Microsoft Moves Away From Office Mobile
- Mehedi Hassan
- Sep 28, 2018
-
49
With the launch of Office 2019, Microsoft introduced a new generation of Office apps earlier this week. On Windows and Mac, big changes are coming with the arrival of Office 2019. But for those on Windows 10, there are some big changes, too.
Going forward, Microsoft is going to deprioritize the development of its Office Mobile apps built specifically for Windows 10 and modern Windows devices. These apps work really well on Windows Phone devices, and they work as a “lightweight” alternative to the full-fledged Office apps on the desktop,
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
In an unsurprising move, Microsoft is now going to prioritize development of the Office apps on Android and iOS, as well as the Win32 and web versions of Office. Microsoft isn’t completely getting rid of these apps, though — instead, it will simply focus on the development of the full-fledged Office apps and the Office Online apps. The Office Mobile apps for Windows 10 are considered as “legacy” apps, reports Neowin
A Microsoft spokesperson clarified the company’s plans with ZDNet, stating “The Office mobile apps for Windows have not been deprecated. But for mobile, we are currently prioritizing development for the iOS and Android versions of our apps; and on Windows, we are prioritizing Win32 and web versions of our apps.”
The move was not surprising at all. Microsoft no longer needs to build Office apps specifically for Windows 10 devices as the full-fledged Office desktop apps are now available from the Microsoft Store on Windows devices. Plus, maintaining two different versions of the same apps for the same platform is simply a big waste of resources.
For those wondering, this doesn’t include the OneNote UWP app. It will continue to improve going forward.
Tagged with
Conversation 49 comments
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#331368">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>Your example perfectly illustrates the impracticality of a single build of a sophisticated program to run on multiple platforms. When you use your Surface Go like a laptop, O365 interface works best, when in tablet mode, the mobile version is superior. Trying to combine the two would result in a single UI that was less effective in both modes.</p><p><br></p><p>Mobile-only devices are pretty much dead for Microsoft, so what should drive the decision on the mobile software is how important 2-in-1 devices are. </p><p><br></p><p>As far as competing with android and iOS devices is concerned, the original Surface RT was the natural competitor of those other operating systems. Later Surface devices implicitly indicated that MS didn't think it could compete with a mobile interface alone. IMO, it's full Windows that made Surface devices successful.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#331470">In reply to SvenJ:</a></em></blockquote><p>IMO, Microsoft's mistake was trying to make Windows 8 into both a desktop and mobile OS. Instead they should have create a new, legacy-free, "best of breed" mobile OS. Neither iOS nor Android were designed to be multi-platform even if they are taking small steps in this direction after succeeding in the niche they were originally designed for.</p><p><br></p><p>In some ways Windows 10 doubled-down on this mistake. Microsoft essentially discarded the vast majority of Windows phone users by bringing Windows 10 and UWP to a small subset of Windows phones. All to try to leverage UWP apps across multiple platforms which failed miserably. It's hard to identify any capability that UWP added to the WP that wasn't already present in WP8 or even WP7.</p><p><br></p><p>Having said that, Windows still has millions of non-enterprise users and pure tablets don't appear to be successfully replacing PCs for those tasks that PCs are best suited for. </p><p><br></p><p> </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#331689">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>I guess I'd have to disagree with some of your conclusions. It think most experienced Windows developers recognized from the start that cross-platform Metro app development wasn't worth the effort so they avoided it. Metro apps on the desktop were at best redundant and at worst, inferior. That meant that Metro apps (or later UWP apps) were only important on the Windows Phone. Note also that there was no tie-in between OSX and iOS, and Android didn't have anything to tie to anyway. Obviously a tie-in was not a necessary factor to motivate developers to create mobile apps.</p><p><br></p><p>I agree that Windows 8 was probably better than 10 for users operating in mobile mode. After the failure of Windows RT devices and the backlash against 8 on the desktop, Microsoft rejiggered the compromise between mobile and desktop to favor the desktop more. Despite that, Windows 10 on the desktop is still less than it could be by accommodating mobile and given the continued lack of demand for Windows mobile devices, that compromise isn't providing much benefit to Microsoft's bottom line. </p><p><br></p><p>If Microsoft had real faith in Store Apps, the Surface Go would be locked into S mode forever, but it's not because Microsoft learned from it's RT experience that full Windows is required for a Windows device to succeed.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#331816">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>Again, I have to disagree. Android had no brand presence at the time it was introduced and it didn't stop it from being successful.</p><p><br></p><p> I would argue that combining the Metro app capability with the traditional Win32 environment was actually a more expensive option to implement than creating a separate OS and was far more complex. Remember I said "legacy free"? That means the OS wouldn't need any of the COM s**t or other early 90s technologies that Windows uses.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#332137">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>My comment was in response to this: "Sadly for MSFT, a new and differently named OS wouldn't produce enough revenue to justify the expense of its development nor establishing its brand presence."</p><p><br></p><p>So Windows "baggage" has nothing to do with an OS not called "Windows" and Android history proves that not having an established OS brand isn't an impediment to introducing a new OS.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#331664">In reply to locust infested orchard inc:</a></em></blockquote><p>I'm not sure I'm following your point. "modern Windows devices" could include the Surface Go since it runs only Store apps "out of the box". I wouldn't hold my breath for any unannounced products like a Surface Foldable to appear. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#331688">In reply to locust infested orchard inc:</a></em></blockquote><p>Kind of looks like an old photo holder to me. I have no idea what kind of game he's playing, if in fact he's playing one at all, but such hinting by a high level executive wouldn't be very professional. What's happening to Elon Musk comes to mind.</p><p><br></p><p>Without knowing much about the games that were actually going to be available on the Atari VCS, the marketing department put a chess game on the box. The developers were forced to create the game (despite the fact that it was a very difficult game to do on the Atari due to technical limitations) to avoid Atari getting sued. </p><p><br></p><p>IMO, senior executives would do well to avoid twitter or at the very least, avoid anything that might suggest a future product they might not end up releasing.</p>