Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft

Microsoft Unveils Browser-Based Office Apps 126

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the what-took-you-so-long dept.
snydeq writes "Microsoft followed up its Windows Azure unveiling by announcing that it will deliver lightweight versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote through the browser, a la Google Apps. Surprisingly, Office Web applications will run in Firefox and Safari, not just Internet Explorer. Far less shocking: You won't get Office Web apps free and clear as you do Google apps. The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed instances of the next version of Microsoft Office, the same way Outlook Web Access provides access to mail without the fat Outlook client."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Unveils Browser-Based Office Apps

Comments Filter:
  • Runs on FF/Safair? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pseudorand (603231) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:48PM (#25545211)
    Do the FF/Safari versions lack all but the bare bones features like OWA for FF/Safari?
    • by D4MO (78537) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:06PM (#25545529)
      It's silverlight based, so no. Also, it'll also run in Firefox on Linux via moonlight.
      • by muuh-gnu (894733) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:33PM (#25545929)

        I kinda doubt Linux will be supported.

        > The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed
        > instances of the next version of Microsoft Office,

        How its then supposed to run on Linux at all?

        • by D4MO (78537)
          Office Web will run on Silverlight (with some Ajax), so will be supported on Linux via Moonlight. "An Extension" is meant in a service orientated way, not something that you install beside office on your windows desktop. Watch for yourself [msdn.com] (requires Silverlight) how the live collaboration works between the desktop app and browser hosted app.
          • by D4MO (78537)
            Sorry for replying to myself - this will all require some sort of hosted service to enable the collaboration. Consumers can subscribe to MS offering, Business can do same or can self-host.
      • by ceka (1092107)

        Also, it'll also run in Firefox on Linux via moonlight.

        The OP says they are extensions to locally installed apps. I don't think M$ will provide linux apps...

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by D4MO (78537)
          Yeah, extended out to the web using a hosted service, run by you or someone else. No they are not providing linux app, they are providing Silverlight/Ajax apps, which will work on Linux with Moonlight. There seems to some confusion regarding the word "extension" and it's scope. You need to be thinking cloud man ;)
      • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @05:15PM (#25547515) Homepage

        Are we accepting Silverlight as a valid system requirement now?

        I don't mean that as an anti-Microsoft question, but I don't want to have to install every company's obscure little proprietary plugins to run my apps and access my data. Flash is bad enough, but I draw the line directly behind Flash and won't go any further. In fact, I'm still hoping to boot Flash to the other side of that line, especially since it crashes my browser on a regular basis, but I still seem to be stuck with it.

        But regardless of who's developing it, I'm loath to install another proprietary incompatible Flash clone.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dhavleak (912889)

          I'm still hoping to boot Flash to the other side of that line, especially since it crashes my browser on a regular basis, but I still seem to be stuck with it.

          Install, and lobby in favor of Silverlight then. Silverlight is far more stable/secure/lightweight than flash, and it's 10x easier to develop for. So if it replaces Flash, you're still in the position of having to install a plugin, but at least you'll be done with browser crashes..

          • Hahaha ok the Microsoft employees are out in force today.

            Its untested, Flash has 12 years behind it.

            Its not cross platform. Mention Moonlight and I'll hit you. I cannot type 'emerge moonlight' yet ergo its not anywhere near ready.

            And I'd trust Microsoft for security if my IQ was 50 and I didnt care that much.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by dhavleak (912889)

              Its untested, Flash has 12 years behind it.

              In those 12 years Flash has proven to be buggy and insecure. Developing for Flash (ActionScript) has been a joke so far.

              Its not cross platform. Mention Moonlight and I'll hit you. I cannot type 'emerge moonlight' yet ergo its not anywhere near ready.

              1. Violence is never the answer.

              2. Typing 'emerge moonlight' is your own arbitrary test for being cross-platform -- it doesn't really mean anything.

              3. With the recent exception of Flash 9, Flash has a long history of leaving Linux users in the lurch.

              And I'd trust Microsoft for security if my IQ was 50 and I didnt care that much.

              That's just typical groupthink regarding MS. Read this [cnet.com]. I've seen in the past that people aren't very objective when discussing MS's sec

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by cheater512 (783349)

                So your telling me that Moonlight is ready for action, completely stable and on par with Silverlight?

                Oh and whats that I see on Slashdot's front page?
                *Another* security flaw allowing remote code execution requiring a out of schedule patch release?
                With example code floating around?
                Groupthink indeed.

                • by dhavleak (912889)

                  *Another* security flaw allowing remote code execution requiring a out of schedule patch release?

                  Let's see:
                  1. The flaw dates back to XP -- so more than 4 years ago.
                  2. The patch was released before the exploit was available -- that's a win for MS.
                  3. Now that exploit code is available, MS is alerting users to apply the patch -- that's a win for MS.

                  Your example proves my point.

                  • The patch! (Score:3, Interesting)

                    by symbolset (646467)

                    2. The patch was released before the exploit was available -- that's a win for MS.

                    Bzzt! [technet.com] Wrong!:

                    We discovered this vulnerability as part of our research into a limited series of targeted malware attacks against Windows XP systems that we discovered about two weeks ago through our ongoing monitoring.

                    Microsoft developed the patch in response to targeted attacks. Therefore exploit code was in the wild before the patch. You are right about it dating back to XP, and all prior versions of Windows. Someone, somewhere, has been exploiting this remotely exploitable security hole in highly targeted attacks for an indeterminate number of years. Who knows what valuable proprietary data they've got so far? What corporate secrets were leaked? Every time this happens we get some idiot on here bla

                    • by dhavleak (912889)

                      Ok - I admit I got the timeline wrong - but I still see nothing but responsible behavior from MS in dealing with this flaw.

                      Every time this happens we get some idiot on here blathering about how things are better now.

                      Easy there dude.. however strongly you feel about it, the links you used were extremely disingenuous. I'll explain why:

                      Read your own link. It's got quotes from Brian Valentine (not a security expert) at the RSA 2000 conference talking about how MS put a naked Win2k machine on the 'net for 2 weeks, and only 4 denial of service bugs were found and no breaches were made. Also from your

                    • ahem. [schneier.com]

                      Let's just agree we don't see eye to eye. Time will tell.

                    • by dhavleak (912889)
                      As always -- read your own links carefully. For a balanced analysis, see the arstechnica link at the bottom: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080811-the-sky-isnt-falling-a-look-at-a-new-vista-security-bypass.html [arstechnica.com] which explains why this isn't a big deal.
                    • Look, you were doing a fine job for your boss right up until you started to annoy me. I don't crawl the dark corners of the Internet any more so I don't have time to hunt up a nice exploit for you. I do however have a good reputation here. So here's my first slashdot comment [slashdot.org] with this account, a reply to the story "Yet Another Windows Worm". There have been 1600 of 'em since then and I've been right far more often than I've been wrong. I've posted so much insightful, forward looking, informative informat

                    • by dhavleak (912889)

                      ... your rant, your posting history, accusing me of bias and assuming I'm an MS employee ...

                      I don't care about you, your posting history, or your sense of humor. Way up on this thread somebody said "I'd trust Microsoft for security if my IQ was 50 and I didn't care that much" -- which is plain stupid, and I was replying to that.

                      You say I'm an MS employee. Not true, and how does it matter anyway -- that would only provide motive -- not negate my argument.

                      You say I have a pro-MS bias. I say you have an anti-MS bias. See how that works? You're so biased you can't even imagine how a non-MS employe

              • Typing 'emerge moonlight' is your own arbitrary test for being cross-platform -- it doesn't really mean anything.

                It may be an arbitrary test, but it's a very good one. If it's not present in the largest and most complete package repository for Linux, it's probably not relevant.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by dhavleak (912889)

                  It may be an arbitrary test, but it's a very good one. If it's not present in the largest and most complete package repository for Linux, it's probably not relevant.

                  You just called every non-open source piece of code irrelevant.

                  I realize that might have actually been your intent, but I hope you realize how foolish that sounds.

                  • by MukiMuki (692124)

                    1. Given his point, how cross-platform the program was, he's on the mark there.
                    2. Given that there's plenty of closed source programs (for instance, Skype) that emerge just fine, no, he isn't calling every piece of non-open source software irrelevant.

                    • by dhavleak (912889)
                      Your emerge claim doesn't make sense. I have no doubt that you can emerge Skype, but I don't understand how you can emerge something for which the code isn't available (perhaps I just don't understand emerge -- which is very likely). Anyway emerge still remains an arbitrary criteria. Gentoo might be 'popular', but it's essentially a niche (even within Linux) which is saying something. And the code for Moonlight is available and will continue to be. I have no idea why you can't emerge it, but it's really biz
                    • by domatic (1128127)

                      Within the Linux world Ubuntu isn't niche:

                      apt-get install moonlight
                      Reading package lists... Done
                      Building dependency tree
                      Reading state information... Done
                      E: Couldn't find package moonlight

                      Even if that did work, I have severe doubts about Moonlight working with J. Random Silverlight site. Moonlight is likely to Silverlight what Gnash is to Flash: a 75% percent solution that isn't really practical but allows MS to tick off "Cross Platform" on the feature list and they damn well did it on purpose.

                    • by dhavleak (912889)

                      *sigh*

                      Keep using whatever random criteria you want to come up with.. that doesn't make your argument more valid. You know very well that moonlight is still in incubation..

                    • by dhavleak (912889)

                      I don't think "Can't use most of the sites that employ Silverlight" is a "random criteria" in the least.

                      Now we're finally on the same page. This is a valid test (as opposed to the emerge etc. BS earlier), and if Moonlight fails the test Silverlight can't be considered cross-platform. But again, it's still in development -- so it's a little early to condemn it. And recall that this was the case for Flash on Linux for the longest time.

                      It'll sorta work on non-MS and "work best" on MS. SSDD and we've all watched MS do this before.

                      Only time will tell..

          • by will_die (586523)
            First let me state I have done more development work with silverlight then Flash, and not much at that I advoid both of them.
            The developer product to compare silverlight with is NOT Flash it is Flex. Doing a developer side comparision of silverlight and flash is wrong you should do it between silverlight and flex.
            On stablity and security comparision is just plain foolish, flex has been around alot longer is far more proven, the only way you can get silverlight having the better stability is if you compa
            • by dhavleak (912889)

              The developer product to compare silverlight with is NOT Flash it is Flex.

              Flex is the IDE, Flash is the runtime environment. Visual Studio is the IDE (among other options), and Silverlight is the runtime environment. So the comparison is between Flash and Silverlight.

              from a programmers standpoint, flex can be used with alot more languages

              Since Silverlight uses a lightweight version of the .net framework, you can use a humongous number of languages to develop Silverlight apps. For a current list, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLI_Languages [wikipedia.org].. It's a huge list - Flex can't even begin to come close to it.

              On stablity and security comparision is just plain foolish, flex has been around alot longer is far more proven

              ???
              The IDE is irrelevant from a securit

              • by will_die (586523)
                Flex Builder is the IDE from Adobe and is built on Eclipse, there are a bunch of other editors available, a quick google search found 4 others. So Flex Builder is the IDE, from adobe, Flex is the framework and flash is the runtime.
                The Flex SDK can be downloaded for free and is covered by the open source Mozilla Public License.
                Also Silverlight does not support all those languages for version 1 only C#, Javascript (ECMA 3.0), VB, Python and Ruby that has been expanded some for version 2. For most of tho
        • If it's necessary for Microsoft Office features to work then I suppose it will be installed as part of the Microsoft Office install, so yes it's going to be accepted as a system requirement.
        • by Aladrin (926209)

          Drawing lines in the sand is pointless and foolhardy. You -will- cross that line if you want to stay current. All you're doing is denying change.

          • You have to draw the line somewhere.

            And also, don't give me this "denying change" stuff. Am I supposed to install every new application just because it's new? If someone comes out with a new version of Bonzai Buddy, I should rush to get it into my default image in order to "stay current"? Or what, every single product Microsoft releases is the wave of the future, and if I don't immediately install it, I'm "denying change"? Get real.

            No, I'm not going to install every little proprietary browser plugin

  • MS Gets it right? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trojan35 (910785) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:53PM (#25545309)

    Positioning it as an extension of office is much more appealing to me than google's broadband-dependent offering. For all the times MS looks completely befuddled by consumer needs, the office team seems to know what it's doing.

    • Actually, Microsoft knows cloud computing will be a joke. They just see this as an opportunity for large-scale security testing. By tying Office into the web, they'll quickly find most of it's security flaws just like they did with IE.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sakonofie (979872)

        Microsoft knows cloud computing will be a joke.

        And on the off chance cloud computing just happens to be popular, Microsoft wants to make sure people keep sending me .doc/docx files.

      • Re:MS Gets it right? (Score:4, Informative)

        by iamhigh (1252742) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @04:35PM (#25546867)
        They aren't real sure about cloud computer, but they are pretty sure integrating web functionality into their desktop software is a good idea. IMHO I think this is a stepping stone to when you will HAVE to use OfficeLive (or whatever it's called). You will have a bare bones set of functionality on your PC, and NEED the web service to supply most of your features. This will greatly reduce the ability to pirate their best (and most pirated?) software, MS Office. I don't know if it will work, but I firmly believe this is what MS is shooting for.
        • If people can no longer pirate Office they will start using OpenOffice or Google's apps, not buy Office. Cue end of office app dominance for Microsoft.


    • Positioning it as an extension of office is much more appealing to me than google's broadband-dependent offering.

      I suppose it looks appealing to someone who was planning on buying another update to the MS Office suite. As someone who wasn't going to buy it, the Google Apps are serving me and my small business very well.

      Seth
    • Re:MS Gets it right? (Score:5, Informative)

      by marcosdumay (620877) <marcosdumay.gmail@com> on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:16PM (#25545693) Homepage Journal
      It's an extension of Office in licensing. That means, it is a completely unrelated app, that is browser based (that means, it will also be broadband-dependent) that will only be licenced for your use if you brought a licence of Office.
      • by dedazo (737510)

        At first, yes, probably. But I'm guessing this is more of a pilot than anything else. If it pans out it's possible they'll offer the web-based subscription model without requiring a license seat.

        I hope they implement this outside the browser though, as thin .NET clients.

      • by Trojan35 (910785)

        Correct, the combination of the two apps working together is better than just having the browser-only google offering.

    • Positioning it as an extension of office is much more appealing to me than google's broadband-dependent offering.

      The comparison to Outlook Web Access suggest that what they mean is that it will require a special license that is sold alongside with (or, perhaps, on top of) desktop licenses, not a local install; it will probably be no less broadband dependent than Google Apps, it will just require buying one or more desktop Office licenses in order to use.

    • Actually, I see this as Google doing something stupid and utterly useless to 99% of users, and then Microsoft following them and wasting their time also doing something equally stupid and useless.

      But oh well. You must be that 1% who doesn't see online word processing as dumb. For you people, yeah, hooray, Microsoft got something right.

      Now it's time for network effects. Send us links to your online word processing so that the rest of us will be forced to use it. Then the marketshare will be 2%. The

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jellomizer (103300)

      Except for putting in Active X controls means that it will not fully function with other browers or OS's, phones, or strict security settings. The point of Web Based Office tools is Near Universal access across systems. If I took Firefox for Linux I want to run the app with full functionality. No Active X nonsense.

    • MS gets it by offering office lite (works) via a web browser when you are offline whist the full version of office is installed and paid for ?

  • but (Score:5, Funny)

    by ionix5891 (1228718) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:56PM (#25545369)

    will it have Clippy :p

  • locally installed? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @02:57PM (#25545373)
    The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed instances of the next version of Microsoft Office, the same way Outlook Web Access provides access to mail without the fat Outlook client.

    Except in order to use Outlook Web Access, I don't need to have a "locally installed instance" of Outlook. I understand where they're going with this, but the example that the author used doesn't seem very apt.
    • by Duradin (1261418)

      About the only reason I can see using the "cloud" version over my already locally installed copy would be for collaboration.

      But if the cloud version is just an extension of the locally installed version, why not give those capabilities to the locally installed version?

      I make use of google apps mainly to quickly and easily share "living" documents. Occasionally I use google apps because the device I'm using doesn't have room to install office and rarely needs those types of programs. If I don't need collabor

      • If you watched the keynote demo, they were showing two users collaborating. One was using the normal desktop version of Word. The other was using the web version of Word. So the web versions are meant for situations where you don't have Office installed (just like OWA gives you access to your Exchange account when you don't have Outlook). This also means that two users using the desktop version of Word will be able to collaborate in real-time.

        According to the press release [microsoft.com], there will be an ad-funded versio

    • by guruevi (827432) <eviNO@SPAMsmokingcube.be> on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:30PM (#25545875) Homepage

      You need to have a seat (license or CAL as Microsoft calls them) for Exchange for every client that would connect through OWA.

      In most situations, clients need three different licenses:

      A license for the desktop operating system (i.e., Windows XP).
      A client access license (CAL) for the Windows server. This license allows the client to legally connect to the server over the network. If you are using per server licensing, then you need a separate CAL for every Windows server on your network. If you are using per seat licensing, then you only need one CAL.
      An Exchange CAL. This is the license that permits the clients to access the Exchange server. At one time, Exchange clients also required a license to use Microsoft Outlook, but today an Outlook license is included with each Exchange CAL.

      The rule is that an Exchange CAL is required for any person or device that is accessing Exchange. This includes access through Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Web Access, Outlook Mobile Access, Exchange ActiveSync, or any other messaging interface.

  • by radarsat1 (786772) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:00PM (#25545417) Homepage

    I'm curious whether they are using a common GUI toolkit for their local and web-based versions of these apps.

    I'm beginning to like the idea of being able to write a locally-running app and also make it web-based in one swoop.

    I guess MS wouldn't be the only ones going this way. Things like GWT and Google Gears and XULrunner make this quite possible. I'm just wondering if MS is uses similar in-house technology.

    • by D4MO (78537)
      Not yet. At the moment there is duplication of code - ribbon in C++ in office vs ribbon in WPF on Silverlight. Gradually all will be WPF.
    • I'm not sure how they're doing it with these apps (Haven't looked at WPF) but I know that it was quite possible to write an application in C# and have it converted into a webpage using the ASP.NET AJAX extensions in Visual Studio. It was a bit convoluted to start off with but you could easily write an entire application in C# and then port into a web based solution pretty quickly.

      I remember doing this with an incident logging application I made. I started off by just making an installed application and mana

    • by Samah (729132)
      If they can't even keep common GUI functionality between Excel and the rest of the Office suite in ANY version of Office, I'm not holding my breath.
    • Since everything M$ does with CLR, C# and .NET is a direct re-imagining of what Sun did with Java, then sure it makes sense to have a seamless in-browser/local toolkit.

      Sun had that a decade ago with applets vs. applications and Swing. "But," I hear you say " client Java is dead". Agreed, but it's been re-born as JavaFX and the ability to drag applets out of the browser to run locally with Java6u10. Sun are pumping money into reviving a corpse! They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; now it is

  • by mebrahim (1247876) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:02PM (#25545451) Homepage
    Microsoft is embracing the cloud. I'm worrying about the weather.
  • Sure, it can run under Firefox and Safari, but what about the most important question: Will it run on Linux?
    • by dmomo (256005)

      Secondly, will it run under those browsers with the same feature set that it will have under IE? Web access to my company Exchange account technically runs under Firefox. Enough so I can send an email if I really have to. I can assure you that when this is the case I'll be grumbling and cussing the whole time.

    • Yes, and imagine how fast a beowulf cluster of these things will update all that critical company data that you only keep in excel spreadsheets.
    • Since you have to have Office installed locally I suspect that it involves an ActiveX control with whatever plugins are necessary to wedge it into Safari and Firefox on Windows.

  • this sort of uninspired muddled everything in the browser thinking smacks to me of the same sort of cookie cutter approach that brought us to national financial ruin.

    • by xant (99438)

      Is this move uninspired? Yes. Does it have anything to do with national financial ruin? (Which we do not, in fact, have. . . turns out there are still one or two people who think we will get back on the right track eventually.) No. Hyperbole--

  • by Calinous (985536) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:19PM (#25545735)

    it is part of the Exchange email server, it's not part of the Outlook/Office.

  • by mpapet (761907) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:36PM (#25545991) Homepage

    Sure, it may look pretty, but what's the EULA going to be on this hit of the Microsoft crack pipe? The gradual tightening of their EULA's is another reason the company I work for won't entertain budget spent for new Microsoft licenses.

    Have you read the silverlight EULA? Since it's job-related I did, and let me tell you it's not pretty.

    We're a small business that has purchased Microsoft site licenses over the years. I gotta wonder how long Microsoft can alienate customers like us before it starts affecting their top and bottom lines.

  • Browser... (Score:3, Funny)

    by LunarEffect (1309467) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:50PM (#25546173)
    Now all we need is a standard compliant browser to run this on! *cough*
  • World points and laughs.

  • The apps are meant to be an extension to locally installed instances of the next version of Microsoft Office, the same way Outlook Web Access provides access to mail without the fat Outlook client."

    But Outlook Web Access isn't an extension to the locally installed fat Outlook client -- you can use Web Access without it... maybe I just misunderstood submitter's wording. I don't have time to RTFA because I'm running out the door but I expect Microsoft's cross-browser office plan will require office products

  • ...before they are renting software instead of selling it, and the consumer is devoid of any rights thereto?
  • by nurb432 (527695)

    1 - you are tied to a subscription service forever
    2 - ISP's are once again limiting bandwidth ( and thus limits access to your apps and data )
    3 - did i mention you are tied to a subscription service?

    • by Bert64 (520050)

      And by licensing software you are effectively tied to a subscription service as well, since the actual owner of the software can revoke your access to it at any time (thus limiting your access to your data if it's stored in proprietary formats only supported by those apps).
      Sure, you may technically still have your data, but that will just make it all the more sickening that you can't access it.

      • by nurb432 (527695)

        As long as you don't have some online registration system to deal with, they can revoke your rights all they want, and you can just thumb your nose at them.

        If they try to sue, i bet they lose.

        • by Bert64 (520050)

          Do you really want to stake your business on that bet?
          And commercial software is increasingly getting online registration schemes...

          • by nurb432 (527695)

            People have bee taking that bet for decades.

            When they buy a box of software that doesn't say 'limited time only' they can reasonably and legally expect it to be around ( as purchased ) for as long as they want it to be.

            Changing a boxed license after the fact to remove use rights would be an easy lose for the software company.

            Now, if its a lease, then sure the rules can change, but lots do that too. Anyone that gets a MOLP from Microsoft is betting the company on it..

  • StarOffice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DavidpFitz (136265) on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @06:33PM (#25548399) Homepage Journal

    So, basically the same idea we had at Sun years ago (about 10!) with StarPortal?!

    Plus ca change.

    D.

  • So.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AVryhof (142320) <{avryhof} {at} {gawab.com}> on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @09:08PM (#25549819) Homepage

    I have been using OO.org in conjunction with the ZOHO/Google Apps plugin to make Google Apps and ZOHO Office an extension to OO.org. ...and even cooler, the ZOHO developer API allows me to use ZOHO as an extension of my other web apps. So, what are the advantages of using this with MS Office?

    In my quest for cross-platform capabilities, I have been using apps that generally work this way. Most of my word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, PDF (Zoho reader), documents are accessible to me in quite a few ways.

    1. OO.org
    2. ZOHO Office
    3. Google Apps
    4. The eyeOS desktop installed on my own web server.

    What I would like to see now is the ability to sync them all without OO.org and use one OpenID with all of the services.

  • by macraig (621737) <mark...a...craig@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @11:55PM (#25550875)

    Here we go again: another attempt to maneuver people toward software subscriptions and changing the perception of software as a tool to an image of software as content... for which people are already accustomed - habituated, in traditional Pavlovian fashion - to forking over cash every month without really analyzing the big picture. (This is one tactic used by manipulative people to concentrate massive amounts of material wealth... toward themselves and away from everyone else. It's totally Darwinian but not very ethical.)

  • by Vexorian (959249)
    If I was a MS fan I would so much wish they sticked to what they do well... Let's accept it, they really do some things well. But this whole web app stuff, is really not their ground.

    I am thinking, google's office runs in any web browser and device, this thing needs silverlight and apparently even MSOffice, it is basically BS...

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...