Microsoft Unveils Browser-Based Office Apps

snydeq writes "Microsoft followed up its Windows Azure unveiling by announcing that it will deliver lightweight versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote through the browser, a la Google Apps. Surprisingly, Office Web applications will run in Firefox and Safari, not just Internet Explorer. Far less shocking: You won't get Office Web apps free and clear as you do Google apps. The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed instances of the next version of Microsoft Office, the same way Outlook Web Access provides access to mail without the fat Outlook client."

Comments

MS Gets it right?

[Trojan35]

Positioning it as an extension of office is much more appealing to me than google's broadband-dependent offering. For all the times MS looks completely befuddled by consumer needs, the office team seems to know what it's doing.

Re:MS Gets it right?

[sakonofie]

Microsoft knows cloud computing will be a joke.

And on the off chance cloud computing just happens to be popular, Microsoft wants to make sure people keep sending me .doc/docx files.

Re:MS Gets it right?

[marcosdumay]

It's an extension of Office in licensing. That means, it is a completely unrelated app, that is browser based (that means, it will also be broadband-dependent) that will only be licenced for your use if you brought a licence of Office.

Re:MS Gets it right?

[Itninja]

I get a little spooked running Google apps for business (not to say I don't). Sometimes I think, 'wow. if my broadband decided to go down for half a day...then my entire business would grind to a halt'. Not that it wouldn't be impacted either way, but with solely cloud-based basics like word processing, we couldn't even work with files offline until the ISP came back.

Re:MS Gets it right?

[Firehed]

a) Google Gears. Get it. Now.
b) It'd also take down your email and numerous other systems, and as a Slashdotter I assume you have a tech-oriented business that rather relies on internet connectivity so you'd be largely screwed regardless of how you manage your documents.

Re:MS Gets it right?

[zlogic]

Google Gears doesn't allow creating new documents in Google Docs in offline mode. No printing or saving either.

Re:MS Gets it right?

[iamhigh]

They aren't real sure about cloud computer, but they are pretty sure integrating web functionality into their desktop software is a good idea. IMHO I think this is a stepping stone to when you will HAVE to use OfficeLive (or whatever it's called). You will have a bare bones set of functionality on your PC, and NEED the web service to supply most of your features. This will greatly reduce the ability to pirate their best (and most pirated?) software, MS Office. I don't know if it will work, but I firmly believe this is what MS is shooting for.

but

[ionix5891]

will it have Clippy :p

Re:but

[blair1q]

but he'll be in Ajax

so he's cool now

Re:but

[Beardo the Bearded]

It looks like you're trying to modify a post. Would you like help with that?

locally installed?

[Anonymous Coward]

The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed instances of the next version of Microsoft Office, the same way Outlook Web Access provides access to mail without the fat Outlook client.

Except in order to use Outlook Web Access, I don't need to have a "locally installed instance" of Outlook. I understand where they're going with this, but the example that the author used doesn't seem very apt.

Re:locally installed?

[guruevi]

You need to have a seat (license or CAL as Microsoft calls them) for Exchange for every client that would connect through OWA.

In most situations, clients need three different licenses:

A license for the desktop operating system (i.e., Windows XP).
A client access license (CAL) for the Windows server. This license allows the client to legally connect to the server over the network. If you are using per server licensing, then you need a separate CAL for every Windows server on your network. If you are using per seat licensing, then you only need one CAL.
An Exchange CAL. This is the license that permits the clients to access the Exchange server. At one time, Exchange clients also required a license to use Microsoft Outlook, but today an Outlook license is included with each Exchange CAL.

The rule is that an Exchange CAL is required for any person or device that is accessing Exchange. This includes access through Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Web Access, Outlook Mobile Access, Exchange ActiveSync, or any other messaging interface.

Microsoft and Cloud

[mebrahim]

Microsoft is embracing the cloud. I'm worrying about the weather.

Re:Runs on FF/Safair?

[D4MO]

It's silverlight based, so no. Also, it'll also run in Firefox on Linux via moonlight.

OWA is an Exchange feature

[Calinous]

it is part of the Exchange email server, it's not part of the Outlook/Office.

Re:Runs on FF/Safair?

[muuh-gnu]

I kinda doubt Linux will be supported.

> The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed
> instances of the next version of Microsoft Office,

How its then supposed to run on Linux at all?

Licensing will Doom Them

[mpapet]

Sure, it may look pretty, but what's the EULA going to be on this hit of the Microsoft crack pipe? The gradual tightening of their EULA's is another reason the company I work for won't entertain budget spent for new Microsoft licenses.

Have you read the silverlight EULA? Since it's job-related I did, and let me tell you it's not pretty.

We're a small business that has purchased Microsoft site licenses over the years. I gotta wonder how long Microsoft can alienate customers like us before it starts affecting their top and bottom lines.

Browser...

[LunarEffect]

Now all we need is a standard compliant browser to run this on! *cough*

Re:Runs on FF/Safair?

[D4MO]

Yeah, extended out to the web using a hosted service, run by you or someone else. No they are not providing linux app, they are providing Silverlight/Ajax apps, which will work on Linux with Moonlight. There seems to some confusion regarding the word "extension" and it's scope. You need to be thinking cloud man ;)

Re:Runs on FF/Safair?

[nine-times]

Are we accepting Silverlight as a valid system requirement now?

I don't mean that as an anti-Microsoft question, but I don't want to have to install every company's obscure little proprietary plugins to run my apps and access my data. Flash is bad enough, but I draw the line directly behind Flash and won't go any further. In fact, I'm still hoping to boot Flash to the other side of that line, especially since it crashes my browser on a regular basis, but I still seem to be stuck with it.

But regardless of who's developing it, I'm loath to install another proprietary incompatible Flash clone.

Re:Runs on FF/Safair?

[dhavleak]

I'm still hoping to boot Flash to the other side of that line, especially since it crashes my browser on a regular basis, but I still seem to be stuck with it.

Install, and lobby in favor of Silverlight then. Silverlight is far more stable/secure/lightweight than flash, and it's 10x easier to develop for. So if it replaces Flash, you're still in the position of having to install a plugin, but at least you'll be done with browser crashes..

Ah, yes... more maneuvering toward subscriptions

[macraig]

Here we go again: another attempt to maneuver people toward software subscriptions and changing the perception of software as a tool to an image of software as content... for which people are already accustomed - habituated, in traditional Pavlovian fashion - to forking over cash every month without really analyzing the big picture. (This is one tactic used by manipulative people to concentrate massive amounts of material wealth... toward themselves and away from everyone else. It's totally Darwinian but not very ethical.)