I think that really speaks to Microsoft's new direction though.
It's funny, because it used to be that everything Microsoft did was in furtherance of the 'Windows über alles' philosophy, that Microsoft can only win if everyone else loses. Within that philosophy, though, there was no direction. You drank the kool-aid, and then your team just did whatever; see the famous example of the Office manager hating the idea of tablet PCs and refusing to support them in Office. Everyone was working towards the same goal (the Windows hegemony) but doing so in a disorganized fashion.
Now, it seems like Microsoft's new direction is 'stay relevant and make good things'; everyone is working in the same fashion (make new, relevant technology), but there's a lack of coherence. Microsoft making such a fantastic iPad app as Office for iPad is certainly weakens Office on Windows, Surface, Windows 8 RT, etc., but it also means that Microsoft will still be relevant even if any one of those fails. Likewise, it makes no sense for them to make a version of Office for Mac and (intentionally) cripple its compatibility to hurt the Mac's image.
Now that users aren't (and can't be) forced to use Office on Windows, the Office team needs to keep their product relevant and their revenues flowing; that means covering as many platforms as possible, and ensuring proper interoperability between them.
Basically, the Office team's job now is to ensure that Office survives, not to ensure that Windows 8 or the Surface survive.
Well, the iPad owns the tablet app world, Microsoft didn't have much choice. When [/if] Office is released for many of the differing O/S and hardware versions of Android, I'll agree your description have a point.
Edit: Close enough, dragonwriter. I yield the point. (I should have known about this. Also, why is there such a lack of optimized pad sized apps for Android? The phone ones I've seen weren't exactly using the screen area well.)
I am fine with it. The are alternative for most Google products. Personally, the only thing I miss is Youtube, which ironically MS made best version out there (No ads, downloadable video and worked without crashing) before Google forced them to take it out.
Interestingly, Google has all its products out for the desktop version on Windows 8.
I'd be fine with it too if Google didn't make MS take their apps down or worse yet block IE Mobile from getting to Google Maps completely [1].
Some might call it Microsoft reaping what they have sown for years and I've even heard people applaud Google for shutting out Microsoft, but when MS is putting tons of apps on the Android store and Google is blocking Microsoft from even getting to their website, from a user standpoint I have to be pissed at Google regardless of what Microsoft has done. It's petty, it's anti-consumer just like mid-90's Microsoft, and it's certainly not "do no evil".
> Interestingly, Google has all its products out for the desktop version on Windows 8.
Comparing Windows 8.x's desktop marketshare with Windows Phone's mobile marketshare might give a clue as to the reason why Google has apps for the former but not the latter.
Yes, the same reason why Google can't avoid making its apps for iOS: "Monopoly". Windows holds a monopoly in the desktop and there is no way Google can't ignore that. Now with the announcement of "Universal apps" by MS, where you write for one windows device and easily port it over for the rest, wonder if things will change.
> Also, why is there such a lack of optimized pad sized apps for Android?
I suspect because Android has had significant smartphone marketshare for longer and only comparatively recently bumped over iOS in tablet marketshare, so developers targetting Android have been largely targetting it for phone apps. Fragmentation and demographics probably still make iOS much more lucrative for tablet apps (as it still is, AFAIK, for smartphone apps), but the marketshare numbers are such that the lack of tablet apps for Android should start resolving itself, the same way the lack of phone apps did.
A large part of the Android tablets sold are low end models with bad screens, used for Point of Sale (in taxis etc) or minimal web browsing. Not generally used much per day. (Afaik, statistics for web site access generally support that.)
It's funny, because it used to be that everything Microsoft did was in furtherance of the 'Windows über alles' philosophy, that Microsoft can only win if everyone else loses. Within that philosophy, though, there was no direction. You drank the kool-aid, and then your team just did whatever; see the famous example of the Office manager hating the idea of tablet PCs and refusing to support them in Office. Everyone was working towards the same goal (the Windows hegemony) but doing so in a disorganized fashion.
Now, it seems like Microsoft's new direction is 'stay relevant and make good things'; everyone is working in the same fashion (make new, relevant technology), but there's a lack of coherence. Microsoft making such a fantastic iPad app as Office for iPad is certainly weakens Office on Windows, Surface, Windows 8 RT, etc., but it also means that Microsoft will still be relevant even if any one of those fails. Likewise, it makes no sense for them to make a version of Office for Mac and (intentionally) cripple its compatibility to hurt the Mac's image.
Now that users aren't (and can't be) forced to use Office on Windows, the Office team needs to keep their product relevant and their revenues flowing; that means covering as many platforms as possible, and ensuring proper interoperability between them.
Basically, the Office team's job now is to ensure that Office survives, not to ensure that Windows 8 or the Surface survive.