backtop

Print 47 comment(s) - last by blankslate.. on Feb 24 at 2:37 AM
Microsoft adds about $20 to single license Office for Mac software

When it comes to pricing and licensing of Office software these days, Microsoft certainly isn’t making any new friends. If you are a Mac user that relies on Office software for business or school, you will be paying more for the next upgrade you purchase.
 
Microsoft has raised the price of Office for the Mac by as much as 17% and has stopped selling multi-license bundles for the productivity suite. The price change puts Office for Mac 2011 on the same pricing schedule as Office 2013 for Windows, despite the fact that it is much older software.

Microsoft hopes that the move will push Mac users to adopt its subscription Office 365 offering.


Under the new pricing schedule, a single-license of Office for Mac Home & Student has jumped from $120 to $140, while Office for Mac Home & Business has been bumped from $200 to $220. Microsoft previously offered Mac users a Home & Student bundle with three licenses for $150 and a Home & Business two-license bundle for $250, which have now been discontinued.

If you need multiple licenses, the new pricing means a significantly larger expense than in previous years. By contrast, Office 365 Home Premium will cost about $100 per year or $10 per month for a single household license covering up to five computers. Office 365 Small Business Premium costs $150 per year per user and allows that one user to install the application on up to five devices that they own.

It's worth noting that if you want a new version of Office for Mac computers, some retailers are still offering the software at the previous prices. However, both Microsoft and Apple are now charging the higher prices.

Source: Computerworld


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By SAN-Man on 2/19/2013 9:16:10 AM , Rating: 5
Most of you probably don't remember Microsoft started out writing productivity software for Apple way back when. It's always been expensive. Why should now be any different?

As another posted said, Apple customers are conditioned to overpay so they'll buy it anyway without thinking.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/19/2013 9:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
The question is, who the hell RAISES the price on 3-year-old software (when there isn't even a replacement on the horizon or even in beta)?

Shifting this to a "Mac users will pay more" argument is deflecting what is essentially a Microsoft money grab; just like with the story about Microsoft changing its licensing terms on Office 2013.


By Fleeb on 2/19/2013 11:08:41 AM , Rating: 2
Because they can charge more. Same with any other businesses basically.


By Motoman on 2/19/2013 11:15:08 AM , Rating: 1
Normally I would agree with you. But, granted that this affects only Apple consumers, I have no problem with it.

Schaudenfreude.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/19/2013 11:34:40 AM , Rating: 2
That's if you see Apple users as evil and PC users are non-evil, which is a pretty "limited" way of looking at things.

I see this as an attack on ALL users, PC and Mac alike. Microsoft raises the price on Mac users, and they restrict licensing on PC users with 2013. It a concerted effort to push EVERYONE to its cloud offerings. If anything, this would bring the two camps together in solidarity.

This silly little Mac vs PC is beyond childish at this point :-)


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/19/2013 12:24:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I disagree. Buying a Mac instead of a PC is a poor choice...always has been. People who do silly things don't have a right to be treated as if they aren't doing silly things.


You could say that about anything you buy in today's marketplace. If we're going to pigeonhole people and call them silly for buying one brand over another, we should extend it to TVs, appliances, cars, clothing, food, etc.

I personally like to buy clothes at Old Navy, but I don't bitch at people who go to The Gap or Banana Republic.

I'm sorry, but someone buying a Mac over a PC is not silly. It's the childish, back and forth name calling and animosity between the two camps which is "silly". Ford versus Chevy versus Dodge, Coke vs Pepsi, etc.

Who gives a *&%$? :-)


By Motoman on 2/19/2013 1:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
You're making the popular mistake of asserting that the 2 different choices are equivalent. Like Ford vs. Dodge or Old Navy vs. Gap.

They're not.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/19/2013 1:40:34 PM , Rating: 4
The bottom line is, attacking people for choosing one brand over another (regardless of the motives) seems like a pointless endeavor. Some people prefer store brand items at the grocery store, some choose the national branded items. Doesn't affect me, don't give a *&#^ :-)

What I don't understand is, why does it matter to you what someone else does with their money? Is it somehow infringing on your ability to get something accomplished?

That's why these arguments always boggle my mind. People just run around in circles attacking each other over what is essentially a freedom that we have in a well-populated consumer market: CHOICE!


By p05esto on 2/19/2013 3:19:30 PM , Rating: 3
It's not just a brand thing obviously. People who buy Apple products are hands down known to be tech newbs and really don't have a clue even though they sure think they are techy and know it all. There are better alternatives in every single way and always have been (from ipod to Mac). Only a fool would get stuck with an overpriced gadget that does less, is locked down, laden with DRM, tied to stupid software like iTunes, and on and on and on!


By dsumanik on 2/19/2013 8:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
In other news network traffic for Office 2011 torrents increased 30% over the weekend..


By ritualm on 2/19/2013 8:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
If I really need to use Office, I'd go out and buy Office 2013 retail. Meanwhile OpenOffice does what I need.

Either way, your torrent suggestion can drive over a cliff, courtesy of iOS 6 Maps.


By TakinYourPoints on 2/20/2013 4:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People who buy Apple products are hands down known to be tech newbs and really don't have a clue even though they sure think they are techy and know it all.


All my friends at Google develop on Macs. Pretty much everyone I know in web application development works in OS X, same with the film industry I work in myself.

There is a lot to be said for a Unix based operating system with strong third party developer support. Great UI and applications on the front and and a UNIX command line on the back end. Hell, even JPL (those guys that recently landed a spacecraft on Mars) uses Macs as front-end terminals.

Yes, I know this is all anecdotal evidence, but I think its fair enough using that against sweeping generalizations.


By Motoman on 2/19/2013 4:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
Again, you're conflating this with other multiple-choice issues in which any given decision is equally valid. In the case of buying an Apple product, vs. a non-Apple product, when the internet is rife with information about how wildly overpriced, underfunctional, and of terrible quality they are, the choice to buy Apple is not equal.

It's like a "board of education" insisting on giving "equal time" in Science classes to teaching evolution and creationism. One is valid science - the other isn't.

Hence, it's upsetting to see people make a patently bad decision. Especially when they then turn around and start flaunting their newly-purchased self-identity. Because that's what people are really buying when they buy Apple products - cost, features, and quality are actually of no concern - they're buying their way into a herd. Thinking they've proven themselves sophisticated and interesting by having managed to use a credit card. They'll declare themselves "tech-savvy" and as proof show you their latest iThing purchase. When it's eminently clear that the only thing that's been accomplished is another new recruit into the cult.


By Pirks on 2/19/2013 5:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
A tiny minority of Apple users are like that. Most of them are common people that bought Macs or iPhones for various practical reasons - lack of malware, single app store to go to, best mobile browser, best mobile gaming, etc etc.

Apple just makes very high quality products overall, and charges extra for that quality. And quality means design, materials, American (not Indian) support people, software integration (no driver issues, things work out of the box, etc.), retail stores with genius bars, and many other pieces of a mosaic.

What's not to like? I'm an Android user and I still like a lot of what Apple does. They make lotsa stuff people love, so good luck to them and all. We all benefit from that, even you. Yes, YOU.


By sigmatau on 2/19/2013 7:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it somehow infringing on your ability to get something accomplished?


Absolutely! You really have to ask this question?

Apple affects many people directly and indirectly (I'm talking only about those that do not buy Apple crap.)

1. Apple was able to restrict HTC phones and reduce functionality of other phones because they were able to use our broken patent system to lie and claim intellectual property that is not theirs.

2. Some phone makers have to remove functionality after you bought their phone! It's usualy not a major function and usualy is some eye candy, but have you ever heard of any other company throwing temper tantrums like Apple so that something as minor as a bounce back affect when reaching the end of a web pages is removed?

3. Cars. Most car makers have some stupid iphone/ipod connection that enables certain functionality that cannot be accessed without an iphone/ipod. Really? So basically, to satisfy the 10-20% with iphones, the other 80-90% have to suffer with an inferior stereo? Total BS! Aftermarket is the better way to go, but sometimes you don't want to go through the trouble.

4. eBooks. I probably should have started with this one. When was the last time a new entry into a developed/developing market gets to set and raise all prices including the prices of their competitors? This is beyond crazy to me. Anyone that defends this specifically is also crazy to me. Apple almost got away with raising all ebook prices by 30%. Even those of their competitors!

These are just a few off the top of my head. This is why I hate Apple. And as a former iphone 3GS owner and one that was forced to use the epic fail software called iTunes, I talk from experience too.

Choice? Where? Not if Apple is one of those choices. Once Apple is removed from the list of choices, we will have a real freedom to choose what we want.


By Shadowself on 2/19/2013 1:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
And it would seem as though you're making the mistake of being 100% closed minded.

Anyone with a bit of history with computing can come up with a long list of things that are wrong with the Windows/PC implementations.

Similarly, anyone can come up with such a list for the Mac.

This does not mean that the DOS/Windows "PC" is the single best choice in all possible cases for all possible users. It does not mean that the Mac is a bad choice for in all possible cases for all possible users. To say that the "PC" is always, without exception, the best choice is just rabid anti Apple fanboism.

I've used more computing platforms over the past 47+ years than you know (or likely have even heard of). But I try to use what is best at the time. I have used Macs over the years -- when it makes sense. Doing otherwise hurts my work. I use a PC as my main machine today -- with dedicated, custom hardware when it makes sense. Being as blind as you are to the options of what could be best (even if it's a Mac), is just plain stupid.


By Motoman on 2/19/2013 5:09:49 PM , Rating: 3
Not likely. I took my first programming courses in 5th grade on the Apple II, working through all of the high school-level material in one semester. In high school we were still all on the Apple IIs, and had one PC clone in the lab. By which time I'd been programming on my C64 at home as well. In college I also had an Amiga, and learned programming languages on a variety of platforms including DOS and OS/2, and my first job was doing COBOL and other programming on the mainframe. So...maybe you've done more stuff on more platforms than I have, but it's relatively unlikely.

Apple had a chance to sew up the market back in the era when the Apple II was the thing to have. But they ceded the business market to IBM, and after that they were permanently a niche product, never to regain any hope of competing for real marketshare.

If anything, I was predisposed to be a lifelong Apple fan, granted how much time I spent on the Apple II/IIe during my "formative" years. But it quickly became obvious that the war was over barely after it had begun...IBM won. Mostly because Apple didn't really fight.


By tng on 2/19/2013 5:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... the memories your post brings back about being a nerd in high school.

I started on a Comodore PET and yes I had a C64, did college level stuff in COBOL and FORTRAN, even some assembler code for 8086 stuff.

Yeah, I was just lucky that I ever got laid!


By mike66 on 2/19/2013 4:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
If you live long enough you get you see many things over time. MAC's are silly, expensive and generally simple for simple people, TODAY not twenty years ago. Give me a G3 with power PC chips inside and I can make you a firewall machine that can't be hacked if you use smoothwall software. That's because IBM made the chips with proper built in security, as soon as MAC went intel they lost that advantage. Now mac's can be hacked in minutes, and are second generation hardware. I'm happy that Mac users pay more for office, after all you get what you pay for and seeing as mac users are paying more for redundant hardware, why not for software seeing as they are that stupid anyway. The exception is young children as they are just learning, that's why schools prefer them here than PC's but those kids will graduate from school and too a real PC eventually.


By Shadowself on 2/19/2013 1:28:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Buying a Mac instead of a PC is a poor choice...always has been. People who do silly things don't have a right to be treated as if they aren't doing silly things.
So in 1985 when Absoft's FORTRAN was the only development program that had the ability to watch variable change in real-time in a GUI and it ran ONLY on the Mac, buying a Mac to support it so that the programmer saved huge (and I do mean huge) amounts of time writing and debugging code made the Mac a poor choice? (I used the Mac to generate the code before porting it over to an IBM 3090-600VF to run the nuclear codes I was using.) Saving money using the only viable option was a poor choice? Sure, the Windows (and even UNIX) environments overtook it (even Cray going to UNICOS over COS), but for a while it clearly was a good option.

When the Mac 840 came out with an integral DSP and was a decent compute engine for doing signal processing as a function of certain kinds of scintillation backgrounds and was significantly less expensive than buying time on the big machines, it was a poor choice? Sure, in a couple years after that floating point processors integral to the CPU (forgetting Intel's floating point fiasco for the moment) superseded this implementation, but for a while it was the best for those who needed it.

The MacBook Air, when it first came out, was a one of a kind tool for those that needed such a thing -- and it could run any major OS to your liking. For those that needed its form factor and capabilities, it was a poor choice? Sure, other "ultrabooks" have come out that far surpass the Macbook Air's feature set, but for a while it was a very viable option. For those, like a 70+ year old communications expert I know, who needed a light laptop but couldn't work with a netbook's screen, it was a poor choice?

The iPad "3" was a leap ahead in some ways. For those that needed it, it was a poor choice? Sure, there are tablets that are moving to surpass Apple's offering and it is likely that Apple's tablets will be pretty much run of the mill by the end of this year. But when the iPad "3" came out it was a poor choice for that niche that needed that resolution and speed in a tablet right then?

There really are many cases where Apple came out with items that were -- for a short while -- expensive, but a good value for those that needed them.

Your absolute bias blinds you to the fact that there are exceptions to your "poor choice" rule.


By ritualm on 2/19/2013 7:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
What the hell, Motoman?
quote:
Buying a Mac instead of a PC is a poor choice...always has been.

Worst opinion ever, just very very slightly less bad than Tony Swash's "If you don't buy Apple stock now, you will regret it."

Macs are just overpriced high-end computers, but poor choice they aren't, not by a long shot. If all you do is tweet, email and Facebooking, why do you need Windows? It's just as godawful overpriced doing the same things you can get done for a lot less money via Android!

If I want a laptop that uses 16:10 instead of the oh-so-common 16:9 (vertical real estate beats no borders while watching movies), and is not a full-blown workstation notebook, the options outside Apple are few and far between.

I get that you hate Apple, but this is just ridiculous.


By Motoman on 2/19/2013 10:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
You just disproved your own thesis with this comment:

quote:
Macs are just overpriced high-end computers, but poor choice they aren't


If, if nothing else, they are overpriced...then buying one is a poor choice. Because, if nothing else, you've paid too much.

If all you do is tweet and email, then sure...get a Chromebook, or whatever. Doesn't matter - you certainly won't overpay. But to put up with the "reassuringly expensive" prices of Macs - again ignoring all other reasons to not buy them - is just retarded, no matter what else is going on.


By ritualm on 2/20/2013 6:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If all you do is tweet and email, then sure...get a Chromebook, or whatever. Doesn't matter - you certainly won't overpay. But to put up with the "reassuringly expensive" prices of Macs - again ignoring all other reasons to not buy them - is just retarded, no matter what else is going on.

So your ultimate conclusion is that a PC is a better choice than ANY Mac, regardless of use case scenario and specific user needs?

Your stupidity knows no bounds. You should work for Kim Jong-Un right now.


By TakinYourPoints on 2/20/2013 4:56:48 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously. If you want a high quality 16:10 display with a great keyboard (matched only by Lenovo's), the best trackpad on the market with systemwide multitouch gestures in the OS, great performance, excellent battery life, all in one of the slimmest chassis out there, you'll be paying as much as or more for a non-Mac laptop and still be missing out on some of those features.

There's a huge reason why Apple dominates the laptop market over $1000. Other OEMs could make a bigger dent in that area if they stepped up quality more, but right now Lenovo seems to be the only OEM making any real effort there. HP Elitebooks are very good but those cost even more than a much better specced retina Macbook Pro.


By TakinYourPoints on 2/20/2013 4:13:21 AM , Rating: 3
Says the guy who sells his clients second rate AMD parts because "Intel is evil". Ridiculous

You should tell Anand and his crew what idiots they are for liking Macbooks, and for complaining in nearly every AT podcast about how other OEMs need to catch up.


By SAN-Man on 2/19/2013 5:17:19 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft thinks that market will support the price.

Unregulated products are priced by what the market will pay.

Is Microsoft right? Going on historical information probably, seeing as most people probably bundle Office with the purchase of a new Mac anyway so if you're already spending $2,000 (yes, some Macs are more and some are less) how likely are you to notice another $35? I don't know what the actual difference is but you see the point.


By ritualm on 2/19/2013 8:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
And if they're going to use Office:mac, they should just use Windows 7 and Office 2010+ together. Excel:mac sucks compared to the PC version.

Some people will object to MS raising prices here, but honestly nobody cares. Accessory makers can charge more to Apple customers on the same products because they know that market won't bitch and whine over higher prices, unlike the larger and price-sensitive PC market.

The Apple market is the next best thing to enterprise markets when it comes to selling things for a profit.


By TakinYourPoints on 2/20/2013 4:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The question is, who the hell RAISES the price on 3-year-old software


Those that can raise the price. One thing is that Office on Mac sells extremely well, per capita a higher percentage than it does on Windows. Obviously this is because Macs make up a much smaller marketshare that is mainly sold to a segment that would buy applications like Office, but it makes huge revenue either way.

Perhaps MS doesn't see free alternatives to Office as a threat? Office for Mac is still one of the highest selling pieces of software on Amazon, so I can infer they feel like they can get away with it. I see Office on Macs all the time.


By blankslate on 2/24/2013 2:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
It's not like Apple doesn't perpetrate a money grab upon their customers, who love it. So in a sense if MS is abusing the Apple user with this price hike, it doesn't matter because they're pretty much like the abused partner who goes back to the person who abuses them.


By Trisped on 2/19/2013 1:15:10 PM , Rating: 3
It costs money to port software from one operating system to another. Considering the greatly reduced market size of Office on Mac, it makes sense to charge more for the Mac version.

Should the PC users have to pay more just so Apple users are not left out of the party? I don't think so.


By ven1ger on 2/19/2013 5:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
That's assuming that you're paying extra for porting something new. Umm...it says Office for Mac 2011, considering the cost has gone up now after 2 years, doesn't seem to hold water that it to pay for the costs of porting the software.

MS wants to move to a subscriber based payment system much like the Office 365. This way they have continuous payment from users to use their software and then to make more profit later, they'll steadily bump up their subscriber fees every couple of years. Many offices are still using 2003 and that's 10 years ago, they get no $$$ from those until they find they have to upgrade to 2007 or 2010. Then maybe it's another 10 years to get additional $$$ from those that don't upgrade with each iteration. With a subscription formula, they get money each year from everyone that buys into it, $$$$$$$...


By Trisped on 2/21/2013 2:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
My statements were in reference to the comment from SAN-Man
quote:
Most of you probably don't remember Microsoft started out writing productivity software for Apple way back when. It's always been expensive.
I am indicating that there is at least one reason the Apple version always costs more then for the Windows version.


By schmizz on 2/19/2013 8:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't opened Word on my Mac since Google Docs came out.


LibreOffice
By mmntech on 2/19/2013 10:52:55 AM , Rating: 1
People still use Microsoft Office? Been using OpenOffice or its derivatives for a decade now. Probably used it to write over 100 papers over the course of university and technical college. You quickly learn that any advantages MS Office has over it don't apply to 90% of users.




RE: LibreOffice
By luv2liv on 2/19/2013 12:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
im still using MS Office 1997! works great.


RE: LibreOffice
By xti on 2/20/2013 8:31:54 AM , Rating: 3
yeah thats not gonna fly if you hit the corporate world. you are the minority.


RE: LibreOffice
By ritualm on 2/20/2013 6:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People still use Microsoft Office?

Compatibility with over 90% of the business world's office software needs without additional plugins like you would with ALL other office suites.

Go ahead and mention to the IT department of your company that they should use OpenOffice / LibreOffice / what have you instead of Microsoft Office. At best, you'll get laughed at. At worst? You're fired.


Australia
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 2/19/2013 9:29:36 AM , Rating: 2
Australia cries no fair and holds MS / mac pricing scandal in front of politicians and cameras...




RE: Australia
By arthur449 on 2/19/2013 10:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
So rather than decrease prices in Australia to US levels, Microsoft / Adobe / Autodesk have decided to slowly increase software prices to Australian levels?

*facepalm*


Silly
By Flunk on 2/19/2013 9:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft doesn't seem to realize that they have more competition than ever when it comes to Office software. They need to lower prices, not raise them, to stay competitive.

Libre Office has been making great strides to escape the issues that plagued Open Office. In a few years I can see it being a serious competitor. People are also using Google Docs (although I can't understand why) and they even compete with themselves in the low end with the free Office web apps.




RE: Silly
By ritualm on 2/21/2013 6:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
More competition in the consumer realm maybe, but the business world remains a very elusive target market for open-source/free office suite software.


No Big Deal
By Arsynic on 2/19/2013 9:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
Apple users are used to over-paying for stuff.




So first they add activation...
By Wolfpup on 2/19/2013 9:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
Then they change the interface to something no one I actually know likes, and now they raise the price on an old version?

Office still does some things better...anything complex I fall back to it, and heck, the spell checker remains second to none (not a small thing!)

But lately I've just been using OpenOffice and LibreOffice more and more...raising the prices and continuing with activation are not exactly moves to get me to buy new versions of Office lol




Ballsy
By Joepublic2 on 2/19/2013 2:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
They must be pretty confident in the superiority of their product line, the disposable income of mac users or both. I was under the impression that free software could do a lot of what microsoft office can do these days, is that not the case?




By BifurcatedBoat on 2/19/2013 8:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
just because they're Mac users, Microsoft's attempts to force people to do what they want them to with a stick rather than a carrot is going to continue to backfire miserably for them.

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is a minor player in software a decade from now. Once they push people to the point where they've moved on to find MS alternatives there will be no going back, no matter what they do or how hard they try.




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki