Microsoft's Office for iPad Apps Gain Printing Capabilities

[snprintf]

The annoying thing about iOS is that it doesn't work with the network services Apple already set up on the Mac.

- You can't view shared iTunes libraries in iOS.
- You can't print to shared printers in iOS.

As for Microsoft, they're a joke of a company, so I've moved on from all their products except Excel.

 

[Michael Goff]

Let me know when the app gains the "pay once capability".

Then I will be on board, and purchase it.

• Don't need "multiple machine licenses".
• Don't need "yearly cloud storage as an added value". Already have that.
• Don't need "the absolute latest, greatest version" of a WORD PROCESSOR.

I'll keep going on about this precisely because I do care.
Yes, I would like to buy and use MS office for iPad. And no, I won't rent.

So, what would you pay on a per-app basis?

 

[snprintf]

How much are you willing to pay then for the full office suite?

$100, $150, $200 ?

Or you want it for $10 ?

A one-time price of $100 is fair if it's all three applications. Not $100 per year.

 

[Michael Goff]

A one-time price of $100 is fair if it's all three applications. Not $100 per year.

And how long should they support you with updates?

 

[hlfway2anywhere]

The image from Microsoft is a little misleading. Why is there an image of Outlook running on an iPhone? Outlook isn't included in the offerings for iOS.

Really? Because I use it every day.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/owa-for-iphone/id659503543?mt=8

 

[MisakixMikasa]

A one-time price of $100 is fair if it's all three applications. Not $100 per year.

Microsoft is charging 100 dollar for Office Home and Student edition per computer, including same three office plus one note. Now, do you serious expecting Microsoft charge you 100 dollar when you can install this on all iPad you own? No....

Microsoft can barge you 100 dollar per computer and you can use it forever. Hat does not work with App Store. Microsoft could simply pull Office xxxx out of store than put other version. If you need it, you need pay again. Do you really think you will happy this way?

----------

The annoying thing about iOS is that it doesn't work with the network services Apple already set up on the Mac.

- You can't view shared iTunes libraries in iOS.
- You can't print to shared printers in iOS.

As for Microsoft, they're a joke of a company, so I've moved on from all their products except Excel.

Yeah... You still use product from a joke of a company. You are such a great guy... Seriously....

 

[JoeRito]

How much are you willing to pay then for the full office suite?

$100, $150, $200 ?

Or you want it for $10 ?

$39.99 seems about right... One device at a time.

 

[MisakixMikasa]

$39.99 seems about right... One device at a time.

Developer cannot limit devices I think. There is no device limit for App Store.

 

[koban4max]

how about 1 time fee and no annual subscription update...that would be best update.

 

[Renzatic]

Developer cannot limit devices I think. There is no device limit for App Store.

I think there's a limit of 5 installations across 5 devices using the same Apple ID. I believe that limit was the main reason why the VLC people freaked out and pulled their app from the App Store back in the day.

 

[MisakixMikasa]

I think there's a limit of 5 installations across 5 devices using the same Apple ID. I believe that limit was the main reason why the VLC people freaked out and pulled their app from the App Store back in the day.

I have 5 iPad, 2 iPod Touch, 1 iPhone... Never got hit by installation limit. I can download and install all the apps I have purchased across all my devices no problem

 

[Aluminum213]

$39.99 seems about right... One device at a time.

Lol@ that price, you don't know worth of software


And also zero updates after one year when new version comes out then your crying again

 

[Renzatic]

I have 5 iPad, 2 iPod Touch, 1 iPhone... Never got hit by installation limit. I can download and install all the apps I have purchased across all my devices no problem

I'm going by what I've heard, not what I know. I only have an iPhone and an iPad, so I can't test it out myself.

...course I could've googled it, but...hell...why didn't I google it before saying something?

 

[MisakixMikasa]

how about 1 time fee and no annual subscription update...that would be best update.

Then you pay again for next version a year later?

 

[haruhiko]

I'm going by what I've heard, not what I know. I only have an iPhone and an iPad, so I can't test it out myself.

...course I could've googled it, but...hell...why didn't I google it before saying something?

The 5 devices limit only exists for iTunes sync, e.g. your music. However, you can download your apps to virtually unlimited (as in my experience) iOS devices with your Apple ID and password. Just don't sync your apps with iTunes and the limitation is gone.

 

[00sjsl]

To those people who complain about subscriptions - many Apple fans were content to pay MobileMe subscriptions for many years.

"But MobileMe was a service" you say. Well, Microsoft is moving its business model to Devices and Services, of which it sees Office as a Service.

I don't mind the subscription at all.

Its ironic that these things are becoming Services just as they become more product like. The characteristic of a service is an ongoing cost to the provider, but as consumer tech plateaus less development is needed. (Yes I know there is a cloud component but Apple iCloud and DropBox have got that covered).

Ahh, MobileMe was a great service .

 

[thasan]

Sounds like you wouldn't buy Office for iPad even if there was an single cost purchase option. You simply don't use the apps enough to justify it. And that's ok.

The "nice" thing about Office365 is that you can go month-to-month. Don't need Office for a few months... don't pay a monthly subscription. You can still read your documents.

Obviously, an Office 365 subscription makes no sense for someone who would only use Office on the iPad. That is just foolishness. And nobody is suggesting that. But $65 for the year, to be able to run Office on 5 PCs/Macs and 5/tablets, that's terrific. In my household we're using 4 PC/Mac licenses and 2 tablet licenses.

If you are a student, you can get a 4 year subscription for $80. 1 PC/Mac + 1 tablet.



Now, now... you know what the answer is.

i would. i want something handy when i need it.
i use a lot of word processing, but mostly use latex which is free and beautiful (thank god!). but there comes a time when i need to make a quick doc for someone else... :s

----------

Let me know when the app gains the "pay once capability".

Then I will be on board, and purchase it.

• Don't need "multiple machine licenses".
• Don't need "yearly cloud storage as an added value". Already have that.
• Don't need "the absolute latest, greatest version" of a WORD PROCESSOR.

I'll keep going on about this precisely because I do care.
Yes, I would like to buy and use MS office for iPad. And no, I won't rent.

I'm on the same boat.
+1

 

[mortenandersen]

2010 vs. 2014

yep, what's your point?

You don't see the point?! Serious?

 

[Alphaforcex]

I think this is all about the cost. Will you buy a coffee maker for $100 or would you rather rent one for a penny a month and you get to use the latest and greatest coffee machine? What happen if renting it for a lifetime is even less than you paid for the coffee maker outright? Will you still own?

You all do realize that not too many people buy software and choose to use free software/version. Some professional software are pretty expensive to own. By making it more affordable (subscription based) you pool more people to share the cost and the software makers have lower maintenance cost since everyone has to use the latest version.

You don't want to rent because you think it's going to be more expensive. Would you think otherwise if it's actually cheaper? I see subscription based software a potential win win for both consumer and software vendors if it's done right.

Where do you draw the line? Shouldn't you rent that coffee maker on your counter, that floor lamp, that couch you sit on each day too then?

I absolutely will not pay to rent software that would only get used once in a while, and for which the basic functionality (e.g. not the periodic updates) will suit my needs just fine. I'd happily give MS $XX for Word/Excel for iPad in the off chance I might use them once in a while, but no way in hell would I pay a subscription for something I'd seldom use.

There are enough monthly/yearly bills as it is in this generation for all the added tech crap we've grown up with compared to generations past, there's a point where one must draw the line. Having a subscription also means yet another account of some sort to sign up for, and yet surely another source of junk email to be received from.



No I will not ever rent software. Lost sale for the manufacturer due to a greedy business model if they don't at least offer an outright purchase.

I also don't subscribe to MobileMe, DropBox, or any of that other subscription-based stuff.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

I have 5 iPad, 2 iPod Touch, 1 iPhone... Never got hit by installation limit. I can download and install all the apps I have purchased across all my devices no problem

My company has over 20 iphones and over 20 macs. It uses 1 AppleID. It has never been hit with an installation limit warning.

My personal household has 3 Macs, 4 iPads, and 2 iPhones currently. Never been hit with a warning or dialogue box about installation limits.

Sssshhhhhhh....

 

[miknos]

To everyone complaining about subscription:

Isn't it easier for Microsoft to combat piracy this way?

 

[MyopicPaideia]

$39.99 seems about right... One device at a time.

I am assuming you mean platform? App store won't differentiate the device, just the Apple ID. I think that at $39.99 per platform/OS you are pretty spot on as to what is fair. However, just who out there really is using Office only on iOS? There is going to be at least one desktop platform out there and that is then $80. You can get the premium subscription for less than that, and you also get the cloud storage, convenience, updates for as long as you subscribe, etc.

Then of course, everyone here forgets that they have signed their ownership away by agreeing to use the App store. All those apps you buy with a 1 time payment, you don't own them. The developer AND Apple reserve the right to pull those apps from the App Store at any time - so if you need to reinstall and it is no longer available, tough!

With App stores on all platforms it is the same, goes for Android, OS X, Windows, Windows Phone, etc. We've already transitioned from owning physical copies of software, we've already given up that right, without most of us ever knowing it. The central repositories for app distribution are in themselves services. We're all operating like Linux has for a long time, but we are paying for access to these repository services through our OS license and/or hardware purchase. Then we pay one time fees to software developers only for access to their apps during the finite period that they are available in said repository.

Software as a service is actually a win win model for all parties. For the consumer, you gain access to that app on all platforms you use, and you also gain access to the latest versions without having to reach back into your pocket to pay another "1 time" fee, etc. Companies and developers gain a more steady income stream, which simplifies their accounting as well as they don't have to defer income.

The point is you've already given up outright ownership of your software, that's just not an argument that is valid anymore.

 

[maflynn]

To everyone complaining about subscription:

Isn't it easier for Microsoft to combat piracy this way?

I think its more accurately an improved revenue source. Companies like Adobe and Microsoft with mature product lines needed to improve or revitalize their income source. With mature products like Office, less and less people were upgrading, this way now Microsoft (and adobe) have a steady stream of income.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

To everyone complaining about subscription:

Isn't it easier for Microsoft to combat piracy this way?

Yes, yes it is. You know all those nasty product codes and serial numbers and complex anti-piracy measures that legitimate users always had to fuddle around with making installation a PITA?

Software as a service just has a user credential, all you have to do is sign in. Much simpler for all involved and developers and development teams can stop spending their time trying to invent new ways to stop the pirating of their software and actually use that time and energy for making better software.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

I think its more accurately an improved revenue source. Companies like Adobe and Microsoft with mature product lines needed to improve or revitalize their income source. With mature products like Office, less and less people were upgrading, this way now Microsoft (and adobe) have a steady stream of income.

And more and more people were waiting until the latest version was cracked and available for activation without actually purchasing a license to move up. Especially for those large established product lines you mention, piracy was and is a major hit to their bottom line, it is a huge and continuously growing real problem, even in the corporate landscape with small up to small-medium sized companies.

The revenue issue bears its weight twofold here.

One, a more steady cash stream that actually incentivizes those who were or are pirating to actually pay for their software, so not only does it steady the cash stream, it recaptures revenue from usage of the software that it otherwise wouldn't have gotten from pirated software.

The second part of this for the big public companies like Microsoft, Adobe, etc, is the complex monstrosity that is software revenue recognition in your accounting, which is a complete mess. The way software was sold earlier meant that according to both US and IFRS Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) that all companies must follow, it must be broken down into two parts, a service and maintenance part, and a point of sale part.

Companies currently have to spend tons of time and money employing or bringing in revenue recognition accountants and consultants to apply the guidelines that helped them estimate the amount of each software sale that should apply to the point of sale purchase (which they could recognize as revenue in the same period as the point of sale) and the amount of that same purchase a company has to apply to the value of the customer support, maintenance, and updates that will apply to the physical product sold. They then have to defer that second amount over the estimated life of the software that was purchased.

With Software as a Service, the company simply applies 100% of the monthly revenues to the period in which the payments apply. If you pay $12 for a year that's $1 of recognized revenue each month, simple.