Microsoft includes a bunch of non-Azure products under their cloud revenue. And they do it to confuse people and falsely claim they're outpacing AWS, which as you just proved, works.

Why shouldn't Office365 be counted in cloud revenue? "Cloud Revenue" doesn't exclusive mean IaaS or PaaS.

Because SaaS isn't cloud computing. SaaS is essentially a fully available software application that you don't run on your own machines.

There's similarities, but key differences that you can easily look up to better understand. Hence part of why most aren't huge fans of including O365 to claim Azure's bigger than AWS.

If the claim is that Azure is generating more revenue than AWS, then yes I would say that is misleading.

If the claim is that Microsoft's cloud revenue is bigger than Amazon's, I would assume that includes Office365. Office365 isn't just Word and Excel on the desktop, it's Outlook, Dynamics CRM, Sharepoint, Teams, etc.

Do you think Amazon subtracts their own massive utilization of AWS out from their numbers? Not likely.

How is buying your own product GAAP? None of the cloud providers can claim their usage of their own products as revenue, it is a cost.

Do you think it’s a major fraction?

I doubt it, but that’s just speculation without anything to back it up.

So any concrete data would be interesting.

Because most of the revenue is from businesses buying it to install Office on their computers and not using any of the online services.

Whether or not a company is taking full advantage of Outlook, Flow, Sharepoint Online, etc doesn't really matter in terms of revenue. If a company is paying for cloud products, that counts towards Microsoft's cloud revenue.

Even if the bulk of the Office365 ecals they're selling are for the lowest tier offering that still includes Outlook and Onedrive which a lot of organizations use fairly heavily.

Exactly! Microsoft is exploiting the “cloud” buzzword when including Office 365. I’m sure old baby boomer investors/advisors/managers couldn’t tell the difference. They want to be in the “growing cloud space”. Office 365 is just a continuation of the monopoly Excel and Word have on the business software market

I agree with you but it makes sense to include Office 365. Amazon offers mail hosting and office software in AWS as well.

Edit: Okay they only offer document storage you still need to edit your documents with MS Office.

I'm pretty skeptical of your claim there. I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if that's truly the case, but let's see some reputable references that backs that up first. I haven't been able to find anything that substantiates that claim.

> G Suite is a joke compared to desktop Office

If there is one area where I've been consistently wrong, it is betting on "powerful/serious tools" rather than simple, ubiquitous things that handle most of what people need. 'Simpler' tends to win vs 'better'.

Simply put, different markets. Students are now using Google Docs, and Sheets works well enough to plan out your holidays.

For someone that spits reports or jangle number all days, G-suite is a poorly thought-out joke.

A simple exemple: it's impossible to make custom styles in Docs. You can just redefine existing styles. And you can only apply one of these styles per paragraph (you can however, manually bold or change the font of some span within the paragraph... but not apply a premade style on a span of text smaller than a paragraph).

Even if the basic issues are fixed, Office is a powerhouse of features for power users, who'll keep paying good money for it, because it's well worth it.

Yes, so you make spreadsheets for the old gen and your boss and you use G-sheets among your peers.

Now if google provides a decent convert to excell converter- they win over time.

My only uses of G Suite are for tracking expenses and one page letters, stuff that even Lotus 123 and Word 2.0 would be too advanced, and I have used them when they were modern.

For anything more serious I drop down into Office.

Or, if corporations like Microsoft did before, bribe the govn't to enforce the use of their products in schools and gvon't institutions, like they did in the '90s and early '00s.

An example: https://www.zoliblog.com/2008/05/19/steve-ballmer-receives-t...

> A Hungarian Government bid, worth $25B Hungarian Forints, roughly $157M was allegedly skewed towards MS

I clearly remember in the late 90s, when all the computer literacy exams were phrased explicitly to use Exel, Word, Explorer. The official European computer competency test (ECDL) until 2013 was explicit about Microsoft products as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Computer_Driving_Lice...

It is hard to convince people like me, who grew up in such level of corruption, that the people who were working for Microsoft as a high-level executive that time, they are not relying on public money any more.

G Suite is all fine for internal communications, but grossly incompetent for making a presentation for anything where aesthetics is for concern. Same for text documents.

That seems more like an entrenched opinion that you've continually looked to reaffirm instead of opening your perspective.

First, serious work & powerpoint? Really? Yeah in an enterprise organization that's largely stuck doing what they've been doing because it's worked - sure, but that's not a technology issue, it's a culture issue.

For example, Google Sheets covers 80-90% of the use cases for Excel. But that's not what you should be comparing. A lot of what folks use spreadsheets for to do complicated calculations, have built lengthy, stitched together macros to automate processes, etc. would be much better in many cases to consider a completely alternate approach.

i.e a data warehouse, hey use a service like BigQuery that requires minimal adminstration and requires users to really only have SQL knowledge.

In order to effectively work across a large organization across different functions, product lines, etc., you have to remove every point of friction that prevents collaboration, etc. Desktop Office is great for individual work, but in today's dynamics, it really seems like you put a ceiling on productivity by sticking to it.

Business users are not going to learn SQL. They're not going to move all their data into the cloud, setup access, manage resources and spend money to run queries that take a few seconds on their laptop. They're not going to use 20 different services to break out scratch work, analysis, charting, and BI from what runs in a single portable file that they can manage and backup and extend in unlimited ways from meeting to meeting.

There are billion dollar businesses that run on Excel, and many workers in all kinds of industries live in it all day because nothing else comes close. Those macros and automations are what empower them to get things done and drive business forward instead of worrying about the "right way" to do something.

This perspective that they're all naive and should use better tools just fails to understand how people actually work, and explains why G-Suite as it is today will never beat Excel.

And Excel is getting cool big data features and Tableau like capabilities.

> continually looked to reaffirm

Huh? I don't recall continually posting about how G Suite sucks. Pretty sure this is the first time?

> Desktop Office is great for individual work, but in today's dynamics, it really seems like you put a ceiling on productivity by sticking to it.

Desktop Office is basically O365 today, and it's pretty much constant collaboration where I work. Not sure how that doesn't meet today's dynamics?

I used Excel for several years, mostly doing development work for financial services companies. I now work at a small/medium-size tech company that uses Google Sheets. Sheets is fine for most of the things we need to do, but our needs are modest. Sheets' overall functionality pales in comparison to Excel, and it often feels laggy even on a good network.

The finance companies I mention above also had data warehouses, but that's a completely different use case and not what Excel is used for. It would not work as a replacement even if everyone knew SQL.

An example would be a PowerPoint presentation showing a diagram linked to an Excel file using SQL Server as a datasource.

Dunno if something similar can't be done in Googles office suite as well though.

It can, google data studio more or less is this

I wouldn't call G Suite a "joke", but I have to second the sentiment. For example, Google Slide still doesn't let you adjust the size of the arrowhead of a connecting line: it's tied to the line width.

And this is one of countless random things I could do with PowerPoint 15 years ago, when I was drawing slides for a freaking CS conference.

You ever tried actually using Azure `services`? What a joke! On the surface they try to have feature parity with their AWS analogues, scratch the surface any that illusion quickly evaporates. Nowhere close. As for O365 - old mode, still nowhere close to GSuite for new ways of working.

Yes, they work perfectly fine, if not extremely well, for nearly all of the cloud work I've done, which has been extensive.

Azure Active Directory leaves a lot to be desired.

Seem like a phenomenal miscalculation to not have this built out as a cloud service already.

It would help keep more small companies in a Windows ecosystem and bring them into office 365.

The version they have today seems to offer 10% of the on premise solution.

What is this new ways of working? Corporate heavily uses Office across all industries.

"Cloud" revenue likely includes O365. (Sorry I couldn't find a source for it. But I have definitely read this.)

There is a gigantic market for basic office work that can be done in the Google apps, the Apple apps or the OpenOffice apps just as well as in Microsoft Office. Nobody cares if you think that isn’t ‘real’ work and if Microsoft thinks it's safe because they have the only product for ‘real work’ they are in for a rude awakening. They aren’t however, they have their own online suite that can’t do ‘real work’ either but works good enough for a lot of people.

How is G Suite a joke? It can definitely do some heavy lifting and a lot of enterprises are using it. Granted I've worked at a lot of places and most use office, but the ones that have used G Suite have way more collaboration. Its easier to share, collaborate, and not have files get lost in the shuffle. I much prefer it, plus I love using Sites vs Sharepoint.

PowerPoint for real work? Please.

I'll give you Excel.

Every slide deck ever that a director or VP has used to justify their budget for all that great Excel work. Every pitch deck to win a deal. Every teacher or professor that gives a presentation with PowerPoint. I hate endless slides, but fact is millions of people build and present them every day.

How exactly is all of that not real work?

Well point one I think it's a shit way to disseminate information. Point two and more seriously, the alternatives aren't much worse in PowerPoint's case.

I don't disagree with you at all. But that is real work that millions of people get paid to spend millions of man-hours on. Specifically with PowerPoint. That's all I'm saying.

The question is what counts as "real work". Certainly work done with Google's office suite counts as well, considering that Google and many other companies run their businesses using it.

Most alternatives are much better than PowerPoint. Which isn’t surprising because it’s hard to be worse than ‘20 bullets on a slide’ PowerPoint.