The ad-supported web suite will reportedly be available to more than 400 million Windows Live consumers at no cost.
The Windows Live platform is a package of games, software and services that can be downloaded and installed at the same time as Windows Live Messenger, the new name of Windows Messenger which comes with every copy of Windows.
The real question is whether Microsoft will continue to issue and support a Mac OS X version of Messenger, thereby enabling all Mac (and Linux ?) users to benefit from a free access to MS Office online applications.
The only drawbacks will be privacy and ads, but there is no such thing as a free meal on the internet anyway. It's a small price to pay for the occasional home user or cash strapped students, not to mention users from the third world and developping nations.
How is it contradictory? iTunes needs Quicktime media framework, iTunes does not use Windows Media framework. Quicktime is not built into Windows, Windows Media is built into Windows. So installing Quicktime is mandatory to use iTunes on Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
This statement makes no sense at all. The second sentence completely contradicts the first.
The Windows Live platform is a package of games, software and services that can be downloaded and installed at the same time as Windows Live Messenger, the new name of Windows Messenger which comes with every copy of Windows.
The real question is whether Microsoft will continue to issue and support a Mac OS X version of Messenger, thereby enabling all Mac (and Linux ?) users to benefit from a free access to MS Office online applications.
The only drawbacks will be privacy and ads, but there is no such thing as a free meal on the internet anyway. It's a small price to pay for the occasional home user or cash strapped students, not to mention users from the third world and developping nations.
Altogether, a very good move by Microsoft.
Except that "live" for the mac is nothing like live for windows with almost no functionality, so you really expect this office online to work for the mac you are dreaming.
Office is horrible software and the UI is worse with each release but the reason people still use it is for compatibility. I really like iWork and use it whenever possible but it is not fully compatible with Office. I also wonder why Apple did not support open file formats with iWork. While there is a move away from Office products, they revolve around the Office format. Also a very, very small percentage has made that move. Office is even more dominant than Windows. For the last 20 years it has been the most purchased software for the Mac.
I think it will be a relatively successful product. Students will use it in a second if it's free and you can also use OneNote. Google Docs, while nice, is way too basic. For me, it will allow me to use iWork a little more and for anything that I need for collaboration on I can use Office online.
I tend to agree with most of this also.
I was mostly replying to the other poster's assertion that because Microsoft has entered the market that Google (and presumably everyone else) should just give up. One could easily look at it the other way around and say that Microsoft has made a big mistake in joining this market at all.
Google offers it's product for free. Microsoft's online offering will also have to be free and it will be in direct competition not only with Google's free offering, but with it's own paid offering which is the source of half it's income. All Google will have to do is offer more and more features, which MS will be forced to match and all of a sudden there will be no reason to pay for the desktop offering at all. Microsoft could easily drive themselves out of business entirely by joining this battle at all.
I look forward to Google Docs becoming what Sharepoint tries to do. Wave is a good start on this, but better meeting integration would really knock it out of the ballpark. The real reason Office is entrenched is all the legacy VB and ActiveX automation companies have added on for business inteligence.
Docs still is missing some major features for me, but the mindless tables sent around that represents 90% of the Excel documents I get could easily switch. Docs needs to leapfrog Excel in data visualization.
Microsoft needs Silverlight to be multi-platform otherwise it will never take off. But if it does become successful, watch them pull the plug on Mac users like they have with so many other products. I refuse to install Silverlight on principle for this reason.
Ditto! No Silverlight here either.
I don't care how whiz-bang a site is, if it says "Silverlight required", then I just leave. I don't want more crap on my system, especially anything that can run outside the browser's sandbox.
How is it contradictory? iTunes needs Quicktime media framework, iTunes does not use Windows Media framework. Quicktime is not built into Windows, Windows Media is built into Windows. So installing Quicktime is mandatory to use iTunes on Windows.
Perhaps it would be better to say "QuickTime isn't just installed with iTunes - QuickTime IS iTunes in a sense."
I believe the point you were trying to make is that iTunes isn't apple's way of deviously installing QuickTime everywhere. Installing iTunes really is installing QuickTime in a sense.
How is it contradictory? iTunes needs Quicktime media framework, iTunes does not use Windows Media framework. Quicktime is not built into Windows, Windows Media is built into Windows. So installing Quicktime is mandatory to use iTunes on Windows.
I'm already sorry for being cranky and mentioning it. I'm sure that we all make mistakes of speech.
My take on it is that all of the above is true, but that this would contradict your first statement about the "Trajan (sic) horse." If the above is true then iTunes is indeed a Trojan horse for Quicktime.
Probably just a slip of the fingers on your part. Or maybe I'm wrong and just can't see it. It's certainly been known to happen.
To not require Quicktime, Apple would have to completely rewrite iTunes around Windows Media framework. When Apple originally launched iTunes for Windows I don't believe Windows Media even supported AAC. Apple would have had to either license Fairplay to MS or use Windows Media DRM in iTunes. Later when Apple introduced video in iTunes, Windows Media did not immediately support h.264.
So to not use Quicktime on Windows would have created a mess for Apple and its future ambitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
My take on it is that all of the above is true, but that this would contradict your first statement about the "Trajan (sic) horse." If the above is true then iTunes is indeed a Trojan horse for Quicktime.
Probably just a slip of the fingers on your part. Or maybe I'm wrong and just can't see it. It's certainly been known to happen.
We already have office 2012, it's called iWork 09.
In all seriousness, if Apple can get it's act together on a more advance spreadsheet application then iWork would take the cake. Working in Pages & Keynote makes Word & PowerPoint seem archaic.
I feel the same way when collaborating on a Google Doc. For me, it isn't the beauty of the application, it is the functionality... and being tied to a "file" on my HD seems silly in 2009.
And so begins, probably, the greatest security risk the online world has ever known.
Yup. My company, and a few others I know of, already block access to Google documents. The last thing we want is for an employee to start putting company data into an online document in "the cloud" with heaven knows what security settings they've chosen. And it sent shivers up my spin when I heard about Obama's staff using Gmail for official government business because they were too impatient to wait for their official email accounts to get created...an act that would get you fired here.
Unless MS can guarantee a way for our IT shop to ensure data never leaves the client (ie, local storage), I can't imagine any company using this except small-time mom-and-pop operations. And even then, it'll just represent that next step in MS drive to rent you an application instead of purchasing it. MS hates people like me who are content to only upgrade their Office apps once or twice a decade. They'd much rather get a steady revenue stream from renting (either for cash or ad-based).
This first step will be target to those users who wouldn't normally purchase office or get it at a discount (students). But I fully expect the long-range goal is to eliminate the non-Windows versions of Office and point to the online version. This will drive the need to install Silverlight and expand it's installed base. Combine that will free and heavily subsidized developer tools (Windows-only, of course) and MS will once again own the internet, content creation and delivery, like they did with IE. Because MS didn't dominate the internet with good user experience, they got it with good (ie, cheap and easy) developer and content owner experience.
At least, that will be their plan...I just hope we've all learned our lesson and know better this time around.
I just checked it out and it sucks. First it requires a M$ Office license for whatever office doc that you want to create. Secondly, as opposed to using AJAX & editing your doc in the browser, it launches M$ Office or whatever outside the browser.
Epic Fail if you ask me, when Google Docs is completely ubiquitous and runs on any browser/OS without a license.
I know this is an anti microsoft site but come on .At the conference they specifically stated this will work for safari.
They even showed how you can do live powerpoint presentations on an iphone using the safari browser.
So before you bash microsoft make sure you know what your bashing.
It was stated this should work with safari firefox and internet explroer. they made sure they named these three browsers in their presentation.
Also tthis does A LOT more then goggle docs does.
PS office live is not the software talked about here and tpo prove my point go look at the demo video microsoft actually demoed the product using firefox not internet explorer.
I know this is an anti microsoft site but come on .At the conference they specifically stated this will work for safari.
They even showed how you can do live powerpoint presentations on an iphone using the safari browser.
[?]
Pro- or anti-MS has nothing to do with the reality that MS is out to make money. Part of their business model is to offer services that pull people toward their other products. Historically that has meant trying to keep users on Windows. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with wondering what MS? angle is.
f MS is spending the extra time and money to make Office for the web standards compliant then their is another revenue stream that they are trying to tap. I went to the site to check it out but it required Silverlight to be installed so I went no further. Is this going to require Silverlight or, even worse, work primarily through Silverlight?
If so, great; anything that pulls at Adobe?s proprietary Flash dominance is a good thing for AJAX and HTML5.
Comments
...streamlining the number of Office editions from eight to five
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
That is funny.
The ad-supported web suite will reportedly be available to more than 400 million Windows Live consumers at no cost.
The Windows Live platform is a package of games, software and services that can be downloaded and installed at the same time as Windows Live Messenger, the new name of Windows Messenger which comes with every copy of Windows.
The real question is whether Microsoft will continue to issue and support a Mac OS X version of Messenger, thereby enabling all Mac (and Linux ?) users to benefit from a free access to MS Office online applications.
The only drawbacks will be privacy and ads, but there is no such thing as a free meal on the internet anyway. It's a small price to pay for the occasional home user or cash strapped students, not to mention users from the third world and developping nations.
Altogether, a very good move by Microsoft.
This statement makes no sense at all. The second sentence completely contradicts the first.
The Windows Live platform is a package of games, software and services that can be downloaded and installed at the same time as Windows Live Messenger, the new name of Windows Messenger which comes with every copy of Windows.
The real question is whether Microsoft will continue to issue and support a Mac OS X version of Messenger, thereby enabling all Mac (and Linux ?) users to benefit from a free access to MS Office online applications.
The only drawbacks will be privacy and ads, but there is no such thing as a free meal on the internet anyway. It's a small price to pay for the occasional home user or cash strapped students, not to mention users from the third world and developping nations.
Altogether, a very good move by Microsoft.
Except that "live" for the mac is nothing like live for windows with almost no functionality, so you really expect this office online to work for the mac you are dreaming.
I (kind of) thought the same thing, but I was too polite to say anything, since (s)he sounded so authoritative........
I guess I'm feeling like a meanie today.
Office is horrible software and the UI is worse with each release but the reason people still use it is for compatibility. I really like iWork and use it whenever possible but it is not fully compatible with Office. I also wonder why Apple did not support open file formats with iWork. While there is a move away from Office products, they revolve around the Office format. Also a very, very small percentage has made that move. Office is even more dominant than Windows. For the last 20 years it has been the most purchased software for the Mac.
I think it will be a relatively successful product. Students will use it in a second if it's free and you can also use OneNote. Google Docs, while nice, is way too basic. For me, it will allow me to use iWork a little more and for anything that I need for collaboration on I can use Office online.
I tend to agree with most of this also.
I was mostly replying to the other poster's assertion that because Microsoft has entered the market that Google (and presumably everyone else) should just give up. One could easily look at it the other way around and say that Microsoft has made a big mistake in joining this market at all.
Google offers it's product for free. Microsoft's online offering will also have to be free and it will be in direct competition not only with Google's free offering, but with it's own paid offering which is the source of half it's income. All Google will have to do is offer more and more features, which MS will be forced to match and all of a sudden there will be no reason to pay for the desktop offering at all. Microsoft could easily drive themselves out of business entirely by joining this battle at all.
Docs still is missing some major features for me, but the mindless tables sent around that represents 90% of the Excel documents I get could easily switch. Docs needs to leapfrog Excel in data visualization.
Microsoft needs Silverlight to be multi-platform otherwise it will never take off. But if it does become successful, watch them pull the plug on Mac users like they have with so many other products. I refuse to install Silverlight on principle for this reason.
Ditto! No Silverlight here either.
I don't care how whiz-bang a site is, if it says "Silverlight required", then I just leave. I don't want more crap on my system, especially anything that can run outside the browser's sandbox.
How is it contradictory? iTunes needs Quicktime media framework, iTunes does not use Windows Media framework. Quicktime is not built into Windows, Windows Media is built into Windows. So installing Quicktime is mandatory to use iTunes on Windows.
Perhaps it would be better to say "QuickTime isn't just installed with iTunes - QuickTime IS iTunes in a sense."
I believe the point you were trying to make is that iTunes isn't apple's way of deviously installing QuickTime everywhere. Installing iTunes really is installing QuickTime in a sense.
How is it contradictory? iTunes needs Quicktime media framework, iTunes does not use Windows Media framework. Quicktime is not built into Windows, Windows Media is built into Windows. So installing Quicktime is mandatory to use iTunes on Windows.
I'm already sorry for being cranky and mentioning it. I'm sure that we all make mistakes of speech.
My take on it is that all of the above is true, but that this would contradict your first statement about the "Trajan (sic) horse." If the above is true then iTunes is indeed a Trojan horse for Quicktime.
Probably just a slip of the fingers on your part. Or maybe I'm wrong and just can't see it. It's certainly been known to happen.
To not require Quicktime, Apple would have to completely rewrite iTunes around Windows Media framework. When Apple originally launched iTunes for Windows I don't believe Windows Media even supported AAC. Apple would have had to either license Fairplay to MS or use Windows Media DRM in iTunes. Later when Apple introduced video in iTunes, Windows Media did not immediately support h.264.
So to not use Quicktime on Windows would have created a mess for Apple and its future ambitions.
My take on it is that all of the above is true, but that this would contradict your first statement about the "Trajan (sic) horse." If the above is true then iTunes is indeed a Trojan horse for Quicktime.
Probably just a slip of the fingers on your part. Or maybe I'm wrong and just can't see it. It's certainly been known to happen.
We already have office 2012, it's called iWork 09.
In all seriousness, if Apple can get it's act together on a more advance spreadsheet application then iWork would take the cake. Working in Pages & Keynote makes Word & PowerPoint seem archaic.
I feel the same way when collaborating on a Google Doc. For me, it isn't the beauty of the application, it is the functionality... and being tied to a "file" on my HD seems silly in 2009.
And so begins, probably, the greatest security risk the online world has ever known.
Yup. My company, and a few others I know of, already block access to Google documents. The last thing we want is for an employee to start putting company data into an online document in "the cloud" with heaven knows what security settings they've chosen. And it sent shivers up my spin when I heard about Obama's staff using Gmail for official government business because they were too impatient to wait for their official email accounts to get created...an act that would get you fired here.
Unless MS can guarantee a way for our IT shop to ensure data never leaves the client (ie, local storage), I can't imagine any company using this except small-time mom-and-pop operations. And even then, it'll just represent that next step in MS drive to rent you an application instead of purchasing it. MS hates people like me who are content to only upgrade their Office apps once or twice a decade. They'd much rather get a steady revenue stream from renting (either for cash or ad-based).
This first step will be target to those users who wouldn't normally purchase office or get it at a discount (students). But I fully expect the long-range goal is to eliminate the non-Windows versions of Office and point to the online version. This will drive the need to install Silverlight and expand it's installed base. Combine that will free and heavily subsidized developer tools (Windows-only, of course) and MS will once again own the internet, content creation and delivery, like they did with IE. Because MS didn't dominate the internet with good user experience, they got it with good (ie, cheap and easy) developer and content owner experience.
At least, that will be their plan...I just hope we've all learned our lesson and know better this time around.
Epic Fail if you ask me, when Google Docs is completely ubiquitous and runs on any browser/OS without a license.
Ok, but why is that relevant? iTunes doesn't run in a browser, it's a binary application.
iTunes isn't a browser, but it bugs me to install one.
Epic Fail if you ask me, when Google Docs is completely ubiquitous and runs on any browser/OS without a license.
And shows you helpful ads based on the data within your work!
They even showed how you can do live powerpoint presentations on an iphone using the safari browser.
So before you bash microsoft make sure you know what your bashing.
It was stated this should work with safari firefox and internet explroer. they made sure they named these three browsers in their presentation.
Also tthis does A LOT more then goggle docs does.
PS office live is not the software talked about here and tpo prove my point go look at the demo video microsoft actually demoed the product using firefox not internet explorer.
I know this is an anti microsoft site but come on .At the conference they specifically stated this will work for safari.
They even showed how you can do live powerpoint presentations on an iphone using the safari browser.
[?]
Pro- or anti-MS has nothing to do with the reality that MS is out to make money. Part of their business model is to offer services that pull people toward their other products. Historically that has meant trying to keep users on Windows. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with wondering what MS? angle is.
f MS is spending the extra time and money to make Office for the web standards compliant then their is another revenue stream that they are trying to tap. I went to the site to check it out but it required Silverlight to be installed so I went no further. Is this going to require Silverlight or, even worse, work primarily through Silverlight?
If so, great; anything that pulls at Adobe?s proprietary Flash dominance is a good thing for AJAX and HTML5.