Why no MS Access for Mac???

[MisterMe]

Beg to differ.

...

Maybe that is why I am so passionate to see a identical cross platform suite with the same menus and interface, but yet, at the same time have the option for Mac specific.

FWIW, Wikipedia can be used as a shortcut to authority. In an of itself, Wikipedia is not an authority. That said, Wikipedia lists rocket science as an informal term. Lacking a formal definition, its meaning is pretty much left to the user.

There are, however, certain irrefutable historical and current facts. Rockets have been used on the battlefield and the playground for several centuries. Electronic digital computers have been around for less than one century. Soft programmed electronic digital computers have been around for decades less than that. I will leave it to you to argue why it took so much longer to accomplish the easier task.

As for your assertion of this flip-switch from a Mac-like app to a Windows-like one, there are certain irreducible features that such an application requires. These would add up to an obese bundle that includes [almost] all of the resources of both the Windows and Mac versions of the application.

The goal is clear. The reason that it has not been done is either because it is too difficult or that it is not economic to do so. Of all the companies that might attempt such a strategy, Microsoft is the one that you assume is uniquely talented to do so. You have a lot of faith in the company that developed Bob, Windows Me, and Vista.

 

[nadyne]

What I can tell you, is that when I work with switchers, this is how it goes:

The most important thing to remember about switchers is that the state of being a switcher is a transient state. Everything on their Mac is different, and so while they're asking why Office is different, they're also asking why the Finder is different than the Windows Explorer. After all, the Finder is doing the same thing as the Windows Explorer (certainly from the point of view of someone new to the platform), so why should it be any different?

After using a Mac for a pretty short period of time, usually no longer than six months, a switcher becomes a Mac user. Even though they expected Office:Mac to behave like WinOffice at the beginning, they now expect Office:Mac to behave like the rest of the Mac applications that they've started to use.

Even for those users who frequently switch back and forth between their Mac and a Windows computer (say, they use Windows at work and have a Mac at home), they still behave like a Mac user when they use their Mac. I think of it as being similar to being bilingual: if you're fluent in two languages, you think in one language when you're surrounded by it, and you think in the other language when you're surrounded by it. Left to your own devices, you probably default to one or the other, but you can work equally well in either of them.

For the tiny minority of people who really want Office:Mac to behave as a Windows application, but somehow want the rest of their Mac apps to behave as Mac apps and also don't want Office:Mac to be integrated with their Mac in any way, I have to wonder why they have a Mac at all.

Nadyne, I know that you mean well so I will offer you this. I work with military and government types. At work they have PCs. When taking work home, they don't want to spend the time learning a different interface from work. It's simply not worth it to them. The same holds true for those I know who work in Fortune 500 companies.

I know you mean well too. I'm unsure why you think that someone with my title and who has been doing my job for as long as I have would be unaware of this. I have personally conducted thousands of hours of research with Mac users, all across the spectrum from soccer moms to military types (the highest rank of someone with whom I've done research with is a Colonel) to artists to students to business owners to C-level executives. I've done research with people who have owned a Mac for less than four weeks, and with people who have owned one for 15 years.

There is a huge sales potential being completely missed by Microsoft because the Mac and PC versions are not the same. Just think of all the individuals out there in government, military and Fortune 500 types that would love to use the Mac version of Office at home decide it is better and much easier to use the Windows version because it's obviously 100% compatible, has Access and Outlook. Anyhow, I hope someday that Microsoft will consider releasing cross platform, 100% compatible, office suite that includes Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Access and Outlook. I know that I am probably dreaming, but what the heck?

You keep on asserting this, but you haven't backed this up, other than with anecdotes of people who you have talked to who have recently switched. Anecdotal data isn't sufficient to make a major change in business direction. Given the weight that you put on Access, which has a relatively low rate of usage for Windows users, I have to question the assumptions that you're making about WinOffice users, let alone the potential that this has for Office:Mac.

Office allows for customization of menu bars and such. Why not simply have a toggle that allows Mac like interface for those who want it and an identical PC interface for those who have to use each on a daily basis. While it would take a bit to implement this, it is not rocket science.

The cost of developing two interfaces for the same platform is very very high. Further, the number of requests that we receive for exactly identical interfaces across two platforms is extremely small. The opportunity cost of developing two different interfaces is, at this time, higher than we've been willing to bear. I'd rather have the developers who would work on such an exercise spend their time on something that is more likely to have a greater impact on a larger number of users.

Regards,
Nadyne.

 

[besadmin]

If they can't be bothered to give us Outlook, there's no way we're getting Access.

 

[Luke1robb]

If they can't be bothered to give us Outlook, there's no way we're getting Access.

You want Outlook? I'm perfectly content with the mac applications that replace Outlook. At the same time, it seems logical.

 

[jaw04005]

Years ago (circa 2002-2004), I read an article with one of the MacBU engineers talking about Access.

If I remember correctly, he said it had something to do with built-in database APIs on Mac OS X and the fact that Apple makes FileMaker.

Here's the background behind the introduction of Entourage:

http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/2007/05/why_did_microsoft_replace_outl.html

 

[Thunderbird]

The most important thing to remember about switchers is that the state of being a switcher is a transient state. Everything on their Mac is different, and so while they're asking why Office is different, they're also asking why the Finder is different than the Windows Explorer. After all, the Finder is doing the same thing as the Windows Explorer (certainly from the point of view of someone new to the platform), so why should it be any different?

After using a Mac for a pretty short period of time, usually no longer than six months, a switcher becomes a Mac user. Even though they expected Office:Mac to behave like WinOffice at the beginning, they now expect Office:Mac to behave like the rest of the Mac applications that they've started to use.

I highly doubt this. In fact, it doesn't even make sense. When Windows or Mac users start using a different browser, for example, they don't expect things to be the same or ask why their new browser interface is different from the native one. This is because they know it's a different browser, not a version of the same browser. So, they start learning the new interface. The experience of Safari on Mac is almost 100% identical as using Safari on Windows. Same with Adobe Reader, iTunes, etc. The same can't be said for Office:Mac.

For the tiny minority of people who really want Office:Mac to behave as a Windows application, but somehow want the rest of their Mac apps to behave as Mac apps and also don't want Office:Mac to be integrated with their Mac in any way, I have to wonder why they have a Mac at all.

First, how do you know it's a "tiny minority" since so many Mac users have Windows office apps, either through virtualization, boot camp or Office:Mac. How do you parse the ones who want 100% compaibility and behavior with those who don't necessarily need that but may want that if offered? Second, who says this "tiny minority" doesn't want Office:Mac to be integrated with the rest of their Mac in any way? Obviously they do want it to be integrated, but I'll bet they also want their Windows Office experience to be as seamless as possible between work and home since it's supposed to be Microsoft "Word" or "Excel", etc. (and not a completely different or third party word processor or spread sheet).

I know you mean well too. I'm unsure why you think that someone with my title and who has been doing my job for as long as I have would be unaware of this. I have personally conducted thousands of hours of research with Mac users, all across the spectrum from soccer moms to military types (the highest rank of someone with whom I've done research with is a Colonel) to artists to students to business owners to C-level executives. I've done research with people who have owned a Mac for less than four weeks, and with people who have owned one for 15 years.

In other words, anecdotal evidence. (see below)

You keep on asserting this, but you haven't backed this up, other than with anecdotes of people who you have talked to who have recently switched. Anecdotal data isn't sufficient to make a major change in business direction.

The cost of developing two interfaces for the same platform is very very high. Further, the number of requests that we receive for exactly identical interfaces across two platforms is extremely small. The opportunity cost of developing two different interfaces is, at this time, higher than we've been willing to bear.

Then scrap the two interfaces and port the app natively as is, something like Crossover Mac does, but do it better.

I'd rather have the developers who would work on such an exercise spend their time on something that is more likely to have a greater impact on a larger number of users.

Want a greater impact for a larger number of users? Do what has been suggested here and make Windows Office a true universal app across all platforms with 100% compatibility and native speed. As a compromise, you could create a toggle that would make a Mac skin or theme like Paralells 5 has. Why is this too much to ask?

Overnight, you would increase market share of Windows Office, and probably all but kill off virtualization apps, put a big dent in OpenOffice and NeoOffice, cure all sorts of compatibility, bug and speed headaches for millions of people worldwide and enjoy the love and adoration of switchers like me who've had to make inconvenient adjustments and decisions about which platform and which version of Windows Office to use and wonder how compatible, buggy or speedy it really is beyond the sales hype.

Personally, if I need absolute compatibility with Windows Office for critical docs for my work, I'm not going to take a chance on a "Mac version" of it. Moreover, instead of fiddling with Boot Camp or virtualization, I, and I suspect a lot of other people as well, would really and truly prefer to just have a universal Windows Office that I can simply install without wondering if it's going behave or run differently than on a PC.