iWork update and FCX shows anything, it's that Apple's software strategy looks to be focused on stripping features to cater to technology illiterate grandmas at the expense of organizations.