The Promising Future of Microsoft Office Online

When Nadella took office seven years ago, he emphasized immediately that the future was in the cloud. At the time, it was an interesting but understandable ambition. Azure was killing it, services were continuing to grow, and it was obvious that Microsoft was positioned as the dominant player in the space. Everyone took what he said a little bit differently though. We all kind of knew what he meant, but not exactly.

 

In 2021, the cloud is doing way more than it was doing when Satya stepped in. This year, Microsoft hasn’t just added powerful cloud features to its existing platforms, it has taken everything to the cloud, including Windows itself, the bread and butter of the company. Office has been in the cloud for years, but it's cleaner than ever now. Xbox has been promising cloud features since the launch of the Xbox One eight years ago, but now with Xcloud, it's finally a reality. Everything Microsoft does is in the cloud now. Everything. 

 

Its a shift we can all claim we saw coming, but to be honest, I couldn’t have imagined it happening this cleanly. During the highs and lows of the last five years, Microsoft has shown consistent, steady progress in their vision of the cloud, and barring a couple of security breaches (who doesn’t have those, these days?) they somehow haven’t really pissed off most of their customers. It’s surprising that no one has climbed on top of the hill and shouted it to the masses yet, but Microsoft has once again won in the business world, and looking ahead, they’re stronger than ever.

 

No one likes learning new systems, but the comfort and familiarity of Office in the cloud is astonishing. When I committed in 2021 to switching my file keeping over to Office online, I expected to have to fight with it more. I didn’t expect to actually prefer the UI over the one built into my desktop. The interface of Office online is exactly what it needs to be, without the extras that most people don’t use but a few people really need.

 

Put simply, Office online is cleaner than its desktop counterpart. Not just the UI, but the bloat. As much as Windows has evolved over the last few decades, the fundamentals of file organization have been the same since the 90’s. File Explorer is essential to Windows, as well as the way it operates, but its function allows it to become a cluttered mess through everyday use. Keeping a clean file system takes active, intentional work in Windows. Installing a new app, even in Windows 10, will often create a folder in my Documents folder without any input from me. Sure, I can hide it, or manually place it somewhere I would prefer, but if we are honest with ourselves a new operating system released in 2021 would be criticized for this. When a person uses any computing device, they expect the app they’re installing to do the organization for them, in a way that they like, without them having to think about it. Yes, mobile apps normalized this, and it's a good thing too, because the new way is better.

 

Microsoft putting Office and Windows in the cloud allows for cleaner file organization for normal, everyday users. If Microsoft incorporated Onedrive subtly enough, I doubt most normal people would have any use for File Explorer. Onedrive does everything most working professionals would want from their computer. The organization isn’t the only aspect that is beneficial here though.

I only use about a dozen of the apps built into Windows, and I would call myself a power user as well as a Microsoft fan. So if I as a fan am only using a fraction of the stuff that is built into Windows, why can’t these stock apps be deleted? I won’t belabor the point, plenty of people have been writing about this for years. I bring it up because Office online doesn’t have Paint. The fresh start that Onedrive and the rest of the suite has afforded Microsoft is a breath of fresh air for their user base. Today, the web browser is the default, necessary app on the computer, so much so that it can get away with being the only app open, and a professional can still get all of their work done. Many of the highest quality applications that professionals use are cloud based. Google understood this very clearly, and they used that idea to justify ChromeOS. It was a genius, forward thinking move. We were all moving in that direction anyways, and it provided incentive for the industry to double down and keep moving in that direction. Now, Microsoft users are benefitting from it. As Edge has adopted Chromium, Microsoft has now levelled the playing field for their users, making cloud computing a much easier default. Since cloud apps have become the default, Office Online doesn’t need to have thirty apps that most people don’t use. If a user wants a particular tool that isn’t included as part of the “Office” package, they can just open a new tab. They have access to the tool they want without the baggage of installation packages and UI clutter.

There is still plenty of work to be done. The platform in general just isn’t as snappy as Google’s G Suite. The big apps like Word and Excel are missing plenty of tools, and of course the offline counterparts of the apps just feel better. It's a curious thing that Microsoft isn’t adding these tools in at a faster pace. It could be because the users they care about are running Windows anyways, and these apps all run great even on budget machines. Office online, for now, only needs to be good for Chromebook users, and those users probably aren’t bothering to use Microsoft software anyways. For now, as we are still in the early days of the cloud transition, its enough that Microsoft absolutely nailed the file system in Onedrive. The file system is fundamental on any computing platform, and it shows a promising future for cloud productivity going forward.

 

The Confusing Direction of Apple Arcade

What is Apple's aim with games on Arcade? With Apple being as secretive a company as they are, bite sized info in interviews is the best we can do to find answers on what Arcade is for, how it makes money and what the incentives are.

It’s easy to determine that Apple just wants as many subscriptions as possible. Apple wants everyone on their devices, for as long as possible, because that assures them of future sales of their devices. So broadly speaking, it's an easy question to answer. More specifically though, what kinds of games is Apple trying to court? Apple wants subscribers and it wants those subscribers to be moderately engaged. So then what games are going to help drive that objective? In short, all of them. Whether it makes sense or not.

x

The service started with a broad selection of genres. In the first year and a half, they even got a few games that seemed to be more at home on consoles than phones. In the last year, we have seen a deluge of classic phone games returning like Angry Birds and Cut the Rope. We’ve gotten some proper AAA treatment as well (at least, when you compare them to other mobile games), games like The Pathless and Beyond a Steel Sky are truly incredible on a mobile device, and the fact that they save data is shared across Apple devices makes them among the most convenient games in the world. It really is a selling point that I can play almost any Apple Arcade game on the phone, and then load my save file on a tv later and continue where I left off seamlessly. In some ways, its actually better than the Switch, because as portable as Nintendo’s handheld is, I can’t keep it in my back pocket like I can with my phone. I ALWAYS have my phone with me. Always. So being able to make progress on a game there, and then really enjoy the game later on the big screen is a gigantic selling point, and I can’t believe Apple hasn’t been bragging about this.

But I must admit I’m confused by some of the offerings on Arcade. Not every game needs to be a statement of Apple’s objectives. Not every game needs to be a flagship. But what is the purpose of putting another version of Crossy Road on there? Or Altos Odyssey? These are fine mobile games, but the free versions are also fine. In some cases they don’t even add anything to the game. They just move it over to Arcade, put a + on it, and take away the ability to spend money. The unlockables are still there, but they are placed behind 60 hours of grinding just like the free version. Is this a feature now? Annoying me with an incredulous grind, but taking away the temptation to spend money? That’s good design now? In the case of Simon's Cat, an Arcade exclusive, the game is fundamentally designed around microtransactions. It smells eerily like Candy Crush, and the “boosters” that you can bring into each level are as present and useful as ever, but now there is no way to buy them, and they are notoriously difficult to obtain through grinding. It’s almost like the game was finished, and then a month before release Apple comes in, offers them a check, and they decide to just release the game as-is. “Oh yeah, don’t forget to remove the microtransactions, boys. Isn’t this great? It’s a fun mobile game with no microtransactions or ads! What value!” 

That's cute, except that since the game was designed around milking money out of people, the fun that you had to pay for before, now isn’t even readily available in the game. So guess what? The game isn’t fun now. This serves a fantastic point, that many of the most popular games on mobile aren’t just badly designed because of the gameplay systems designed to rake money out of people, they’re badly designed even if you take money out of the equation. It’s fine for this to happen on a few releases. Again, not every game needs to be a masterpiece, but Apple can’t keep buying free-to-play games and putting a sticker on them to satisfy their audience long term. Not only is it bad business for keeping players engaged, it also just looks tacky.

I’m not necessarily mad that this is happening, mostly I’m just confused. Apple doesn’t talk about Arcade at all. Their press conferences barely mention any of their services besides Apple TV+, and even that gets little more than a paragraph. If their PR is anything to go on, it seems like Arcade is just an expense that they can write off during tax season, and another means of keeping their customers glued to their Apple devices. Maybe that’s the point. What’s humiliating is that if that’s true, the entire gaming industry still needs to look at Arcade as a threat. if Apple wanted to, they could easily fund 4-5 AAA experiences from major 3rd party studios and it would barely show up on their quarterly report. If these casual, cheap handout gaming experiences aren’t doing it for Apple’s Arcade customers, that might be what we see next.

Apple has already won the hardware business. In most major first world countries, they make up half of the phone market. In tablets, they are utterly dominating. In wearables, they have almost no serious competition at all. They already lock their customers in through iMessage, Facetime and other exclusive apps (personally, I am obsessed with their Notes and Reminders) and Arcade is the next significant means of doing that. Apple is well aware of the loyalty that comes from major exclusive releases in the gaming space. Mario, Zelda, Halo, and Gran Turismo are all major franchises in gaming that fans buy consoles for exclusively. Apple doesn’t have a big, hype-inducing, fanbase on an Arcade franchise yet. That doesn’t mean it isn’t coming. Since every game released on Arcade is exclusive, whenever they find that big hit, whether intentionally or accidentally, the paperwork already allows them to control what platform it winds up on. Arcade being a smash success isn’t a question of if, but when.