MS Office For Android: Pretty, But Woefully Incomplete

mattydread23 writes "The new Office 365 app for Android, launched a week ago, has a super nice UI, but lacks a bunch of basic features and has some really weird oversights — including a classic Microsoft dialog box that offers a choice that makes no sense. 'Overall, it still feels like Microsoft is still trying to funnel people toward its own Windows Phone if they want a better experience. In fact, in a question on an FAQ about how the Android Office app compares to the Windows Phone Office app, Microsoft says this: “Office Mobile on Windows Phone 8 provides a richer, more integrated experience,” and goes on to specify how. That’s a losing strategy when so many other apps — many of them free — offer a richer experience on Android and iOS.' "

Comments

Typical Microsoft approach

[93 Escort Wagon]

There are people in the organization who understand where things are heading in the future, and have convinced the company leadership that they need to be on iOS and Android or get left behind. But the old school mentality dies hard, and Microsoft has painted itself into a corner by making Office one of the fundamental selling points for its tablets (which is flawed thinking anyway, and shows they still don't grasp the market). So this is what you end up with - a crappy office experience on iOS and Android that only serves to make the company look bad.

Re:Typical Microsoft approach

[houstonbofh]

My grandfather used to call it "Tripping over nickels to pinch pennies." Using Office to push an unpopular tablet, to someone who already owns a tablet, only promotes the Office alternatives.

Re:Typical Microsoft approach

[ackthpt]

There are people in the organization who understand where things are heading in the future, and have convinced the company leadership that they need to be on iOS and Android or get left behind. But the old school mentality dies hard, and Microsoft has painted itself into a corner by making Office one of the fundamental selling points for its tablets (which is flawed thinking anyway, and shows they still don't grasp the market). So this is what you end up with - a crappy office experience on iOS and Android that only serves to make the company look bad.

Once again this underscores the incredible luck Microsoft have been riding for decades, after big businesses opted to standardize micro computers on MS-DOS PCs. Microsoft never had to claw their way to the top, they just bundled, bought up and drove other competition to ruin by immoral business practices. They haven't lost their way, they never had it to begin it. Apple and Google have carved out the smart phone and tablet markets and made them what they are - a war for supremacy. Microsoft are still playing silly games, like they have some dominant market position.

Re:Typical Microsoft approach

[0123456]

They do, but despite mathematics being compulsory for most CS courses .. geeks just don't get it.

Microsoft have a dominant market position in the smart phone and tablet markets?

You must be using some new branch of mathematics that I wasn't previously aware of.

Re:Typical Microsoft approach

[Mitchell314]

Mathemagics, apparently.

Re:Typical Microsoft approach

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Microsoft have a dominant market position in the smart phone and tablet markets?
You must be using some new branch of mathematics that I wasn't previously aware of.

No, Microsoft has proven it statistically, the proof just involves extensive use of i - and a couple of NaN's.

Re:Typical Microsoft approach

[ozmanjusri]

You must be using some new branch of mathematics that I wasn't previously aware of.

Or Excel for Android.

Re:Typical Microsoft approach

[DrXym]

I have yet to see a virtual keyboard which is remotely as fast as a physical keyboard and I very much doubt you have either.

Re:Typical Microsoft approach

[ackthpt]

"Once again this underscores the incredible luck Microsoft have been riding for decades, after big businesses opted to standardize micro computers on MS-DOS PCs. Microsoft never had to claw their way to the top, they just bundled, bought up and drove other competition to ruin by immoral business practices."

You were clearly not around in the 80's.

"Big businesses" did not standardize on MS-DOS, they standardized on IBM and specifically on PC-DOS. MS-DOS was not the same and PCs that couldn't run PC-DOS were failures. Ask AT&T and TI. IBM was the company, MS was a cling-on. They would have been snuffed out if they didn't earn their way elsewhere.

On the OS front, MS has to compete with several alternatives for the PC dekstop, Topview and GEM to name a couple. It created a fully virtual windows product, Windows/386, that was the first truly useful desktop 386-specific product. It created a worthy adversary (NT) to the 286-OS/2 disaster. It created a viable, portable OS that ran on RISC workstations while still running DOS apps. That countered the threat of a dominant Intel. It had to take on IBM while partnering with them and produce a truly excellent product in Windows NT while doing so. It established Win16 and Win32 as the dominant programming interfaces while IBM was pushing their own lock-in. It accomplished all this while Novell had an absolute stranglehold in networking. It sent Novell packing at the same time, not something that people might have predicted at the time. Netware was THE product, LAN Manager was a toy. How times changed.

Meanwhile, Word quickly became a technically excellent product and their office suite competed well with another huge competitor with dominant marketshare. That market wasn't gifted to MS, they earned it and put down Wordperfect in the process.

Finally, Microsoft's bread and butter comes from software for which the industry has never produced viable competition. That's not MS's fault. As the de facto sole supplier of software platforms, it's MS's job to shepherd the industry and drive standards. By and large they do a grim job of that, but MS did PnP which was revolutionary for PCs. They, more than anyone else, create the technical umbrella under which companies like Apple can pluck off-the-shelf components and pretend to be superior engineers. PCs work because of astronomical efforts by countless engineers. MS plays a big role in that.

Sure, MS was/is ruthless and unethical, but to say MS is a product of nothing more than incredible luck for decades is simply ignorant. MS was methodical and technically excellent. They made consistently the best development tools and developed viable offerings in every area that mattered. They destroyed their competition on the field even as they stabbed them in the back off of it. MS fought their way to the top in multiple simultaneous markets.

I was there in the 1980's. The PC was the platform of choice, despite some alternatives. Even the Mac preceded the disaster known as Windows 95, but IBM didn't take desktop PCs very seriously.

The IBM PC XT and PC AT were starters, but clones were everywhere and there was a thriving upgrade market from nearly the beginning from 3rd party vendors. Then the PS/2 line came out and was a monstrosity, particularly if you wanted to upgrade anything, which you pretty much couldn't - you had to buy a higher model PS/2. They were expensive, cranky and slow. Microsoft just kept selling MS-DOS versions, because IBM let them. Had IBM at any time told Microsoft they could no longer sell their competing operating system on the 8088 and x86 systems Microsoft would be but a memory these days.

Microsoft succeeded without having to build any hardware, only sell an operating system, incrementally upgrade it and collect more fees and pick up some office software to re-brand as their own.

Competing against IBM wasn't difficult and for Microsoft there were few other operating systems to contend with on PCs they defined the growth and rolled out the massively flawed Windows 95 to unparalleled success.

Now Apple and Google (Android) are sidelining Microsoft in the same way Microsoft sidelined IBM in the PC market.

Re:Typical Microsoft approach

[Agent0013]

So.... * if Google publishes something 'decent but much better on android' then it's Apple's fault. * if MS publishes something decent but much better on WP8' then it's MS's fault.

What's with all the MS hate here anyway... if you don't like it don't buy it and just walk on. Do people get some kind of ego-boost out of bad-mouthing every single MS-product or decision ? Sjeezsss...

Obvious troll here! If Apple prevents Google from releasing something as good as they have on Android, then yes it is Apple's fault. But you probably think that makes the Apple system better anyway. Google is doing nothing to prevent MS from publishing, but they purposely choose to make a sucky product. The only thing MS would make that doesn't suck would be a vacuum.

They brought back Clippy

[Anonymous Coward]

"...including a classic Microsoft dialog box that offers a choice that makes no sense"

Clippy, is that you?

Classic disruptive technology

[mcrbids]

Microsoft has a long standing, dominant set of softwares (Windows/Office) that has been its cash cow for longer than many of us have been old enough to vote. It's the classic case for disruptive technologies:

1) The old, highly profitable incumbent using old technology and charging pretty pennies for it.

2) The new upstart technology, able to do similar stuff in a new context and dramatically cheaper.

3) Incumbent tries to mash its old technology into the new context to preserve its margins.

4) Incumbent dies a death of a thousand paper cuts as the new context, typically more nimble and with an entirely new, cheaper cost structure, slowly peck at the old incumbent until it's irrelevant.

Many of us old-timers remember when IBM ruled the roost for the PC. Some of us remember when DEC was the dominant force for mini computers. A few of us remember when IBM ruled the roost for computing mainframes, before the mini computer took sway.

We should give Microsoft lots of credit. Microsoft had a *long* time at the helm. It was able to cash in on the entire PC revolution, and even much of the Internet revolution, until the Mobile revolution, which it foresaw a decade or more in advance and tried hard (but hardly) to embrace.

For me, going from Windows Phone 6.1 to Android 2.2 on a Motorola Droid 2 was like going from a rusty riding lawn mower to an LXi Convertible. It's sad, really. Microsoft had its part in the mobile game for several hardware generations, and they were beaten so mightily that they are now basically the upstarts trying to be a halfway, third place contender.

Admire what they've done, but this mobile situation is just sad given how hard they tried.

Re:Classic disruptive technology

[houstonbofh]

I do respect what they did. But I am not sad to see them going...

Should be called Office Lite

[ackthpt]

Considering the number of people on Android, they could get the impression that Office 365 is a poor hack and opt for something else. Stupid, short-sighted move by Microsoft.

Re:Should be called Office Lite

[BrokenHalo]

... they could get the impression that Office 365 is a poor hack and opt for something else.

Indeed. Such as LibreOffice, which is (I read) in active development, and available in pre-alpha form for Android already.

There will no doubt be a chorus in favour of so-called "cloud"-based office applications, but I don't see any likelihood of localhost programs dying out soon. There are still many (myself included) who don't trust other people's servers, or who (also including myself) who can't count on a permanent connection to the internet.

Office365 login is broken

[DigiShaman]

Started this afternoon, but the login screen is broken at www.office365.com. Instead, you can access your account at login.microsoftonline.com

BTW, in the process of migrating for a client. And they pull this shit mid-flight into it. Thanks M$!

Seems like a touchy strategy...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I can understand that Microsoft doesn't want to leave Windows RT even deader in the water than it already is (presumably this is why their Android application point-blank doesn't support tablets, only phones); but it strikes me that they might be overplaying their hand.

The market for office suites that are identical to Office is quite large, quite lucrative; but also has very high barriers to entry. Even Microsoft has shown limited ability (at least within a useful timeframe) to rebuild such a beast (notably, they had to drag all of Windows Desktop mode, and the supporting libraries, into the otherwise all-Metro Windows RT to support Office, even then lacking some features, because they have no 'metro' Office suite.)

Unfortunately for them, while the market for somewhat-compatible-with-Office office suites isn't nearly as lucrative, it's substantially more competitive, with comparatively low barriers to entry and some competent players.

Microsoft seems to be playing with crippling their offerings of a somewhat-compatible-with-Office software package as though they were working from the position of strength provided by selling a 100% Office office suite. Which, outside of Windows proper, they don't do, and may not even be able to do. That seems like it isn't going to work out exactly as planned...

Re:Seems like a touchy strategy...

[CaptQuark]

Every release or two, Microsoft creates a new file format .. it then takes the competitors 5 years to catch up at which time, MS releases a new file format.

Microsoft opened the barn doors when they pushed to have the office format declared an Open Standard. They were very nervous that other file formats would be declared the new preferred open format by governments and organizations trying to get away from closed, undocumented, and proprietary formats. This has allowed other office suites to accurately read and write documents in Microsoft's formats. If Microsoft now tries to change their format again, without documenting all the changes, they risk having the Office 2010 format declared the only supported file format users are allowed to use by many companies. Microsoft's last couple of releases have done nothing but change the UI or licensing terms without adding anything substantive.

The horse has left the barn and Microsoft will have a devil of a time getting it back in.

Re:Seems like a touchy strategy...

[JImbob0i0]

But did any version of MS Office actually use the ISO/IEC 29500:2008 standard in the end?

There was so much hand waving and so on - especially given the Office spec this was based on used the ECMA standard - and a few ethereal promises later on ...

But did they ever (so far as was possible given the appalling state of the spec) actually get to implementing what was agreed on?

I love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

First they killed the Window OS with Windows 8. Then they killed the Windows tablet with Windows RT. Now they're killing MS Office with MS Office For Android.

Is there really anything left to kill?

I love it!

Re:I love it!

[Zelos]

They tried pretty hard to kill off Windows Phone by orphaning their existing WP7 users and apps with the switch to WP8. It still seems to be limping along somehow though.

Perfect meaning awful

[tuppe666]

perfect when it is applied in their own os and not in other OS.

What you are implying is that Microsoft cannot code cross platform Applications in a cross platform world. Android has passed 900,000,000 Users and is set to eclipse Windows(On around 1.2 Billion Users) this year. Microsoft need to compete, and to do so they need to produce first class products. Creating poor versions, will further tarnish an already poor brand...All of us use Microsoft's Software, and are more than aware how far from perfect it is on its own platform.

Re:Just Perfect in Windows Phone

[rudy_wayne]

I understand that microsoft wants to serve their user even in android mobile but their software is only perfect when it is applied in their own os and not in other OS.

The OS is irrelevant. Windows, OSX, whatever, it doesn't matter. The problem is trying to put an application like Office on a phone. Sorry, but that's just stupid.

Oh no.

[symbolset]

Microsoft wouldn't want to start looking outdated and monopoloistic.

Re:Just Perfect in Windows Phone

[tlhIngan]

I understand that microsoft wants to serve their user even in android mobile but their software is only perfect when it is applied in their own os and not in other OS.

Except the one in Windows 8 RT and Windows Phone are standalone Office.

The office for Android and iOS are front ends to Office365, the cloud version of Office, and a subscription service.

Microsoft should make an effort to making these Office365 clients good because if they're good, they promote usage of Office365 and thus, subscription revenue. In fact, it's hard to buy regular Office these days because all you see everywhere are Office365 cards.

Another Nail In An Abusive Monopolist

[tuppe666]

Microsoft still has not learned to compete without being abusive monopolist, especially in a market with many competing products. People buy office for compatibility Insurance...Cue scenarios where a power-point document not working justifies the cost to a home user of £8($12) A month...The cost of a top of the range 7" tablet every two years. Competing products are free or equivalent to a one off payment about the same as Microsoft one month from Microsoft. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.office.officehub read the reviews the product is simply annoying what should be potential customers by overcharging for an Office product.

The fact that this software is impossible to find on the play store(unlike 365 Sex positions...seriously there are not that many)...its incompatible with my devices, and doesn't work on the more useful tablets!? Microsoft do not understand that people will buy into there ecosystem if you offer them a great product...at great value. If those exist, potential customers may be more willing to look at Microsoft's hardware offerings as something more than a sad joke.

So wait..

[Rainwulf]

A microsoft product, not tested properly, telling you a more expensive version is better, and with little common sense, designed for hardware that microsoft didnt design?

So, its a standard microsoft product then right? This isnt actually news.

News would be if it worked and worked well.

WinCE was once big

[dutchwhizzman]

Apple and Google rule the smart phone world now, but before the iPhone you wanted WinCE devices like the XDA and iPaq. They had the chance and the market position but failed to conquer the iPhone successfully. By the time there was "Apple, BlackBerry and the rest" Google got in and by combining google accounts and multiple vendors offering the same OS, they got their current position. MicroSoft kept trying combining their desktop business model and apps with mobile, resulting in expensive phones that lacked features people wanted and came with features people weren't interested in at that price point. Developers were angry because all their apps needed to be rewritten for newer winCE/windows phone versions and if you wanted a newer windows phone version, you had to buy a new phone with it. There was a lot of inconsistency and doubt about how future proof an investment in the mobile windows phone platform would be for almost any party in the smart phone economy, resulting in people betting on other horses.

MicroSoft had the position, they created it themselves and then lost it once the smart phone really started taking off as a platform. MicroSoft had their way, they worked hard for it but they thought that they could pull another MS-DOS on the organizer-turned-smart-phone and then messed it up.

Re:WinCE was once big

[dfghjk]

Microsoft never had the position and WinCE devices were never wanted. Prior to iOS and Android there was Blackberry and Palm (and Symbian). Microsoft was only an alternative and always a pretty crappy one. You need to get your history straight.

Fact is, Apple only had an opening in smartphones because none of the other vendors could make a product that worked. Palm had nice apps but its OS was primitive and unstable. Symbian was the opposite, good OS but terrible apps. MS was bloated and slow with bad human factors and devices with awful battery life. Apple's "innovation" was a device that didn't crash several times a day, had good human factors, and wasn't tethered to a wall outlet. Meanwhile, souped up Blackberry pagers were popular with people who needed to get work done.

The problem with MS isn't that they had the market and lost it, it's that they never made a product worth having and no one wanted it.

Who cares?

[aaaaaaargh!]

What do you want with an office package on a phone or tablet anyway? Are there really any people who write lengthy documents on their glossy, greasy tablet touch screens?

Really, this telephone and tablet hype bullshit is just becoming ridiculous.

Re:Who cares?

[Errol backfiring]

Are there really any people who write lengthy documents on their glossy, greasy tablet touch screens?

Probably not that many. However, there may be more people who edit an existing lengthy document on a portable device.

Apple Copies Great Design

[tuppe666]

I find it funny that if the same thing happened on iOS with a different company, the comments would be more like "a great app that leaves out the things you don't really need" and "well optimized user interface that doesn't get in the way".

Since it's MS, it's "woefully incomplete"....

The bottom line is Metro is not great design. iOS is now unfairly being compared to Vista..when in reality it is simply behind Android, absorbing many much needed Android (and WebOS) like features into iOS. Its difficult to remember with its now "Fuck the American worker" advertisements while spilling design gobbligook that is simply offensive...how awesome iOS was when it was released, and why its so difficult to move on from. Samsung internal 132-page document comparison wrongfully used in the trial shows how far ahead iOS was than Android (and how quickly it has fallen behind) http://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evaluation-Report-on-S1-iPhone it also highlights some great design in iOS.

The bottom line is *simplifying* and *woefully incomplete* are not the same thing, one provides better access to better access to functions you need in a convenient; rational; intuitive form; The other makes the program unusable. completely different ends of the spectrum.

Nowhere near it

[dbIII]

Even the tiny keyboard on my N900 is vastly easier to use than the virtual android things.

Old tactics, really

[Camael]

And much of their old dominance was founded on their monopoly of the OS through windows, and they were not shy about (ab)using it.

For example, they allegedly tweaked Win95 to kill WordPerfect. Novell sued but lost the court case.

Novell had accused the company of crippling WordPerfect, by deliberately removing Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) which it used from windows 95, even though they were present in the beta version of the operating system.

To kill off Netscape, they not only bundled IE with every copy of Windows but also allegedly altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) in the OS to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers. This led directly to the anti-trust lawsuit by the government against MS.

Now that the fight is over mobile and tablet space, MS is still sticking to its game plan by trying to leverage its old dominance into these new markets. Hence you only get the full product (in this case, Office) if you use Winph8 for mobile or Surface Pro for tablets. Their hand is weaker though since they do not control the underlying OS (iOS and Android) so they are relying on attachment to Office to drive the numbers.

If mobile Office really is that important to you

[InsGadget]

Maybe you really should just get a Windows Phone? And where's the outrage for the nonexistent access to Google services on Windows Phone? Even though there are more than 30 million WPs in the wild, Google is obviously doing their best to drive people to Android. I guess everyone's just crying because Android is the market share leader?