Ok so basically it's like Citrix. Call me when I can run my C#/.Net code on my Android phone directly.
Use Windows software on Android – Microsoft couldn't be app-ier
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has made getting Windows apps everywhere via the cloud a central theme of his tenure at the top and next week the next stage will begin in this process when RemoteApp rolls out as a commercial service. Redmond announced RemoteApp at TechEd earlier this year and the system has been in preview for …
COMMENTS
-
Friday 5th December 2014 08:08 GMT Khaptain
Not cheap at all
>Microsoft has two packages; Basic and Standard. Basic is aimed at people who are light users and costs $10 a month for 40 hours access, with overage charges that are capped at $17 per user per calendar month.
17 * 12 = $204 per year or $612 over a 3 year Office lifecycle. Pretty much on par with actually purchasing the software.
That is neither cheap nor wonderfull at least not whilst free alternatives are available and certainely not when considering that this is a "rental" scheme whereby you have nothing in your possession at the end of it.
MS Office is one of those applications that hasnt changed in years, I would hazard a guess that 95% of users are still using the same 99% of functionality that we have been using for the last 10 years.
If I had bought Office 2003 in 2003 I would have paid around $300 at would still have had access to the same funcitonality that I use today.
If I had rented Office 2003 since that date I would now have paid $2244.....( Ok it would have been a bit cheaper at the time but the comparison still stands).
Which of these 2 models do you believe MS prefers...
-
Friday 5th December 2014 08:57 GMT Dan 55
Re: Not cheap at all
Not at all, you would have got Office 2003, Office 2007, Office 2010, and Office 2013 so you would have paid $300 * 4 = $1200 instead of $2244 which would make it just twice as expensive if you wanted all four releases of Office (which is what you get whether you want them or not).
Imagine the joy as one day your Office updates and suddenly gets a ribbon (2007) and then a few years later suddenly goes TIFKAM (2013). That kind of experience is priceless and worth every penny.
Am I getting this MS shill thing right?
-
Friday 5th December 2014 09:34 GMT Pascal Monett
Re: you would have got Office 2003, Office 2007, Office 2010, and Office 2013
Um, no.
I have an install disk of Office 2000 at home. I see no need to buy every new version for personal use. Word 2000 has largely enough functionality for me to write a letter to someone.
Even so, I've uninstalled Office completely. I use LibreOffice now, and it is compatible enough with Office that I don't care about the differences.
My business laptop has Office 2010, obviously. I hardly use it anyway. I have no intent of purchasing or using Office 2013, and certainly not Office 365. Small company, little utility, no point.
-
Friday 5th December 2014 09:41 GMT Kevin Johnston
Re: you would have got Office 2003, Office 2007, Office 2010, and Office 2013
@Pascal...I think you missed it but @Dan was sharing the joys that you would have had with the rental version where you would never know until you launched it each day what extra functionality had been shoe-horned in FOR NO EXTRA CHARGE!!!!
This contrasts with the boring plodding of your 'owned' copy where everything is in the same place day after day and you don't get to spend hours exploring a twisty maze of passages all the same to find that obscure 'set line spacing to 2' option.
-
Friday 5th December 2014 10:59 GMT Steve Davies 3
Re: you would have got Office 2003, Office 2007, Office 2010, and Office 2013
Ohhhhhhh look shiny-shiny
That's what you seem to be saying about all this wonderful new functionality that MS lets you have AND that you must have to do your job. Sounds like something a drug dealer would do to keep you hooked on Charlie but here you are hooked on Office. Sad... so Sad. Perhaps you should get some help?
As has been said the majority of us have all the functionality we need already. Personally, I can't think of anything since Office 2003 that I have regard as a 'must have in order to do my job'.
It is more than likely that I'll carry on using my old version of Office until I say, 'enough!' and retire.
-
-
-
-
Friday 5th December 2014 09:45 GMT LucreLout
Re: Not cheap at all
That is neither cheap nor wonderfull at least not whilst free alternatives are available and certainely not when considering that this is a "rental" scheme whereby you have nothing in your possession at the end of it.
Completely agree with that - While I dare say you'd get very little trying to resell Office 2003, you would at least have the right to continue its use indefinately.
If I had bought Office 2003 in 2003 I would have paid around $300 at would still have had access to the same funcitonality that I use today.
I use what would probably be termed a basic feature set. References and change tracking are about as pushed to the limits as my use of the software gets. Which is why I usually use Open Office at home, despite being a total M$ fanboy at work.
I just don't see why most home users buy it.....
-
Friday 5th December 2014 15:16 GMT Salts
Re: Not cheap at all
Not cheap I'd say it was F*&^ing expensive, don't see many home users paying that price, as you say one morning you wake up and there is a nice new and very irritating feature, or more likely the document format has changed and you are locked in.
Mind you what do I know, these days I tend to use markdown and export as pdf with github for tracking changes, there are so many options though for anyone that is turned off by the price, $200 gets me a chrome book with 100gb of storage for 2 years and comes with google docs.
-
-
Friday 5th December 2014 13:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Hey Microsoft, make your pricing and T&Cs simpler and people might want to use some of these wonderful new services you keep inventing.
A lot of people have spend the last 2 decades being annoyed at microsoft for its complex licensing schemes. Now they've taken that to a whole new level with Azure.
-
Sunday 7th December 2014 07:12 GMT jcitron
I agree this isn't for the home user and probably aimed at the small office or a larger corporation with a mobile workforce. This to me sounds more like a bundle package with Office 365, a bit of online storage, and an application to run their RDP to the Microsoft Azure server.
For the corporate user, this saves licensing costs, which can be really, really absurd, and their whole licensing can be really, really confusing.
-
Thursday 11th December 2014 18:17 GMT admiraljkb
>For the corporate user, this saves licensing costs, which can be really, really absurd, and their whole licensing can be really, really confusing.
Agreed. For the enterprises (large and small) there are some serious savings if you can eliminate at least *some* of the software assurance crap for craptons of desktops and servers and all the supporting costs of running/managing them and the underlying hardware.
In looking at this, it looks like part of Nadella's continued positioning for MS to survive (and possibly thrive) in a post "Windows Desktop" world that now appears imminent.