03-22-2006, 12:00 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Microsoft Office 2007 Changes: No Outlook 2007 in Some Versions
If you're reading this site, odds are good that you also use some version of Outlook. It's bad enough that Pocket PC and Smartphone users are given the 5+ year old Outlook 2002 when they buy their expensive Windows Mobile device, but now Microsoft is removing Outlook from lower end Office bundles. It used to be that Outlook would come bundled with even the affordably-priced Student and Teacher Edition, which was great because many families I knew purchased that version. Three licenses, under $200, great deal. Things have unfortunately changed with the Office 2007.
According to this product chart, Outlook 2007 will not be included in Office 2007 Home and Student. What's curious is that it will be included in a new bundle called Office Basic 2007, which has Word, Excel, and Outlook - but no PowerPoint. If the Basic edition is priced even more affordably than the Home & Student edition, then perhaps this is a tempest in teapot. And I suppose the good news is that when Office 2007 comes out, presumably all Windows Mobile bundles will then include Outlook 2003.
One interesting solution to this problem is that Microsoft gives out Outlook client licenses to hosted Exchange providers such as 4smartphone [affiliate], which means you can get a free copy of Outlook 2007 (when it's available) and hosted Exchange all at the same time.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 12:30 AM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
|
|
Just a small addendum. Office 2003 came in a Basic version, but it was available as OEM only. That is the case with this version, too. So not really a new bundle per se.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/pricing.mspx
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 12:43 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by applejosh
Just a small addendum. Office 2003 came in a Basic version, but it was available as OEM only. That is the case with this version, too. So not really a new bundle per se.
|
Wow. That makes this even worse - so only someone buying the $500 full version of Office can get Outlook 2007? That stinks. :?
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 01:18 AM
|
|
Oracle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 899
|
|
Doesn't Microsoft risk losing the ubiquity of Outlook in non-corporate markets, both as the de facto email/PIM application and as a MAPI platform? The one that all smart gadgets sync to, and the one with all the plugins.
A popular email application that's already better suited to the consumer space can evolve into an extensible, tightly-integrated PIM, and start to poach consumer mindshare (then developers, then even corporate).
Just like Microsoft had taken the IE6 browser for granted, and now we have Firefox?
Though I'm actually for more competition...
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 04:33 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 792
|
|
Jason, actually $400, not $500. You don't need Pro to get Outlook, you get it with Standard. I would expect that most people would have some version of Office that qualifies for the upgrade, so then they are only paying $240. Or you can buy Home and Student and Outlook for $260 (Full Versions)...and then you get OneNote as well.
My thought is, how many genuine Home users really would be using Outlook? I would figure that most Students wouldn't as, recently being in University I witnessed, few students use any email program other than the web interface for the schools email service. Most true "Home" users (or non-business users) probably have a internet service (in the US) like AOL, MSN, Comcast, etc, all of which provide web interfaces and, in most cases, extremely limited POP/IMAP support. And with the advent of Live Mail (or Hotmail if you haven�t upgraded to Live), you basically have Outlook on the web so students and basic users could easily use the free service on the web. If they can't get their email into Outlook anyway, that solution would be just as good. (And most students would rather use Live because they are often using different computers and want access from anywhere across campus.) If you are a home user (ie. not using you home computer for business purpose), I would bet that you don't need Outlook, nor do you really care to figure out how to use it. When you begin using Office for business uses, do you really qualify for �Home and Student��.or is that exactly the time when you should be upgrading to a Standard or Pro Version? ;-)
I do think that if you have a mobile device you will suddenly care about having Outlook...but ideally, new devices should come with Outlook 2007. I agree it is stupid they don't come with the latest version of Outlook. I think the two main problems are that the latest version of Outlook should come with Window Mobile�and they should be full support for Live Mail (and the related calendaring functions).
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 04:57 AM
|
|
Magi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,124
|
|
I use Outlook Express at home; I think that's plenty of function for the average home user. I prefer it to Outlook for mail, too, I only use Outlook for Calender, as a backup to my PPC. I don't think this is a big loss to most people.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 05:33 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 301
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by applejosh
Just a small addendum. Office 2003 came in a Basic version, but it was available as OEM only. That is the case with this version, too. So not really a new bundle per se.
|
Wow. That makes this even worse - so only someone buying the $500 full version of Office can get Outlook 2007? That stinks. :? |
Yeah, the "Microsoft Tax" on Office is just staggeringly high as a percentage of the computer price overall. I just priced a new desktop today from Dell and it was $528 with a 17" LCD, but $149 of that was for Office Basic! Microsoft is getting 28% of the purchase just from Office! If you figure Dell's also coughing up perhaps $50 for an XP license too, the Total Microsoft Tax is $199 or 38% of the purchase! Wow!
You'd think Dell would be pre-configuring models with Red Hat Fedora and OpenOffice. Then you could buy a computer that does the same thing for something like $329!
OpenOffice really does provide good Word and Excel equivalence, but not Outlook. Once that's solved, things will change quite a bit I expect.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 09:48 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
|
|
It looks like MS have done a bit of research into their products' usage here, and from my experience I think they have got this decision about right. Within my friends and family, I can think of perhaps a dozen 'home users' who have some version of Office, and they are all happily using Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, etc, but not one of them uses Outlook. In fact, most don't even know what it does. Of those who do know about it, most choose not to use it - they use Outlook Express or AOL for email, and none of them feel the need for Outlook's PIM functions in the home, even those who use it at work. MS have obviously figured out that there is no point giving Outlook to people who don't want/need/understand it. Anyone who gets a mobile device will get a copy of Outlook in the box, and anyone who is sold on using Outlook will choose a version of Office that includes it anyway.
For me, the killer feature of Outlook is that it is the de facto source of synchronisation for contacts. I have been using it since it came out in 1997, and I have only ever entered each of my contacts once - into Outlook - then I have synchronised that information with the procession of Psions, PocketPCs, Palms and mobile phones that my wife and I have owned over the years. It has saved me hours of re-entering contacts, but most people don't even know about this, or they are not tech-savvy enough to take advantage of it. Even people who have Outlook, and have a phone that could sync with it, don't think about using their devices in this joined-up way. They maintain a list of email addresses in OE, and laboriously re-enter all their phone numbers each time they get a new mobile phone. If MS could raise Outlook's profile a little, and convert these people to using it, I am sure they would sell more copies of the more advanced (= more expensive  ) versions of Office 2007.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 10:21 AM
|
|
Oracle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 899
|
|
I think MS is pricing Outlook (in the Office bundles) out of reach for many home users, which is a shame. Some people above have listed the benefits of a de facto PIM platform that devices sync to, and the wish for MS to advertise these benefits to more consumers. So how is it the right decision for MS to now push home users away from Outlook?
I do think home users can benefit from a rich, universal addressbook/calendar/to-do-list (and email) application, not just corporate users.
Furthermore, grabbing mindshare and familiarity with users at home can indirectly influence the preferences and usage patterns of these same users at work? And maintaining ubiquity everywhere ensures continued developer support for the platform, which is a synergistic cycle...
|
| |
|
|
|
03-22-2006, 10:50 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 191
|
|
Everybody is forgetting one thing. In Windows Vista they've created replacements/improvements which down right mimic Apple's software. In Vista you will have Windows Calendar and all that stuff. As a non-corporate user I prefer these simpler programs. Sounds like the packages that are lacking Outlook are not aimed at corporate customers. I'd rather have programs that are simpler but do what they do well. I love Apple's software and prefer it to Outlook though nobody would argue that they are as feature packed. Forget collaboration features and give me something simpler. I'm not happy that they are getting rid of the option to use Outlook for many people but what I have a feeling I'm going to be more happy with what I'll be using instead. However, my next computer will be a Mac so I guess I'll be using Apple Mail, Address Book and iCal instead of the Microsoft equivalents.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
