Microsoft's Office for iPad Apps Gain Printing Capabilities

Shipping Office without print support was an odd decision

so was shipping the iphone without 3g, cut and paste, mms or video recording capabilities

We bought an Office365 subscription once Office for iPad came out so that my wife could use her iPad more for work, and from what she's told me, it has been pretty good. She tried to use the iWork apps and really struggled with them, finding them unintuitive and difficult to use in a tablet environment besides some pretty bad compatibility issues sometimes. So far none of those complaints from Office365, though she hadn't tried to print yet, so this update is certainly welcome.

For a subscription fee, Microsoft better not sit still.

Shipping Office without print support was an odd decision

Shipping iOS without useable printing support as well.

Printing is great, a subscription is not.

Any software that requires a monthly subscription - not interested, will not use.

To those people who complain about subscriptions - many Apple fans were content to pay MobileMe subscriptions for many years.

"But MobileMe was a service" you say. Well, Microsoft is moving its business model to Devices and Services, of which it sees Office as a Service.

I don't mind the subscription at all.

Pass

My Mac and iPad are MS Free Zones.

Tut Tut, wasn't MS making fun of AirPrint during the surface vs iPad wars? what happened?

Office for iPad would be so much more useful if it wasn't just another data silo. Having to use OneDrive is a deal killer for me.

Why do you feel this for only computer software?

If there nothing else in your life you pay a small amount each month for?

TV, Car, Insurance etc etc.

Why pick computer software as the item you don't wish to pay for this way?

TV I own and receive OTA. Yes I do have netflix, but there is simply no way that I could afford the library I watch if I was to purchase out right.

Car. Hands down cash to own. I will NEVER have a car payment.

Insurance... that's a bit of a reach. You have no other option. The monthly fee is because I might switch Ins. companies, I could switch homes/cars/etc, I could increase/decrease liabilities.

The reasons computer software is the biggest sore thumb is because there never was an issue before buying it outright. MS Office $120. I'll have it for a few years (3 usually because I'm forced to upgrade due to extension changes). Computer software just isn't "expensive" enough to justify monthly payments. It's just been forced upon us to make more money. Plain and simple. New features are becoming less and less so they need something to make more. Look at all the people STILL using XP. Can you imagine if OS's were monthly payments?

OK. What about Microsoft Office for Mac now?

Pretty sure it can already print. ;)

But on a serious note, weren't there recent rumors about updates they were working on?

Why do you feel this for only computer software?

If there nothing else in your life you pay a small amount each month for?

TV, Car, Insurance etc etc.

Why pick computer software as the item you don't wish to pay for this way?

You picked bad analogies. With insurance, you pay a certain amount for a specified time of coverage, and if you want to continue that coverage, you pay again for another period. That makes sense because they are covering new happenings in the world--e.g., you are continuing to drive your car, and you want them to cover you if you get in an accident on that date. (I'm not sure what you mean with just plain "car" unless you're talking about financing, which is so incredibly obvious I don't think it merits discussion.)

With software, you usually pay once to obtain a perpetual license for a specific version. This also makes sense, because you continuing to use the version whose license you purchased requires no effort on the part of the provider (except, say, security updates and bug fixes--minor releases--that are generally covered under product lifecycles by any developer who would like you to spend money with them again, and which are usually implied with the original license purchase for a specified time period). If you upgrade your computer and the old version isn't compatible, maybe you'll have to pay again. This also makes sense, because you will be purchasing a new version into which the developer invested work. It does not make sense to "rent" software that you would otherwise have no reason to "upgrade" if you don't want to. With computers remaining usable for longer than before and with many software companies struggling to put features in newer versions that compel people to upgrade, software sales have slowed. Doing away with one-time perpetual licensing is simply companies wanting you to provide them with a steady stream of income despite these facts.

Yes, in some cases it makes sense: if you use a ton of Adobe products and always buy the upgrades, or if you have eleventy billion computers you want to run Office on and the subscription will cost less than enough "regular" licenses. Most of the time, especially for people with only one computer, it doesn't--especially if you wouldn't always buy the latest version anyway just because it came out.

I'm staying away from subscription licensing as long as I can.