or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Most office workers aren't actually using Microsoft Office
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Most office workers aren't actually using Microsoft Office - Page 3

post #81 of 133
I work in a local council in the UK and Office is installed right across the board for about 1,000 employees.

There is no way that we would move to another program like Google Docs or OpenOffice. Our IT department would allow it, probably for security reasons, but also because the majority of staff aren't computer savvy enough to know their way around other programs. We only just finished moving to Windows 7 and Office 2010 and that was challenging enough for them!
post #82 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
 

 

No. They're not.

 

Windows has about 91% desktop market share (source). That's about the same as two years ago. Is that what you call 'dying'? Windows 8 may not have taken off as MS would have expected, but Windows still has an absolute stranglehold in the desktop market.

 

Likewise, Office still has a stranglehold in the corporate environment. Web-based alternatives like Google Apps or competing products like iWork  may be gaining in popularity among consumers, but it is the corporate space where the money is made.

 

If you look per year on the source page you provided, you see that MacOS is increasing each year, while Windows is declining each year. It takes a long time before that growth starts to really accelerate. My guess it will take maybe 2-3 years before Mac is over 10%, and another 5-6 years before Mac is over 40%. 

 

Microsoft is losing on marketshare on Desktop. It´s an declining business for them.

post #83 of 133
It would be interesting to know what office software Apple itself uses routinely. I cannot imagine their accounting and finance departments using anything but Excel.
Edited by pembroke - 5/4/14 at 3:07am
post #84 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Wait... is this "Attack Microsoft Saturday"? I thought it was "Attack Samsung Saturday"...

Hey, sh!t is sh!t ... .
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #85 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

what would be the need to use Acrobat Pro on a Mac?  I'm not trying to set you up here. I honestly, don't know. I thought Acrobat Pro's whole reason for existing was to produce PDF documents.  With Mac you just select "print to PDF" to accomplish that goal.   What am I missing??

There is a LOT of functionality in Acobat that isn't in Mac OS X's built in save to PDF. I don't use any of it personally. But I do observe my companion using it for her non-profit and related things. Mostly forms, and mostly filling them out, but also sometimes creating them. Also, using OCR to create text from imported document scans, so the content is indexable and searchable. Can't do that with the built-in Mac PDF writer.

I love having the basics of PDF included in Mac OS; they're really all I personally use. I don't exist in a corporate environment, so I don't know what the common uses are today. But there's WAY more in Acrobat than merely turning a document into a PDF. I always felt most of it was utterly irrelevant and bloated the program to the point of sluggishness... But some people use all that stuff. At least, someone better be using it, or Adobe needs to do a major feature culling.
post #86 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by pembroke View Post

It would be interesting to know what office software Apple itself uses routinely. I cannot imagine their accounting and finance departments using anything but Excel.

I bet they're still using the older '09 version of iWork. This is why I found it appalling what they did to the suite with the new 2013 version. If their office people use Windows and Office, or even Macs and Office that would be a hugely embarrassing news story. Like when Microsoft was found to be running some of its servers on Linux.
post #87 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post
Are the laws completely different in Canada than in the U.S. regarding kids' use of online services?

As far as I know, Google doesn't allow kids under 13 to use services like gmail and google docs due to federal COPPA laws. Because there is no option to use gmail, google docs, etc. without allowing them to create their world-famous, amazingly detailed psychological profiles of you as a user (product), they don't allow kids to use said services without parental sign off. Last time I checked that required more than checking a box on a web page, it was stuff like a photocopy of your passport or driver's license or sending them your credit card data.

It's nothing to do with 'world-famous, amazingly detailed psychological profiles' - according to the COPPA laws, even email addresses and IP addresses are 'personal information'. It doesn't matter if a company has the most stringent privacy policy in the world - if you sign up for an email address, that's 'collecting personal information' and they have to comply with COPPA. Hell, if you hit a 404 page on a site and the webserver logs the error (which it invariably will), that's 'collecting personal information' because they logged your IP.

 

If the FCC thinks your site is 'directed to children under 13' or that you know people under 13 are using your site, you basically have to do all the COPPA stuff.

 

http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus84-childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-six-step-compliance-plan-your-business

post #88 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

there is a troubling trend in that software is continued to be devaluated. First through the Open Source movement, then through introduction of relatively low priced App store models and free Ad based models and social networks.  Companies which make their money purely from SW products (w/o adds) are finding it hard to convince people to pay a premium for their offerings and make compelling updated versions worthy of upgrade.   Many are going to a forced subscription models like Adobe and Microsoft because of this upgrade issue.    I'm not sure it will be successful based on the backlash I have observed from users.   I fear that pure SW companies as we know it are in trouble.  

Good. They deserve to be. This has been a long time coming. Software has no warranty whatsoever. No accountability by its publishers. The way consumers have been treated, charged, abandoned, etc, the industry has only itself to blame.

I'm not really talking about the little independent companies, though many of them are just as bad. It's software as an industry. The way it is handled overall. It's an abysmally bad business that has made untold billions of dollars by defrauding its own customers with broken product and providing no resolution but "buy the upgrade".

Is it any wonder that people have a hard time understanding software as licensed property? The people who deserve respect as developers are few and far between and have small dedicated customer bases. The rest is abusive capitalist greed of market, sell, abandon, sell again, repeat.
post #89 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

reading more about PDF changes between Mac OS X "print to PDF" generated version 1.3 and latest Adobe Pro generated version 1.7, looks like Mac "print to PDF" users are missing out on further encryption algorithm options, embedding JPEG2000, XML forms, 3D models, Javascript and Flash. 

Not being able to embed 3D models, javascript, and Flash are no losses whatsoever. In fact, I consider the lack of JavaScript and Flash to be benefits, both in performance and security.
post #90 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

To be fair, if you are comparing reading a pdf file in Safari while downloading it from the web, to reading the same pdf file in Preview when it is already on your hard drive, there are going to be differences. To take the Internet out of the equation, try reading a pdf file that is on your computer by draging it into your Safari window. I think you will notice quite a difference in how smoothly it scrolls.

No the difference is pretty clear between Acrobat Reader outside a browser on my PC and the same document on my Mac in Preview. Acrobat Reader is bloated and slow. Preview ignores all the crap it can't handle and just gives you the basics. This is great until you need the extra crap for some reason.
post #91 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

seems to me we are witnessing that same sort of problem we saw with the progression of Adobe Flash.  Wonder how much of this is due to Adobe's need to keep doing development on a product in order to force upgrades.  I guess they simply can't figure out how to stop development on a product before it becomes a basket case from overdevelopment.    The fact that we have a "Portable Document Format" keeps changing and generates incompatible documents unless you have the latest version, is sad.  We are no better off then we were with incompatible Office document versions, IMHO.

We have a winner here!

Yes, the over engineering of Acrobat defeats its intended purpose. Adobe itself is killing it by compulsively needing to sell the same crap to the same people every year. This is one of the built in self destruct mechanisms of software as product in corporate America. Many products get to a robust and reliable state, only to be ruined by the corporate overseers demanding it continues to grow market share and sell more each year. This is a perfect example of how the myth of perpetual growth in capitalism turns into a dystopian disaster for consumers.
post #92 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggf View Post

The problem is Microsoft keeps mucking around with office and changing the interface in ways that make it less useable.
Every time they bring out a new version you have to relearn how to do things because they have moved things or added a forth or fifth way of doing something which is incomparable with the first three ways. They are doing this to try and drive the upgrade cycle but it is a major reason why people are not upgrading and are staying with old versions. The subscription model is just another way of trying to keep the cash flow up. When you don't sell the hardware you get pushed into this sort of thing

Once again, why software as a capitalist venture in perpetual growth is doomed to fail. It's a very slow failure and it punishes the customers before it punishes the developer, but it does eventually punish the developer. Then they find new ways of forcing consumers to keep spending money every year by going to subscriptions.

These companies presented product that was at one time useful. Consumers bought into it and used it. The software was successful enough to become common in many/most use scenarios. But then the growth slows and the selling company demands changes be made to the product in order to re-sell it to all the same customers that already have it. This goes on until the changes become worse for the consumer and only serve the seller, as most development has degraded into change for the sake of change, reshuffling the deck chairs, ... essentially a carrot and stick to promote sales, not improve usability. Core product features that could be improved do not get development priority because they're not marketable. The product bloats and consumers as a mass start to recognize (usually far too late) that it's not in their interests any more to upgrade. And along comes the subscription scheme and marketing people to promote it at your company's IT department. Since everyone in IT fears losing their jobs to technology that actually works easily for average human being and doesn't require constant babysitting, they eat it up, being part of the problem, not the solution. It's like watching a union go from being a system of protecting workers to being a self-sustaining entity that only seeks to maintain itself as an organization: the mission has been lost.
post #93 of 133

Title:

Quote:
 Most office workers aren't actually using Microsoft Office

 

Article:

Quote:
 70 percent of employees were only using the productivity software for viewing or light editing. 

 

So nearly 3/4 employees still use Office in some capacity, nice clickbait / red herring title. That's like saying most people don't use a computer, because they only open Safari; well no, that's still false. Of course the vast majority aren't using most of the features in Office, that's hardly new, hell Microsoft admitted that 10 years ago themselves. That was their justification for changing the UI to the 'ribbon' thing, to get more features in front of 'average users'. Clearly that strategy hasn't worked and now there's other cheaper / easier solution players. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #94 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydr View Post

If you look per year on the source page you provided, you see that MacOS is increasing each year, while Windows is declining each year. It takes a long time before that growth starts to really accelerate. My guess it will take maybe 2-3 years before Mac is over 10%, and another 5-6 years before Mac is over 40%. 

Microsoft is losing on marketshare on Desktop. It´s an declining business for them.

You know there q1 2014 figures out right? 73 million pc sold with 4 million being macs, so in the latest quarter mac accounts for 5.5%, which is less than what the source says. Moreover in msft lastest quarter, msft sold more windows liscnese y-oy. So do not be coy.
post #95 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickFaced View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMacMan View Post

You can also combine PDF's into one PDF. I feature that I haven't found on the Mac without Acrobat Pro. Maybe I am wrong but that has been my experience.

Drag one PDF on top of the thumbnail in an open PDF in preview. It combines the two. I dropped Acrobat pro years ago.

This worked great in OSX 10.6. In 10.9 it fights me and behaves inconsistently.

Some of the posters here act like Adobe and Microsoft are the only SW vendors that "update" software to churn sales and FUD users.

dysamoria makes valid points but is clouded by anger.

The real problem is that software has become "fashion" driven. Not a viable concept for those trying to run a business.

At some point in the not too distant future, a major cloud repository is going to get hacked.

This will help kill outsourcing and vendor-clouding of user data.

http://youtu.be/mvsQjprz1x4
post #96 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

Once again, why software as a capitalist venture in perpetual growth is doomed to fail. It's a very slow failure and it punishes the customers before it punishes the developer, but it does eventually punish the developer.

Sorry I think this rant is a bit extreme. The issue here is that it is just the product life cycle at work. Standard marketing theory - look it up.

It happens to every product. It is not punishing the developer - the developers just need to move on to something else that is needed. The problem is just that Microsoft/Adobe etc need to stop trying to get more and more milk out of the cow. As the cow gets older the returns decrease. Just accept that office/acrobat is no longer a growth item for the company, do the right thing by consumers and bug fix and make small useful improvements and keep making money. Think about calculators or for that matter the ipod. Explosive growth and improving features at the beginning but after a while people stopped trying to make improvements for improvements sake and they keep on making them and making modest amounts of money. Accept it and move on. Arguably this is also what is happening to the PC.

The trick is to grow old gracefully
post #97 of 133

Google already reads my email. Why would I want them to read my spreadsheets and letters too? No thanks. It is either keep with MS Office for me or Apple's programs.

post #98 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post
 
No the difference is pretty clear between Acrobat Reader outside a browser on my PC and the same document on my Mac in Preview. Acrobat Reader is bloated and slow. Preview ignores all the crap it can't handle and just gives you the basics. This is great until you need the extra crap for some reason.

I just did a careful scrolling comparison between Acrobat and Preview. Both using the most current versions on 2013 MBP running Mavericks. Preview may have a slightly smoother scrolling but so slight as to be almost imperceivable. I think the difference is due in part that Preview decelerates longer after a two finger swipe, where as Acrobat decelerates more quickly which makes it stop a little abruptly but the difference is very minute. One thing I definitely like better about Acrobat is the text search behavior. With Preview the results are linked in the side menu and you have to go clicking on them, where as Acrobat will jump to the next matched text every time you press enter, which is much more convenient when there are a lot of matches in a really long document such as the one I was testing. Just my personal preference. Preview is a pretty nice app. I just never use it because I changed my open with preferences to the respective Adobe CC apps by default.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #99 of 133

For once I'm ashamed about Daniel's reporting. His one paragraph says it all--

 

Study a pitch for Google Apps



The company behind the study sells its app usage analytics to companies as a way to determine their actual needs for licensing Office, and it partners with resellers of Google Apps, which it recommends as an alternative.

 

--and is why I'm upset Daniel even wrote this sales pitch for Google Apps. I only use Microsoft Office and Adobe Reader when I absolutely have to (retired, used Office exclusively at work) but I'll never use anything from Google, especially anything that also uses their cloud storage because I just don't trust them. I'm surprised Daniel even considers using them with the things he writes about Google. Statistics can be skewed to show anything and this is a perfect case where it does. 

 

If someone wants to use Google Apps, go ahead, I'm not stopping you but the results this company found aren't what I saw at work and I dislike Microsoft products as well.

post #100 of 133
I don't think this is a specific Microsoft problem... for years the heavy-lifting of business intelligence has been moving away from the desktop. Sure, some businesses still play with Excel, but I'm the last few companies I worked at, SQL was the language you needed to speak. Creating views or stored procedures that fed various reporting tools, or entire data warehouses tuned just for reporting... realtime and no chance for spreadsheet errors.

Now you can at various web-driven interfaces to the mix, but the data is still stacked up on a server somewhere... 99% of it in a relational database. The life of a database manager, or more specifically someone that can optimize large relational DB's is a good one.
post #101 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jme Saunders View Post

Office 365 student pricing is amazing. It cost me £59.99 for a 4 year (2 device) licence. I have it activated on Windows and OS X on my one MacBook. It would cost me £109.99 just for a single licence version of Office:Mac.

 

I don't know about the UK, but Microsoft usually offers Windows Professional and Office Professional dirt cheap to students and staff at universities here in Australia.  I got Windows 8 and Office 2013 for about $10 each as a qualifying staff member.  I've seen Microsoft set up a stall at student orientation to sell to students too.  So 60 pounds just to get Cloud syncing is a lot in comparison.  I couldn't afford that if I was a student!

post #102 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeyondYourFrontDoor View Post

... realtime and no chance for spreadsheet errors.
 

The data has to come from somewhere and bad data can screw up a database just as easily as a bad formula can. Database managers are not immune from making mistakes either. Excel still has its uses, but your point is noted. I think a similar transition is happening with Word as almost all text communication these days is done with email. It just works better because it automatically creates a searchable index compared to printed Word documents or .docx stored on a server which are much more difficult to keep track of. But as others have noted Office is a suite which definitely has some useful features so companies will continue to license it in mass.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #103 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gluben View Post

I work in a local council in the UK and Office is installed right across the board for about 1,000 employees.

There is no way that we would move to another program like Google Docs or OpenOffice. Our IT department would allow it, probably for security reasons, but also because the majority of staff aren't computer savvy enough to know their way around other programs. We only just finished moving to Windows 7 and Office 2010 and that was challenging enough for them!

Same here Gluben. I also work for a Local Authority but much smaller than yours. We have only just upgraded to windows 7 and office 2010 and only then because of Microsoft stopping support for Windows XP. I have suggested that instead of using MS office we use Open Office. For what I use Office for Open Office would be plenty good enough. However the IT department are scared to move away fom MS Office.

As for compatibility though, my niece had to log on to her school network and amend a MS 2010 PowerPoint presentation with an embedded video. The video would not play on her home pc because her MS Office 2007 did not support it.
post #104 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post
 
Yes, the over engineering of Acrobat defeats its intended purpose. Adobe itself is killing it by compulsively needing to sell the same crap to the same people every year. 

I would have to disagree with this because customers do not have to upgrade. The basic pdf specification will continue to be supported with any new version of Acrobat. When they introduce new features it is up to the developers if they want to use features that are not part of the open source specification. The vast majority of documents that are shared publicly are fully compatible with the baseline specification. Any advanced features are generally reserved for internal company or government purposes where Acrobat is a standard application. Acrobat Pro is included in Adobe CC but Adobe recognized that unlike the other apps in CC, Acrobat Pro is primarily a business tool as opposed to a creative tool. I think Adobe will continue to upgrade the Acrobat version that is sold independently without a subscription, unlike CS6 which is EOL even though they still sell it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #105 of 133
Usage will varying by company and activity.
For example I work for a science based company. Therefore we mainly use Excel for basic analysis and Powerpoint for presentation.
The R&D team uses those extensively but the productivity groups use more sophisticated web based software for data analysis.
Office tends to be the bastion for simple basic activities. Luckily for M$ most companies feel the need to keep it on which costs them unnecessary licensing fees and support costs.
To be more efficient then specialized software is need. What is clear to me is that specialized software is what often makes the difference in a company's productivity and success in the market place.
post #106 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
you must be looking at some other info.  10.5.8 supported versions are Acrobat 9.x and 10.x.  Linux only goes up to Acrobat Read 9.x

You are correct, my mistake. I think Acrobat reader 9 and 10 are also considered up to date and supported though. If there was a vulnerability found in those versions, Adobe would patch them.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #107 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by pembroke View Post

It would be interesting to know what office software Apple itself uses routinely. I cannot imagine their accounting and finance departments using anything but Excel.

No; all Apple employees are obviously banned from using any apps other than those made by Apple. So clearly, their accounting is up the creek, which is why they make so little profit. How could they possibly dare to use software made by a potential competitor? Apple are such fools for making a spreadsheet programme that is so inferior to Excel; why do they even bother? I mean, can you imagine Apple using Numbers for anything? Unimaginable! I hear you can only create spreadsheets with a maximum of two cells (for Revenue and Profit)!

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #108 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post


We have a winner here!

Yes, the over engineering of Acrobat defeats its intended purpose. Adobe itself is killing it by compulsively needing to sell the same crap to the same people every year. This is one of the built in self destruct mechanisms of software as product in corporate America. Many products get to a robust and reliable state, only to be ruined by the corporate overseers demanding it continues to grow market share and sell more each year. This is a perfect example of how the myth of perpetual growth in capitalism turns into a dystopian disaster for consumers.

Yes. I strongly believe that a subscription model is the wrong way to go for Adobe. Is it a fatal flaw? I don't know. But how can you possibly charge a regular fee, knowing full well that the software is not going to follow a smooth path of progression?

 

I predict that the people who use it for the first year will think they're getting a good deal, due to the lower initial cost. Then, as the years go by, there will be more and more resentment as they realise that they're paying more and more for less and less, like drug addicts getting their fix. So people start to cancel their subs; then, Adobe starts to lose money, so it has to put the price up for the fewer subscribers, then more leave, etc. Another company makes a competing programme that is buy once and everyone flocks to it. Adobe goes out of business. Same scenario for Microsoft Office.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #109 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

I tend to agree with this.  Most IT departments have a standard install set (or images) on all machines.  Regardless if and how often the tools will get used by each specific employee.  This allows various departments to compose documents in a format that they know everyone can read.  How often someone is required to compose depends on their role.  Which is a "don't care" form an IT point of view.  For most IT departments, I think it would create too much headache to try to determine who actually needs Office composition tools vs Read-Only tools to save some dollars here to justify custom installs.

I could go on for days about this topic because this is one of my core skill sets and it is also an area of interest. Fundamentally speaking, image management is one of the reasons for including Office by default in Windows images. But this stems from how much or how little IT understands business roles and use cases. Most IT shops have limited insight into the operations for the businesses they support. They also strive to provide service options that can scale.

For example, deploying an image without Office may work for one user but if anyone else needs to use the same system, they may need Office. As a result, that user will be less productive on that resource or they will ask for Office anyway. Either way, resources utilization is increased by not including Office on that machine to begin with. For many businesses, not including Office can actually cost more in lost productivity, poor end user feedback and increased support.

With that said, Office is much more than a native suite of applications. There are virtual installation packages supported directly through Office 365 that look and behave like native installed applications but they are sandboxed applications that can follow a user from system to system. There are also Office web applications that are accessible through cloud service offerings that include editing capabilities.

Where an organization is able to rationalize user roles to those where Office web apps are adequate AND end user communications are properly initiated with leadership support, an organization can limit their license profile accordingly. The key distinction is relative to user, group and role rationalization combined with executive support. Obtaining that kind of information is difficult. Maintaining it is even more difficult. But that will always be the case when attempting to rationalize an enterprise environment to provide dynamic service delivery.

Office file compatibility is certainly a factor but more so, most enterprises have a huge catalog of custom developed macros, VBA and databases that depend on Office. Many of these are critical to business operations. Arguably, critical business functions shouldn't be tied up in one off Office code through linked spreadsheets but it is common anyway. Office is an extensible platform that businesses have taken advantage of. Where business continuity is the end goal, you don't simply remove Office from the enterprise.

Office, as an endpoint application suite is only as good as the back end. While many consumers may not use an Office back end, the enterprise is heavily invested. This includes everything from Exchange Server to SharePoint with other solutions on the fringe like Project Server. 30 minutes every day as an average for email is probably about right. As a pitch for Google Apps for Business, they fail to mention how critical that is because Exchange is the undeniable standard. If you don't want the CTO to show up at your cubicle, make sure that Exchange never goes down.

Office file compatibility is inherently linked to collaboration and utilizing features that allow for increased scale and options for collaboration depend upon the latest Office suite. Microsoft releases Office file compatibility packs for legacy versions of Office to deal with intra-organizational file compatibility but collaboration through Sharepoint is another matter altogether. Office file templates is another matter. Office suites do very well with using alot of the same collateral without redeveloping it unless it uses custom code. Competitors simply do not have the same features so the level of effort is higher to move to another suite and quality is likely to be less when it uses advanced formatting options.

Office does support saving files in an open document format in version(s) 2010 and 2013 if memory serves but I haven't seen many organizations use it as a default because it is more limited. Some areas where Office has dramatically improved in newer versions is related to Office file sizes. Office 2013 file sizes are half what they were for Office 2010. That may seem like a minor enhancement but it can pay big dividends in terms of enterprise storage. Other advancements associated with the 2013 suite include pivot tables.

The enterprise and Microsoft Office are intertwined in ways that would take years to fully understand for the casual observer. While there are alternative productivity suites available, most enterprises would have little incentive to move over to them. Many that do end up using Office on the desktop anyway because web alternatives simply don't meet their business needs. They may be subscribing to Google Apps but they are using Microsoft Office extensively. In some cases, they go back to just using file shares instead of Google Docs storage because of limited compatibility.

There is the matter of value assessment. This study assumes that certain actions can be equated to, "light editing" and that viewing documents are of little importance and complexity. They further assume that these tasks are of less importance for business critical tasks than others. IT rarely positions themselves as the arbitrator to assess value on the part of the business and frankly, they shouldn't. If the usage in most enterprises is a 70/30 split between, "light" usage and, "heavy" usage, there is still a common denominator; USAGE. If anyone is using it, it provides value to the business. Using an alternative MAY result in license cost savings but it could also impact productivity through training, file format conversions or redevelopment and collaboration.

There is the matter of management. Office has extensive management features built into it with an excellent support model from Microsoft. IT places a premium on scale and management features and they should. Many aspects of the Office suite can be customized through the package and through Group Policy. That includes enterprise search, features and most importantly, SECURITY.

When properly implemented, Office can run VBA and macros without user invention for approved and managed resources while retaining a high level of security for unknown or unmanaged sources. Being able to deploy App-V packages with user device affinity and provide access to Office Web applications increases the value even more. One cannot underestimate the value for mitigating security threats through on-going patch support as well.

For competitors, the value for the Office suite, as a whole, is out of reach in the enterprise. For IT organizations, the risk for adopting an alternative is very high and the ROI for using an alternative is debatable at best. Using licensing and overly simplistic assumptions for usage is two dimensional. The service they provide, in and of itself, is almost laughable. Microsoft provides countless tools for gauging usage for Office. That also includes office file compatibility reporting as well.

This kind of data can valuable but only when it is in the context of how the business operates. Light usage can equate to heavy usage in an alternative suite because it is more difficult to use or because it has fewer features. Light usage can also be critical to business operations with countless other dependencies. It might work for smaller organizations or even very large ones but it is multi-dimensional. At best, these results are tailored to favor their sales partnership with Google. It is in their best interest to make sure that their analytics increase sales. Naturally, the best way to do that is by using overly simplistic algorithms to associate value to usage and that is inherently flawed for many reasons.
post #110 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN View Post
 

Google already reads my email. Why would I want them to read my spreadsheets and letters too? No thanks. It is either keep with MS Office for me or Apple's programs.

Hilarious! You're happy for Google to read your emails but not your spreadsheets? It's like saying to Satan that you're happy for him to gently hold red hot pokers against your eyes, but tickling your feet? That's a big no no.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #111 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Thanks for providing a source but you're discounting the role of non-traditional "PCs". Marketshare could also mean they can sell 91 Windows licenses out of a 100 desktop PC sales but there are only 1,000 PCs being sold per week and 10,000,000 post-PC devices then that market is effectively useless to them.

"Worldwide PC shipments totaled 76.3 million units in the first quarter of 2013 (1Q13), down -13.9% compared to the same quarter in 2012 and worse than the forecast decline of -7.7%, according to the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker. The extent of the year-on-year contraction marked the worst quarter since IDC began tracking the PC market quarterly in 1994. The results also marked the fourth consecutive quarter of year-on-year shipment declines."



Their new CEO looks like he's well aware that MS needs to shift their focus. I suspect MS will eventually settle on enterprise and backend services like IBM, a still very successful company.

Naturally, non-traditional PC's includes virtual machines, right? IDC doesn't include those in their metrics.
post #112 of 133
While I dislike Office, I've tried several alternatives over the years, and Office is the only one that really guarantees total compatibility, and that everything works just like on the display of your colleagues and customers. So, even if this study found 70% of the time is spent on viewing and light editing, however Office is still the best way of doing that.

I said I dislike Office. Yes. But in my opinion, in order to switch to better software, the world needs to get rid of DOC, DOCX, XLS, XLSX, PPT, etc, formats, and choose other formats instead. If these formats continue to be the standard, there's no real alternative to Office. I'be tried it for years, and Office was the only 100% reputable soft with these formats.

But this study is payed by Google, of course.
post #113 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

I refuse to subscribe to Office365. I shouldn't have to pay for the "privilege" to continuously use it.

A lot of folks like to use that argument but when you buy it out right you are atill paying for the privilege of using it. Just at a different rate. Crunch the numbers and is it really that much different in costs. Sure if you buy a copy and use it for six years without any updates you might notice. But many folks don't do that, they reup with every version.

If you really don't want to pay to play then you should be torrenting etc.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #114 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by gman5541 View Post

Nonsense. Office is iniquitous. Even if you're not using all of Office or none at all, you're using a suite that touts a degree of Office File Compatibility.

Not at my office. Everything is on Macs went to other offices that use macs so we just use iWork. Or it's something that is a PDF so the other side can't alter it. Or a script which is either PDF or Final Draft.

We are not the norm sure, but there are probably a few offices like us out there. Just depends on what industry you are talking to

Ps. Check your dictionary, I don't think that's the word you meant to use. Perhaps ubiquitous?

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #115 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

It's nothing to do with 'world-famous, amazingly detailed psychological profiles' - according to the COPPA laws, even email addresses and IP addresses are 'personal information'. It doesn't matter if a company has the most stringent privacy policy in the world - if you sign up for an email address, that's 'collecting personal information' and they have to comply with COPPA. Hell, if you hit a 404 page on a site and the webserver logs the error (which it invariably will), that's 'collecting personal information' because they logged your IP.

 

If the FCC thinks your site is 'directed to children under 13' or that you know people under 13 are using your site, you basically have to do all the COPPA stuff.

 

http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus84-childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-six-step-compliance-plan-your-business



You're totally right, of course, and hey, I'm totally on board. Google should not be allowed to provide services to kids (anywhere!), without verifiable parental sign-off.

My question was: how the heck was a school allowed to sign up all their elementary aged students for google services? Are the laws that different in Canada that they don't even attempt to protect kids? Or did the school act illegally, in which case someone should complain.

Related question: since google operates in the U.S., do COPPA laws apply for kids under age 13 who reside in other countries? The laws apply to Google, not the kids, and since Google is based in the U.S. it's not obvious to me (without digging probably pretty deep into COPPA and other laws) how that works.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #116 of 133
Ms basically built their business by first bundling the office apps to kill their competition who sold standalone apps - then leveraging it with licensing of the WIN OS to bring everyone in line. Just as they've never bundled a full version of Outlook with Mac Office to discourage enterprise from even thinking of switching. Mac users either got Entourage or Outlook lite but never the same access as WIN Office users.

Only a few specific employees of certain dept need the full power of WORD (Hell, how many people even use the footnote feature) or Excel outside of software to line up cells because Word's formatting is so sketchy? But until the internet, there were few alternatives.

The current reality is that 95% of employees pretty much do all their typing in the email app - so yea, smart corporations will figure out they don't need an office license for every computer but then if they have mostly have a WIN OS license, MS will push back so they fold probably by threathening to audit them that MS office is really removed, etc ... or if they are large enough, offer them a huge discount.

Of course, cloud apps only do offer an insecure option but there are certainly cheap/cheaper alternatives that serve 95% of the employees - just as there are some offices with no assigned cubes, it's a new world out there.

And BTW, you do not really need Adobe reader to read PDF's - most browsers will do or iBooks or of course, Apple's office apps - even those that require a signin.
post #117 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Everything is on Macs went to other offices that use macs so we just use iWork.

I think that gman5541 was pointing out that even iWork is somewhat compatible with Office files. For instance, you can read and write Microsoft .doc/.docx files with Pages.
Edited by runbuh - 5/4/14 at 2:49pm
post #118 of 133
Yeah. Adobe Creative Cloud at $100/user/month and Office 365 Enterprise E3 at $20/user/month are MUCH better deals than this "monolithic" licensing model...NOT...

Most folks are still running Office 2007 which they might have paid $400 or so for & Photoshop CS5 (2010) at about $795 or so...tell me how this new subscription model is going to SAVE ME MONEY??

Look at the bar graph...Citrix Receiver is the #1 App...WHY?...so you can run your older version(s) of MS Office on your iPad...forever...off a terminal server somewhere...and not be asked to keep paying for the same damn functionality...over & over...
post #119 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

You're totally right, of course, and hey, I'm totally on board. Google should not be allowed to provide services to kids (anywhere!), without verifiable parental sign-off.

My question was: how the heck was a school allowed to sign up all their elementary aged students for google services? Are the laws that different in Canada that they don't even attempt to protect kids? Or did the school act illegally, in which case someone should complain.

Related question: since google operates in the U.S., do COPPA laws apply for kids under age 13 who reside in other countries? The laws apply to Google, not the kids, and since Google is based in the U.S. it's not obvious to me (without digging probably pretty deep into COPPA and other laws) how that works.

Here is an interesting article regarding Google apps for education:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/google-612162-students-company.html?page=1

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #120 of 133

I can't wait until I can run Office on the Xbox One and access the File Explorer from my gamepad. It's Microsoft's secret weapon against the Sony PS4. /s

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Most office workers aren't actually using Microsoft Office