Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Office For iOS Will Likely Never See the Light of Day
MojoKid writes "It has been over six years since Apple introduced the iPhone. Millions of apps have been written for the platform in that time, with collective downloads into the billions. Apple's App Store is a thriving marketplace with a huge amount of software available, except Microsoft Office. There's a version of Office for iOS supposedly in the works, but Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer threw cold water on the idea when asked about upcoming events for the Office suite after launching the new Office 2013 / Office 365 products earlier this week. Revenue sharing is reportedly a major sticking point. Microsoft is trying to push people towards yearly subscriptions with Office 2013 and Office 365, but Apple requires a 30 percent profit share on sales of any app in their store. Microsoft reportedly isn't thrilled at the idea of sharing that much revenue. It's ironic — when Bill Gates agreed to port Office to the Mac nearly 20 years ago, it was seen as a lifeline for the beleaguered manufacturer. Now, Microsoft is knocking on the door of Apple's business and Cupertino seems disinclined to answer."
It's ironic — when Bill Gates agreed to port Office to the Mac nearly 20 years ago, it was seen as a lifeline for the beleaguered manufacturer. Now, Microsoft is knocking on the door of Apple's business and Cupertino seems disinclined to answer.
This conclusion absolutely does not follow from the sentence that came before it.
Word and Excel have been on the Mac since their inception. Much longer than 20 years.
Make the app free and unable to purchase subscription through.
also why other pro apps will not be in other app stores.
adobe CS 30% cut is way to high and sand boxing.
autocad 30% is to high as well.
the MS app store better not be come the only way to get windows apps as windows will lose all of it's pro apps and steam games to Linux.
android has more then 1 app store IOS and windows need to copy that.
Look at the direction office is going now. Cloudy.
They won't *need* a native iOS version: A bit more work and most of it will be able to run as a web-app. It'll need extensive tweaking for each browser to manage such a complicated interface, but MS can manage that.
Apple should probably pay MS to port MS Office to iOS and preinstall it on ipads.
That could tilt the movement to Android back in their direction.
just my 2c
Just buy a law so they can sell it without paying the apple tax.
30% is only for in-app purchases. There are free apps that actually require payment to work. You pay on the developer's site and sign in inside the app. How does the submitter think Netflix subscriptions are paid on iOS?
Microsoft is just being arrogant in thinkng they should have a discount off the 30%.
MS isn't being creative enough is what it sounds like.
Offer the ability to create / edit documents via a free MS Office suite on the iDevice.
Offer a subscription service to be able to save/open those files off the device.
Apple isn't forcing Netflix to hand over 30% of their revenue, because they give up the App for free.
But boo hoo, MS has to pay what everyone else does to Apple for the service.
No actually information is contained in this article. Speculation about an easy to speculate topic is all you'll find.
Additionally, Office was already available on the Mac when that deal was made. It was an agreement to CONTINUE development, not "port" anything.
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for OpenOffice or LibreOffice to be ported to iOS.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
"Cupertino seems disinclined to answer."
You expect gratitude from a CEO? You'll be expecting truth from politicians and charity from bankers next!
I find it incredible that anyone still feeds this monopoly when viable alternatives have existed for years; It doesn't exist on Android set to overtake windows this year; Is stupidly expensive for a piece of software with no new compelling features for years; Written documents rarely done in Word...more likely email.
Ballmer is probably right Google Docs is likely to win on the new dominant platforms, personally though I find it insane that Microsoft would intentionally hurt its Monopoly in Office Suites.
Look at Netflix - a very tiny minority of users subscribe to Netflix through AppleTV using their iTunes account.
Very few people would also subscribe to Office365 through an iDevice. Most will subscribe through other means and download the app for free.
I call hogwash.
Microsoft shipped Excel for Apple OS in 1985, a few years before shipping a version for Windows.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
Google's already got the Google Drive app on iOS. You can edit your office Docs there and have all changes sync back to your desktop
android has more then 1 app store IOS and windows need to copy that.
Apple: Why?
Microsoft: We'd love to get a cut of most app sales.
Why do we need app stores that make software 40%+ more expensive (assuming a 30% cut, to make $10 you must charge $14.29)? Can't people sell their own software like on Windows and OS X today?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This is an interesting story, despite the terrible summary.
For work & family, I have to juggle documents across Linux, Windows, BBerry, Apple and Android devices.
Probably the same for many people here.
First of all, there's no need for this, since Apple (and others) already offer perfectly adequate apps for viewing, and even editing, MS Office documents on iPad and iPhone. But having tried it, I guarantee you'll only do it once. Sticking rusty nails in your eye is probably less painful.
Well, OK, at least you can view PPT slides in (vaguely) something like their original format. But still best to send as a PDF...
MS have shot themselves in the foot by getting rid of LiveMesh, (which worked very well), and replacing it with Skydrive, which works well too, but is more complex and brings no extra benefit. Extra demerit points to the boys in Redmond for giving the web interface a Windows 8 style tiled look, which sucks. Extra, super idiot points for there being no online document editing abilities like Google Docs.
Apple's iCloud does not sync docs (why?), so Google drive, MS Skydrive, Sugarsync and Evernote to the rescue.
But there's no nirvana yet - I would love for Google to invest in the LibreOffice program...
Imagine LibreOffice on all your devices, with instant shared access to all documents. Fsuk yes!
Given iOS and Android's root, how hard could it be?
What I do not understand is WHY people need to 'share' and 'edit' word processor documents or spreadsheets 'on line' anyway. Why?
Windows 8 already has 3 major apps stores that I can think of off the top of my head:
1) MS App Store
2) Steam
3) Any website
Also, the MS App Store lets you get Desktop Apps direct from the vendor. They don't even demand a cut of the action. The Windows 8 app ecosystem has everything going for it in spades better than iOS (easily) or even Android's openness.
If you don't go with a Metro App from Microsoft's storefront, you can still use the style elements and as I recall you can still hook into WinRT. You just won't be able to sell on ARM based platforms or use some WinRT functionality (Live Tiles stick out off the top of my head).
What cut do you think retail takes?
And what fee do you think is right for someone that has to supply unlimited bandwidth and insfratructure support to get your app to people everytime they want to reinstall it as well as free 5gb of backup space.
If that's so unreasonable then why is Microsoft taking 30%? Even Google takes 30%. Microsoft just wants special treatment and quite frankly they can suck it. That's not fair to the small developers.
Play and Amazon both take 30% so what benefit is there to Microsoft (who also takes 30% from their store sales) and Android is the worst because Google basically makes you open up your phone to vulnerabilities just to add legit sources like Amazon.
Apple's iCloud does not sync docs (why?)
iCloud will absolutely sync documents.
https://developer.apple.com/icloud/documentation/
If I were part of Apple and had the kind of cash they do, I'd acquire Corel in Canada. Not only would I have access to WordPerfect Office suite to push, I'd also have tools to keep Adobe paying attention and respecting me too. Whether I chose to not use them or not would be my leverage. Really, at this point in time, I'd go after MS on the Office front and keep the rest of Corel's software to myself for a future battle with Adobe.
> Can't people sell their own software like on Windows and OS X today?
But that wouldn't make Apple filthy stinking rich! ...say what you want about their "walled garden" strategy, you have to admit it worked beautifully.
Back them Gates was struggling as well. So it was a mutual thing. Today, only MSFT has anything to gain from office on the iOS platform. On an iOS device the ONLY useful app is really powerpoint, and Apple has Keynote that is vastly superior to powerpoint in every way. Why would someone want to downgrade to powerpoint on iOS?
No sane person would want to work on spreadsheets on a tablet. Same for everything else in the MS OFFICE lineup outside of PowerPoint.
MS office is losing. It is losing slowly but it is in fact losing. I see more and more businesses using alternatives such as Google Docs, Libre Office, and other options. The fact that MS is moving Office online as a subscription model shows me they know it's losing the battle.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The mark-up for selling a bicycle and bike parts is 40 percent.
Clothing is 100 percent.
A 30% cut of the retail price is probably lower than brick-and-mortar. Do you honestly think that Microsoft gets the full $300 you pay for Windows 7 Pro from Fry's?
--
BMO
Office productivity apps on a tablet/phone? Paying monthly subscription for Office?
If Office was really such a killer app, Windows phones and Surface would be selling like hotcakes now (they're not).
Microsoft should stop worrying about Apple and Android and start worrying about Blackberry.
What cut do you think retail takes?
Its not retail that the Mac App Store would compete against. It the online stores of Microsoft, Adobe and other large publishers who can afford their own digital distribution channels.
The Mac App Store makes more sense when you are small and "unknown". If you have a well known and established product that people "seek out" then offering your own online store may be the better route.
You're joking right? The retailer markup is more than enough to cover Apple's 30%. These are just cheap bastards that don't want to pay for distribution... In spite of their prices being an order of magnitude higher than when they were actually sold in stores. They all spent the last decade pulling their products from retail making users buy from their gated communities... Apple just re-invented the retail software store again, which means your products compete on a shelf with everybody else. Again that sucks if you've spent billions buying up and driving everybody else off the shelves.
Almost all of these companies have had or have their own gated stores with FAR more onerous terms than Apple.
Regarding the "Apple supply bandwidth, infrastructure and payment method" argument that crops up commonly in these discussions - its a facetious argument because the seller HAS NO FUCKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER even if they do have the ability to do it.
I'm sure both Adobe and Microsoft have the ability to replace Apples "contribution" completely, but they aren't allowed to by Apple. They aren't even allowed to attempt to, its completely verboten - you have to use Apples distribution service, you have to use their payment gateway, you have to use their app store otherwise your app simply won't happen.
And thats the point being made. Its not about what Apple offer, its about them refusing to allow those than can equal them in capability to actually do it.
I love the fact that Android allows side loading, and thus the existance of alternate app stores, but they really need to make an AppStore API. Currently if you use an alternate app store, you have to enable side loading from anywere. You should be able to load an app as an "AppStore" application, and from that point forward, the OS should treat it as a trusted repository. This way we could all turn off load from "unknown sources".
Its funny how you manage to turn a postive into a negative. You don't even have the option of installing other legit sources on iOS or Windows Phone/RT.
And enabling "unknown sources" doesn't open your phone to vulnerabilities unless you are an idiot, even with that box ticked you'll still get prompted when you want to install apps, so its not like anything can sneak itself onto your phone without your permission, if you stick to Amazon's app store you'll likely be just as safe as you would with Google's play store.
also why other pro apps will not be in other app stores.
adobe CS 30% cut is way to high and sand boxing.
autocad 30% is to high as well.
So, that means they won't be in the Windows App Store, either, nor will they ever be in the Google Play Store.
Yes, the Windows App Store goes down to 20% after so much volume (which Apple would do, too, if there were actually any pressure to do so); but I'm pretty sure that won't be sufficient to both of those TRULY money-hungry publishers.
Interestingly enough, both of your example companies actually have plenty of touch applications.
In fact, speaking of Autodesk, the long-standing Mac-centric Architectural site, Architosh, in a review of the Autodesk app "Formit", said the following:
"We are getting deeply impressed by Autodesk’s commitment to Apple’s mobile iOS platform. No other CAD or 3D company has gone so far this fast in creating a stable of interesting “apps” for Apple’s platform–targeting both iPhone and the newer iPad."
So, not exactly sure where you're getting your "lack of interest", especially in regard to iOS, by these companies.
Apples and Oranges. You are comparing Microsoft's desktop operating system with Apple's mobile operating systems. If you compare Apple's Desktop operating system (OS X) to Microsoft's Desktop Operating System (Windows 8) then you still have the same 3 options: Apple's App Store, Steam, and any website.
If you compare Microsoft's MOBILE operating systems (Windows 8 RT and Windows Phone) to Apple's mobile operating system (iOS), you end up with the same comparison: You are able to get apps from the sanctioned app store of the vendor.
Why do we need app stores that make software 40%+ more expensive (assuming a 30% cut, to make $10 you must charge $14.29)? Can't people sell their own software like on Windows and OS X today?
How much is 40% of FREE? For example, here's a list of (almost all FREE. Not one more than US$5) Autodesk apps for iOS. How much do you think Apple "makes" from them? How much more expensive did the Apple App Store make this software?
And where did you pull 40% from? All 3 of the major "App" Stores take the same 30%
And if it could be done cheaper in a reasonable fashion, don't you think that at least one of those would be doing it?
Oh, excuse me: Microsoft (sort of) is, but only on high-volume sales. For the vast majority of "people" who "sell their own software", it's 30% accross the board.
Maybe there's an Excel port of Farmville 2... or maybe Angry Words or Temple Run Powerpoint.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
You're right Microsoft can provide their store and they do and they take 30%. So really for them to claim Apple is being unfair is hypocritical.
The corporate market is not going anyware. First, MS Office is the defecto standard. Nothing can compare or is 100% compatible iwth all its proprietary formats nor integrates with what they have.
Second, with Google's refusal to support IE 6 and IE 7 plus now even refusing the modern IE 8 means a no go to businesses.
Before I get bashed for calling IE 8 cutting edge, 90% of intranet apps wont support anything newer. This is new software sold right now in 2013 requires it! Sorry Google but HTML 5 is a 2021 technology when Windows 7 goes EOL, not a 2013. We wont switch and many large enterprises like Chase Bank are spending $30 million right this econd upgrading to IE 8. To these CIOs that browser is cutting edge because their +50 apps before it still required IE 6 or 7.
Third, MS wants you to use Metro for everything and if Office is on Android and IOS it means we no longer need Windows. A terrible move for them. Balmer is right and I would have killed it or at least developed them privately for MS employees only and only if Windows RT/Windows Mobile 8 fail would I release them for other platforms.
http://saveie6.com/
How come? Microsoft could have developed its applications for OS/2 (and OS/2-PPC), and proved the DoJ wrong. It could have ported them to VMS, or NEXTSTEP or (w/ more difficulty) any of the Unixes out there. In fact, the biggest evidence against their abuse of monopoly was NT/RISC. If Microsoft really wanted a 'Windows, windows everywhere' as was once alleged, they'd have been more aggressive about getting all their apps on NT/MIPS and getting Silicon Graphics to support it, as well as NT/Alpha, which DEC was doing a good job supporting, as well as Intergraph's Clipper and Sparc ports. Such a policy would have been similar to Linux's goal of 'world domination' in that it would have had NT and Windows apps running on all platforms, and denied the x86 a lock on the market.
So why would Microsoft pick Apple, of all companies, to port its software, when they didn't even have a comprehendible platform strategy at the time?
Windows Store takes 30% off the sale price of the app - not off the price of any in-app purchases, subscriptions etc. You can sell an app for free, and use in-app purchases (your own - so you'll have to handle credit card transactions etc) to enable its functionality.
Apple, on the other hand, wants 30% off Office subscription. Furthermore, they want to keep charging that 30% even after the user who purchased it has migrated away from Apple devices - just because he originally bought it on iPhone.
Great office for iOS, who cares! There are many equally good open source packages that actually bring a more powerful office experience to the user. Personally I'm a big fan of Libre Office and I find it bring more to the table as a great office suite, minus Excel you really don't need office in a given day. So even if Office never see's iOS I don't see a lot of people caring.
Yes but even if they have no choice doesn't mean they have to do it for free.
I think it will all be over for MS of they port Office to iOS and Android.
Think 10 years from now what will be available? Clouds, managed service providers, outsourced IT, HTML 5/6 apps in browsers and applets. Where does Win32 sit in there? It doesn't. Doe the managers today want ugly Metro bulky laptops or sleek sexy IPADS?
Hell, today Citrix makes software as a browser plugin where you can run your IE 6 shit apps on a remote Windows 2k3 server just fine. It is all secured, locked, and works in many different platforms. Now Windows is not needed.
The only thing today in 2013 that is holding management by their balls is Office. Want to check those meetings? Ohh wait I do not have outlook on my IPAD. Want to edit that memo for ... oh wait I need my windows PC with word to do that etc.
Office 365 might do serious damage too as it is not tied to IE or Windows. If I can run Office on my Galaxy tab Android device with my blue tooth keyboard and docking station (this is in the future) then I do not need Metro or Windows 8.
I agree with Balmer on this. Apple is too dangerous and powerfull and you and I both know business users will only get Windows RT pads as IT departments realize Office is a must. It is the glue.
http://saveie6.com/
Only for purchases that go through Apple's system. The main difference is that Apple requires all purchases from within the app to use Apple's system. But you can subscribe (for example) to Office 365 through MS's web site, and Apple is perfectly fine with that.
Clearly there's money to be made by Apple, but at its most fundamental level, the impetus of this is to keep things as simple as possible. On iOS, you only ever need enter your credit card once, to someone you trust, and you use one login and password for everything. And you can rest assured that your purchases are safe and from a reliable source, and operate in the same way every time.
Now, certainly, something like Amazon's Kindle app would be a reasonable exception. I do think Apple should allow book purchases inside the app using Amazon's service, not requiring it go through Apple's, if they can do so while avoiding the mess that I'll describe below. Still, it doesn't complicate things for the user, but if all it was was that one app, I think the tradeoff would benefit the users.
But what happens when it's not just Amazon? After all, doesn't it then make sense that Hulu and Netflix can do the same? And next thing you know, it's back to the chaos Apple is trying to avoid. Now to make use of many high-end apps, you have to sign up with Wolfram, with Adobe, with Amazon, with MS, etc. And it's a mess that I, for one, am glad to do away with, and that's one of the major appeals of the App Store and the whole iOS ecosystem.
Some people want different, and what's great is that OS's like Android is there for them. I don't begrudge people or developers for preferring the Android way. Let them have what they prefer, just as they should let me have what I prefer. Using Android, the whole thing is a mess, sure, but perhaps it's the sort of mess some people prefer. Just not me.
If you put Office on the iPad, the only real reason to buy Surface goes away.
Regarding the "Apple supply bandwidth, infrastructure and payment method" argument that crops up commonly in these discussions - its a facetious argument because the seller HAS NO FUCKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER even if they do have the ability to do it.
Yes, they do. They can not sell on iOS, they can simply put the app out for free and sell the services outside of the App Store from their own website.
Amazon does this very thing with their Kindle app.
I'm sure both Adobe and Microsoft have the ability to replace Apples "contribution" completely, but they aren't allowed to by Apple. They aren't even allowed to attempt to, its completely verboten - you have to use Apples distribution service, you have to use their payment gateway, you have to use their app store otherwise your app simply won't happen.
And thats the point being made. Its not about what Apple offer, its about them refusing to allow those than can equal them in capability to actually do it.
And the user is better off for it! That simplicity is part of the appeal of iOS. One login, one store to keep track of all purchases. No fear in buying an in app purchase from some random game, no having to sign up for each and every developer's personal web storefront just to use their app.
And by doing so, Apple has created the most successful app store ever. Adobe and MS are silly to balk at 30%, when they likely lose more than that selling software discs through third-party stores as it is, and the App Store (and especially, the Mac App Store, for Adobe and MS particularly) has the potential to sell more units
than they sell presently, resulting in greater revenue and profits!
MS has already said the next version of Office will be available through the Mac App Store (though with Office 365, it remains to be seen if this will actually happen), and Adobe sells software through the Mac App Store as well. The only real reason for them to not increase their App Store offerings is if they intend to make their own stores that people have to go through. At which point the user is back where they started, with various annoying stores to have to go through.
It's like Steam, which is great. Then there's GoG and Desura, but that's not too bad, and they offer value that Steam can't match (DRM-free, no central manager you have to use). Now EA's Origin is in the game, with all the annoyance of Steam, but worst in virtually every way.
Man, I absolutely love the peace of mind the App Store gives. And same with Steam. Keep it simple, and users will be far more comfortable and eager to part with their money.
What the fuck are you talking about? Could you resist the urge to push Linux for at least one story? Linux lost the fucking war on the desktop, so just give it up.
And what fee do you think is right for someone that has to supply unlimited bandwidth and insfratructure support to get your app to people everytime they want to reinstall it as well as free 5gb of backup space.
You mean like Microsoft already has in place to support its customers? With its online store, and skydrive?
Why should Microsoft have to give 30% to apple to duplicate infrastructure it ALREADY has in place.
Microsoft isn't a small app developer with no brand recgonition and no infrastructure.
The ONLY reason they "need" apple is because Apple's walled-garden prevents them from interacting directly with customers.
just say that if windows went MS app store only it maybe windows 7 / 8 forever and a mass dumping of windows.
When Apple realizes the market they managed to get consumers interested in is taking off in a new direction and decide to offer the full OSX experience on their tablets, then that would apply.
For the moment though, they are keeping the platform too walled off to be as nimble as Windows 8 and Android are becoming.
Actually, they won't do it because if they do it for one company then every company will be asking for exceptions for one reason or another.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Yeah like Windows store is a walled garden with a 30% fee. Why should Apple go through Windows store to have a tiled application on Windows 8? Because that's what Microsoft wants.
I have no problem with people being against walled gardens. There's a good reason to be against them but Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. They jus tlook like hypocrites.
iCloud will sync your own documents between your own devices - but it has ZERO support for collaboration/sharing with others.
So far, Apple's really dropped the ball on this one. I'm a web guy, but even I work often enough with non-computing folks to realize collaboration tools are essential in today's workplace.
#DeleteChrome
So MS is forgoing revenue altogether over this cut? Seems unlikely. I think giving their own mobile offerings a market advantage and the existing competition on iOS probably have more to do with it. After all, the sell software retail and a lot more than 30% goes to retailer and distributor in that model.
My guess that will come via Office 360 or whatever the online version of MS Office will be. They'll do their best to support iOS and Windows devices at the expense of Android just has Microsoft has with their Azure platform and mobile services. As much as Apple and Microsoft may not like each other, they are both in the position of needed each other for the time being against Google & Android.
I've gotten by the past couple years just fine with what used to be called iWork for Mac and iOS. Recently though, started with a new company and MS Office has been a requirement because we deal with too many other businesses who use it and expect you to use it as well.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Microsoft didn't throw a lifeline to apple, they avoided anti-combine legislation. In any event, microsoft charged apple users 100% of the cost of the software, all of the revenue going to microsoft. Here, apple is only asking for 30%, and microsoft doesn't want to play. Its a common amount that apple is asking for. To me it seems a bit steep, but if microsoft doesn't like it, they can stay out of the smartphone market. Actually they could try a port to Android, but I have a feeling that would go against their religion somehow. Some Linux user would modify the port to run on PC's, and then where would we be?
Why should Apple go through Windows store to have a tiled application on Windows 8?
Which apple application are you referring too here? An imaginary hypothetical one doesn't count. Apple doesn't sell any windows software. The only software they even distribute for windows is itunes/quicktime which is free.
Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. They jus tlook like hypocrites.
They'd only be hypocrites if they refuse to negotiate with large companies that want to sell popular software that costs hundreds of dollars through the app store.
30% cuts make sense for $1 to $5 apps from vendors who have no infrastructure. They don't make sense for autocad and adobe CS or Microsoft Office etc.
But we have no evidence that microsoft is completely inflexible on rates for large partners who wish to sell expensive software in their store. So they aren't hypocrites.
When I started selling apps on the Apple App store and later Google Marketplace I knew other small individuals and small companies who balked at the idea of Apple taking 30%. They viewed they were getting ripped off.
I asked them how much it would cost for them to set up their own website and support infrastructure along with managing things like PCI compliance costs and all the joys that come from dealing with CNP transactions. And don't forget marketing. (yes you still have to do marketing outside of the app store, but the app store does help). And I still maintain a website for my apps, but that runs off Wordpress on a $75 a year Pair lite account.
To me, paying a 30% commission for Apple to take care of all of that backend stuff is well worth it. Same with the Google Marketplace/Play store and even with the Windows Store.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
It's not hypothetical and you can change Apple to any other company. To have a Win 8 tile you apparently need to be in the store which means paying 30% and following their rules which are nearly identical to Apple's.
Slashdot is quickly losing any clout it had gathered in the last 10 years thanks to these new editors in the past few years. I'm all for providing a critical analysis of companies, such as Apple or Microsoft, but this summary was just stupid. Microsoft has been making Office for Mac for YEARS prior to the investment they made in Apple in the late 90's, which was a token gesture to show good faith to the Justice Department because MS was under *criminal* review. They made a significant investment in Apple and brought IE to Mac (and they abandoned both as soon as they could).
Apple has been consistent about charging *everyone* the same percentage to host Apps on the App Store. Microsoft is _leaving_ _money_ on the table by being stubborn and not porting to IOS and playing nicely. Why is this Apples fault? Oh right, this is slashdot.
What happened with MSFT in the 90's and what is happening now are barely even remotely related and not some how ironic.
Back then Office wasn't as entrenched in the business world, either. It was one of several competing systems. Businesses *depending* on Microsoft Office is something that sorta developed gradually in the last 15 years. (Document sharing over the net sorta contributed to that, making the need to get onto a single suite more urgent.)
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Couldn't they just do what some apps already do and require the user to log in to use the service? If it has to have some basic free functionality, they could just make it a viewer for office documents (after all, you can already do that for free). It's not as if Microsoft isn't popular enough that people would know to go to their website even if they can't link to it.
We were never loyal MS Office customers we were chained slaves to our data and other people's data we needed to access but it was practically encrypted by MS so we'd pay them to unlock it. For some people, it IS a tax on email because office docs is what they email (often not needing a word file when an email is just fine.) It is more akin to ezpass on toll roads. Nobody is going to cry when they don't need MS Office, they won't even care or notice -- Office itself annoys users with changes when the same old 20 year old app and GUI is all most of us ever wanted.
APPLE is not the problem; they have those rules for everybody - MS bullies retail stores into special deals because of their monopoly power! Normal biz has to take around a 30% hit to get their software on the shelf and more for shelf placement etc. While an online middle man does not deserve that level of retail markup, it is not an unreasonable overhead cost to the business models. Just because MS can't get SPECIAL treatment anymore I am not going to shed a tear... suck it up MS, if you are so great you will thrive on a level playing field. I'm going to rejoice at this hubris leading towards their downfall as people MIGRATE to other apps to do basic office tasks.
Why does somebody pay for the same old ancient app?? TextEdit is all I need 90% of the time; WordPad too... that is if I'm not just using email or a browser to write something.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
One ... two .. three ... four; ... six ... seven ... eight;
we won't sell your Appstore;
Five
its that'll make win8 great;
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Its funny how you manage to turn a postive into a negative.
It's even funnier that you don't seem to realize that something that has an upside can also have a downside. In fact, that's the norm.
Why not just tack on the 30% for users that buy the subscription/app through an IOS device? Is there something in Apple's TOS preventing app makers from doing this?
I think there's a bigger reason why they haven't released it. I think they've got it working internally, and it sucks big time. They've compared it to Pages, and its a crock of shit. They need another 3 years to rewrite it for tablets. To release it would be simply embarrassing.
Is Office even relevant anymore? A quick check of the Google Play returns the following office apps:
Quickoffice (Google)
OfficeSuite
Kingsoft Office
Smart Office
ThinkFree Office
I personally use Quickoffice and find that it does everything I need it to do. Quickoffice, as well as countless others, also exist on the AppStore so I really don't think anyone will care if Office comes to iOS/Android or not. Ballmer seems to live in a world where he thinks Office matters. It doesn't and his company just doesn't get it.
"Apple's App Store is a thriving marketplace with a huge amount of software available, except Microsoft Office"
What's preventing Microsoft from selling Office for iOS through the Windows Store
AccountKiller
If Apple wants to play hardball when negotiating their sales cut, maybe Microsoft should do the same and block iTunes until they can work out something more reasonable. I think thousands of iPhone/iPad/Touch users screaming at Apple to work it out would motivated them to compromise.
And the user is better off for it!
You're confused. When has a monopoly EVER benefited consumers?
(The answer you're looking for is "never".)
And by doing so, Apple has created the most successful app store ever.
Successful for Apple, not so much for consumers or developers! See, as a consumer, that a particular vendor earns the most profits just means that I'm getting screwed. As a developer, the fact that I make LESS on iOS than on other platforms makes their store seem, well, not at all successful.
I never thought I'd see a company openly shaft vendors and their own customers only to see those same clients turn around and sing their abusers praises! It's like you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
Apple fan's typical response to flagrant abuse.
"Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
Required reading for internet skeptics
To have a Win 8 tile you apparently need to be in the store which means paying 30% and following their rules which are nearly identical to Apple's.
Except we don't actually know those rules are non-negotiable. You are assuming this is the case.
I'm pretty sure both Windows Phone and Android allow you to install Apps outside their respective stores without jailbreaking/rooting the OS.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Anyone who balked at the idea of 30% clearly hadn't worked in the field. I was one of many indies who couldn't believe Apple were only charging 30%!! Finally, we could avoid a raw deal from those evil portal sites that wanted to dictate the game's price, take 50%+ revenue, replace my company logo and branding with their own and remove any links back to my website.
Windows phone will not allow you to run apps unless you get a developer account from Microsoft...see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4229029/can-you-install-you-own-apps-on-your-windows-7-phone. Apple has the exact same policy...you can install your own apps if you get a developer account. Otherwise you can only install apps from Microsoft's app store.
Some android devices do come locked to a specific app store. But most of them don't. For the ones that do, it's often trivial to unlock them. But I don't see how android is relevant since the discussion was about how you shouldn't be comparing Microsoft's desktop operating system to Apple's smartphone/tablet operating system.
I care for neither Microsoft nor Apple offerings, but would like to see a decent office suite, such as LibreOffice, ported to Android. Not that phones and tablets are particularly good platforms for working with large documents, but a decent mobile spreadsheet would be very useful in a lot of jobs.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
And the user is better off for it!
You're confused. When has a monopoly EVER benefited consumers?
(The answer you're looking for is "never".)
That's demonstrably false. An abused monopoly is generally bad, but monopolies themselves aren't necessarily so. Copyright, for example, is a form of beneficial monopoly.
And by doing so, Apple has created the most successful app store ever.
Successful for Apple, not so much for consumers or developers!
Developers and consumers are all, voluntarily, taking part in this, and reaping wonderful rewards. Developers make more money than anywhere else, and consumers have the widest array of quality apps and services to choose from.
What planet are you from?
See, as a consumer, that a particular vendor earns the most profits just means that I'm getting screwed.
Demonstrably false. Who's getting screwed?
As a developer, the fact that I make LESS on iOS than on other platforms makes their store seem, well, not at all successful.
Except they make more. Much, much more. Even Google makes more money from iOS than they make from Android!
I never thought I'd see a company openly shaft vendors and their own customers only to see those same clients turn around and sing their abusers praises!
Maybe that should clue you into the fact that what's happening is not what you think is happening?
It's like you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
Apple fan's typical response to flagrant abuse.
"Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
Who are you to tell me what I should like or not? It's none of your fucking business. If you have any evidence I'm being harmed in some way, I'm open to some factual evidence, and not a bunch of twisted logic and subjective preferences which is up for each person to decide for themselves, and are not universal.
Until then, please learn to let people like what they like, while you like what you like.
its a facetious argument because the seller HAS NO FUCKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER
Of course they have a choice. They have the choice to not develop for the platform if they don't like it.
I'm sure both Adobe and Microsoft have the ability to replace Apples "contribution" completely, but they aren't allowed to by Apple. They aren't even allowed to attempt to, its completely verboten - you have to use Apples distribution service, you have to use their payment gateway, you have to use their app store otherwise your app simply won't happen.
As a user, I'm happy with that. It makes things easier, more consistent and safer to have a one-stop shop.
Autodesk has never made the Macintosh one of their main platforms. Perhaps they are having some fun putting out little applets for iOS, but the CAD scene has never been strong on the Mac platform.
Historically Autocad was a DOS and then Windows platform. Real CAD historically was a UNIX workstation thing.
You're confused. When has a monopoly EVER benefited consumers?
Very often. For example utilities. Imagine if every cable telcom, water and gas supplier had to individually route up every street. The road would be constantly dug up.
Rail - in the UK rail developed by numerous individual companies running in different areas. Most with a different terminus in London. If it'd been a monopoly, they would have had a common terminus in London, and passengers wouldn't have been inconvenienced having to cross London to change between them.
In the long run the individual companies weren't financially viable and the state bought them to create the British Rail monopoly.
In more recent times (about 15 years ago), private sector competition believers split up rail again, and privatised it. Multiple companies again. Since then safety standards plummeted, and ticket prices have risen way over inflation.
Fire service. Roads.
I never thought I'd see a company openly shaft vendors and their own customers only to see those same clients turn around and sing their abusers praises! It's like you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
It's like you don't understand why Apple is so popular. There's none so blind as those that won't see.
So in your imaginary world where Microsoft's terms are negotiable - but only for the big vendors, not the small outfits and the independents.
You think that's morally better? That the big boys get the advantage over everyone else?
You have a warped sense of morality.
Why do we need app stores that make software 40%+ more expensive (assuming a 30% cut, to make $10 you must charge $14.29)? Can't people sell their own software like on Windows and OS X today?
The user experience of buying and installing software on iOS is far better than on Windows or OS X today.
Make Microsoft Office Free!!!
But make it only a viewer unless you have a special email@office.com (which you have to pay for).
And @#$%^ #crApple
Developers make more money than anywhere else
That's obviously FALSE. Do a google search. On which platform are developers earning the most money? Oh, NOT Apple's iOS!
Except they make more. Much, much more. Even Google makes more money from iOS than they make from Android!
Sorry, the FACTS contradict your fantasy.
Why do you enjoy getting shafted?
Required reading for internet skeptics
Have you heard of the term "trojan horse"?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Microsoft is already trying to kill win32 themselves. As far as MS going away in the age of the cloud, they already have their own cloud infrastructure (azure), sell a rapidly improving x64 hypervisor (hyper-V) and are pretty heavily entrenched in most companies with active directory.
Microsoft aren't going anywhere, even if we were to ditch all of our desktops for tablets and store everything in the cloud.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Since Office 2013 includes a cloud service anyway, why not let subscribers get their app for free? The subscription fees are where they're getting their money in that model, not the app sales, and the only way to keep Apple from getting your money is to charge nothing for the app itself. It works fine for Carbonite, CrashPlan, Dropbox, Google Drive... Oh wait, I know why Microsoft won't do that. Because they've always been more motivated by profit than by making things convenient for their users. Say what you want about Apple, but they are extremely user-focused... except when they're convinced they know better than the user what the user *should* want. Sometimes that leads to great things, and other times it's bloody infuriating when they remove a feature people actually used.
Since Microsoft OWN part of Apple (and Facebook etc), or at least used to own part of Apple :)
Developers make more money than anywhere else
That's obviously FALSE. Do a google search. On which platform are developers earning the most money? Oh, NOT Apple's iOS!
That's absurd. Who pays out the most? Apple. There's no debate possible on that fact. iOS users spend more on apps.
Except they make more. Much, much more. Even Google makes more money from iOS than they make from Android!
Sorry, the FACTS contradict your fantasy.
This is tiresome. Google makes money on ads. They serve more ads to iOS users than Android users. End of.
Why do you enjoy getting shafted?
What makes you think I'm getting shafted? I'm exceedingly happy with my iOS devices. I'm just reasonably happy with my Android devices. In both cases, I paid my money, and got exactly what I wanted and expected. What's wrong with that?
Ah, I see you failed to find anything to contradict the study I posted.
Big surprise.
Look, I know that you really can't stand the FACTS, but they are what they are. Get over it.
Required reading for internet skeptics
you may be right but that implies it's a non-level playing field for devs. Yep, that'll draw people in to develop for their non/existent phone and tablet market to make apps.
When Apple realizes the market they managed to get consumers interested in is taking off in a new direction and decide to offer the full OSX experience on their tablets, then that would apply.
You mean the direction Microsoft is taking with Windows 8? Hate to break it to you, but that's NOT the direction the market is going. Microsoft's been trying to put Desktop Windows on tablets for the last 2 decades. It's failed every time. The successful direction for tablets is scaling up mobile phones, not scaling down desktops.
Autodesk has never made the Macintosh one of their main platforms. Perhaps they are having some fun putting out little applets for iOS, but the CAD scene has never been strong on the Mac platform.
Historically Autocad was a DOS and then Windows platform. Real CAD historically was a UNIX workstation thing.
You need to look recently. Other than Inventor (which the still haven't ported for some unknown reason), AutoDesk has made a very STRONG commitment to OS X, and particularly with AutoCAD. And even Inventor (as well as others) are fully supported under Windows virtualization on the Mac.
And if you want a full Unix-Style OS X compatible World-Class CAD/CAM/CAE environment, look no farther than Siemens, who has ported their Unigraphics UG/NX PLM Suite to several platforms, including, as of 2009, to OS X. And I do believe that this package SMOKES that nasty AutoCAD, because even VectorWorks does that, quite handily. And VectorWorks has existed on Macs since at least 1989.
They really will spend billions. The esimates are that M$ will flush over $1.5 billion in marketing Vista 8. Some estimates are a little higher. Whether that is enough to overcome the suckiness and buy some market share still remains to be seen. So far it's not doing well on the desktop and is still a no-show in the tablet space. And what they are about to try with Dell might tip the hands of the other OEMs over to Android/Linux or GNU/Linux
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The complexity of multi simultaneous users vs. syncing documents sequentially between devices is like an order of magnitude. It is rather easy to have conflict resolution strategies (i.e. merge) based on time when you start talking intelligent commutable change sets that's a very hard problem. Multi-user is not just a throw in, you design a product ground up to support that.
Retail outlets purchase product at wholesale prices, then resell to earn their profit. Too high of a markup, and they take a loss on the entire product. There is no such risk with appstores -- Apple will not be left with a warehouse full of apps if they choose to charge too much of a markup. The risk is shifted entirely to the developer; Apple literally has no skin in the game.
Your analogy is wholly inapplicable.
Um... You seem to have failed to notice that you didn't post a study to *be* contradicted.
You posted, "Do a google search." and made some more (unsupported) claims.
And, FYI, the Google search I ran provided results that support *his* claims, not yours.
Yep. I did some (minor) PalmOS development back in the day. Many of the online stores for software back then had the same 70:30 split, but the *store* kept the 70%. Some of them even proceeded to charge you for things like credit card processing, and storage/bandwidth fees out of the leftover 30%.
Retail stores typically took *much* more than 30%, if you could even get them to *carry* your software.
Sorry that's not really relevant. When I buy a car I don't think of how much it would cost me to make my own.
If the market is closed (like iOS) then the consumer is going to get ripped off. Microsoft and Apple are all doing what they have calculated to be in their best long-term financial interest -- that's fine for them.
What you should be worried about is if there is sufficient competition so that you are getting the best price for the services received. In this case there is competition for the app development process, but none for the distribution. Therefore you are getting ripped off somewhere between 0-30% but you will never know because the marketplace cannot set a fair price.
Or is Microsoft being shrewd? there is no solid Office package for the iOS. The Office is one of the few appealing things on the Surface tablet.