Microsoft's big gamble with free Office
SAN FRANCISCO--Microsoft has a new plan to make more money from Office: give it away.
With Office 2010, one of the biggest changes is how many ways there are to get Microsoft's most profitable software program for free.
In addition to the free, browser-based Office Web Apps, Microsoft is also offering PC makers the ability to install a basic version of Office on new computers. The new program, Office Starter, includes a stripped-down version of Word and Excel. PC makers, retailers and Microsoft can all make money if the PC buyer later upgrades to a paid version of Office.
New buying options for Office 2010 include a "product key card" that can be used to upgrade the basic version of Word and Excel on new PCs.
(Credit: Microsoft)"People will be exposed to the Office 2010 experience from the minute they turn on that PC," Microsoft Business Division President Stephen Elop said Wednesday in an interview here. Microsoft is estimating that 80 percent of new PCs sold at retail after the launch of Office 2010 will have the starter edition of Office pre-installed, he said.
It's obviously a huge gamble for Microsoft, which still makes the bulk of its profits from Windows and Office. That said, most of the Office money comes from businesses and, on the consumer side, Microsoft is also trying to contend with free rivals like Google Apps.
Plus, while Starter is new, Microsoft has always had a lower-end productivity suite. Office Starter replaces Microsoft Works, a product that was both sold at retail and heavily pre-installed on new PCs. While Office Starter only shows the user the slimmed-down versions of Word and Excel, PC makers are actually loading the full version of Office, ready to be unlocked as soon as the buyer pays for an upgrade.
To make buying that full copy of Office easier, Microsoft plans to flood stores with options to buy the product. In addition to the traditional boxed copies of the suite, Microsoft is also planning to sell "product key cards" that can be used to upgrade a single copy of Office (boxed copies can be used for two or three computers, depending on the edition).
The product key cards have a number of other subtle differences as compared with traditional boxed products. One is that the cards, like gift cards at a supermarket, are just pieces of plastic or cardboard until they are activated. That means stores don't have to pay for lots of copies of the software upfront.
"We're migrating to an inventory-less model," Elop said.
But saving retailers the cost of stocking inventory is just one aspect.
The move to product cards also allows Office to be carried in more places within the store.
"If it is an inventory product, if it is a real boxed product with real value, there are always concerns about the security of that product," he said.
By contrast, the product key cards can be placed at all the positions where someone might think of buying Office (or be convinced by a salesperson)--in the software section, near the PCs, and, most importantly, right by the cash register.
Microsoft also plans to use the Web apps as a way to sell the full Office. Elop said there will be a prominent button within the browser-based programs to open a document in the desktop versions of Office. Those that have the latest Office will see the document immediately, while Microsoft will have an opportunity to sell those with an older version or no version of Office on the benefits of buying Office 2010.
The challenge, Elop said, is making sure that Microsoft doesn't mess up the user experience in its efforts to sell users on paid products.
"You have to balance the absolute importance of the quality of the user experience against the desire to also have an upsell opportunity," Elop said. "We will bias toward making sure the user experience really hangs together...We've seen situations in other companies, on other days where people have become too aggressive on that."
For more from my chat with Elop about Office 2010, check out the video interview above.
The audacity!
Funny how you transitioned a post critiquing a monopoly to one about self-interested profit margins...
as I recall in 1998, Microsoft pushed the free IE browser and all but eliminated the competition for years.
In this case they don't have nearly as timid a competitor in OpenOffice and Google as they did in Netscape. That and the minimalistic neutered version of what they are giving away for free is likely to protect them in the courts, but it's still a very similar tactic.
The fact is this is going to hurt programs like OpenOffice and possibly Google Apps. If it only takes away a little bit of their business then no big deal, we chalk it up to normal competition and move on. If it were to have a profound enough effect to truly stifle the competition, and either stymie their development, or heaven forbid shut them down altogether then the act has harmed consumers. It has harmed them by taking away choice, it has harmed them by destroying competition which will damage the quality of later versions of Office. Anyone who disagrees with my second point I challenge to find a computer with IE 6 on it and only use that browser for oh say the next 2 months. Then use IE 7 and remind yourself that it only came out after Firefox had proven it's massive appetite for IE market share.
This isn't about yelling "Stick it" to microsoft. This is about understanding what leveraging a monopolistic position means to the entire ecosystem involved, and what it means not only to our rights as consumers, but to the health of Microsoft as a company.
This is the software equivalent of the guy handing out samples of teriyaki chicken on toothpicks outside his take-out stand.
Personally, its not a problem with me.It's either your wallet or your so called "privacy".
The big problem that I see is that Open Office have made little inroads into user perception, and there marketing has been so poor. How could something free and good FAIL to oust Microsoft Office at home. It makes NO sense unless the product is rubbish OR they're not getting the message across properly.
At the end of the day folk use what THEY want. Not what MS tell them, NOT what you tell them, and no front-end question is going to change that.
ps Does anyone really believe the IE choice thing has made 1 it of difference? Why would I look at using something that's free and might work when I've got something free that does work? It's a no brainer... kill the question, delete the unwanted shortcut, and untick the browser choice in msconfig startup. Seemples!
Exactly what's the lie here?
Every PC I view in the big box stores seems to have "MS OFFICE" loaded inside - as a 90 day trial version. At the end of those 90 days, once you are set in the way it works - you have to pay the Microsoft Tax (TM) or lose access to your e-mail and other data.
I tried to explain this one to a brilliant ex-boss who was a certified genius - I got yelled at about it twice, once for daring to state the obvious catches when he fired the new $299 PC box up, the second time 90 days after the purchase because he had to spend more money on it to access those vital e-mails.
This is just the same thing with different strings.
try again please!
Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly on office. There are other suites you can buy out there and there are even FREE ones that are just as good. If you don't like MS Office, do NOT buy it. If you NEED it and don't like the alternatives, you need to PAY FOR IT. What are you waiting for? Obama to Nationalize software?
Microsoft has a near monopoly on office software. Why? Because they refuse to join in on working with open standards. Office 2007 also started setting the default file format to something incompatible with existing Office versions without the use of conversion software.
Microsoft has done enormous work with and for open standards. Want to know WHY it defaults to a format that is incompatible with existing office versions? Because it defaults to the open standard version.
Oh...and that "conversion software" was made free to users of older office versions so they could use open standards as well.
Quit being a hater.
...including stacking ISO committees, getting a state CTO fired for daring to propose a different format, lodging sham "standards" to claim an "open standard" (hint: "WorksLikeWin95" is not an open component), and sundry other tricks to make claims that do not hold up under scrutiny.
I hate to tell you this but all you have to do is change the file extension on any 2007 versioned file to .zip and you can peek see your entire document, formatting and everything in XML. This is open, this is good. Microsoft is still a corporation out for its own good, but over the last few years even I have to admit they've been working to clean up their image.
Sure - because that's totally a legible option to some ordinary employee who opens it and sees:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Types xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/content-types"><Default Extension="bin" ContentType="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.printerSettings"/><Override PartName="/xl/theme/theme1.xml" ContentType="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.theme+xml"/><Override PartName="/xl/styles.xml" ContentType="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.styles+xml"/><Override PartName="/xl/worksheets/sheet6.xml" ContentType="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.worksheet+xml"/><Default Extension="rels" ContentType="application/vnd.openxmlformats-package.relationships+xml"/><Default Extension="xml" ContentType="application/xml"/><Override PartName="/xl/workbook.xml"
...
show me any xml which end user can read like word, what's your point? get a life random get a real job!
I'm not exactly an "Apple supporter" there, sport. ;)
You are of course free to continue operating under bad assumptions and ignorance - I don't mind.
"I'm not exactly an "Apple supporter" there, sport. ;) "
It's true, you mostly are a Linux fan boy, but grudgingly approve of Apple if only because they both hate Microsott.
It's all about the hatred. :)
Considering there are quire a few email, word processing and database options out there I would definitely not say MS has a monopoly on office software, although it has become a standard. That would be because it's good software.
I don't know why everyone is whining about MS selling Office, and a "Mircosoft Tax". They made the software they have a perfect right to sell it. On top of that it looks like the vast majority of offices around the world agree.
I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, and I don't like the new "ribbon" interface, but it IS good software. Simple as that.
This is pure FUD. Lotus lost their way when IBM bought them up. While it's true for a time Office used undocumented calls their use did not break the Lotus products nor make them as craptastic as they were.
Bottom line: Microsoft invested early to get a windowed spreadsheet program out, Lotus didn't. As a result Lotus lost share quickly.
At the company I worked for at the time, when Lotus did finally port 1-2-3 to Windows, it worked well. Not sure what you are talking about Windows 'breaking' Lotus - I never had a problem with Lotus 1-2-3 working on WIndows - it was just that Excel was better, more functionally rich, and easier to use. And shouldn't it have been? I mean MS did have a large head start... Lotus chose not to invest at that time.
Don't blame MS - put the blame where it belongs, and at least in this one case, it belonged to Lotus.
MS released Excel on the Macintosh years before Windows 3.0. It was MS's first WYSIWYG product, though MS Chart for DOS was close. The W3.0 version of Excel was a port of the Mac version, and customers responded positively. But did MS give Lotus early access to Windows 3.0 in order for them to port it? How much of a time advantage did MS have? Lotus had a mac version, but the DOS version was better, so WIndowizing the DOS version to WYSIWIG or porting the Mac version were not good options, so Lotus would have had to come up with a new version entirely while supporting two other versions (as there was still strong DOS based demand).
Even way back then, MS owning the OS and using it to leverage their office product DID hurt the competition.
Many products ran on run-time Windows 2.11. I worked for a company that started developing software under Windows 1.07 and sold lots of software under Windows 2.11 - Wonderware process automation software. Lotus could have done the same, but market leaders usually stay away from change. That's why market leaders lose ground to more nimble competitors.
At my office (before Wonderware), we painfully went from Lotus 123 to Excel the day Excel for the PC was released. The pain only lasted a few weeks and then life was good - Excel was so far superior to Lotus.
Excel was not created by MS, it was purchased. An excellent product that is superior in many ways to OpenOffice. I use both both different purposes and have compared them extensively.
The one issue I have with MS is that they were not bothered by questions of intellectual property when Windows 3.0 first came out. All their software applications could be easily pirated. Aldus Corp had developed anti piracy software that was very effective. Adobe killed that when they purchased Aldus. MS did not use it either. Giving the software away ensured market dominance. Lotus insisted on selling their product for $495. Excel could be pirated with impunity.
Once they achieved market dominance, MS started crying about their intellectual property. The stats on user upgrades is dismal. A new incarnation of a software app does not guarantee that users will migrate to it. This new plan is not a bad one. Replacing the useless MS Works with a dumbed version of Office should be very effective from a marketing point of view.
The only caveat is that general users take advantage of very few features in a software application. A dumbed version might be all they need. Allowing for future upgrades is a win-win proposition.
I also do not think this will affect OpenOffice in any way.
A little more specifics please, CNET.
Sure it's speculation on my part but that would seem to be the way to go about it.
"Cluttering up your menu"?? Have you actually seen the ribbon?
As a simple version of Office, they may have something here.
But as long as Styles doesn't get removed (Zoho doesn't support it, don't know Google, but OpenOffice had it too) then I'm fine. That and other text formatting options.
Never understand how to use Mail Merge anyway
Spell Check? Anything more than basic formatting? Color? Font selection and size? That'll be more, please.
I can hardly WAIT on this fiasco.
Err, if you paid for the meal (computer), you have the perfect right to take home the breadsticks (app) in a doggie bag.
...unless those breadsticks came from Microsoft, apparently.
BTW - how about we get to invoice Microsoft and/or the OEM for the disk space being eaten by the unused features that come pre-packed? After all, Office 2007 (minus Project, Visio, etc) weighs in at nearly 2GB minus compression.
have you never installed an application using options? you know like the options to only install the components you need?
i know you hate MSFT that is evident but now your just beligerent.
I know you like to brag about how OS X is so much smaller in the base installation over Windows. That's fine. It IS a lot smaller than prior OS X installations and that was great.
This week I downloaded just over a half gigabyte of updates for OS X Snow Leopard. That, plus the iTunes, and iWorks updates put me up there at a full Gb in updates. The install is now *larger* than OS X was before it was slimmed down.
So... before you start complaining about Microsoft taking up hard drive space to make it easier to offer features instantly, please call Steve Jobs up and ask him my my hard drive space keeps shrinking.
...which usually have a polite habit of not wasting space on the hard drive with near-literal gigabytes of unnecessary features, unlike this wee adventure. Your point?
==
"This week I downloaded just over a half gigabyte of updates for OS X Snow Leopard."
...which likely replaces a near-equal size of existing files, much like Windows does with updates and patches. It also gets used (in the OS). aside from the ability to revert, it doesn't eat HDD space on balance - at least not to the tune of multiple gigabytes.
OTOH, we have this free MS Office version, which sits around on your hard drive doing nothing but waiting for a sales opportunity.
Nice try, though.
On your home computer, it does.
Now go price disk space per TB as sold by folks like NetApp, EMC, Hitachi...
Next question?
...fixed that for you.
I'd say OpenOffice is more complatible with word docs than Word itself...
But it's not something I would give to new compute users. The interface is for experienced veterans or computer geeks- not neophytes. Sure, there are some who adapt to it readily, but it is not an intuitive approach. And since there isn't any support for it that end users can easily access, that is somewhat of a show stopper right there.
iWorks and... yes, MS Office (*grumble*) are the better choice for a home user.
@ Notjub have you actually installed that compatibility pack you speak ill of? Do you actually know what it does? It allows those old versions of Word to open and create the newest version documents, not the other way around. Probbaly explains why you call yourself Notjub, Cant spell No job or nut job. Same diff.
Who needs to be able to try a product out, seeing if you like it or not before buying it. Car companies should follow your idea and abolish test drives.
This is a smart move on the part of MicroSoft.
This isn't about "try before you buy" anymore.
What is happening is that they are releasing a version that people can use for free without having to buy anything else. People generally buy as little as they can, so this could easily lead to lost revenue compared to having a trial version.
its not so hard to see why this makes sense... but let me point this out.
A FREE LIGHT VERSION OF OFFICE THICK APP IS BETTER THAN ANY VERSION OF A WEB APP FOR CREATING CONTENT!!!!
there i said it.. So the play for MSFT here is that if you own a thick app and have MSFT web app you'll have no need to play with GApps or Gmail for that matter, also you cant use a free thick app on Google's chrome OS can you....now say it with me ... AHH I GET IT.
this is a dagger to Google to nueter them in coming into the OS world and productivity.
I don't see this really affecting their software sales, but if they do an ad-supported web version, then this could be very important for their advertising revenue. And as we are moving away from the OS/Application model on a local system to a server/client based system, then this may be a move that is very timely indeed.
To douggdangger, I'm not suggesting Microsoft shouldn't offer Trial versions of their products. They already do that. Your analogy does not fit here. This is more like race-car makers giving consumers free models of their cars that have some high-end features removed.
Perhaps it would be a good idean for all prevously loyal Microsoft customers to change to Softmaker. The software is Office and Open Office compatible, simple to use and very much cheaper that Office.
You purchased a product in 2008 and now the 2010 version is releasing. What is it you want? You think that you should get a free upgrade too? I mean you've gotten over two years of use out of your existing product and it's going to continue to work fine for years to come.
How is this not concerned about keeping loyal customers tell me.
"They should screw their customers right oh you bought the old version 2 months before the new version oh too bad"
I took my 2008 MacBookPro down to the Apple store and they REFUSED to give me a free new MacBookPro. They even refused to give me a discount on a new one because I already owned the previous model.
The NERVE of them!
But wait, that's not all! I went to get my car's gas filled up at Chevron and I told them that I had bought gas last week and it worked great, and that I expected them to fill my tank this week for free. And you know what they said? Well, I can't repeat it here without violating the TOS for CNET, but let's just say there was a lot of laughing going on.
I can't believe a company would be so crass- so *selfish* to not want to give away their products to me free because I bought an earlier version. It's simply not acceptable behavior today.
I won't even tell you about Hardee's..... *shudder*
Apple gives me more of what I want in software and Microsoft gives me what it wants me to have.
Why not dump Office now? If it's so horrible why prolong your "misery"?
"Apple gives me more of what I want in software"
That's fine if all you want is 3 software.
"Microsoft gives me what it wants me to have."
I think you meant the other way around. When was the last time Apple gave you choices? Apple users basically are given what Steve Jobs WANTS you to have.
I didn't realize Apple takes request of software features and updates. Since you have apple's ear can you please ask them to add flash to the iphone and while you are at it tell them to stop adding bunch of useless crap to each itune revision they release.
thanks
Um, this is exactly what Apple does now. Just look at the iPhone. They choose what you can and cannot have on the product.
Look at the desktop/laptop line- again, they choose what OS you are permitted to use.
And you know what? That's fine with me, because for the most part, what Apple has decided I want *IS* what I want. And when there are things that I want that Apple had decided that I am not permitted, then that's why I have a dual boot system and can load up Windows on the other partition. Heck, I can use the Ubuntu box under the desk for even more freedom.
It's all about choices.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for all prevously loyal Microsoft customers to change to Softmaker. The software is Office and Open Office compatible, simple to use and very much cheaper that Office.
1) it doesn't. ;)
2) they deprecated it a couple of years ago.
Gee, a knee jerk anti-Obama reaction. What a surprise."
Gee, a liberal Obama brown nose that wants things that companies produce to be GIVEN to them for FREE, hating Microsoft what a surprise.
"Microsoft has a near monopoly on office software. Why? Because they refuse to join in on working with open standards."
That's their choice. I hate where Saab cars put their ignition keys, I don't buy their cars. You don't like it, don't buy it.
"Office 2007 also started setting the default file format to something incompatible with existing Office versions without the use of conversion software."
You can CHANGE that format to be compatible. You're an ignoramus.
You don't like something, don't buy it.
Because everything else is crap
Get a clue. Nothing from Microsoft is free.
Office 2007 really turned me off with the whole ribbon interface. It didn't make my user experience easier, rather it required me to learn how to get to features.
So far Open Office + Google Docs = Win.
1. incompatibility
2. open office to create the content
3. google docs to use them
as opposed to using a single product sure seems like thats a winner to me ;p
your argument that learning the ribbon was so hard that you prefered to learn 2 totally different interfaces instead was easier?! i mean listen to yourself.
Doing something productive? Need a standard? Want a simplied user interface? Want integration across the "stack" (App to Server backend?)
Office
Want to tinker and fiddle to get what you want? Enjoy spending time messing with software to make it work? Enjoy having your computer slow down to a snails crawl? Enjoy trying to get things to actually work together?
OpenOffice