Microsoft Office Live is “web based” Jason 15 Feb 2006

75 comments Latest by tentole

Office Live, Microsoft’s entry into the web-based office application space, went beta today.

Check out some of the system requirements for certain features of this “web-based” service:

  • To use the Edit in Datasheet feature within the Business Applications and Shared Sites areas requires Microsoft Office 2003.
  • To export to Business Contact Manager requires Microsoft Office 2003, Microsoft Office XP, or Microsoft Office 2000.
  • To import contacts from Microsoft Office Outlook requires Microsoft Office 2003 or Microsoft Office XP.
  • To link contacts to Microsoft Office Outlook requires Microsoft Office 2003.

And of course you must use IE. I never thought I’d see a web app suite that has more system requirements than a desktop app, but I guess I should never underestimate Microsoft.

75 comments so far (Jump to latest)

Andrew 16 Feb 06

What’s the point of using this web-based app when I have all those softwares installed? I don’t really get it.

Marc Hedlund 16 Feb 06

That’s amazing. Aren’t the people using IE already MS customers? Don’t they want to try to win back the people who are leaving their products behind?

James Bowskill 16 Feb 06

Absolutely ridiculous. Try to sign up with Safari (the browser now recommended by Microsoft since they discontinued development of Mac IE) and you get told:

You are not using a recent version of Internet Explorer and need to download it in order to use Office Live.

Rabbit 16 Feb 06

Ouch.

That was the first thing to run through my mind when I saw that page. Butt loads of small text. I scrolled to the bottom without reading anything and hit back.

I give MS an F for effort.

Henry 16 Feb 06

To address the authors comments, my understanding is Microsoft Office Live is not to be thought of as a “web based” application as the headline of the thread says but is actually an application to help (small) company gain a “web presence”.

“web based” and “web presence” are two completely different things.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with Microsoft requiring IE. And to address some of the bullets above:

- Of course you will need Office if you want to _export_ the Business Contact Manager. Business Contact Manager is a Microsoft application built into Office and is also a stand alone app.

- “To link contacts to Microsoft Office Outlook requires Microsoft Office 2003”. Just listen to what you are saying. Of course if you want to use Outlook, you have to HAVE Outlook.

- “To import contacts from Microsoft Office Outlook requires Outlook” … same agreement as bullet 2. (da!)

Again, my understanding is that Microsoft Office Live is to provide a way for small business to gain easily a “web presence”. This thread is trying to make an arguement that this is a web-based application (which it is) but pulling it way out of context.

Just my 2 cents.

Jeff Croft 16 Feb 06

Okay, it’s ridiculous that any web app requires IE, but let’s be fair here…three of the four items you mention are specific to importing/exporting. In other words, “if you want to import from Outlook, you must have Outlook.” Color me insane, but this doesn’t seem too unreasonable to me.

Maybe it’s just me, but if I wanted to import data from say, iCal, into Ta-Da List, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that I first had to have iCal on my machine in order to do so.

Jeff Croft 16 Feb 06

Damn, Henry beat me (by seconds) to pointing out the sensationalist nature of this post.

Matt Todd 16 Feb 06

Well, we know that they definitely failed the Web 2.0 test!

:-)

M.T.

Henry 16 Feb 06

{ Jeff } I’m glad to see that I’m not the lone ranger on my comments here, thanks.
———————

For those of you interested in more information about Microsoft Office Live so that you can view and decide for yourself (and to learn more and have a better understanding), see the link below which details the different plans they offer.

http://officelive.microsoft.com/WebHosting.aspx

Nik Cubrilovic 16 Feb 06

The requirements are obvious because those features actually use those applications. You can’t have export to Outlook or whatever without having Outlook itself - it’s just the Microsoft guys being over-cautious because they have been caught out before (remember, they sell to the lowest common denominator).

David Holtz 16 Feb 06

This isn’t a web app. It’s a plug-in for Internet Explorer.

David Holtz 16 Feb 06

This isn’t a web app. It’s a plug-in for Internet Explorer.

Marcus 16 Feb 06

In agreement with Jeff Croft, et. al.

David Heinemeier Hansson 16 Feb 06

Well, there are open standards that could have been used instead. Like vcards and ical.

Tom F 16 Feb 06

Nik Cubrilovic got it right. Jason, I think you took a bit of an unfair swipe at Microsoft here (except for the IE thing). You do NOT need Microsoft Office to run Live. You of course need it to pull contacts from Outlook—how could you have Outlook contacts without having Outlook in the first place?!

However, I do dislike that IE is required, otherwise I’d defend Microsoft more vigorously.

Shrikant Joshi 16 Feb 06

Pride and Ambition is one thing. Haughtiness is another.

I know I am inviting the Troll cap here, but I don’t mind it. You may even nuke this, but I don’t mind.

Agree that you guys offer really cool and elegant solutions. (I personally am a fan of Basecamp). Also agree, that Microsoft has been known more for its monopoly than quality of applications. But it somehow seems to me that you have gotten air into your head.

I am with Henry and Jeff. This post is more sensationalist than a critique and coming from you guys we hoped it wouldn’t be so.

I am disappointed guys. Deeply disapointed.

Michael Daines 16 Feb 06

If a tool is “Internet-based”, shouldn’t it be a little more “platform-agnostic”? (Is that the correct term?) It seems like Microsoft would really be making people say, “to collaborate with me on this project, you must be using Windows, (as there is no IE for Mac) and buy Microsoft Office.” This product doesn’t seem to just be about importing and exporting contacts. It’s already a pain for me to work with Word documents, but what if someone wanted to do something with me using this Office Live contraption?

I ♥ Microsoft appologists! (Which surely earns a troll cap.)

Tom 16 Feb 06

Wow, this is genuinely a new low for you guys. “Wah, to import data from Outlook you need Outlook! Microsoft just Don’t Get It like we do!” Can you hear yourselves? I’m (formerly) a massive fan of 37signals products, but this stuff is pushing my patience beyond its limit.

I know you’re all very proud of being such a hot-headed and opinionated bunch, but maybe you should listen to all of your customers, not just the ones who lap up everything indiscriminately. Ignore it all you like, rub fistfuls of Basecamp cash over your naked chests, slap troll hats on everyone who objects, but you are going dangerously downhill and you don’t seem to care. “Less respect” is taking the whole “less” thing a step too far.

I thought the earlier post about the Deck was as moronic as it could possibly get. Guess what: I was wrong. Guess what again: unsubscribing! Why not join me?

Chriztian Steinmeier 16 Feb 06

Bye bye, Tom.

Andy 16 Feb 06

Hilarious post Nik! I think MS is making a bit of a false representation if you need a desktop app for editing.

Tomas Breen 16 Feb 06

And Good Riddance, Tom. If want to leave, just leave. You don’t need to tell us. We don’t mind.

Michael Ward 16 Feb 06

Not only do they discriminate against me because of my choice of web browser, but then they discriminate against me because I don’t live in “the land of the free”*. Thanks MS.

Of course, this post does go OTT…


* Terms and conditions apply. Offer may not be used in conjunction with any other civil liberty.

Bill P 16 Feb 06

Well, we are talking about Microsoft here.

1 part desperately appealing to small business, 1 part hype. This certainly is nothing new under the sun. If you use Sharepoint (ouch) or Office already - then you may find it useful. I wouldn’t touch it with a 40 foot pole.

The only value I see for Microsoft is that it may help stem the bleeding of small business customer moving away from the Office suite. And if it does nothing other than encourage 10 or 100 thousand of them to buy the next upgrade to MS Office 200x for $500 - you do the math.

I seriously doubt there’s any functionality that Joyent, Open Office, Campfire, Basecamp, etc. couldn’t provide.


brad 16 Feb 06

it may help stem the bleeding of small business customer moving away from the Office suite.

What are they moving to? I hadn’t heard that small businesses are moving away from Office; I’m just curious about what alternative(s) they’re choosing. Word and Excel in particular seem to be the de facto standards for word-processing and spreadsheets. There are many viable free or low-price alternatives to Outlook, and many alternatives to Access, but are small businesses really moving away from Word and Excel? And don’t tell me they’re moving to Corel’s office suite…I had to edit a 120-page document in WordPerfect a few weeks ago and even the newest version of WordPerfect (X3) is by far the buggiest and most unstable program on my computer. The initial purchase price may be low, but I bet the total cost of ownership of Corel’s Office Suite is higher than MS Office because there’s so much down time.

Paul 16 Feb 06

The closest I’ve seen to running real MS Office Applications over the web is via citrix or something similar.

There is a free trial here http://www.securevirtualoffice.com/svo.htm

It really is Office online the only thing is - at the moment you need IE to launch it.

Not a Steve 16 Feb 06

@ Bill “I seriously doubt there’s any functionality that Joyent, Open Office, Campfire, Basecamp, etc. couldn’t provide.”

This is our dilemma; we’re an all Mac shop. We don’t enjoy our Office software, but we own it because it works with the files we’re given from clients. The cost involved in maintaining a half-dozen low-cost titles, whether superior or not, is greater than the pain of dealing with Office. At least Office is cohesive and fits under one license.

As soon as there is a viable alternative from one, maybe two, companies, we’ll be the first to switch. But it has to be cohesive.

Nick 16 Feb 06

Microsoft doesn’t work on the the 37s philosophy (i.e., less, get real, etc.). To critique Microsoft based on a set of values it does not believe in is like telling a Muslim she’s being a bad Christian.

Dave Burke 16 Feb 06

Jason, you rock, but I’m in the Sensationalist [base]camp on this post. As for Live being “a plugin for IE,” how about it being an online extension for Microsoft Office? All in all, pretty smart move by MS.

Morten 16 Feb 06

This is just the beginning. MS will be deploying apps over HTTP once XAML and Longhorn are ready. Basically, this opens for an “internet” which is MS only, think Active-X components, only a lot worse.

I don’t know what consequences this is going to have. But it’s going to be a lot of fun..

jonto 16 Feb 06

Check out what the Techcrunch readers have to say about M$’s latest Beta.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/02/15/microsoft-office-live-goes-into-beta/


@ Not a Steve “As soon as there is a viable alternative from one, maybe two, companies, we’ll be the first to switch. But it has to be cohesive”.

I’ve noticed that this sentiment has been growing among some of the Basecamp users. I think that integration is a very important aspect to software in general, and it “will” eventually come to the web-based applications.

Here’s a thought - Instead of knocking companies like Salesforce.com, why not join them? What about a “Basecamp” module for their Appexchange? I don’t know the financials behind that program, but it could prove to be worth while. It seems like they are creating an a-la-carte dashboard over there. Would Basecamp fit in? I’m not sure.

Another option could be to create your own “entry” level salesforce.com with all of the other RoR apps that are popping up. (A-la-carte integration into Basecamp would be nice). Perhaps a new slogan is in order, “Basecamp…as simple as you want to be”).


Jeff Croft 16 Feb 06

Well, there are open standards that could have been used instead. Like vcards and ical.

Are those not available also? If not, they should be. Can Outlook deal with these formats (I honestly don’t know). If it can’t, then it makes perfect sense that they’d also offer an Outlook importer/exporter.

yosef 16 Feb 06

I didn’t understand your unfair critique of this application. Have you used it yet? Or did you come up with your opinion based solely on one little document?

My only theory is that somehow you guys feel threatened by this. Microsoft seems to be dipping into your territory.

This product seems to be a good bridge.

abigail 16 Feb 06

Thanks Paul for the link you gave. It was quite easier to do with it.

JF 16 Feb 06

I’ve noticed that this sentiment has been growing among some of the Basecamp users. I think that integration is a very important aspect to software in general, and it “will” eventually come to the web-based applications.

Sure, some people crave deeper integration. No doubt about that. And we have some plans for that this year.

However, more and more people are signing up for Basecamp every day and thanking us for keeping things simple. When we do customer surveys well over 90% of the respondents mark “Simplicity” as their favorite feature.

Remember that there’s always a market for more and there’s always a market for less, but the market for less is always larger than the market for more. More people just need simple, low-cost solutions to their common problems than they need complex solutions to their complex problems. The simple solutions to common problems niche is what we’re focused on.

brad 16 Feb 06

@Jeff Croft: Outlook can handle vcards (export and import) but not the ical standard. I think it can import ical, but won’t export in that format…it’s one of Microsoft’s ways of ensuring that Outlook doesn’t play well with other programs and thus you need to stick with it.

another different Brad 16 Feb 06

BTW, campfire kicks ass.

You acquisition of prototype and script.aculo.us were brilliant business decisions.

Tom R 16 Feb 06

Well, no one can say that 37signals does have great marketing … most of which is done by the author of this news post.

When reading this post, nothing but red flags, bells and whistles went off in my head saying “would it be possible that 37signals is trying to SPIN the news in their favor”.

Now I haven’t used Microsoft Office Live yet but have to say that I am very intrigue by the options it provides, especially for FREE. E-mail, web hosting, SharePoint like services would make most small business owners drool.

In reference to the comment by the author of this post and DHH that Microsoft should be providing other import/export standards … well, the last time I looked I didn’t see any importing features in BaseCamp.

Knowing that Microsoft Office Live would be released today, what I’m curious to know is did 37signals purposely release Campfire today in order to distract us from the Office Live release?

(If I had the ability, I would put the “trolling hat” next to this ENTIRE news post if possible)

Tom R 16 Feb 06

from previous post, “does not* have great marketing”

cedric 16 Feb 06

Ms Office Live is not a ‘web-based office application’ (go figure).. it combines a web presence package (free hosting..) with online tools that extends the capabilities of the Office Suite (as far as I understand it)… It’s better explained over at techcrunch, but to summarize, it’s not an online version of Word/Excel and co, not even a web-app.

Nick 16 Feb 06

So did Jason even bother to find out what Office Live does before he trashed it publicly?

Kris 16 Feb 06

I have to agree with Henry’s original statement… you’re really missing the boat if you’re criticizing a company for requiring their software as part of an *integration* with their software. How does this shock you? The only legit complaint you posed is the IE browser requirement, but given that they are likely using ActiveX hooks to tie into their existing COM based desktop apps, I can see how IE might be required (at least for certain features, so they should really degrade gracefully with other browsers.) At no point in your post did you offer a legit criticism, it just sounded a little belligerent.

Tom R 16 Feb 06

This entire post really seems as a way for 37signals to attempt to trash Microsoft Office Live while then releasing Campfire to shock and awe all of us. (I’m neither shocked or awed)

Bill P 16 Feb 06

to Brad and “Not a Steve”…

Agreed. With what I wrote I was talking specifically about Small Business customers.

Large Business Customers will continue to use Office. The Cost Benefit Analysis is pretty cut and dry, especially since the software is already in-house.

Home Users will use whatever they wish.

Small Business Users are the ones in the lurch. Let’s use Use Excel as the example…

Small Business customers don’t necessarily use the advanced features such as Pivot tables that Open Office has trouble with. Many can do well without perfect Excel compatibility (95% cuts it fine). Plus they’re cost-sensitive.

This is where Microsoft can lose $ quickly. I have done demos for Open Office with friends (including an accountant) and they are usually impressed by the features. The one feature that has caused a few to install the software has been easy creation of pdf files.

As Open Office specifically improves on compatibility and (hopefully) the User Experience, there’s less of a pressing need to stick with Office.

Regards.


Anonymous Coward 16 Feb 06

Maybe one day you’ll all realize that 37s knows what they’re doing. they have YOU talking about a beta MICROSOFT product on 37signals site with ads for 37signals products in the sidebar. I think 37s is smarter than you think. jf likes to get people all riled up. it’s good for business.

Anonymous Coward 16 Feb 06

I am also SHOCKED and DISMAYED that you need Outlook to iport data from Outlook. who whould have ever thought…

Dan H 16 Feb 06

Office Live is just a smaller/weird version of Microsoft SharePoint. It’s what I do in my day job, and for an Microsoft Shop Fortune 500 company, SharePoint really isn’t that horrible. I’ve grown to like a few slick features. In our corp, we use Exchange which adds some neat capabilities, all 5,000+ desktops have Office 2003 on them, everyone has only IE6… and SharePoint’s desktop-software-requiring javascript works for everyone. The “Online workspace to share information and work with others more efficiently” for the “Collaboration” version of Office Live really gives you a nicer way to store Word & Excel documents in a central location. Metadata is cool, viewing those documents next to contacts & other info is nice sometimes, & file servers get really messy.

What I like about this post, Jason, and what I don’t get about Office Live, is what MS’s audience for the product is. You’re right in pointing out the Office 2003 & IE6 requirement kind of rules out the stand-alone web app idea. I don’t see a small business picking this up because of the requirements on the desktop, and I don’t see large business who have consistant software on the desktop using a hosted service.

So, It’s kind of a Basecamp competitor, but I wouldn’t be worried. I don’t think you are.

Geoff 16 Feb 06

Not a bad idea / tool for a MS-specific shop that is getting off the ground. To me, it looks like a way for MS to really ßeta test / improve Sharepoint technology before it goes live in 2006 / 2007. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Office 2007 / Sharepoint 2007 press release came out yesterday from Redmond [ http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/feb06/02-15OfficeMoreOptionsPR.mspx ]. Since they are saying the site is ßeta, then i am wondering if some of the new 2007 Sharepoint guts is on the Live site.

I suppose the bottom line is who well does it work ? If the usability sucks, it could be a failed attempt…but the initial plan / layout seems ok.

Phil 16 Feb 06

Office on the web, huh? Wow, I might actuallly start using Office now.


HAHAHAHAHAHHAH HAHAHAHAH!!!

HAHAH….

heh.

snicker.

Whew, ok then.

Natalie 16 Feb 06

We built a web based business management system for small-medium businesses last year (http://www.evolutionone.com) using opensource technologies. A few things have changed in our business and we don’t want to support it on our own so are planning to opensource the entire thing. What I think people for get with the growing hype about Office Live, is that companies like 37 Signals are heading in this direction - we have already done it, as have a company called Office Gateway. The only difference is we have to improvise in building such massive products because we don’t have unlimited resources to throw at them, however I think this leads to better overall quality (and of course contacts can be imported from anywhere and owning the desktop version of Microsoft office isn’t required, nor do you have to use IE). I think the point is don’t settle for a Microsoft product because they manage to get in there earlyish - the best move we can make is to get away from small business dependencies on proprietry technology and the increased overall costs this creates.

Wesley Walser 16 Feb 06

Just throwing in what may have already said, the arguments against the products system requirements are complete crap except for the IE requirement.

Also, Phil, it’s not office on the web, you didn’t read any of the comments, or the Office Live page did you?

Judd Volino 16 Feb 06

Maybe you could remove the quotes from “web-based” in the article title, which imply that those are Microsoft’s words. In fact, nowhere on the Microsoft page the poster linked can that term be found. MS actually calls Office Live “a set of Internet-based business services,” not a web app.

Sam 16 Feb 06

*sigh* another Microsoft-bash. There are plenty legitimate reasons to take Microsoft to task, but Office Live isn’t one of them. I know 37sigs are all into the let’s-perpetuate-the-myth-of-our-own-wonderfulness these days but can you guys please at least knock off the blatantly wilful misrepresentation of what others are doing just because they’re not in your self-anointed cool kids clique?

Anonymous Coward 16 Feb 06

I LOVE IT! People screaming at 37signals for taking a civilized swipe at Microsoft yet the same people are brutalizing 37signals in the same breath! Ahh, the hypocrisy. It’s so entertaining to watch.

I know 37sigs are all into the let’s-perpetuate-the-myth-of-our-own-wonderfulness these days but can you guys please at least knock off the blatantly wilful misrepresentation of what others are doing just because they’re not in your self-anointed cool kids clique?

You’re an asshole, clearly. You chastise 37s hard core because they post something like this about Microsoft. How can you tell someone else to shut the fuck up when you’re doing the screaming too?

Jeff Croft 16 Feb 06

I’m not here to trash 37signals at all. I respect Jason, David, and the entire company. I simply disagreed with this post. Lots of people disagreed with this post.

No one from the 37signals gang ever showed to either clarify what they found so shocking about OfficeLive reuiring Outlook to import from Outlook. That makes this whole post feel like a major sucker punch. Hit ‘em and run. When credible bloggers post a rant of this sort, they typical hang around to respond to the cirtizims of it. The fact that Jason didn’t do so makes this entry seem like it was written out of spite, jealously, fear, or possibly in an attempt to steer our sensitive eys clear of their competition.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, per se. If 37signals wants SvN to be a place where they celebrate their achievments and bash their competition without explanation, that’s their right. But it is pretty dissapointing, because this blog used to be a place where smart people had smart discussions about interesting topics. Latley it just feels like a lot of “look at us, we’re better than the next guy.”

And before you call me crazy, just consider the last five posts:

1. Launch of Campfire
2. Microsoft-bashing
3. CNN’s new graphics
4. Pimping The Deck
5. Google-bashing

So, four of the last five posts are either advertisements or compeition-bashing.

Anonymous Coward 16 Feb 06

one more example of 37s knowing what they are doing. now people are talking about microsoft and 37signals in the same breath. smart.

Anonymous Coward 16 Feb 06

I LOVE IT! People screaming at 37signals for taking a civilized swipe at Microsoft yet the same people are brutalizing 37signals in the same breath! Ahh, the hypocrisy. It’s so entertaining to watch.

There’s a difference between “a civilized swipe at Microsoft” and lying.

Anonymous Coward 17 Feb 06

Wow, so many Microsoft shills on one page!

Tim Almond 17 Feb 06

Jeff Croft

Maybe it’s just me, but if I wanted to import data from say, iCal, into Ta-Da List, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that I first had to have iCal on my machine in order to do so.

Do you understand what the issue is with standards? Closed standards from a manufacturer are something to tie you in to them. And once you are hooked in, the next time you want to do something else with the document, you have to keep dealing with them. You will be restricted to the ways that they want you to work.

You can’t autogenerate 100% compatible Word documents from a Linux server because it’s a closed format owned by Microsoft. So, even though your application is running on Linux and that’s where you’d like to create the documents from, you can’t.

Jeff Croft 17 Feb 06

“Do you understand what the issue is with standards?”

Did you not read where I said clearly that Microsoft should have used open standards?

Jane 18 Feb 06

I’m 10000% sure they wont … its Microsoft after all ))))

Tim Almond 19 Feb 06

Jeff Croft

So, why did you post:

No one from the 37signals gang ever showed to either clarify what they found so shocking about OfficeLive reuiring Outlook to import from Outlook.

And yet you say to my reply:

Did you not read where I said clearly that Microsoft should have used open standards?

Maybe I’m misreading, but I see a conflict in those two statements.

Part of the point of open standards is exactly that. That I don’t require program A to create data to go to program B. As long as I know the format program B expects, I can build my own program to build data for it.

I wouldn’t describe it as shocking. Microsoft using closed standards is like asking if the Pope is Catholic. Of course they do. However, it doesn’t make it right to try and tie in web-based services to a client application, when the web should be moving towards more open standards. There’s no excuse.

dave 19 Feb 06

The question is how ethical are all those happenings: Answer?

Darrel 21 Feb 06

“Nik Cubrilovic got it right. Jason, I think you took a bit of an unfair swipe at Microsoft here (except for the IE thing).”

And, really, the IE thing is all one needs to swipe at anyways.

I am daily forced to use internal ‘web apps’ that are nothing but ‘IE apps’.

jonto 23 Feb 06

Right Dan H. It’s the “collaboration” piece which is the direct competitor.

Tim Norton 01 Mar 06

Either theres a bunch of MS advocates here, or people who are just looking for reasons to be critical.

This is the 37signals blog, a place where you can actually talk about real alternatives and the problems we as makers and users of an open standards based web face. Ofcourse its open, but really whats the point in coming here and not taking some time to discuss why it is a bad strategy of MS, why it doesn’t work for the open web, and why it is in fact quite ridiculous at this stage in the webs development a major company is still trying to tie the web to proprietory desktop technologys.

The only strategy that is in the favour of users is one which is open, integrates using open standards and enables users to select one of several web based applications for any particular area.

Like many I spent my early days in IT using MS, used to love cracking into their free MSDN CD’s and playing with all this software that talks to each other, but in the end you realise its more like a cage locking you in.

I will not support a company who continues on a stratgey that tries to make it difficult for new entrants to get in. We have been at the mercy of MS over the 90’s, now with web standards, we are finally getting choice, we need to support this development, and while 37signals might seem a bit arrogant sometimes and heavy on smart marketing, their success is built on top of pioneering much needed alternatives, embracing open standards and supporting and contributing to opensource, thats the best balance I’ve seen in a combined buisness community offering.

Dont get caught in the automatic response of saying they’re knocking someone to pump themselves up when they’re representing alot of what the world and the open we needs.

Tim.

Power User Noob Destroyer 01 Mar 06

Office Live Basics Free beta: I have just been invited to the beta, and I have just been given my own domain name of my choice, all I had to do was check availability if the domain name was available. I have 30 MB web space and 5 E-Mail accounts which are in my domain name, each with 2GB storage and a 20 MB limit. And webpage analysis tools to see how. The price? Free. The End…………

jonto 07 Mar 06

It looks like competitor Writely has found itself as a mashup in Salesforce.com’s AppExchange.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/06/salesforce-announces-new-developer-community-and-business-mashups/

Very interesting…

nobody 12 Mar 06

Here is the game we play.

1. When they are big and we are small, we want open standard so we can get an entry.

2. When we are the same size, we partner.

3. When they are small and we are big, no more open standard.

it is just a natural evloution for money or market. In terms of business strategy, open standard is neither evil or noble. It is just a weapon we fight (off) competitions

darryl 17 Mar 06

All you Microsoft bigots are a bunch of logs. The thing is BETA. As in “we’re not done yet”… I’m not super impressed either but I’ll hold of on the bombastic pronouncements until they say they’re done.

Mike 21 Jul 06

Is there anyway to get office live to work with Opera on OS X?

Mike 21 Jul 06

Is there anyway to get office live to work with Opera on OS X?

Heathorn Hawk 29 Jul 06

Why do you all hate MS so much? Is this a band wagon thing?

Anyway… If any of you fags are in the Seattle area, let me know and I’ll meet up with you to kick your ass.

Later Geeks!

Jamie 09 Aug 06

Eh Microsoft is trying to stick their foot in the door everywhere. Another company has a similar idea already, and they’ve had their site going for like 10 years often making improvements.

www.worldwideintranets.com has a Bussiness Solution, it’s an all-in-one Intranet, calendar, messaging, documents, chat, surveys… Microsoft office is fetching if u ask me.

Jamie 04 Sep 06

www.worldwideintranets.com has a live office section using a new wiki, that can handle html, copy and pasting from word, excel files… and it’s all managed in the existing intranets security.

Users can login and edit the wiki sheets live (also known as Live Documents).

Other users can then simply view the updated material. This is alot better then Google’s Spreadsheets in some ways.

Cheers
Jamie

tentole 10 Oct 06

officelive (OL) really sucks. millions of problems, new ones r showing up. & bigM is busy with the Vista & office07.
Officelive is terrible, wait until ‘08. Also, OLE (essentials) support is so impotent, my 10 yrs old knows more then OL support …
I did nt like the www.worldwideintranets.com - 2many steps to make a change to a doc. load change upload. u guys need to create a webfolder on a client - this way when someone download & edits a doc (be it a ms word, excel…) push of a save button uploads it to intranet. no hassle of uploading & looking thru saved versions.
I know why Microsoft is Seattle - ‘cause they r affraid their butts being kicked. C me when u in mountain view, ca, i’ll show u torchered vista & office07

Post a comment

(Basic HTML is allowed)

NOTE: We'd rather not moderate, but off-topic, blatantly inflammatory, or otherwise inappropriate or vapid comments may be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned from commenting. Let's add value. Thank you.