Should the Mobile versions of Office on Windows, Android, and iOS be done away and replaced with PWA versions of Word, Excel, Powerpoint, OneNote and so on, and has the option of either free versions with limitations and ones for Office 365 subscribers that are fully featured? Why or why not? What do you all think? Also can a thing like this even be done?
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272583"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>But a PWA version has the potential to be a niche product as well. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272712"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>It's not an either/or situation. MS can continue to support an Office "light" for Android and IOS while still maintaining a full version for Windows. Both can be accomplished without the need for a PWA version. </p><p><br></p><p>On the other hand it's not clear that being unable to lightly edit an Office file on a smartphone will impact Office's market share at all. What is the competing office suite that has a light edit function on smartphones and a full suite for Windows and the Mac?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272778"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I'm not a fan of UWP apps but I can't see any reason why a PWA version could do something better. MS hasn't made a full-featured version of Office using UWP and they might create an equally weak PWA. It's really more a matter of effort and choice than fundamental capabilities.</p><p><br></p><p>Ultimately PWA's are limited by the capabilities of the underlying platform (perhaps indirectly through the platform's browser) so at best they can match native apps but they cannot exceed them. Of course if a vendor intentionally chooses to make an inferior native app than the PWA could be superior, but that's a strategic choice not a technology one. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272648"><em>In reply to Dan1986ist:</em></a></blockquote><p>Another name for "takes advantage of that particular os' features" is incompatibility. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272686"><em>In reply to Daekar:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yes, the hype is difficult to avoid. Just another in a long line of "universal" approaches that always fail. But if you can explain why a program that has different features on different platforms enjoys full compatibility, I'm all ears.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272731"><em>In reply to Daekar:</em></a></blockquote><p>The internal details (specific API calls) don't matter as you suggest, but OS-specific features made available to some platforms and not the others is a different matter. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#272774"><em>In reply to Daekar:</em></a></blockquote><p>I think it all depends on one's definition of WORE. To me it means a single codebase that doesn't have any platform-specific code or resources (such as images or icons) that works identically on every platform. The user would then have the expectation that anything they could do on one platform, they could do on any of the others. It would imply that the developer wouldn't even be thinking about the different platforms. They would just develop on the platform of choice and expect it would work on all the other ones.</p>