MS Office on M1 Mac vs. MS Office on Intel Windows PCs

[Thunderbird]

The question is how many actually use them and would pay for tHem? Saying they want something and paying for it are two different things.

They already pay for Office for Mac. It wouldn't cost extra.

A few points:
1. Not all Mac owners would buy Office.
2. Some percentage already have Office so you’re looking at marginal sales Beyond that base. The number is likely much smaller than 10% and not enough to make it worth pursuing.

Beyond the issue of MS Office on a Mac, if Mac users could run any OS natively on the new more powerful Apple silicone, that would draw a lot of Windows users over to Mac, and Apple would sell a lot more machines.

 

[jlc1978]

They already pay for Office for Mac. It wouldn't cost extra.

Correct, which is why I said the marginal revenue would not be worth the costs associated with making it feature compatible, since those already paying would not be additional revenue due to the additions as they already are customers. It’s all about additional sales, not the existing user base which is pretty captive.

Beyond the issue of MS Office on a Mac, if Mac users could run any OS natively on the new more powerful Apple silicone, that would draw a lot of Windows users over to Mac, and Apple would sell a lot more machines.

I doubt it given the price delta between Windows machines and Macs. Most Windows users don’t care about Macs, they use what works for them. Buying a Mac to run Windows would be a more expensive option since they’d need to buy Windows license in addition to the Mac’s costs.

 

[Thunderbird]

Correct, which is why I said the marginal revenue would not be worth the costs associated with making it feature compatible, since those already paying would not be additional revenue due to the additions as they already are customers. It’s all about additional sales, not the existing user base which is pretty captive.

There would be no extra cost for updating features on Office for Mac. They already do this every few years anyway.

I doubt it given the price delta between Windows machines and Macs. Most Windows users don’t care about Macs, they use what works for them. Buying a Mac to run Windows would be a more expensive option since they’d need to buy Windows license in addition to the Mac’s costs.

Macs don't have a unique killer app. Anything you can do on a Mac you can do on a PC (sometimes better). Which is why there really isn't much room for Mac sales growth. Apple even stopped publishing Mac sales data, probably out of embarrassment. If Macs could host any OS natively, that would be their killer app, since PCs can't do that. This would draw a lot more people in and increase sales. Where else is sales growth going to come from?

You seem to be working awfully hard to make excuses for why Apple can't change the status quo regarding their OS and software on Macs.

 

[jlc1978]

There would be no extra cost for updating features on Office for Mac. They already do this every few years anyway.

Sure there is, it takes programmer time that can be better spent on other projects.

Macs don't have a unique killer app. Anything you can do on a Mac you can do on a PC (sometimes better). Which is why there really isn't much room for Mac sales growth. Apple even stopped publishing Mac sales data, probably out of embarrassment. If Macs could host any OS natively, that would be their killer app, since PCs can't do that. This would draw a lot more people in and increase sales.

I don’t think there are that many people who care about running a different OS on their Mac, especially when a machine that already runs it is cheaper. Windows users are highly unlikely to say “Gee, I can buy a Mac and pay more for it, and then another $100 or so for a Windows license, just to do what I can do for less money already?” To put it in perspective, how many people did that when you could run other OS’s natively in Bootcamp? Or in a VM? They already have the “killer app” and it’s not much of a killer.

Where else is sales growth going to come from?

Apple’s future growth is not in the Mac. It may garner some marketshare from ARM’s capabilities, but Apple’s future is elsewhere.

You seem to be working awfully hard to make excuses for why Apple can't change the status quo regarding their OS and software on Macs.

No excuses, simply looking at the economic realities that make your suggestions unlikely. You keep focusing on increasing sales but that is not the metric to use, it’s margin and ROI. Apple could increase sales by cutting prices but that would erode margins so they don’t. Apple isn’t known for chasing sales at the expense of margin.

Investing money in lower ROI projects instead of higher ones is bad fiscal policy and no smart company does that.

I think Apple is much more likely to bring about further integration of iOS and OS X so the Mac of the future is an iPad.

 

[Thunderbird]

Sure there is, it takes programmer time that can be better spent on other projects.

Office for Mac is already a project. There is already a developer team dedicated to maintaining and improving it. Programmers already work on its features. Programmers simply adding features would not result in extra cost to the end user. I don't know how you figure it would. It's like saying it's not worth it for Microsoft to add features to Word or Excel in Windows because it would cost more.

I don’t think there are that many people who care about running a different OS on their Mac, especially when a machine that already runs it is cheaper. Windows users are highly unlikely to say “Gee, I can buy a Mac and pay more for it, and then another $100 or so for a Windows license, just to do what I can do for less money already?” To put it in perspective, how many people did that when you could run other OS’s natively in Bootcamp? Or in a VM? They already have the “killer app” and it’s not much of a killer.

If all that were true, then Apple wouldn't have bothered creating Bootcamp in the first place, and spent time and money writing drivers for it and maintaining support for it. Also, there are ways of obtaining Windows and Office without spending very much money. Microsoft practically almost gives Windows away these days. Programs in VMs are not running natively. I think a lot of people would like to own a machine capable of running any OS natively. Apple was kind of heading in that direction with its Intel Macs, but has now started moving away from that again.

Apple’s future growth is not in the Mac. It may garner some marketshare from ARM’s capabilities, but Apple’s future is elsewhere.

I was talking specifically about Mac sales growth, not Apple's growth generally. Of course, Apple's growth generally comes mostly from mobile and other devices, halo products, and continuing to expand its scope in entertainment creation (e.g. Apple Studios, etc).

You keep focusing on increasing sales but that is not the metric to use, it’s margin and ROI. Apple could increase sales by cutting prices but that would erode margins so they don’t. Apple isn’t known for chasing sales at the expense of margin.

The metric to use is overall net profit, because that's what shareholders want. ROS (return on sales) is also important. High margins on fewer sales usually works out the same dollar-wise as lower margins on more sales. The difference is when you increase market share (sales) you create a larger user base and more stable customer loyalty. Amazon, for example, took this to the extreme by having very low or no profits for the first decade or so. Their top priority was market share. Not saying Apple should do this, only that if they just created little advantages -- like having universal OS hosting on their Macs -- it would help increase sales, even without adjusting prices.

 

[jlc1978]

Office for Mac is already a project. There is already a developer team dedicated to maintaining and improving it. Programmers already work on its features. Programmers simply adding features would not result in extra cost to the end user. I don't know how you figure it would. It's like saying it's not worth it for Microsoft to add features to Word or Excel in Windows because it would cost more.

It would cost MS more since adding more features would take developer time that could be used elsewhere, and MS has clearly decided the cost is not worth th return.

If all that were true, then Apple wouldn't have bothered creating Bootcamp in the first place, and spent time and money writing drivers for it and maintaining support for it. Also, there are ways of obtaining Windows and Office without spending very much money. Microsoft practically almost gives Windows away these days. Programs in VMs are not running natively. I think a lot of people would like to own a machine capable of running any OS natively. Apple was kind of heading in that direction with its Intel Macs, but has now started moving away from that again.

It provided a safety net for switchers, but Apple has clearly decided it is no longer worth it as they moved to AS. Even so, I doubt any significant percentage of Mac users actually used Bootcamp, or even a VM.

I was talking specifically about Mac sales growth, not Apple's growth generally. Of course, Apple's growth generally comes mostly from mobile and other devices, halo products, and continuing to expand its scope in entertainment creation (e.g. Apple Studios, etc).

It’s a question of where to put resources; and those areas are more attractive than some Mac options.

The metric to use is overall net profit, because that's what shareholders want. ROS (return on sales) is also important. High margins on fewer sales usually works out the same dollar-wise as lower margins on more sales.

However, it requires more dollars to achieve those sales, resulting in lower margins. It’s a question of where to put available dollars, and lower margin products are not the place when higher margin ones are available. Puttin efforts there results in higher net profit as well.

The difference is when you increase market share (sales) you create a larger user base and more stable customer loyalty. Amazon, for example, took this to the extreme by having very low or no profits for the first decade or so. Their top priority was market share. Not saying Apple should do this, only that if they just created little advantages -- like having universal OS hosting on their Macs -- it would help increase sales, even without adjusting prices.

Amazon went for market share because their business scales - as they get more market share the idea is the margins go up as the G&A costs do not scale at the same rate, resulting in a profitable business. Of course, a lot depends on what you classify as G&A.

Apple is not in the same type of business, so comparisons are not valid.

Anyway, we’ve strayed a long way from the topic and it’s clear we just have differing opinions.

 

[Thunderbird]

It would cost MS more since adding more features would take developer time that could be used elsewhere, and MS has clearly decided the cost is not worth th return.



It provided a safety net for switchers, but Apple has clearly decided it is no longer worth it as they moved to AS. Even so, I doubt any significant percentage of Mac users actually used Bootcamp, or even a VM.



It’s a question of where to put resources; and those areas are more attractive than some Mac options.



However, it requires more dollars to achieve those sales, resulting in lower margins. It’s a question of where to put available dollars, and lower margin products are not the place when higher margin ones are available. Puttin efforts there results in higher net profit as well.



Amazon went for market share because their business scales - as they get more market share the idea is the margins go up as the G&A costs do not scale at the same rate, resulting in a profitable business. Of course, a lot depends on what you classify as G&A.

Apple is not in the same type of business, so comparisons are not valid.

Anyway, we’ve strayed a long way from the topic and it’s clear we just have differing opinions.

There really aren't any cogent objections against making Macs more natively accessible to Windows programs (and other OSs). The costs are negligible, so the only argument left is just, "Apple has decided..."

Switching to Apple silicone was a good move by Apple, since they were up against thermal limits with Intel chips. It also freed them from Intel's timelines. Locking down hardware, however, was a questionable move. But having done it, they should ask themselves why should anyone buy a Mac if users are now being forced to purchase a brand new machine whenever they just need to upgrade components? Also, if Apple is further isolating itself software-wise within its own ecosystem, and not doing anything to lure switchers, where is Mac sales growth going to come from?

Or maybe they just don't care about Mac sales growth?

 

[Hawker 800]

Microsoft needs to ask themselves: Are you here because we’re here or are we here because you’re here?

 

[jlc1978]

There really aren't any cogent objections against making Macs more natively accessible to Windows programs (and other OSs). The costs are negligible,

Even if they are negligable, which I disagree with, there is no reason for Apple to incur them since they are not in the business of making machines that run other OSs. Nothing is preventing MS from deciding to make Windows run natively on Macs, other than they likely see it as a tiny market not worth the costs.

so the only argument left is just, "Apple has decided..."

Which is a valid argument.

Switching to Apple silicone was a good move by Apple, since they were up against thermal limits with Intel chips. It also freed them from Intel's timelines.

It also allows them to control performance and better integrate the OS and hardware, all good things.

Locking down hardware, however, was a questionable move. But having done it, they should ask themselves why should anyone buy a Mac if users are now being forced to purchase a brand new machine whenever they just need to upgrade components?

Most users, Mac or PC, never upgrade their machines, and use them for a number of years. They work fine with Office and until Office starts running too slow there is no need to upgrade. Companies I worked for were on a 3 - 5 year upgrade cycle and simply replaced leased or purchased machines with new ones. The only time they replaced a part was if it failed, which can be done with Macs or PCs.

Also, if Apple is further isolating itself software-wise within its own ecosystem, and not doing anything to lure switchers, where is Mac sales growth going to come from?

Faster Macs that run Office well will attract some users but Apple is at a cost disadvantage. Office works just fine on a Mac for most users. Better Macs will just improve performance, although I'd bet for most users the improvements won't be noticeable. I cold see them push a better Office suite for iPads to drive growth and further penetrate the tablet market rather than the Mac.

They appear to be going after the higher end graphics market with some of the new machines as well.

Or maybe they just don't care about Mac sales growth?

I think they see other areas as the future growth opportunities. The Mac is a mature market and they probably just want to maintain market share with perhaps a little growth.

 

[webkit]

I still remember WordPerfect and its battle with MS Word for word processing supremacy. During the 1980s and early 1990s, WordPerfect actually had a larger user base than Word (called WordStar back then) I remember that law firms, for instance, really liked WordPerfect. And it had a Mac version which was popular. I used WordPerfect on my laptop PC up until about 1997 when Word started to become absolutely dominant everywhere. Microsoft used its enormous leverage to put Word on every PC it could. WordPerfect couldn't compete.

Microsoft had leverage but it wasn't like they were giving away Word (or Office) for free, unlike what happened with IE and the browser wars in the mid-1990s. I think a lot of the blame for WordPerfect's decline can be put squarely on the WordPerfect company itself. It took them too long (about seven years after Windows first launched) to come out with a Windows version and even then, there were issues/bugs. If WP had moved faster and put more effort into a Windows version, the word processing/office software market may have turned out differently.

 

[MikeDr206]

Microsoft had leverage but it wasn't like they were giving away Word (or Office) for free, unlike what happened with IE and the browser wars in the mid-1990s. I think a lot of the blame for WordPerfect's decline can be put squarely on the WordPerfect company itself. It took them too long (about seven years after Windows first launched) to come out with a Windows version and even then, there were issues/bugs. If WP had moved faster and put more effort into a Windows version, the word processing/office software market may have turned out differently.

I agree with this totally. Law firms stuck with WP for DOS much longer than other entities. Once the writing was on the wall that migration to Windows was necessary, it was readily evident that Word was much superior to WP for Windows.

 

[RonPNW]

I agree with this totally. Law firms stuck with WP for DOS much longer than other entities. Once the writing was on the wall that migration to Windows was necessary, it was readily evident that Word was much superior to WP for Windows.

I'm a one man consulting shop that converted over to Mac years ago after a nasty series of hardwire failures and virus infections. It is just much easier to maintain a Mac. Never the less a couple of years ago I needed to do some forensic data analysis on huge files in Excel. It was painfully slow and buggy on the Mac. I installed Parrallels, the current version of Windows and Office. The performance improvement was breathtaking, over 2X. How sad, on the same machine, using a virtualized version of Excel and getting 2X performance compared to the native version.

I can only surmise that Office for the Mac is a completely different software set only related to Office for Windows in that some of the functions are common. Microsoft had the chance to merge the products while Macs used the Intel chipset but didn't. I can't understand why. They could have dramatically improved Office for Mac and reduced development effort.

Now that Apple has moved to an Arm chipset, I don't see much of a future for Office for Mac. It will continue to be the unloved second cousin (which is odd considering that Excel and Word where both originally developed on and for the Apple OS).

I'll continue to use Macs, just to simplify my maintenance efforts, and Office for Mac to maintain compatibility with the rest of the world. Some vendors are doing native ARM versions of Intel software (Adobe for example) that must be recompiled versions of their base software for Windows. They have identical features, look and feel. I don't understand why Microsoft does not go down this path and merge the two versions of Office.

 

[anthover]

Did they not just release M1 native software?

 

[RonPNW]

Has anyone compared the M1 Office version with the current Windows Office version?

If Microsoft compiled the windows version, Wahoo! we have the latest Microsoft has to offer. If they compiled the latest Mac version of Office, it is still far less capable than the windows version.

 

[mk313]

Has anyone compared the M1 Office version with the current Windows Office version?

If Microsoft compiled the windows version, Wahoo! we have the latest Microsoft has to offer. If they compiled the latest Mac version of Office, it is still far less capable than the windows version.

They definitely did not compile the windows version.

 

[RonPNW]

This really does get my goat, especially considering the chance they had to combine versions when Macs were on the Intel chip set. Supporting two separate code versions simply makes no sense.

 

[jlc1978]

This really does get my goat, especially considering the chance they had to combine versions when Macs were on the Intel chip set. Supporting two separate code versions simply makes no sense.

It must of to MS. I remember the days when a Windows version was simply directly ported to Mac OS, resulting in none of Apple's design and look in the resultant program. The key combos you were used to using did not function the same way in some cases, icons were copies of the Windows ones lacking Apple's design features, etc. MS may have reused code but also has a separate codebase to make the programs fit OSX. How much overlap? Who knows.

Personally, I think MS' long term plan is to move everything to the cloud, obligating the need for Win / Mac / Linux / Whatever versions.

 

[ingsings]

FYI the WoA *licensing* question seems to be officially settled (TLDNR: it's not an issue):

Can you run Windows on ARM on an Apple Silicon Mac after all? It depends. – getwired.com

 

[jlc1978]

FYI the WoA *licensing* question seems to be officially settled (TLDNR: it's not an issue):

Can you run Windows on ARM on an Apple Silicon Mac after all? It depends. – getwired.com

It's a shame he didn't ask about the EULA, which says you can only run the Developer version on OEM machines. I would interpret MS' statement as superseding the EULA, but it would have ben nice to get a definitive answer.

 

[ingsings]

It's a shame he didn't ask about the EULA, which says you can only run the Developer version on OEM machines.

The analyst who writes the getwired.com blog is Wes Miller. You could try asking him on Twitter at @getwired.

 

[Romain_H]

Microsoft had the chance to merge the products while Macs used the Intel chipset but didn't. I can't understand why.

Because the processor architecture is close to irrelevant. Developer tools are what‘s relevant, the programming environments (APIs, frameworks, even UI paradigms) are very different.

I.e. Cocoa on the Mac, Win APIs on Windows. One can not port that over easily, irrespective of running on Arm vs Intel

 

[Thirio2]

Does excel for Mac (not the subscription version) have the same features as excel for windows? Specifically, will it plot graphs along with the equation and R values and also allow multiple nested if statements? If not, I guess my next desktop will be a windows box instead of the new mini.

 

[jlc1978]

Does excel for Mac (not the subscription version) have the same features as excel for windows? Specifically, will it plot graphs along with the equation and R values and also allow multiple nested if statements? If not, I guess my next desktop will be a windows box instead of the new mini.

Hested if, yes - not sure about graphs. Overall it seems pretty much the same; at least how I use it with VBA and macros.

 

[dogface1956]

During the 1980s and early 1990s, WordPerfect actually had a larger user base than Word (called WordStar back then) I remember that law firms, for instance, really liked WordPerfect.

Actually Word was never known by WordStar, WordStar was an CP/M -> PC/MS-DOS -> Windows word processor from Micro Pro, it was originally back in the days of Kaypro and Osborne and other CP/M computers was pretty much the standard word processor. Microsoft Word has always been called Word was launched by Microsoft in 1983.

 

[theorist9]

Chiming in on this somewhat old thread: I'm a heavy user of Office (mostly Word and Excel). I use them on both a lower-end Windows desktop (Core i5-6600 running Windows 10) and a relatively high-end Mac (core i9-9900K iMac running Monterey). Based on their relative GeekBench 6 single-core speeds, the Mac should be ~ 1643/1269 => 30% faster. Thus I find it annoying that, even with the difference in hardware performance, Office is faster and more responsive on my modest Windows computer than on my relatively fast iMac. Plus the Mac is at my desk, while I access the Windows machine via Remote Desktop!

For instance, fully opening a large Word doc (by "fully open", I mean you are able to scroll to the end) takes a measurable amount of time. This is much more than merely the time it takes to read the data from the SSD. Rather, it's taking a long time because Word needs to fully process and format the document. I have a large Word reference document I use (277 pages, 220 MB). On my Mac, fully opening the document takes 34 s. On my PC, it's 20 s.

That means, at least for this one easily-measurable task, Word runs 34/20 => 70% faster on my i5-6600 PC than on my i9-9900K Mac, when it should actually be running ~30% slower. Thus, adjusting for the difference in computer speeds, at least for this task, Word is 1.7 x 1.3 = 2.2 x as performant on Windows as on Mac OS.

That difference is consistent with the difference in responsiveness I experience—though since reponsiveness is the response time for tasks that typically take <1 s, that's not an attribute I'm able to compare quantitatively.* This, by contrast, is, which is why I chose it.

*Though I can compare them qualitatively: I often experience spinning beacballs when working with Excel in Mac. I can't recall experiencing similar delays with Excel in Windows.

In addition, Office for Windows has more functionality than Office for Mac. I've made a few posts on the Microsoft Forums where I've been told the function I'm looking for is available on the PC version but not the Mac version.