Microsoft Wanted To Drop Mac Office To Hurt Apple

Overly Critical Guy writes to mention that more documents in the Iowa antitrust case have come out. This time, it's revealed that Microsoft considered dumping the Mac Office Suite entirely in a move to harm Apple. "The email complains at poor sales of Office, which it attributes to a lack of focus on making such sales among reps at that time. It describes dumping development of the product as: 'The strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately.' The document also confirms that Microsoft at the time saw Office for the Mac as a chance to test new features in the product before they appeared in Windows, 'because it is so much less critical to our business than Windows.'"

Comments

Nature of the beast....

[BWJones]

The problem with this is that if nothing else, Microsoft is good at making money and the Microsoft Mac Business unit is quite profitable, with Office as one of their biggest revenue generators. On the other hand, that has never hurt Microsoft when they felt that losses in revenue in one area would be made up for in another area if they cancelled development for a competing platform. Just look to the cancellation of Halo development for Macintosh and Linux after they bought Bungie.

However, it is an unfortunate reality of the software business, no matter how the consumer may benefit. When it comes down to it, companies are interested in making money and they have to balance the needs and desires of the customer along with their requirements of making mo' and mo' money. Just look to insurance companies, right? They are not in business to provide health care insurance or to cover your medical bills. They are however in business to make money. Don't ever mistake the two or conflate their motives.

That is not to say that there are not companies that have motivations that are geared towards the consumers of their products. On the contrary, I feel that Apple has done a pretty good job over the years of balancing ethical behavior with making great products that will keep their customers happy, but even they have, on occasion screwed up, sometimes spectacularly.

I guess the most impressive thing to me about this is the continued flood of documents that have come out of the anti-trust trial that was dumped after the current POTUS entered the White House. These documents show an amazing culture of not just intense competition, but also one of dishonesty, dishonor and patently illegal behavior. I remember the case being dropped, but how could it have gone so wrong and how much more is there to find?

Re:Nature of the beast....

[truthsearch]

companies are interested in making money and they have to balance the needs and desires of the customer along with their requirements of making mo' and mo' money.

But I think the big question is: did Microsoft consider dropping it merely because it wasn't generating enough revenue, or mostly because they wanted to hurt Apple. If the "Microsoft Mac Business unit is quite profitable" as you say, then there seems little reason to drop the product except the hurt Apple. If they're willing to lose profit with the intent of hurting Apple it's possible grounds for a suit by stockholders as it's likely not in the best interests of corporate profits. Plus it would be clear they were intent on hurting a competing platform even if it cost them more money to do so.

Re:Nature of the beast....

[powerlord]

Also, if they were trying to hurt Apple for the benefit of their Desktop OS, for which they are convicted monopolists, that might be a bit troubling to the DoJ (assuming it grows a pair), as well as their EU equivalent agencies.

Re:Nature of the beast....

[drinkypoo]

If they're willing to lose profit with the intent of hurting Apple it's possible grounds for a suit by stockholders as it's likely not in the best interests of corporate profits.

The only people it might not be in the best interest of would be day traders, and even they will benefit if they sell short. See, if Microsoft could crush Apple, then they would have an even stronger hold on the market, an even stronger monopoly position, and they would get even more for their bribe money to whoever received it that immediately pulled the DOJ dogs off of Microsoft after they had been convicted of abusing their monopoly position.

Well, and it wouldn't be in the interest of Apple users either, but by then they would have lost their voices entirely so they would be quite irrelevant :)

Re:Nature of the beast....

[bogjobber]

That reaction is even more ridiculous when you consider that Microsoft didn't drop support for Apple. Apparently "Microsoft once considered doing something that might've been bad, but decided against it" is now news.

Re:Nature of the beast....

[icensnow]

Unless you assume that Office for Mac and Office for Windows have no code in common, you cannot assume that the development cost is higher. Microsoft has, presumably, an absolute priority and mandate to make Office for Windows. The development cost for Mac is a marginal cost -- to port it and to make the more Mac-like user interface, not the entire development. While those costs are certainly significant, it's a very strange accounting to assume that the development costs are the same.

Re:Nature of the beast....

[falconwolf]

Mac software incurs the SAME expenses as word but has an order of magnitude less avenues for sales. It *HAS* to be less profitable.

Actually the nature of the beast is that the efforts of making a Mac version of software can help the Windows version thus save some money. As TFA says Mac users were to be the guinea pig. Any mistakes made would be in Mac software and the Windows developers could learn from the mistakes the Mac unit made thus lowering costs for the Windows version as well as avoiding lost sales for the Windows unit because Windows users decided to forgo the mistakes by not upgrading. As long as you're willing to loose some in a small or less profitable unit it can help avoid mistakes in bigger units. That's the smart thing to do.

Falcon

Apple commercials

[phasm42]

Apple creates commercials that portray the Mac as a jeans-clad hipster and a Windows PCs as a balding lame-o in a suit. They believe it will harm Microsoft. News at 11.

Re:Apple commercials

[Khomar]

The problem here is not just that Microsoft was talking about doing something to hurt the market share of another company, but rather that the method they were looking to use was of a monopolistic nature. By cutting out Microsoft Office from Apple, they would hurt the Microsoft Office division but would help the Microsoft Windows division. Basically, by a single company owning the overwhelmingly dominant office suite and operating system, they had the ability to destroy competition. Consider, for example, that Microsoft was divided into two (or more) distinctive companies: one that developed the operating system and related development tools and one that developed Microsoft Office products. In this scenario, Microsoft Office would continue to support Apple due to the revenue stream. The Microsoft Windows company would be required to compete on an equal footing against the Mac OS and any other operating system.

This is not to say that this is complete monopoly. Linux does not have Microsoft Office, but they are able to compete with Open Office. However, it is an example of how Microsoft's position in multiple sectors can be combined to give them an unfair advantage. It is almost like the phone company also owning the electricity companies. "Sure you can use our competitor's phone service, but then you won't get any power." Some choice. (Of course, phone companies are their own form of evil monopoly, but that is another story.)

Entourage problems already have hurt

[mekkab]

Given the flakiness of connecting Entourage to an Exchange server, where I could get all my e-mails but not send anything (?!) I just stopped trying.

Having half-working software is far worse than none at all.

Re:That's why kids...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't. OOo is *almost* there, but not enough there that it can take on MSOffice. For example, Impress (the OOo Powerpoint) sucks ass in terms of speed. OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms, and quite frankly, the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.

So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.

Re:I can't imagine

[MBCook]

Two reasons. First, it's Office. I needed Office in school, so I used Office. Now that I don't need to do that kind of stuff on my laptop/home computer I wouldn't buy Office.

Second, Office for Mac is really very nice. I have Office 2004 on my Mac (version 11). I've got to say that I like it's interface WAY better than the Windows versions of Office I've used (up to XP, I haven't had much chance with 2k3 or the newest one). It's really a very nice program. If it wasn't from Microsoft, I think it would still sell very well.

I've also heard of them using the Mac version to "test" things. I think the UI that I like so much (the floating pallets on the right side) was probably a part of the precursor to the ribbon they've been touting so much.

The Windows version may have gotten complacent, but the guys in the Mac Business Unit are good at what they do.

Not a monopoly?

[iPaul]

This is exactly the kind of anti-competative behavior that monopolies engage in.

Re:That's why kids...

[antirelic]

I didnt realise MS office was the symbol of efficiency and effectiveness. To say that OO sucks because you dont like a few pieces of its "package" is like me saying the same for M$ office. I think only a retard would use MS Access database. That doesnt mean that it "sucks", thats just my opinion. Open Office is FREE, uses OPEN STANDARDS that dont LOCK YOU IN just in case your favorite vendor decides to DROP SUPPORT for your Operating system just to be a dickhead. Perhaps you missed the whole point of TFA and should read it again and then maybe you'll understand why people say OO is better than MS Office....

No Surprise

[calstars]

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who follows Microsoft and Apple. Of course MS 'considered' it; not to do so would show a remarkable lack of long-term strategy thought at high levels of the company. Unless they actually do remove Office for the Mac, there's no story here.

Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could..

[Foerstner]

Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac...

PC: and I'm a PC.

PC2: and I'm another PC

PC3: and I'm another PC ... (Repeat 17 more times)

Mac: So what are you guys working on?

PC: We're working on this year's budget. We need the numbers for your department.

Mac: Okay, send it over.

(Pause)

Mac: Here you go.

(Pause)

PC 6: What's wrong with this file?

PC 11: I don't know, it's formatted all wrong.

PC 8: I'll bet it's Mac's fault. Hey, Mac?

Mac: It looks fine to me...

PC 3: Mac, look, you're a cool guy and we really like you, but you can't just go off and mess up a document like that!

Mac: But...but...it looks fine in OO.o!

PC 19: Oh oh oh? Listen, I don't have time to play games, I need your numbers in that file without any screwing around!

Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised?

[Raffaello]

1. Cancel Office for the Mac and cease support and updates for exisiting versions

Apple has thought of this. That's why Apple is in the middle of developing an Office replacement. Pages, Keynote, and the soon be released excel compatible spreadsheet app.

2. Buy Adobe
3. Cancel all Adobe products for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions

This merger/aquisition would never be approved since MS is already a convicted monopolist. Even if approved, Apple has Aperture (high end) and iPhoto (low end) ready for precisely this contingency.

4. Buy DigiDesign
5. Cancel ProTools for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions

Even if this one were approved, Apple already has Logic Pro, Soundtrack Pro, and Garage Band , for this market.

Apple has thought of your "5 step plan" and have been taking steps to counter it for years.

The important thing

[proberts]

...isn't Word/Excel/Powerpoint- NeoOffice works fine for those, it's Entourage- in an Exchange business environment, that's a key item and mail.app doesn't cut it.

Paul

Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised?

[iluvcapra]

Even if this one were approved, Apple already has Logic Pro, Soundtrack Pro, and Garage Band , for this market.

Hello, I am a sound designer and an occasional beta-tester for Digidesign.

Digidesign has a very love-hate relationship with the Mac platform, I have observed. They started with it and used Apple's great MIDI and audio support to make their product awesome (and vice versus). They do also, however, have a PC version (that I've never seen used in the wild), are owned by Avid (which has gone seriously pro-PC in the last 5 years), and Digi is constantly chasing the Mac's hardware platform (the PCI Express transition has been painful for a lot of people, the Intel transition less so.)

Digi would have a ton of trouble dragging their userbase to PCs. We Pro Tools users don't use them, we hate them culturally, all of our jigs and tools are Mac-centric, and frankly we'd have nothing to gain by the move (since we all own $3000 workstations anyways, cost isn't an issue), thus we would oppose it fiercely, from a marketing point of view.

That said, Apple's line of audio software is nowhere near where is needs to be in terms of workflow and interoperability to work for music and post-production sound. We have a joke that you need to have a Ph.D. in order to understand Logic (it's the Linux of DAWs, powerful but unfriendly), and Soundtrack Pro doesn't do 5.1 and doesn't use dedicated hardware for DSP or IO. Neither have good Avid interoperation, which is still the industry standard, and the interoperability standard (OMF and AAF) is controlled by Digidesign and Microsoft, and tends to be a moving target.

IMHO, If Pro Tools users lost the Mac, it wouldn't cause a migration to the PC in professional recording, it would cause a huge fragmentation of platforms in professional recording. Pro Music people would probably go to Logic or Nuendo on Mac, post would probably switch to Nuendo, or someone enterprising developer will write a Post-Centric DAW (they've existed in the past, but it's a small market, so the economics have to be just so). Also, Pro Tools has a huge installed base in amateur music and home recording, and these people would stay on Mac, either switching to GarageBand, or switching to OSS like Ardour or Jokosher. This would have the unwelcome (to MS) side effect of spurring their development. All of this fragmentation would also cause the development of stronger interoperability standards, which MS wouldn't want, either.

Re:I can't imagine

[AKAImBatman]

Open Office is not natively supported without the use of X11.

Shows what you know. OpenOffice on Mac OS X == NeoOffice/J. You only use the X11 version if you want a world of pain.

Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa

[Gentlewhisper]

"Fine, then. MP3 players. Can you cite a tangible reason (not just "ooh, design! shiny!") why iPods are typically 70-90% more expensive than comparable models from other manufacturers. And lets remember ... NEARLY DOUBLE... not just a little more."

What kind of argument is that? Is not "design! shiny!" a tangible reason?

By your kind of logic you can also explain to us why a Ferrari costs 1000x more expensive than a regular car apart reasons like "design!" and "faster engines!"

So what if it is faster, the engines are made of the same metal, who cares what amount of intellectual property and engineering has gone into it. It is free right? You are only paying for the materials. Yeah right.