Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Announces Web-Based Office365

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the case-of-the-me-toos dept.

Microsoft 210

suraj.sun writes "Aiming to bolster its hosted software for businesses, Microsoft announced today that it is adding Web-based versions of Office to its collection of hosted software for business, Office365. It will also offer traditional Office as a subscription-based service. Microsoft is pricing the service as low as $6 per user per month, though that version includes only the Web-based versions of Office."

cancel ×

210 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Best with IE" or not? (3, Interesting)

grub (11606) | more than 2 years ago | (#33951874)


It isn't mentioned in the article, but does anyone know if Office365 "works best" with IE or is it browser-agnostic? For example, Microsoft's Outlook Web Access is quite decent when accessed with IE but with Firefox or Safari it's not nearly as nice.

Re:"Best with IE" or not? (2, Informative)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952182)

Nothing more complicated than a "hello world" page is browswer-agnostic.

But it's also a pretty safe bet that it's not a true browser app (I'm not sure what that means), but will be Silverlight based. So on that front, so long as you're running a browser that supports Silverlight, you should get the exact same experiance. There may be more info in TFA, but it's down for me at the moment, so I'm just going to speculate wildly.

Re:"Best with IE" or not? (2, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952196)

Their web site claims "Works with the devices you use most - including PC, Mac, Windows Phone, iPhone, Android, and BlackBerry" but it doesn't say "Works well".

I'd think it would have to be relatively browser-agnostic to make that claim, but who knows?

Re:"Best with IE" or not? (2, Informative)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952338)

if it needs a specific browser to run which only works on a specific operating system they should just have made it a desktop office suite (separate from MS Office even, start from scratch).

This is more of the last few year's trend of making everything web-based just so the company making it can appear to be with the times of having everything web/cloud/subscription based with no real advantage

Re:"Best with IE" or not? (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952364)

does anyone know if Office365 "works best" with IE or is it browser-agnostic?

If you run it on anything other than IE, it will take 365 days to load. Hence, the name.
   

IE? nah, just Silverlight (4, Informative)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952432)

Hotmail is controlled by MS. IIRC, about a year ago they started displaying PPS (and maybe DOC) attachments in-browser. They did so while promoting the "works best with Silverlight... install" here.

So they have gathered enough statistics on Silverlight and any failures in display that always come from end-user feedback. Now, they are ready to entice corporations. The corps will have to approve Silverlight for their outdated browsers, or be faced with the same "degraded" fallback interfaces that result in reduced productivity that you already noted with Outlook's non-native execution.

Re:"Best with IE" or not? (0)

cuby (832037) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952458)

If it works well under Firefox it will be good. Office is the one thing I miss on linux... Open Office creates a mess in a workplace were everyone uses MS office.

Re:"Best with IE" or not? (1)

MCEscher (1924800) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952766)

TFA doesn't say, but I watched a Channel 9 video and it certainly looks like Silverlight. That means Microsoft supports Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and IE (on Windows, Moonlight isn't near close enough to Silverlight to do this kind of stuff). I do agree with you that the outlook web application was garbage. But now with Exchange 2010, it is excellent. I was quite pleased when I opened up Outlook 2010 web mail in Chrome and it was completely full featured, even the Office Communicator Client integration worked!

Re:"Best with IE" or not? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953432)

I reviewed the Web-based versions of Office a while ago for InfoWorld. I was pretty underwhelmed [infoworld.com] , but browser support wasn't really a problem. Microsoft is officially supporting IE, Firefox, and Safari. In practice, I found Chrome and even Konqueror worked pretty much fine. You get better document rendering and maybe some other goodies if you have Silverlight installed, but it's not necessary.

On the other hand, the functionality you get from Web-based Office is a far cry from what you can do with the desktop versions. The Web-based document viewers are top notch and they render Office docs better than anything else on the market, for any platform (other than Windows Office, obviously). But the editors are completely separate from the viewers and they don't offer much more functionality than Google Docs does.

That is low (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#33951890)

That is the low price?
So for a company of 500, a medium size business, you are looking at $36k/year and no real reduction in onsite costs other than adding office to the images and the cost of office.

Seems to expensive for small businesses and too low value for the big ones.

Apple counters (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33951948)

www.gay365.com

Re:That is low (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33951988)

Hmmm .... surely though this expense would go against opex? Seems reasonable to me.
What would the traditional Office setup cost a company of 500?

Re:That is low (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952018)

$6 / mo = $72 / year. Considering Office Professional costs close to $400, this is basically a subscription model. Yes, the $6/mo is cheaper than $400 / 5 years.

If $6 / mo is *expensive*, then I'm not sure how people manage payroll.

Re:That is low (3, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952630)

You forgot to factor in the 25GB Exchange online mailboxes and Sharepoint Online for each user that doesn't come with Office Professional.

Re:That is low (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952088)

... and for a single user it would be $72. Assuming 3 years between new versions of MS Office, the total payment would be $216. Not cheap at all.

Re:That is low (4, Informative)

anUnhandledException (1900222) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952216)

When one consider that Office is $400 - $500 per license it is "half off".

Also I think it is more aimed at small business.

Fortune 500 can drop $500 a license per user no big deal.

A startup could preserve capital by paying $72 per year.

Re:That is low (2, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953272)

A startup could preserve captial by using openoffice, and starting a precident of not getting locked in right off the bat.
"The cloud" is not the horse to back.

Re:That is low (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952234)

Also known as retail prices.
Amazon - $215 [amazon.com]

Re:That is low (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952102)

$36k/year is expensive for a company of 500 people?

Tell you what (2, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952200)

I'll install OpenOffice 500 times and you can pay me the $36k. Deal?

Re:Tell you what (-1, Troll)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952266)

I'll install OpenOffice 500 times and you can pay me the $36k. Deal?

Nope. Although "you get what you pay for" is sometimes true, charging to install OpenOffice doesn't make it good enough for an awful lot of businesses that use Office.

(Cue a dozen people who claim OO is better because they're too luddite for the ribbon interface.)

Re:Tell you what (2, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952584)

Windows apologists kept repeating the linux is too different mantra for years now they gotta defend the ribbon. Yay! karma exists.

Re:Tell you what (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952844)

Certainly I never said that "Linux is too different", so lumping me in with people who did is a strawman at best.

Re:Tell you what (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33953202)

Nothing available with Linux rivals the functionality of Exchange.

Re:Tell you what (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952306)

If you are offering support for 500 people who have never used OO.o $36k a year is probably going to feel quite low.

Re:Tell you what (1, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952408)

Sure, if you include 25 gb managed mailboxes for the 500 people with a 99.9% uptime SLA and 24/7 support, backups, failover, etc. That is going to be entertaining.

Mod up (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952548)

Not sure why this is marked troll.

Exchange Online is part of the deal, providing all those services.

Re:Tell you what (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952694)

That SLA is worthless, read it. At most you get back a percentage of what you paid.

But with that included it is not that bad.

Re:Tell you what (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953192)

Man... I'd love to even have a 1gb mail box.

I'm under outlook and limited to 100mb (as is everyone at the company).

I have 5gb each in my personal accounts.

My outlook work accounts clogs with a few screen shots these days.

Re:That is low (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952582)

Well, I'm sure Microsoft would never have different pricing options for different markets. Doomed.

Its website (5, Informative)

neo00 (1667377) | more than 2 years ago | (#33951960)

Re:Its website (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952258)

Server Error in '/' Application. (5, Insightful)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952616)

Ouch. That link is slashdotted or something, so all we got is that error.
Which was great, decent reminder that MS hosting all your office documents on the cloud reduces your company's effective ownership of the files. One day IT blocks the domain inadvertently, or it gets DDoS'd by anonymous, or the local spyware kills it in your hostfile, or all the phones and internet go down at the company because of a cut cable... so then what do the managers do to access their files?

Cloud indeed.

Re:Its website (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952748)

Does office365.com redirect there? Because office365.com is blocked at work (for not being indexed by whoever supplies our filters), but microsoft.com is not. If so, I thank you.

Office 365 fits between Office 97 & Office 200 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33951974)

Office 365, eh? Does that mean a fork of Office 97 that ignores everything introduced by Office 2000 and later?

Re:Office 365 fits between Office 97 & Office (2, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952094)

No, it just means that it doesn't work on leap years.

Re:Office 365 fits between Office 97 & Office (2, Funny)

jasonmicron (807603) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952330)

No, it just means that it doesn't work on leap years.

Sort of like the PS3?

For $6 a month (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952036)

I could download OpenOffice (or whatever it's called this month) many, many times. And I could still afford to burn it onto CD and give it to my friends.

Re:For $6 a month (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952228)

And you would have a piece of shit that doesn't do half of what people need it to.

Re:For $6 a month (4, Insightful)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952318)

While that may or may not be true, I don't need to post as an Anonymous Coward to tell you that Office alone is overpriced for what it does, especially when there is a viable alternative for free, let alone this 'subscription' crap.

Re:For $6 a month (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952718)

Wow. Can you point me to the viable alternative for Access?

Re:For $6 a month (1)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952834)

Yeah, it's called Open Office. Base does the same thing.

Re:For $6 a month (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33953100)

You reckon I can convert all my current databases to Base in less than $400 (cost of an Office license) of my time?

OO might be free to purchase but it sure aint free to implement.

My last MS Office upgrade was painless - 20 mins of installation and everything just worked.

Re:For $6 a month (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952756)

But does the 'viable' alternative come with 25GB mailboxes backed by an SLA? Didn't think so.

Re:For $6 a month (1)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952916)

Every 'cloud' server has a SLA. That's like asking if a program has a EULA. Most do. I don't know enough about the 25GB mailbox to comment on that.

Re:For $6 a month (-1, Flamebait)

anUnhandledException (1900222) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952256)

and it still wouldn't handle complex VBA no matter how many times you install it.

Open Office is a toy. If you want to manually do a spreadsheet for home budget, or send mom a letter sure use Open Office however (so far) open office lacks the necessary functionality to replace MS Office.

Re:For $6 a month (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952438)

You raise a good point. Is there any chance that there will be VBA support in this web-based version of Office?

Re:For $6 a month (0, Flamebait)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952478)

Slashdot: where something negative about an Open Source project will always be modded troll, especially if it's true.

Seriously, pretending OO is just as good isn't going to do anything to help it be better.

Re:For $6 a month (1)

anUnhandledException (1900222) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952698)

Yeah I don't get it.

Open Office is fine for some stuff but when it chokes on VBA most business aren't going to adopt it.

Our company (despite the objections of many) tried and it was a nightmare. Lots of excel docs for reports all had to be redone, sometimes finding a replacement functionality was difficult or time consuming. Later the company realized that many of our partners continued to use MS Office w/ xlsm files. Ooops. We had to start saying "please send it without VBA macros". Some did, most didn't. No way to read those except w/ Office. So the company bought a few licenses. After 18 months of pretending it would work they ended up purchasing new licenses for Office.

Still some people will go "LALALALALA Open Office is just as good". The zealots don't realize that sticker price isn't everything. If it was then there would only be one car in the US and it would be Hyundai Accent ($10,760 retail). The $500 the company "saved" by not purchasing Office likely wasted as much as $5,000 in productivity for some employees. I spent hours getting stuff to work in OO when it already worked fine in MS Office.

There is no free lunch. TCO and productivity is what matters and even with a $0 license OO still has cost.

Anyways now it is a 50/50 split between troll and flamebait.

Re:For $6 a month (2, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953134)

It's never going to be better.

Seriously.

If Oracle were to put together a team of absolute superstars - I mean real development gurus - and head them up with the best project manager they can find - and give them just one task - "Make OpenOffice import and export seamlessly to Microsoft Office formats, including all scripting and macros", it still wouldn't be better.

For one, Microsoft would suddenly start to find patents they could sue Oracle for infringing.

For another, the next version of Office would change things, drastically. There'd be an Office XML format "version 2", and it'd make version 1 look like a paragon of well-thought out design.

For a third, by the time such a feature made it into the stable version of OpenOffice, the two things I've just listed would have already happened. Twice.

Like it or not, we live in a world where people want to share information digitally, and that sharing has to work. Microsoft's rules say you do this by running an office suite on your PC that saves files to a known format and you collaborate by sharing those files in some form - be it through Sharepoint or, if you're more old-fashioned, by email attachment and storing on a fileserver. Thing is, if you play to those rules you're more or less guaranteed to lose. This is why Google Docs doesn't and it's why Microsoft are frightened of Google. Google are playing to their rules and Microsoft haven't had to compete on someone else's terms in a very long time.

Re:For $6 a month (2, Interesting)

armanox (826486) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952632)

Oddly enough I don't know anyone who uses VBA.

Perfect timing! (1)

jkmartin (816458) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952096)

I'm buying this to run on my Windows phone!

Awesome... (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952116)

I was hoping for a pay version of Google Docs. Kidding aside. I am truly hoping they have some good offerings since it looks like they will allow for online video editting. That would be very awesome

Strange Name (3, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952134)

I assume the next version will be Office 366. How long have I been asleep?

Re:Strange Name (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952214)

There won't be version numbers. They'll just roll out updates, fixes & new features over time. Just like Google Docs and GMail - I don't recall seeing version numbers there, updates just roll out every now and then.

Re:Strange Name (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952488)

I assume the next version will be Office 366.
How long have I been asleep?

I hope I am asleep when Office 666 comes out.

Re:Strange Name (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952530)

It just means that it won't work during leap years -- and the next one is less than 15 months away.

Re:Strange Name (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952670)

Office 366 is reserved for Leap Years...

'Only' the Web-based versions of Office ? (3, Interesting)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952152)

Guess that covers Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Access. So what's the rest, then ? Visio ? Exchange ?

Re:'Only' the Web-based versions of Office ? (2, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952316)

Guess that covers Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Access. So what's the rest, then ? Visio ? Exchange ?

Good point. Google Docs has a word processor thats better because its free. Its a competitive market. But what about Visio?

Who out there has a web based Visio that I can use? Like for network and wiring diagrams?

Re:'Only' the Web-based versions of Office ? (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952470)

Good point. Google Docs has a word processor thats better because its free.

Man, I'll give you some human excrement for free ... that doesn't make it better.

Free crap is still free crap. Not saying that the Google app is, in fact, crap. Merely that "free" and "better" are on separate axes.

Re:'Only' the Web-based versions of Office ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33953280)

Comparable and free is better than comparable and $6/man-month.

Re:'Only' the Web-based versions of Office ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952486)

Try Oryx - it's free and open source. You may define your own diagram types with some svg an javascript and export diagrams as pdf, maong others.

You can try it right now: http://oryx-project.org/backend/poem/repository

Re:'Only' the Web-based versions of Office ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33953044)

Guess that covers Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Access. So what's the rest, then ? Visio ? Exchange ?

Good point. Google Docs has a word processor thats better because its free. Its a competitive market. But what about Visio?

Who out there has a web based Visio that I can use? Like for network and wiring diagrams?

If you wanted to use a free version of Microsoft Word, you would use the Word Web App, available free at http://docs.com/ or http://office.live.com/.

This Microsoft service is analogous to "hosted Google Docs", which also costs money.

Re:'Only' the Web-based versions of Office ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33953194)

Who out there has a web based Visio that I can use? Like for network and wiring diagrams?

LucidChart:
http://www.lucidchart.com/

Also, Gliffy (http://www.gliffy.com/), Lovely Charts (http://www.lovelycharts.com/), and more: http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/design/wireframing-mockup-prototyping-tools-plan-designs/

Office 364 ... if it crashes in a day. (2, Funny)

dslmodem (733085) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952156)

Well, it is really a bad name per my understanding.

To keep up with the trend, they should try "iOffice", "FaceOffice",

Re:Office 364 ... if it crashes in a day. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952370)

Powerpoint-Roulette, how many slides till an adult image?

Re:Office 364 ... if it crashes in a day. (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952650)

To keep up with the trend, they should try "iOffice", "FaceOffice",

Well, instead of Solitaire as a built-in Windows game, they now have PokerFace.
   

Re:Office 364 ... if it crashes in a day. (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953328)

Well, it is really a bad name per my understanding.

To keep up with the trend, they should try "iOffice", "FaceOffice",

It's Office365 because it won't work on Feb 29.

Go ahead, attack MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952158)

Yeah.... Slashdot has become the moaning geek. Everybody yells and complains about MS and other non-open companies. There are people who works hardly in software like office... why to attack them? Don't like the price, don't buy it. Stop moaning please

Re:Go ahead, attack MS (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952354)

Yeah.... Slashdot has become the moaning geek. Everybody yells and complains about MS and other non-open companies. There are people who works hardly in software like office... why to attack them? Don't like the price, don't buy it. Stop moaning please

In case you're not really an idiot, I'll spell it out for you:

We're the ones who get stuck supporting users of these apps.

We're the ones who get stuck building/maintaining apps/infrastructure written against them.

We're generally NOT the ones who get to decide what the team's/division's/firm's platform and standard apps will be.

NOW do you get it?

Re:Go ahead, attack MS (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952606)

In case you're not really an idiot, I'll spell it out for you:

We're the ones who get stuck supporting users of these apps.

We're the ones who get stuck building/maintaining apps/infrastructure written against them.

We're generally NOT the ones who get to decide what the team's/division's/firm's platform and standard apps will be.

NOW do you get it?

Yes. You're bitter at your station in life and would like to blame someone else for it.

Work hard and move into management or a more valued technical position where you get a real voice in those decisions, or quit your bitching.

It's not a software company's fault that your employer doesn't care what you think.

Re:Go ahead, attack MS (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952934)

Work hard and move into management ....

???

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

No, really ....do you actually believe that?

Do you also believe that all you have to do is start a business, work hard, and you too can be rich?

Or how about, "the check's in the mail"?

Or "I won't come in your mouth"?

Or "No new taxes!"?

Re:Go ahead, attack MS (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953076)

No, really ....do you actually believe that?

Do you also believe that all you have to do is start a business, work hard, and you too can be rich?

I believe it's more likely to produce success than anonymous whining on the internet.

Smart people who work hard eventually have a voice in the decisions that affect their jobs. Not always, and not immediately, but that's generally what happens.

If it doesn't for you, you might not be as smart or as valuable as you like to think you are. In that case your options are to find a different job where you're valued more appropriately, or come to terms with being the ultimately replaceable cog in a grander machine that you actually are.

Go ahead, attack the people who attack MS (1)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952446)

Yeah.... Anonymous Coward has become the moaning geek. Everybody yells and complains about people who complain about MS and other non-open companies. There are people who think little about sentence structure... why to attack them? Did they set you up the bomb? Don't like the post, don't comment on it. Stop moaning please.

Beatings will continue until morale improves (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953294)

In other words: If you don't like something, please shut your mouth and don't say anything, particularly in, you know, a website explicitly designed for discussion. Have I got it right?

Surprised it's taken this long: (3, Interesting)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952162)

I'm surprised it's taken this long to get this kind of offering and price point out -- it's seemed clear for a while that Microsoft would like to grow a presence in the "software as a service" space.

Re:Surprised it's taken this long: (4, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952758)

LOL. A little tidbit of history that may not be widely known or at least not widely remembered - Microsoft has actually developed web-based versions of its Office product on at least 2 previous occasions, perhaps more. These products never saw the light of day, and for various reasons, strategic and political chief among them, the projects were axed, developers reassigned, and code tossed away then restarted some time later when somebody decided that NOW the time was ripe for a web-based office.

Amusingly enough, I believe one of these efforts was part of what was originally termed the ".NET initiative" and was called "Office.NET" at least as a working title - back when .NET meant anything and everything, before they decided that .NET actually was the class library and VM for their C# language. See, for example, this article [cnet.com] from back in 2002.

Remember what a confused mess the .NET initiative was? It's truly amazing how much Microsoft has had its head up its ass over the last decade. Windows 7 is the first decent product they've put out in *years*.

A friend of mine from college, a very bright guy, was one of the project managers on the Office.NET project before it got axed. Anyway, he was so frustrated by his experience with this project that I believe it was in part his reason for leaving Microsoft.

So... it seems like they finally followed through on this, but it's not like the idea just occurred to them recently. No, it's more likely they only decided to bring it to market now because of the cloud computing hype and the fact that the traction of OpenOffice.Org and other Office alternatives has them scared shitless (of course, OpenOffice has just fragmented itself and will probably manage to squander the traction they've finally obtained after all these years of effort).

Nothing to see here, move along... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952186)

Microsoft is just trolling to market a competitive product against google docs.

Office386 ! (4, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952252)

I misread the title as "Office386", and was thinking, "Boy, Microsoft really is falling behind the curve".

We're doomed (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952264)

With even a few thousand people running this, I predict it will suck up more bandwidth than P2P ever did, and it will blue screen the 'net at least a few times per day.

Re:We're doomed (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952926)

Don't worry. With net neutrality soon to be gone, either it goes in the evil-bandwidth-hog queue, or MS has to pay off so many ISPs that it's simply too expensive to keep running.

Bill Gates quote (3, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952298)

Gates: "365 days a year otta be enough for anybody."

Any VBA support in Office 365? (1)

Houdini42 (1368659) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952402)

Otherwise, I don't think this thing is worth the money.

What if I lose internet access? (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952424)

There are a few types of programs I would expect to lose functionality when I lose internet access. MMO games, an internet browser, email.

There are some I would expect to always be functional regardless of internet connection. Media players, single-player games, and office suites are some examples.

Re:What if I lose internet access? (1)

drodal (1285636) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952888)

With the built in HTML 5 databases and HTML 5 app cache you will be able to do that offline too

Really

http://gizmodo.com/5156357/browser+based-offline-gmail-demonstrated-on-iphone-android

really it's happening already.

This is a video of gmail running offline with full features....

So I wonder if MS is going to do this eventually.....

Re:What if I lose internet access? (2, Funny)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953148)

There are a few types of programs I would expect to lose functionality when I lose internet access. MMO games, an internet browser, email.

There are some I would expect to always be functional regardless of internet connection. Media players, single-player games, and office suites are some examples.

You must be part of my generation of older computer users who still remember what it's like to not have always-on, high-speed broadband access streaming everywhere.

I guess my point here is there's no point in worrying about the "what-ifs" when you lose internet access, because for todays generation of internet addicts who are tethered online with no less than three devices within 17.5 meters of their body at all times, the answer to your question is very simple; nothing will get done. At all. It'll be mass hysteria in the office when users realize they're disconnected from Facebook and Twitter for more than 34 seconds.

someones scared.... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952456)

Wow, does this ever show that M$ missed the boat when OpenOffice came out with web based document management system, and they are now stumbling to try and bring out a quick recap of what that one does already! No more licenses needed for office when they see everyone moved to openoffice, so now they figure to get back all the lost users by offering office2007 but web based???

Pre-planned downtime (1)

tawian (886733) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952674)

We can safely expect 8 hours of downtime every year.

Works best ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33952678)

... with Chrome.

Doesn't this legitimize Google Docs big time? (1)

drodal (1285636) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952816)

They made fun of Google docs. And now they are doing it.... but not for free....

Does anyone really want to pay for this stuff anymore..... I don't......

Re:Doesn't this legitimize Google Docs big time? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952900)

They have a version for free, like Google Docs. And like google docs, they have a pay for version. There's just a bigger distinction between the two (Microsoft's marketing department is the worse in the industry).

Re:Doesn't this legitimize Google Docs big time? (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952930)

You don't, but businesses will.

From TFA:

Google offers its hosted Google Docs and Gmail for free to consumers, and many small businesses use the free services. Google also sells a business version, known as Google Apps, for $50 per user per year.

Privacy concerns? (1)

John Saffran (1763678) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952894)

Given that sensitive internal documents would also be authored via office suite products, who in their right mind would give MS their crown jewels? Ultimately any webservice entails the forwarding of the data to the provider for processing, which means that MS might have access to all sorts of sensitive data.

The alternative is to have dual-installs or local installs for people handling sensitive documents but why not just have local installs across the user base anyway then? There might be some benefits in terms of reduction of maintenance of local installs but you're really gambling if you expect people to use different tools for different types of documents

Imagine the board decision meeting (3, Funny)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | more than 2 years ago | (#33952936)

Imagine the board decision meeting.

Seattle moderator: Right, we wanna shov... sell our Office sofware [sic.] to the wider public and we need a name. You John?
John: Well, how's about we name it Office %VERSION%++
SM: Very good indeed, John... You Mark?
Mark: It's for the people ... which are alive ... eh lets name it "Live ........
(Several hours pass)
SM: (Yelling) Oh for god's sake, we can't name everything 360, can we!
Some nobody: (Very meek voice) 365 maybe? For the year, you know? OK, I'll get my coat.
(Several more hours pass)
SM: (Desperate) OK, 365 it is.
Another nobody: (Very softly) And what about leap years?.

So how long... (1)

pkinetics (549289) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953004)

... will it take to run the spell checker and grammer nazi on my document?

The Numbers (4, Informative)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953058)

From TFA :"$27 per user per month"

I work for an New Zealand small - medium company. The stacks up thus:

Option 1. 20 seat Office 2010 enterprise license - $13,000 per annum
Option 2. Office 365. 20 x $27/month x $NZ Exchange = $8484 per annum.
Option 3. 20 OEMS with hardware purchase(assume 4 year cycle): $2500 per annum

PS: US readers will think I have these numbers grossly wrong. I havent. The cost of doing business in NZ is expensive. Option 1 could drop in price. I have already had an email stating this could change as they are keen to always "find a best fit for an organisation".

Leap Year Fail (3, Funny)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953094)

They're going to be so screwed when the service goes down for an entire day every four years. Ah, but then they'll introduce Office365+.

1.2 GB active x control (3, Funny)

codepunk (167897) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953120)

All you need to do is install this 1.2 GB active x control. Or you can opt for the 1.6 GB active x professional version that includes "web bob" and "clippy".

Turning company direction (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#33953242)

well, not so much, at the end is just 5 degrees, but the number looks impressive.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>