[jhillestad]

mdawson, when you say their buddies in the White House do you mean Hilary, Edwards and Obama ? I know what you mean these guys have been corporate cronies and schills for MS for too damn long.... !

[mdawson]

Neither Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Barack Obama are in the White House. It is a well-known fact that Microsoft was about to be handed its own a∫∫ by the DOJ and federal courts until the Bush Administration took office. But yes, politicians on Capitol Hill have been on corporate payrolls and putting the agendas of corporations ahead of their job of serving the People for far too long.

[kill953]

mdawson said:

Sue Microsoft in a class action suit once their buddies are removed from the White House. I am not one for frivolous lawsuits, but due to Microsoft’s position in the productivity suite market and the fact that they have been found guilty of anti-trust violations, they must keep feature parity with Office for Windows. Macro support on the Mac has always been weak, but this is the final straw. Microsoft has intentionally stifled Excel power users ability to collaborate cross-platform and as Intel-based Macs have been the norm for two years now, the need for this crippled Intel-native version of Office makes the eventual need to upgrade a must for some.

Otherwise, I agree with Rob’s buying advice. Based on a number of previews and this review I see no compelling reason to upgrade to Excel:mac 2008 unless performance of Excel on one’s Intel-based Mac is sluggish. For power users, Excel:mac 2008 is useless.

Spot on. Apple needs to drag MS's arse back into court over this, and they should do it in Europe rather than the US given how spineless your government is. This is as blatant an attempt by MS to stop the potential for a revival of the Mac in the business environment as anything they have ever done - there isn't a single company that will now consider the Mac as being potentially viable as an alternative to Windows. They are forcing all their users to "upgrade" to Windows and Office 2007 just to remain 100% compatible, or to use crippleware that is less than 80% compatible. The lack of a full suite of OOXML converters for Office 2004 speaks volumes as to their intent here for preventing Mac Office users from sticking with the old version for as long as possible, thus retaining at least a reasonable degree of compatibility with Office 2007. Motherfkers.

[xray01]

If VBA is an important component of MS Office, why in the world would they drop it in this new release? Why would they want to alienate their users?
Is this an opportunity for a third-party developer to make add-on software to support VBA?

[mdawson]

xray01 said:

If VBA is an important component of MS Office, why in the world would they drop it in this new release? Why would they want to alienate their users?

You are kidding, right? Otherwise, you are rather naïve. The only reason Microsoft offers Office on any level for the Mac is to keep the government off of their back. Microsoft has been found guilty of anti-trust violations by courts around the world and despite that they continue their anti-competitive practices. Microsoft is only interested in the complete an utter dominance of the tech sector and their (lackluster) support of OS X is nothing more than a legal security blanket.
If VBA were not important then Microsoft would have dropped it from Office 2007, but they did not. Why? Because when Windows users heard about Microsoft’s plans to do so, they screamed “bloody murder” and forced Microsoft’s hand after threatening to not migrate from Office 2003 if 2007 did not support VBA macros. VBA is a must for Excel power users whether they are themselves coders or use any number of Office add-ins that are built upon or use VBA.

Microsoft could not care less if Mac users are alienated. In fact, were it not for anti-turst law, Microsoft’s would more than likely kill any software development for OS X and take on the attitude of if you want or need to run Office, then buy a Windows-based system. Everything Microsoft does is about maintaining Windows’ dominance and if they had their way, Microsoft would see Apple wiped off the face of the Earth.

[xray01]

One can achieve dominance in many different ways...not just in the operating system arena.
Office is a ubiquitous product and I would think that MS would see the Mac OS as a way to make more money.
They may not have the Mac users in the OS world but they can capture $200-$400 per Mac user for Office.
With millions of Mac users out there that is no small chunk of change.

Perhaps there will be a 3rd party solution to getting VBA into Office 2008 and make some cash?
Could Apple do this?

[mdawson]

Yes, Microsoft can make quite a bit of money by selling Office to Mac users. Bill Gates even once stated that, “20 million users is 20 million users.” But, Microsoft also realizes that they earn more by having everyone on their operating system particularly given the draconian activation and monitoring programs they have implemented in recent years to minimize software piracy.
Microsoft’s dominance in any given sector is due to Windows place in the OS market. Office, Internet Explorer, WMP and any number of other Microsoft technologies would not be as ubiquitous as they are were it not for the stranglehold Microsoft has over the industry due to Windows 90+ percent installed base.
As to third-party development, in order to replace VBA, a developer would need to have access to information that Microsoft is more than likely not willing to share. Any third-party VBA would need to not only be able to handle macros created on a Wintel PC, but would also need to allow the user to generate code that will run in Office for Windows. Apple has no motivation to create such a product when they already have their own (underutilized) scripting language.
Even porting AppleScript to Windows would be of no use. For one, AppleScript’s usage on the Mac pales in comparison to VB usage in Windows. Therefore, Windows users would be even less inclined to use AppleScript than the few Mac users that currently do so. Secondly, AppleScript is a post-processing language and therefore cannot perform the type of in-document processes that make VBA such a powerful tool. VBA can control workbook objects such as cells, application objects such as menus and menubars as well as numerous other facets of Office documents and applications; AppleScript cannot.
For any other third-party to jump in would require putting considerable effort into developing a scripting language from scratch that is completely compatible with VBA. Given that VBA will be replaced in the next release of Office for Windows, such as task is not worth the expense, time and resources that would be required to make what will quickly become a backward compatibility engine for legacy macros by the time it is ready for release. For those companies that are in the business of selling IDEs, such as REAL Software, developing a dying language is also not a smart move.
In the case of REAL, Microsoft did add REALbasic support to Office:mac 2004 and REALbasic is cross-platform. The problem is that unless Microsoft adds such support to Office for Windows and pushes VBA programmers to use another company’s language—which Microsoft would never do—that option was and remains only useful to those Mac users that do not need to collaborate with Windows users.

[kill953]

xray01 said:

If VBA is an important component of MS Office, why in the world would they drop it in this new release? Why would they want to alienate their users?

Is this an opportunity for a third-party developer to make add-on software to support VBA?

The official stance is that it would have cost too much and delayed Office for the Mac for even longer, to port VBA to the Intel architecture (this from the world's richest and most powerful tech company, pah). The problem here is that MS and the MBU should have been in a better position to port to Intel a lot, lot sooner. The writing was on the wall for them to start using XCode many, many years ago rather than the development environment they had been using for Classic (I forget what it is called). Every year since OS X arrived on the scene, Apple had been telling developers to move to XCode (the reason became very apparent when the Intel-switch occurred - the alternatives were never going to be compatible or capable of producing compatible code and by sticking with them, you would have a heck of a lot of work to do to get your app ported... thus both Adobe's and MS's predicament when the switch to Intel did happen).

To be fair to them, it was due to be dropped in Office for Windows too, but as others have pointed out, MS reneged on that commitment when businesses started howling. If it had been dropped for Windows, this would be less of an issue (though I suspect that there would have been fat chance of the Windows replacement for VBA, VSTO built using the .NET framework and C# I believe, ever making it over to the Mac version either so we would still have been left with an incompatible version).

However, to my mind, the reason why Office 2008 has been allowed to become so retarded is so that Mac users will abandon it for a copy of Windows and Office 2007, either in the form of a new PC or via Boot Camp/Parallels/VMWare Fusion, thus maximising MS's profits (it costs a lot more to get a new Windows licence as well as Office) and eventually enabling them to kill the MBU because it starts bleeding losses. It also puts the kibosh on Mac OS X becoming remotely viable as a replacement OS in medium to large-sized businesses.

[moose_n_squirrel]

kill953 said:

However, to my mind, the reason why Office 2008 has been allowed to become so retarded is so that Mac users will abandon it for a copy of Windows and Office 2007, either in the form of a new PC or via Boot Camp/Parallels/VMWare Fusion, thus maximising MS's profits (it costs a lot more to get a new Windows licence as well as Office) and eventually enabling them to kill the MBU because it starts bleeding losses. It also puts the kibosh on Mac OS X becoming remotely viable as a replacement OS in medium to large-sized businesses.

Then why bother making Office 2008 at all? Why not just cancel it and accelerate the process outlined in that conspiracy theory? If you want to bring Mac users over to Windows, seems a lot faster and cheaper just to not develop Office any more at all. Wouldn't their profits be higher if MS just said "Sorry, go buy Windows and Office for Windows" rather than also paying a bunch of engineers to port Mac Office to Intel when MS already has a version of Office that runs on Intel (for Windows)?

This is why I don't buy that conspiracy theory. If MS wants to kill their Mac software and move us all to Windows, porting, developing and releasing Office 2008 is the slowest and least profitable way to do it.

[mdawson]

Conspiracy theory? Do you honestly believe for a second that Microsoft’s support of the Mac is anything but a front, moosensquirrel? You have been on these boards and, I assume, read enough over the years to know that such assessments about Microsoft in relation to the Mac are closer to fact than fiction. When Microsoft signed a deal to support the Mac for five years back in 1997 they created the Mac Business Unit. We were told ten years ago that the purpose of the MBU was to have a division at Microsoft dedicated to bringing Microsoft products to the Mac. Outside of Office, which had always been on the Mac, it never happened.
Yes Microsoft Office was greatly improved and often exceeded the Windows version in terms of features and it had a more Mac-like user interface, but Office:mac was always less than Office for Windows—we never got Access—and it is the only product the MBU has really given us. Microsoft knows that Office was a huge carrot that they could dangle over Apple’s head and they have always done so. Many stories about Microsoft’s attitude toward the Mac surfaced during and since the U.S. anti-trial. It is well known that Microsoft’s support for the Mac, trivial as it is, is a legal maneuver ant a financial one.
So before referring to such assessments as conspiracy theory, let us get some facts straight. When Microsoft wants to they can and do put the money into getting the resources to encroach on new markets. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, the Xbox and the Zune are but a few products that Microsoft has gone all out to develop without any negative impact on Windows or Office development. Why do I bring up the latter point? Because the MBU’s excuse for not bringing Access to the Mac was that doing so would stifle the development of other Office:mac applications.
Microsoft has no issue pouring money into new projects even when the risk of doing so is high (e.g., Xbox and Zune), but we are supposed to accept in good faith it is impossible for one of, if not the largest and wealthiest, software developer to do the same in their Mac division. Right…
So why has Microsoft not simply killed Office on the Mac? Anti-trust anyone. Microsoft’s only saving grace in the courtroom is that they do offer a version of Office for a competing operating system; no one in the judiciary bothers to confirm feature parity. Let us not forget that Microsoft has been hit with several anti-trust lawsuits since 2000. Yet despite that Microsoft has continually made Mac development leaner instead of stronger. Internet Explorer: gone. Windows Media Player: gone. VirtualPC: gone. Internet Explorer and VirtualPC are in fact pivotal examples of Microsoft’s attitude toward Mac users. Internet Explorer has long been the predominant Web browser after dethroning Netscape, yet even when IE was available for the Mac, it could not render pages that were (poorly) designed to work only with IE. VirtualPC. As the developers of Windows, Microsoft was in a position to offer the best Windows virtual machine for Intel-based Macs, but instead they just let VirtualPC die after the Intel transition. Why? Because in reality Microsoftis notserious about supporting the Mac beyond having a viable scapegoat in court, especially now that people are looking for anything but Windows.
The feudal lords at Microsoft are not stupid either. Simply killing Office:mac would raise anti-trust issues again. Sabotage the software to the point where no one wants to buy it, then suddenly they have the numbers that justify ceasing development. Again, Microsoft has no qualms with pouring money into unprofitable projects as long as it can bring about their ultimate goal. That goal is to have everyone using Windows.
Microsoft could make huge profits if they developed all of their software for the Mac and insured feature parity, but doing so means cannibalizing Windows market share. Why put up with all of Windows’ flaws when you can run the same software on an operating system that is inherently more secure and approachable. At the end of the day, it all comes down to maintaining Windows dominance and today more so than ever before the Mac threatens that position. Were that not the case, then there would be no legitimate business reason for not putting as many resources behind the MBU as they do for their Windows software development. Profit is profit regardless of the platform on which the user chooses to run Microsoft’s software.

[kill953]

For the very simple reason that they can't. MS can't just shut down Office production because, whereas the US government has proven completely spineless, MS is under the cosh from the European Union and Asian/Oriental governments, such as South Korea. They have to maintain the semblance of having Office on the Mac to hold off the anti-trust suits until such a time when it is no longer making them enough profit or until such time that they can claim there are alternatives available to "replace" it on the Mac platform. If it is no longer making them money they can quite justifiably say that they are stopping production because it isn't worth it any more. MS has been playing a long game here. IE was barely ported to OS X and then dropped. Office v.X and 2004 lacked full compatibility with Exchange (which has persisted into 2008). WiMP for the Mac was produced at incredibly poor quality and then dropped. Windows Messenger, is likewise a very poor quality app and hasn't been updated to coincide with 2008's release... how long until it too is dropped? MS is in the process of slowly killing its Mac software and they have been for many years now.

And before anyone claims that this will never happen because they make too much money from Office on the Mac, it would take only half of their current customer base to switch to e.g. Vista and Office 2007 as their suite and they would actually make more money than they currently do from Office for the Mac (as Vista plus 2007 costs much more than Office Mac alone) - they can actually afford to lose half their customers on the Mac and still turn a profit in relative terms. Also, if it stops a single business from ditching Windows (because they no longer have a viable alternative on any other platform that offers them guaranteed compatibility with their customers), then they stand to make even more and further stifle their competition in the one market area where they are still rock solid, in the corporate world.

Edit: I see that mdawson was writing at the same time as me, so we cover similar things. Apologies if it seems like I am duplicating him/her.

[mdawson]

Him.

You bring good points and added something to the discussion that had not crossed my mind (e.g., Messenger and compatibility with Exchange). VBA can be added to that list as it was half-heartedly supported in prior versions of Office:mac; most of my scripted workbooks created at work break on my Mac due to missig commands and functions in VBA for the Mac. Microsoft is now using the Intel-transition—and to a lesser extent the fac that VBA will be dropped from the next version of Office for Windows—as a scapegoat for what they have been doing all along: providing just enough support of the Mac so as to not seem as if they are a self-serving anti-competitive monopoly.

[folklore]

Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see what Office has to do with operating system dominance. Unlike IE, Office was never bundled with the OS. Suggesting that they have to offer Office on other platforms to stave off anti-trust lawsuits seems... well, it seems just wrong. If that were the case, then why isn't there an Office for Linux from Microsoft? Why not one for Solaris? I'm simply not sure that argument holds water.

Furthermore, I am shocked that people speak of Microsoft as if it owes Mac users something. They don't. We owe it to ourselves to find alternatives that work better, or work with Microsoft to make its products better.

Before I'm flamed, know that I'm not a Mac hater. I love my 4 Macs - there isn't a Windows box in my house. And I have no particular love for Microsoft. But give the devil his due.

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft's Office has the best all-around features of any other suite of productivity software currently on the market. Yes, there are compromises made, and one can argue them at length. But at the end of the day, the suite, as a whole, is the best on the market today for both Windows and OS X. Despite its shortcomings.

If that weren't true, none of us would care a single wit about the release of Office 2008. News of its release would be a non-event. So can we put a lid on the shrill ranting?

[mdawson]

Then let me open your eyes for you. Windows has everything to do with every market segment that Microsoft has a dominant application within whether it is integrated into the OS or not. Internet Explorer is the dominant Web browser because of Windows market position. Microsoft Office is the dominant productivity suite because of Windows market position. The Zune has the potential to succeed the Pod because of Windows market position. Most Websites use WMV and WMA as their default media formats because of Windows market position. The list goes on and that is just one reason why Microsoft has found itself in court for anti-trust violations in just about every technologically advanced nation around the word for the past 10 years. And, by the way, they are always found guilty.
Windows is the root from which Microsoft’s dominance in various software markets stems and Microsoft has continually used that position to push out the competition. Microsoft Office is the productivity suite with the best all-around features because Microsoft used their market position to squeeze out Office’s prior competitors. The alternatives that have recently come to market are mostly UNIX products that generally do not run on Windows, therefore precluding their use in the largest PC market. Office is now too deeply entrenched to be unseated even if those alternatives did work in Windows. Most people use Office, thus Office compatibility is a must for all but an extreme minority of computer users. Alternate suites do not and cannot have 100% percent compatibility with MS Office, particularly where power users are concerned.
As to supporting Linux and Solaris, most mainstream software developers do not port their products to those operating systems because those operating systems are used by highly specialized markets. Linux, Solaris, et al., are not mainstream operating systems and are therefore not considered in anti-trust arguments; there is little point to bringing up operating systems that are unapproachable from the point-of-view of the average computer user. OS X is the only other mainstream operating system and therefore the only real alternative to Windows for the average person. So while the fact that Office:mac has become an anti-trust crutch may not seem right to you, it is a matter of fact. From the standpoint of Microsoft’s layers, Microsoft’s top-tier product is offered for a competing operating system, ergo they do not abuse their monopoly power. Killing Office:mac outright only bolsters the prosecution’s position.
As a two-tier monopoly, in operating systems and productivity software, Microsoft does in fact owe Mac users something. If Office were not the dominant productivity suite, it would not matter if there were a Mac version, but that is not the case. Office is a de facto standard and as a monopoly Microsoft does not have the right to penalize those that choose to not use Microsoft’s operating system. Understand this simple fact once and for all; once a company becomes a monopoly they lose their right to employ certain business tactics. Microsoft is a monopoly on two fronts, they have always offered Office for the Mac and Office is a de facto standard. Therefore Microsoft is no longer in a position to cease development of Office on the only real alternative to its own operating system. If they do, it will be done solely ofr the purpose of locking out Mac users from the rest of the computing world and that is a clear violation of anti-trust law.
Microsoft once saw the Mac market as a source of income; less than on the Windows platform, but at roughly $500 a pop at the time of the original five-year “promise” it was still a market with a $10 billion potential on a platform that then posed no threat to Windows dominance. In the past five years, OS X, the Intel transition and ever increasing nuisances with using Windows has made the Mac more attractive to many more people. That fact has not gone unnoticed in Redmond, but the events of the past 7+ years on the legal front precludes Microsoft from doing what they were seriously considering in 1997; read the article linked in my last post.
Mac users do not want Office because they think Microsoft makes great software. The need Office because they have to be able to collaborate with the other 90+ percent of people in the Windows world that use Office to generate or view documents. So we care, because we have to be able to work effectively with everyone else. So as long as Microsoft sees fit to shove a flagpole up our hindquarters with no Vaseline and deny us full compatibility with what has become the standard by default, we will continue to (rightfully) scream bloody murder.