Microsoft announces Office 2013, Office 365 pricing Microsoft has announced pricing for the next version of its Office productivity suite, and judging by its aggressive new licensing structure, it would much rather have customers sign up for the new Office 365 subscription model than buy the software outright. "Subscriptions open a host of possibilities," reads a post to …
Internet, a steady connection and only go where you can get a wireless signal.
What if you are someone who doesn't change to the newest product every year. If you still use 2003, god forbid, you will have had almost ten years service, that is good value.
Renting a product rather than buying is still more expensive in the long run.
"Ok if you have unlimited Internet, a steady connection and only go where you can get a wireless signal."
You can use the subscription version offline. It still installs. It's just that the purchased version wont expire and the subscription version will. So long as your device is allowed to connect up once a month or similar, it should stay working.
"What if you are someone who doesn't change to the newest product every year."
Well technically, it will be about every four years before you start to cost yourself slightly more by renting. But to answer your question, if this is the case then you buy the permanent version. Would you prefer it if there were only one sales model that suited only you?
Contemplate the “average” citizen. Now please bear in mind that – by definition – 50% of the human race is below average.
How other people choose to spend their hard-earned is up to them. If they choose to read my articles or pay my consulting fee, I’ll give them opinions on what products might meet their needs. But fuck no; I’m not paying a subscription fee for Microsoft Office. Office 2003 and LibreOffice have both been doing a bang up job for me so far.
If you have a particular need for the latest, greatest Microsoft Office…then by all means, pay the man his shilling. If you believe that “free must be bad,” then by all means, buy whichever product makes you feel you have the best item. If you believe that corner cases of formatting issues when importing files into older versions of Office/LibreOffice justify the cost, Microsoft is a-waiting. Even if you just feel that it is prudent, proper, and “what a good IT person does” to “use the same industry standard as ‘everyone else (or at least those with a brain, defined as those who choose the same industry standards as you do)’” hey, go hard.
This is the beauty of marketplace diversity. It is the benefit that we see from having even the barest fraction of competition in this market. An increasing number of people are perfectly happy with iWork. I’m perfectly happy with LibreOffice…
…and for this one household, Microsoft’s rent seeking can kiss my shiny, metal ASCII.
"Contemplate the “average” citizen. Now please bear in mind that – by definition – 50% of the human race is below average."
Depends what sort of average we are talking about.
I'd guess the phrase "the average citizen" is more likely to be the mode of whichever aspect is being measured, rather than the median (and mean averages seem particularly wrong in many cases - consider "number of eyes").
....have you actually used it yet? I have the Office 2013 Preview installed at the minute. To call it 'grey' is an under statement of gargantuan proportions. It's like they took the early, grey versions of VS 2012 and magnified them by 10. The features seem pretty good so far (linking to SkyDrive etc), but the styling needs serious work before it can be used every day. By me, at least.
Not weird at all.... they've seen the way Apple make a fortune through iTunes and want a bit of the same pie (actually of a different pie). And if you ask me, as a professional freelancer, paying $100 a year for access to Microsoft's entire office suite whenever and wherever I need it is a pretty good deal. Of course if you're just using it to write letters to your parents, then just stick with Open Office.
I was being sarcastic. ;o)
It sucks. The whole idea sucks.
Step 1: cheap subscription, more expensive stand-alone.
Step 2: more expensive stand-alone goes bye-bye and replaced by 'always up-to-date' Office with sub fee. No more 'old version of Office does the job for 10 years'.
Step 3: crank up subscription - what's better than "all your files are .docx, and your subscription ran out? Tragic!"
I've been using sc, bc, dc and vi to run my businesses for decades.
Explain again how microsoft (and/or google, etc.) can fix what ain't broke, without me spending an awful lot of money throwing unnecessary hardware at the (lack of) problem?
To say nothing of trusting a second party to *always* be able to provide my business data when I ask for it (to say nothing of trusting a third party with my client's data ... ).
And then there's the old "trusting a multibillion dollar multi-national advertising company". Corporations using this kind of thing are just asking for it. Induhviduals using it haven't the cognitive skills to be online.
"I've been using sc, bc, dc and vi to run my businesses for decades."
I use vi pretty much every day for coding. But the Gods help me if I ever had to write a professional looking invoice in it. I mean yes, I can just about remember how to use LaTeX, but I'd prefer to open Word and click on my stored Invoice template. You have to be joking if you think sc and bc can be favourably compared to Excel for doing my taxes, either!
"Explain again how microsoft (and/or google, etc.) can fix what ain't broke, without me spending an awful lot of money throwing unnecessary hardware at the (lack of) problem?"
Win8 and Office 2013 run absolutely fine on hardware that is even four years old which is a lifetime in hardware terms. Win8 actually runs better on most older hardware than Win7. If you are calling a dual core 2.8GHz machine with 2GB or RAM "unnecessary hardware" then you're a weird person. You can get such hardware for less than £90. Is that really the biggest expense in your business?
"To say nothing of trusting a second party to *always* be able to provide my business data when I ask for it (to say nothing of trusting a third party with my client's data ... )."
You are confused. Nothing about a rental model means that the data has to leave your machine. Even with the streaming version that you deploy ad hoc, that doesn't mean that the documents ever have to leave your own machine.
"And then there's the old "trusting a multibillion dollar multi-national advertising company". Corporations using this kind of thing are just asking for it. Induhviduals using it haven't the cognitive skills to be online."
Yes, anyone who uses MS Office lacks the "cognitive skills to be online". Oh look - a billion people have just proved you wrong. You're a troll and an ill-informed one who doesn't understand the difference between installed software periodically checking a online and uploading all your business data.
"I use vi pretty much every day for coding. But the Gods help me if I ever had to write a professional looking invoice in it. I mean yes, I can just about remember how to use LaTeX, but I'd prefer to open Word and click on my stored Invoice template."
I use a stored template (macro) to open a blank, serialized, professional looking invoice (estimate, whathaveyou) ... in sc, not vi. And I usually print 'em out on a daisy-wheel printer when I'm sending 'em off to established Fortune 500s. I almost always land the contract, in the case of the estimates, and always get paid in the case of the invoices. And sometimes I get a contract without a bid (if I want it) because a muck-a-muck remembers the daisy-wheel printout and correctly assumes I've been around the block a time or three.
"You have to be joking if you think sc and bc can be favourably compared to Excel for doing my taxes, either!"
My CPA does my taxes, using my provided data. (Tax laws change far to fast here in the USofA; I run some 16 interlocking businesses out of this place, so it makes sense to pay a CPA).
"If you are calling a dual core 2.8GHz machine with 2GB or RAM "unnecessary hardware" then you're a weird person."
If you update hardware when it's not necessary, you are wasting money by definition.
"You can get such hardware for less than £90. Is that really the biggest expense in your business?"
Care to cut me a personal check (cheque to you brits) for the 90 quid? Why not?
"Even with the streaming version that you deploy ad hoc, that doesn't mean that the documents ever have to leave your own machine."
Clearly, I was referring to the so-called "cloud" based "access all your docs from any machine, anywhere" aspect.
"Yes, anyone who uses MS Office lacks the "cognitive skills to be online". Oh look - a billion people have just proved you wrong."
500 trillion flies eat shit. Do you?
"You're a troll"
Of course. But at least I'm not a shill for any given multi-national. Can you say the same?
"and an ill-informed one"
OK, if you say so. Out of curiosity, what flavor was the kool-aid?
"I use a stored template (macro) to open a blank, serialized, professional looking invoice (estimate, whathaveyou) ... in sc, not vi. And I usually print 'em out on a daisy-wheel printer when I'm sending 'em off to established Fortune 500s. I almost always land the contract, in the case of the estimates, and always get paid in the case of the invoices. And sometimes I get a contract without a bid (if I want it) because a muck-a-muck remembers the daisy-wheel printout and correctly assumes I've been around the block a time or three."
My laser printer gives much better quality than any daisy-wheel printer ever did and it can handle professional logos, decent underlining, tables, etc. To try and turn your use of a daisy wheel printer into a selling point just pushes your argument even further into being non-applicable to the rest of the world. Besides, it is five years I think, since I last had to send someone an actual paper invoice rather than one by email for their records being acceptable. As to your use of macros in vi to create your invoices, it's a strawman to argue as if I said you couldn't, I said it was easier with Word. By a lot. You're arguing with someone who does use vi and can (just about rememeber) LaTeX, etc. but even I would find it a lot quicker to open Word and bang out an itemised invoice with a nice readable table and appropriate columns for services, costs in Word than in vi and the other 99.99% of the population even more so. Ditto for adapting any existing templates, form letters as such on the fly as needed. Don't get defensive - no-one is saying that you can't do your invoices with macros in vi. But it's absurd to suggest that the vast majority of users could or should spend all the extra time learning how to do so and all the extra time actually doing so. It's terrible elitism to think that laying out a tabled-invoice or formal letter is the preserve of people who are comfortable with LaTeX, etc. And your "almost always land the contract" - are you really telling me this is down to your documents coming out of vi and your daisy wheel printer rather than a long CV? You can't think your skills are so much on an equal footing with your typeface as that.
"My CPA does my taxes, using my provided data. (Tax laws change far to fast here in the USofA; I run some 16 interlocking businesses out of this place, so it makes sense to pay a CPA)."
I bet you they use MS Office and that they would take a lot longer and charge a lot more if they had to use vi, bc and sc to do your accounts. Or are you like someone denying you benefit from something if someone else does it on your behalf?
"If you update hardware when it's not necessary, you are wasting money by definition."
No you are not. "Necessary" is a strange absolutist word that I didn't use. I can do my taxes with pen and paper if I choose to - software is not "necessary", but if the benefit to me is worth the cost, then the money is not wasted. I just pointed out that for most professionals, <£100 for as a one-time cost for basic hardware that can run Win8 and Office 2013, is one of our smallest business costs. For someone who has been bragging about landing all your contacts with established Fortune 500's, it seems to me even tiny benefits in time saving would render that small fee worthwhile. You can't convincingly argue against the use of Office 2013 because someone will need £100 worth of computer equipment to run it on when almost everyone already exceeds those requirements already anyway.
"Care to cut me a personal check (cheque to you brits) for the 90 quid? Why not?"
No, because I have no reason to like you or give you the money. If you were going hungry, I probably would, but apparently you run "16 interlocking businesses" and have "established Fortune 500's" for your clients, so there doesn't seem reason to think you need it.
"Clearly, I was referring to the so-called "cloud" based "access all your docs from any machine, anywhere" aspect."
No, that is not clear. Clear would have been writing "even though this article is about Office in general and the rest of my post talks about Office in general and there's no reason you actually need to upload your private data to the cloud, I am here going to choose to write only about the online service where you do". You in no way made that distinction clear and in using the argument against Office that you don't want to have to upload your data to the cloud, you imply that this is in some way required. If you don't want a piece of functionality, don't use it. I think you didn't understand that the software was distinct from the data's location and if you did understand that, then you should have been more honest about acknowledging that it was entirely the user's choice as to whether they wanted to use this feature or not. If it's the user's choice, then it's not really a problem for those that don't want it whilst being a benefit to those that do. Choice is good.
"500 trillion flies eat shit. Do you?"
You said that anyone who uses MS Office "lacks the cognitive skills to be online" and I pointed out that this was demonstrably false and insulting. The above retort isn't in any way a counter to my point, it's just... I don't know... venting anger and dislike, I think.
"Of course. But at least I'm not a shill for any given multi-national. Can you say the same?"
Yes. Everything I've written above I believe can be supported and I don't receive any material reward for writing it from anyone.
"OK, if you say so. Out of curiosity, what flavor was the kool-aid?"
Fact-flavoured. Mmmmmm, lovely facts. Of course, they're not to everyone's tastes. Is there any reason you need to bring the conversation down to the level of sarcasm and ad hominem attacks on my integrity?
"Anybody who voluntarily continues to use vi is obviously a masochist who likes things to be far harder than they need to be and as such is not qualified to say what makes a good end-user experience."
I use vi for any scripts I want to write and also any web-programming, e.g. PHP or Django development, which whilst an IDE probably would offer advantages, I find I don't actually need.
Besides, I've spent ten years learning shortcuts and commands in vi. I'm not going to quit when I've just passed the half-way stage, am I?
Make no mistake about it: this comment comes from someone using and actually /liking/ Office 2010. Thing is; I'm glad I stepped onto this the way I did because what came out next.. ugh...
Office 365 is about the worst investment you can get into in my opinion. Because while it may not appear to be a major investment multiply the price you pay per month by 12 or 24 and then compare that to the purchase price of plain Office.
Another issue to keep in mind: Although I think 365 is decent it cannot compete with the desktop apps. If you are an "office power user" (meaning: you use templates and VBA code to back those up) then 365 won't help you out. Heck; worse... There are several features which the desktop has and 365 simply can't cope with.
Bottom line: if this deal appeals to you (why not?) I'd urge you to first: DEMO 365 before you sign up. Maybe you'll like what you see; good. Then you got confirmation. But I think chances are high that you don't like what you see; then you saved quite some money.
If you normally upgrade to the newest Office, subscription (at those prices) seems a no-brainer assuming your sub lets you automatically get newer versions.
Note if you're setting up a business, paying a sub also reduces your startup costs.
I've never used 365/OnDemand though so whether they're any good I can't say. But if the sub lets you install proper local versions too, I don't think it's too bad. $99 for a whole household to use Office legally is a steal really compared to the old way (even though everyone just installed the same copy on all their PCs).
Tossing in a Skype plan and SkyDrive is a nice touch for both sides although isn't that using a monopoly in Office software to get a dominant position in Cloud storage and web-telephony?
Microsoft will discover that trying to sell the same products over and over won't work, especially when people see no reason to upgrade each here. I'm still using Office 2007 and see no reason to upgrade. It does what I need, and I can't see why should I pay $100 each year to use it. I spent $90 for Office Home five years ago - up to now it's $18 per year, a huge saving, and counting...
"Microsoft will discover that trying to sell the same products over and over won't work"
Actually MS may well discover that it does work; this is broadly how most big businesses buy software, through annual licence fees. For the home user, those *cough* people who are running multiple copies of a rip off copy of Office 2007 imported from Thailand by a mate, across three or more home machines might consider that $99 a year to have the latest, fully legal, fully patched version on all machines is quite a bargain. And home users are getting used to SAS with cloud backups and sharing solutions, and content as a service with things like Spotify Premium.
Nothing wrong with your "meany" approach (indeed, I tip my hat to you on that count), but I don't think we can say that offering 365 to domestic users is destined to fail.
Presumably you can sell a permanent licence and if you are renting on a month by month basis, you can't. Or at best, you could try and sell the last few months of rent. Bit like buying a house vs. renting, it seems to me. Is it unfair in the latter scenario that you can sell the deeds to your house but trying to sell the last week of your tenancy is difficult? I honestly think that someone trying to sell on the last $8 (one month) of MS Home Office subscription is really just crazy.
I think the posited question about selling on is an artefact of annual pricing, and one of the few things that the 365 package might have got wrong for retail users. I chose Google Drive over competing cloud offers because it is charged monthly, rather than up front for a full year charged by Sky Drive, and although the described 365 offer sounds very promising, for preference I'd rather not have to commit a year at a time and instead have pay monthly.
Devils advocate here, but I welcome the transition to subscription, I tend to upgrade my hardware every few years so upgrade office as I go.
$20 per year for a perpetually upgrading suite with some Skype calls and storage is ok, given current pricing you would break even after 2.5 years = new pc time.
If you have a poor internet connection, well install 2013 onto your hard drive. You have 5 licences after all... The option to run a virtual application on a machine you don't use is also quite neat. Running the cloud app is another option so I don't really see what your loosing with subscribing...
Ready for the down voting!!!
The fee is $99 per year, not $20.
From what I've seen Office is $139 for the home version, so in less than 18 months, paying by subscription will cost you more than the shrinkwrapped version.
I also doubt there'll be many 'extras' thrown in either. Isn't that what MS said about Vista and 7 Ultimate? What extras did you get after you'd bought the product?
Yeah, but if you've only got one computer, it is still $99 per year.
We have two, but I don't run Office on mine because I don't need to.
So it is not worth it for the one computer that runs Office in my house.
YMMV, but how many households have 5 computers that they USE Office on? I don't mean the media PC you have connected to the telly, but PCs actually used for Office-like tasks. At most, there are 2 or 3 (depends on how many kids you've got I suppose).
So, at $99 per year, MS would have to release the next version of Office in 2016 (likely), and not change the pricing, for it to be worth buying the subscription for 3 computers.
For me, it isn't worth it.
As a small business owner, I have never felt comfortable with on-line applications. There have been times when a drive went tits up and I didn't have a backup of my data, but I am more diligent about that now. I could (and did) get some data back from a recovery company (at quite a cost). My biggest fear is that I won't have access to the application or my data when I really need it. If my internet goes down, I can still print out invoices with my accounting system that resides on my computer. If I had an on-line accounting systems I would be screwed. I would be even more screwed if their internet, server farm or entire business packed it in. I couldn't even throw money at the problem. I would also be stuck with manually inputing all of my accounting for the year into a purchased accounting software package. There went my week or two. Losing my correspondence and other business documentation could be just as bad.
The test of a new system like this is to identify some likely points of failure and see if it is possible to throw money at the problem to get it fixed. Does anybody that would be purchasing a subscription from M$ think they have enough cash to get M$ to notice them and fix a problem; not likely.
I wind up in many places that do not have wi-fi. Planes, trains, small towns and way out in the woods. This would probably mean that I couldn't use the subscription apps. Fail.
"As a small business owner, I have never felt comfortable with on-line applications. There have been times when a drive went tits up and I didn't have a backup of my data, but I am more diligent about that now. I could (and did) get some data back from a recovery company (at quite a cost). My biggest fear is that I won't have access to the application or my data when I really need it. If my internet goes down, I can still print out invoices with my accounting system that resides on my computer. If I had an on-line accounting systems I would be screwed. I would be even more screwed if their internet, server farm or entire business packed it in. I couldn't even throw money at the problem. I would also be stuck with manually inputing all of my accounting for the year into a purchased accounting software package. There went my week or two. Losing my correspondence and other business documentation could be just as bad."
So install one of our five licences locally, just as you did with Office 2010 or whichever. You don't have to use the online or streaming versions only - those are just convenient extras. The only difference is that the local install will occasionally check if your subscription is still valid and throw up a message prompting you if it isn't.
This really means it's time for some publisher of a proper alternative to Office to get on the job and sell.
For many family types, an annual subscription is going to highlight just how much Microsoft stuff is costing them, instead of it being hidden in the upfront purchase price. After the first annual renewal, I can see many cash strapped families thinking how can I avoid this.
For small businesses, the idea of all your data being somewhere out in the etherworld ... no, lots of owner managers are not going to buy that one.
Sounds like - with this strict one device licence - you'll have trouble if a PC breaks down, and either needs replaced, new hard drive installation.
Pure and simply another money grabbing exercise by Microsoft. Nothing else. I see no benefit whatsoever to the average user.
"For many family types, an annual subscription is going to highlight just how much Microsoft stuff is costing them, instead of it being hidden in the upfront purchase price. After the first annual renewal, I can see many cash strapped families thinking how can I avoid this."
Have you ever looked at how many people buy their mobile phones on contract rather than buying SIM-free upfront? Case closed, I think.
"For small businesses, the idea of all your data being somewhere out in the etherworld ... no, lots of owner managers are not going to buy that one."
Nothing in this model demands that your data be stored online. And businesses can deploy their own clouds. Doesn't have to be SkyDrive. It can be your own server in your own office if you want. Or just don't use the cloud at all. The software still installs locally.
"Sounds like - with this strict one device licence - you'll have trouble if a PC breaks down, and either needs replaced, new hard drive installation."
Less problems if you think about it. If I have the old-fashioned install on my machine and it breaks, I have to re-obtain, re-install elsewhere. With the streaming version, I just grab my spare device (or someone else's), log-in and use Office again. I've tried the Streaming version and it took about two minutes and I was up and running and as far as I could see it was pretty much feature for feature comparable. And it still works with all my data locally. I think some people don't understand the difference between local installs, streaming version and the Online Office.
"Pure and simply another money grabbing exercise by Microsoft. Nothing else. I see no benefit whatsoever to the average user."
Permanent updates, ability to use anywhere with or without installing, integrated video calling, included online storage and syncing, licencing based on user rather than device (if preferred), a choice of purchasing model that best suits you, a more secure system of plugin writing and deployment than the old VB Macro monstrosities and all the other refinements of a new version of Office.
"Can you open that case again as most people end up with a mobile phone at the end of their contract!"
That is true and a difference between phone contracts and MS Office. But I was addressing the OP's argument that people will always spend more money up front to save money in the long-run. Phone contracts are just one example out of many, that most people just don't think that long-term. And frequently people plunge straight back into a contract for the sake of getting something more up to date, just as many will stay with the rental model of MS Office for the sake of always having the latest version.
of an office program for home use, ever. I've gotten by in the past on a combination of using copies from work on home computers, not having office, pirating, and using open office... But I have been using the example version of Office 365 for the last few months and I absolutely love it. What a huge improvement. Microsoft has not only done a great job at embracing cloud services but they have exceeded far beyond its competitors (apple, google) and beyond my imagination (with things like being able to use office programs before they are even done downloading/installing on my computer).
Being a laggard as far as software is concerned I have just purchased MS Office 2010, upgrading from Microsoft office XP from necessity.
I am sure Bill Gates and Co would love me to rent the newest copy of MS office but why should I.
MS office is not the only word processing software around and if I have to rent it I will change to another brand with compatability.
I'm confused. The article says "It costs $99.99 per year, and at that rate, it will be four years before the customer has paid the equivalent of a single retail Office 2013 Professional license."
Huh? Well of cause it will take four years, your comparing the 4 times cheaper home edition to the 4 times more expensive Professional edition. So, how much of a saving is there if you compare apples to apples instead of trying to pull a fast one on us? About $40 saving for the home user, for 1 year. After that it's about $60 more expensive and gets more so each year.
Yep, I'm the one still using office 2003 and Openoffice/Libreoffice. :D
"Huh? Well of cause it will take four years, your comparing the 4 times cheaper home edition to the 4 times more expensive Professional edition. So, how much of a saving is there if you compare apples to apples instead of trying to pull a fast one on us? About $40 saving for the home user, for 1 year. After that it's about $60 more expensive and gets more so each year."
The subscription version for Home however is for five users. The purchase install is for one device. If you're the only one, then buy the purchased version. If you want your whole family to have it, including children at school or Uni., then get the subscription one for five people. I don't get why some people look at a choice of options, and then get angry that one of the options is not as good for them as the other. Get the one that suits you. Purchase prices are comparable to the purchase price of previous versions of Office.
Ah, thanks. Although I read it as "use on 5 PCs, but 1 license = 1 user". I may be wrong. But I tend not to let anyone else use my PC, and they can pay for their own office software or download an open source version. Why? Because then they learn the true cost and don't pester me to buy it for them!
That's probably less the case than it was. Office 2013 supports both ODF and the new, actually implementable OOXML (as opposed to the mess that was rushed through ISO five or so years ago). Both should be supported by any mainstream office product for many years to come. I think generally MS Office is preferred because it offers a lot more in the way of enterprise features, a nicer interface and supports a lot of more advanced features that tend not to be supported in Open Office. I just find it a lot nicer all round and paying $99 for being more productive over a year is easily worth it for me. This is becoming even more true with the online capabilities of MS Office. But each their own. Document compatability is much less of an issue than it used to be.
> What does MS Office offer that you cannot do in LibreOffice?
A fairly good guarantee that when you send a third party an Office 2013 document, it will be formatted in the same way as you saw it when you created it and run macros as expected.
Of course, my view is that you should only send data, not executables, and that you shouldn't worry too much about formatting (it is an enormous consumer of time) but I'm in security, not marketing.
Apart from the visible stuff like formatting (Open/Libre has NEVER managed not to screw this up for me) Office does a hell of a lot more than you might realise, that OSS doesn't.
For one thing all the macro support is very powerful. For another integration between the different apps (Word, Excel, Access). Thirdly, the ability to call into Office from your own code and generate documents automatically (or to use libs to create Office docs without using Office directly).
To a normal user none of this means much but it's why Office is unrivaled in the techy world. Libre like FireFox is targeting the general home user.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
