I keep forgetting all the "news makers" -- isn't Gartner the one that used to be "Gartner Group" until I suppose his dog died?
Much IT and product news is "pay to play". You have some cool new bike invention? Buy some advertisements. If not, you could make cold fusion with that bicycle and never get a news story.
I don't know what magic Gartner has to get published -- I'm sure it has something to do with a discount on getting the right numbers in their "Gartner research."
A dumber than usual DED article and that's saying something. First of all if apple reduces $500 apps to $0 then it does to software what DED claims Android does to hardware. This doesn't foster competition as much as destroys independent app devs. Second you end up with craptastic apps based on the "freemium" model or software subscriptions that costs users more over time.
Which what you see now.
The "$500" office app is free but mostly useless without a $99/year 360 subscription. However if iWork wasn't a free suite perhaps office would be $40 each for $120 for me to use until I wanted to upgrade. Which wouldn't be every year. I still run Office 2008 on my personal mac. Which, if I had paid $100 every year on Jan 1 would have cost me $700 by now.
Woot.
While I like that iLife and iWork is now free if Apple did that to every app category it would result in the same monoculture as MS Office is for business. You can't compete with free high quality apps supported by hardware revenue any more than you can compete with cheap hardware sold at virtually no profit.
Microsoft was never going to make Office for iOS as paid apps as they're really pushing Office 365 and the Cloud. Plus the subscription model most likely will result in Apple making less off their cut than if it they were paid apps. It has nothing to do with Apple making iWork free.
Why did Microsoft port Office to Apple's iOS iPad before Android? The author himself noted the most likely reason:
"More recently, Microsoft's last chief executive Steve Ballmer was rumored to have postponed the deployment of native iPad Office apps that were ostensibly ready to release back in 2012,"
The reason is pretty obvious. The iPad owns 95% of the business tablet market, and that's remained remarkably steady during the rise of the junk tablet market. Microsoft sells the full version of Office mostly to business and government users. So having this for the ipad makes sense. Eventually, they may have it for Android too, but meanwhile, why waste resources?
DED, instead of tweeting Gartner asking them why MSFT ported Office to iPad, you should be contacting big media. You already know why Gartner posts the numbers they do - they're being paid to do so. It has nothing to do with fact, and everything to do with trying to influence both consumer and financial markets, to the benefit of Gartner's customers (which coincidentally are competitors to Apple).
Of course big media won't publish your editorials because they're not big enough of bomb shells. Maybe suggesting more strongly that Gartner (et al) are knowingly lying in order to make their clients look better (to the public and financial markets) might get some attention.
Don't dance around the facts - say it like it is. Heck, big media publishes outright lies, half truths and false rumors about Apple, so pushing an article that blasts those very organizations that are fueling the lies should make a good story for big media.
Troll or agitator? I cannot decide. Maybe while DED is at it, he should punch someone's lights out ; )
Why did Microsoft port Office to Apple's iOS iPad before Android? The author himself noted the most likely reason:
"More recently, Microsoft's last chief executive Steve Ballmer was rumored to have postponed the deployment of native iPad Office apps that were ostensibly ready to release back in 2012,"
That doesn't answer the question. Why wasn't there an Android version of MS Office also waiting in the wings? I'd say that Android's marketshare is not the single most important consideration when making an app you want to sell to the highest number of potential buyers.
Heck, big media publishes outright lies, half truths and false rumors about Apple, so pushing an article that blasts those very organizations that are fueling the lies should make a good story for big media.
Tim Cook has cited Gartner reports as positive evidence of the success of Apple products on more than one occasion. He apparently doesn't share the same concerns over their reliability as a source of market statistics as Mr. Dilger does.
That doesn't answer the question. Why wasn't there an Android version of MS Office also waiting in the wings? I'd say that Android's marketshare is not the single most important consideration when making an app you want to sell to the highest number of potential buyers.
I've never seen mention of an Android version already complete and ready to go but perhaps there was. If one was already done it wouldn't make sense to hold back on it IMO as it wouldn't affect iOS uptake in any way and could only be an positive revenue source from Android users. What would be the negative?
Since MS has stated a version for Android tablet users is coming soon I suspect there had been no activity on it until recently. I believe under Ballmer the decision had been made not to offer it for either tablet OS. New management has decided differently.
I'm certain he's not. These people are the equivalent to various sects in modern society that conveniences of modern technology. They don't exactly eschew technology but they have drawn a line in the sand by choosing to only accept technology that existed before a certain date which means everything that made the iPhone and iPad successful, despite decades of attempts by others, is meaningless to them.
Agreed!
Did you see the photo of what he described? It looks like Windows/PC's early attempts at "wireless" keyboards and mice. I.e., a USB dongle with an infra red "eye" sitting on the tower. Wireless? Just need a couple of wires to be wireless! Typical PC stuff!
TechCrunch posted an article comparing the development process of an identical app for both iOS and Android. A good factual read particularly for those that only know what little they've heard in forum posts. IMO "fragmentation" is much less of a concern thatn it was even 6 months ago. There's other reasons bigger developers prioritize iOS over Android, not that most ignore Android anyway. http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/16/the-state-of-the-art/?ncid=fb
He also mentions how much harder it is to use their development software, and how much harder it is to develop for Android. Android isn't yet a serious tablet platform, and it's true that there are very few real tablet apps available. Some day, I suppose that will change. But considering that Google doesn't care, it will take a long time.
He also mentions how much harder it is to use their development software, and how much harder it is to develop for Android. Android isn't yet a serious tablet platform, and it's true that there are very few real tablet apps available. Some day, I suppose that will change. But considering that Google doesn't care, it will take a long time.
Yes he absolutely does, which helps make for a factually accurate article that probably few bothered to look at besides you. No reliable source has ever claimed otherwise AFAIK.
As far as Google not caring about tablet apps I've no idea what you base that on. The article's author doesn't come to that conclusion and a simple visit to Google Play would reveal efforts to help users discover tablet-optimized apps and assist developers in marketing them. Here's a page with the currently-promoted ones. https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/tablet_featured
The real story is that Windows RT is dead and Windows 8.X on tablets will have to fight on its merits. There is no reason for Microsoft to not release on Android; in fact, there is a phone version which was simultaneously updated with the iPhone version. We can expect this new Microsoft to be running on Android tablets soon; why not? Microsoft doesn't make any extra money specifically from the iOS apps (since doing so would mean giving Apple big App Store commissions). Microsoft is only selling Office 365 subscriptions, which cover all platforms, so there is no reason to ignore the rest of the tablet market. This is a defensive move to protect the Office franchise after concluding that Office is not enough to drive Windows RT sales. It's not a testatment to the awesomeness of iOS, it's a major strategic decision to release some software which has probably been ready for two years. You know, back when iPads had 80% market share.
There's a very good reason. Android users simply don't buy software. That a know factor. Many apps in the App Store failed on the Android platform, until they went free with advertising. Even Angry Birds had to go that route.
Can you really see the Android tablet version as being advertising supported? I don't. Microsoft wants it's money for this up front, and they will not get that from the Android platform.
I'm kind of tired of the endless rants that pose as 'news' here... Why did MS release Office for iOS? Because they are going to make money. Why did they change their focus? Because their previous focus wasn't working. It's not like Apple hasn't had it's share of issues between its great successes... that's business and that's life.
There's a very good reason. Android users simply don't buy software. That a know factor. Many apps in the App Store failed on the Android platform, until they went free with advertising. Even Angry Birds had to go that route.
Can you really see the Android tablet version as being advertising supported? I don't. Microsoft wants it's money for this up front, and they will not get that from the Android platform.
So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?
I'm kind of tired of the endless rants that pose as 'news' here... Why did MS release Office for iOS? Because they are going to make money. Why did they change their focus? Because their previous focus wasn't working. It's not like Apple hasn't had it's share of issues between its great successes... that's business and that's life.
While iOS leads Enterprise use over Android overall at around 2:1, the iPad totally crushes Android on the tablet side with over 90% of tablets in use being the iPad.
Now explain to me why Microsoft would want to invest in making Office for Android tablets when they represent only 10% of the Enterprise market? Then add to that the variations in models and performance/features that would require additional coding effort and that 10% looks pretty pathetic.
While iOS leads Enterprise use over Android overall at around 2:1, the iPad totally crushes Android on the tablet side with over 90% of tablets in use being the iPad.
Now explain to me why Microsoft would want to invest in making Office for Android tablets when they represent only 10% of the Enterprise market? Then add to that the variations in models and performance/features that would require additional coding effort and that 10% looks pretty pathetic.
There's lots of truth in that. Android has a long ways to go before they'll be seen as successful in the enterprise segment. That still won't keep MS from releasing Office Apps for Android tablets in the near future. Of course "near future" is pretty wide-open when it comes to Microsoft.
Tim Cook has cited Gartner reports as positive evidence of the success of Apple products on more than one occasion. He apparently doesn't share the same concerns over their reliability as a source of market statistics as Mr. Dilger does.
It's well known that both Gartner and IDC strain to make Microsoft look as good as possible. Microsoft is a major client of theirs. If you go to Gartner's site, and I imaging
E the same is for IDC, they say that their goal is to make their clients look as good as possible. Not in those exact words, but you can easily get the point.
It's one reason why both have worked very hard to minimize the drop in Windows sales over the last three years. Both keep overestimating those sales as long as they can. They both underestimate Mac sales, even after Apple releases the numbers.
I don't trust their estimates because we know that Samsung, for example had stopped reporting shipments of their smartphones and tablets after the first quarter of 2011, when Lenovo caught them at giving out tablet shipment numbers that didn't meet reality, when they had claImed to have shipped 1.5 million to N America the last quarter of 2010, but Lenovo accused them of hiding the fact that they only sold 20,000 during that same period. Samsung refused to respond to financial analysts questions about that, and it wasn't the last time.
But nevertheless, Gartner, IDC and others quote these kinds of numbers for Samsung shipments which can't be verified, even though during the trial here in early 2013, Samsung,s shipment numbers as estimated by these companies was again shown to be far off the mark, when both Apple and Samsung had to show actual sales numbers of the products under dispute. Of the estimated 1 million Samsung tablets supposedly shipped here of models under dispute, Samsung had only sold 38,000 one quarter. Of their smartphones, they on,y sold between one third and one half the number.
And yet, none of the companies doing the estimating looked at these numbers and said that they were going to revise Samsung,s sales numbers downward. The same numbers remained on their books, and in the public record. What a load of crap!
Tim Cook has to be politic about this, he can't have public disputes with these companies. If he did, you and others, would call him names about it, even though the complaints would be legitimate.
Oh, and why just use Apple's sold numbers against shipped numbers? We all know how that makes no sense, especially since Apple does, in a roundabout way, give shipped numbers. When Apple talks about days or weeks of supply "in the channel" that's shipped devices. You multiply the average number of devices sold that previous quarter per day by the number of days supply in the channel, and then add that number to the total number sold, and you magically get the number shipped. But no one uses that number. It's very convenient, but I almost never see it done, except occasionally on Seeking Alpha. I've mentioned this to a number of writers on financial sites, and the response is something like; Well, yeah, I guess, that should be done. when I ask why they don't do it, the reply is; Uh, no one else does it.
Brilliant reportage, right?
Yet, whenever we see usage numbers for Samsung, Amazon, and others, they're all well down in the single digits. Doesn't match those inflates ship estimates, which writers then conflate as sales estimates.
There's lots of truth in that. Android has a long ways to go before they'll be seen as successful in the enterprise segment. That still won't keep MS from releasing Office Apps for Android tablets in the near future.
The major reason for Android's lack of success in the Enterprise appears to be what [@]melgross[/@] stated.
Kind of a long winded article, but here are a few thoughts ... Microsoft shipped Office on OS X ... OS X apps use Objective C ... iOS uses Objective C ... Perhaps Microsoft had some code re-use going on for the non-UI components? ... Office does run on Android, too https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.office.officehub
Comments
Get one of these. Works great! They have foot pedals too... http://airturn.com/digit-ii/products/airturn/bluetooth-airturn/digit-ii
I keep forgetting all the "news makers" -- isn't Gartner the one that used to be "Gartner Group" until I suppose his dog died?
Much IT and product news is "pay to play". You have some cool new bike invention? Buy some advertisements. If not, you could make cold fusion with that bicycle and never get a news story.
I don't know what magic Gartner has to get published -- I'm sure it has something to do with a discount on getting the right numbers in their "Gartner research."
The reason is pretty obvious. The iPad owns 95% of the business tablet market, and that's remained remarkably steady during the rise of the junk tablet market. Microsoft sells the full version of Office mostly to business and government users. So having this for the ipad makes sense. Eventually, they may have it for Android too, but meanwhile, why waste resources?
Troll or agitator? I cannot decide. Maybe while DED is at it, he should punch someone's lights out ; )
That doesn't answer the question. Why wasn't there an Android version of MS Office also waiting in the wings? I'd say that Android's marketshare is not the single most important consideration when making an app you want to sell to the highest number of potential buyers.
Tim Cook has cited Gartner reports as positive evidence of the success of Apple products on more than one occasion. He apparently doesn't share the same concerns over their reliability as a source of market statistics as Mr. Dilger does.
I've never seen mention of an Android version already complete and ready to go but perhaps there was. If one was already done it wouldn't make sense to hold back on it IMO as it wouldn't affect iOS uptake in any way and could only be an positive revenue source from Android users. What would be the negative?
Since MS has stated a version for Android tablet users is coming soon I suspect there had been no activity on it until recently. I believe under Ballmer the decision had been made not to offer it for either tablet OS. New management has decided differently.
I'm certain he's not. These people are the equivalent to various sects in modern society that conveniences of modern technology. They don't exactly eschew technology but they have drawn a line in the sand by choosing to only accept technology that existed before a certain date which means everything that made the iPhone and iPad successful, despite decades of attempts by others, is meaningless to them.
Agreed!
Did you see the photo of what he described? It looks like Windows/PC's early attempts at "wireless" keyboards and mice. I.e., a USB dongle with an infra red "eye" sitting on the tower. Wireless? Just need a couple of wires to be wireless! Typical PC stuff!
Best.
He also mentions how much harder it is to use their development software, and how much harder it is to develop for Android. Android isn't yet a serious tablet platform, and it's true that there are very few real tablet apps available. Some day, I suppose that will change. But considering that Google doesn't care, it will take a long time.
Yes he absolutely does, which helps make for a factually accurate article that probably few bothered to look at besides you. No reliable source has ever claimed otherwise AFAIK.
As far as Google not caring about tablet apps I've no idea what you base that on. The article's author doesn't come to that conclusion and a simple visit to Google Play would reveal efforts to help users discover tablet-optimized apps and assist developers in marketing them. Here's a page with the currently-promoted ones.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/tablet_featured
...and this page would be the current "Editor's Choice" tablet apps.
https://play.google.com/store/search?q=editors choice tablet apps&c=apps
Just because there's not as wide a selection as there is for iOS doesn't mean Google doesn't care does it?
There's a very good reason. Android users simply don't buy software. That a know factor. Many apps in the App Store failed on the Android platform, until they went free with advertising. Even Angry Birds had to go that route.
Can you really see the Android tablet version as being advertising supported? I don't. Microsoft wants it's money for this up front, and they will not get that from the Android platform.
Pretty sure this is an editorial and not news.
While iOS leads Enterprise use over Android overall at around 2:1, the iPad totally crushes Android on the tablet side with over 90% of tablets in use being the iPad.
Now explain to me why Microsoft would want to invest in making Office for Android tablets when they represent only 10% of the Enterprise market? Then add to that the variations in models and performance/features that would require additional coding effort and that 10% looks pretty pathetic.
There's lots of truth in that. Android has a long ways to go before they'll be seen as successful in the enterprise segment. That still won't keep MS from releasing Office Apps for Android tablets in the near future. Of course "near future" is pretty wide-open when it comes to Microsoft.
It's well known that both Gartner and IDC strain to make Microsoft look as good as possible. Microsoft is a major client of theirs. If you go to Gartner's site, and I imaging
E the same is for IDC, they say that their goal is to make their clients look as good as possible. Not in those exact words, but you can easily get the point.
It's one reason why both have worked very hard to minimize the drop in Windows sales over the last three years. Both keep overestimating those sales as long as they can. They both underestimate Mac sales, even after Apple releases the numbers.
I don't trust their estimates because we know that Samsung, for example had stopped reporting shipments of their smartphones and tablets after the first quarter of 2011, when Lenovo caught them at giving out tablet shipment numbers that didn't meet reality, when they had claImed to have shipped 1.5 million to N America the last quarter of 2010, but Lenovo accused them of hiding the fact that they only sold 20,000 during that same period. Samsung refused to respond to financial analysts questions about that, and it wasn't the last time.
But nevertheless, Gartner, IDC and others quote these kinds of numbers for Samsung shipments which can't be verified, even though during the trial here in early 2013, Samsung,s shipment numbers as estimated by these companies was again shown to be far off the mark, when both Apple and Samsung had to show actual sales numbers of the products under dispute. Of the estimated 1 million Samsung tablets supposedly shipped here of models under dispute, Samsung had only sold 38,000 one quarter. Of their smartphones, they on,y sold between one third and one half the number.
And yet, none of the companies doing the estimating looked at these numbers and said that they were going to revise Samsung,s sales numbers downward. The same numbers remained on their books, and in the public record. What a load of crap!
Tim Cook has to be politic about this, he can't have public disputes with these companies. If he did, you and others, would call him names about it, even though the complaints would be legitimate.
Oh, and why just use Apple's sold numbers against shipped numbers? We all know how that makes no sense, especially since Apple does, in a roundabout way, give shipped numbers. When Apple talks about days or weeks of supply "in the channel" that's shipped devices. You multiply the average number of devices sold that previous quarter per day by the number of days supply in the channel, and then add that number to the total number sold, and you magically get the number shipped. But no one uses that number. It's very convenient, but I almost never see it done, except occasionally on Seeking Alpha. I've mentioned this to a number of writers on financial sites, and the response is something like; Well, yeah, I guess, that should be done. when I ask why they don't do it, the reply is; Uh, no one else does it.
Brilliant reportage, right?
Yet, whenever we see usage numbers for Samsung, Amazon, and others, they're all well down in the single digits. Doesn't match those inflates ship estimates, which writers then conflate as sales estimates.
The major reason for Android's lack of success in the Enterprise appears to be what [@]melgross[/@] stated.
... Microsoft shipped Office on OS X
... OS X apps use Objective C
... iOS uses Objective C
... Perhaps Microsoft had some code re-use going on for the non-UI components?
... Office does run on Android, too
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.office.officehub