Talk:Office 365/Archive 1

Move?
There's a reason why we don't call Windows 7 "Microsoft Windows 7."Jasper Deng (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one replies I will make the move per WP:TITLE.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. "Windows" alone is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation but "Office" isn't. "Microsoft Office" is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation and must be maintained the way it is. Per Trademark dilution laws Microsoft may at any given time sue anyone for saying "Office" instead of "Microsoft Office". And the reason that we say "Windows" instead of "Microsoft Windows" is because we are non-professional article writers whose style of writing is badly influenced by out everyday colloquial talk. Fleet Command (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, dear Jasper, while I was thinking of the consequences of "Windows" being a trademark of Microsoft and "Office" not being so ("Microsoft Office" is a trademark), I stumbled upon a simpler reason for keeping with this title: There are a lot of articles with "Office" in their title, like StarOffice, OpenOffice, QuickOffice, etc. and hardly any of them belong to Microsoft. So, as WP:TITLE says: Consistency and Precision. Of course, the issue of MOS:TM still remains. Fleet Command (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh, and besides, I say generally you shouldn't bother. Parkinson's Law of Triviality, you know. Fleet Command (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Office 365 is pretty unique. I'm using articles on Intel CPUs as an example, but, then again, most of those are unique. Pretty hard one to call.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Platform/OS?
Article says nothing about what hard- and software is required for Office 365. Does it work with Linux? OS X? iOS? Android? --84.177.75.91 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Office 365 only needs a web browser. So, yes it works on all of those. However, it also comes a with Microsoft Office 2010 which runs only on Windows. Fleet Command (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Finish infobox please
I added the software infobox, if someone can fill it out and cite refs, that would be great. Also, the logo is not transparent; a version with a clear background might be best. Someone might be able to contact MS for an SVG version. 12.106.190.70 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You inserted the wrong infobox. Office 365 is not a piece of software. It is a service. (To be precise, it is Software as a service.) You should use infobox website instead. Fleet Command (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll fix that. Also, I contacted Microsoft to ask for an SVG version of the logo. 12.106.190.70 (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why link to TalkingOffice365.com was removed
I added the link to Talkingoffice365.com as a resource for people to use to find out more about the product. It is not a commercial website, it not owned by Microsoft, has no paid advertising and sells no products. It is a community website. Can you let me know why it was removed.? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.151.122 (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see encylopedic value to that blog. The tone of it was ultimately unhelpful for the article, but I was most ticked off by the fact that it promotes the E-book.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cloud data can be accessed
Hello,

I would like to add this link to the article:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/microsoft-admits-patriot-act-can-access-eu-based-cloud-data/11225

Does anyone have an objection?

Liglin (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liglin (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please add this information to this article?
CRN: "It’s the real deal, and it blows away Google Apps." http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/default.mspx, and:

"Office 365 Becomes First and Only Major Cloud Productivity Service to Comply With Leading EU and U.S. Standards for Data Protection and Security" http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2011/dec11/12-14O365CloudPR.mspx So much for Google...

It's also the very first to receive the ISO 27001 certification. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/trust-center.aspx#fbid=9pP0-2iIV5c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.191.144 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What really is Office 365? No more marketing gobbledegook please
Can someone better clarify what really is Office 365? Office 365 has been used to mean subscription and/or cloud. Office 365 can, but does not have to include Office 20XX (the most basic Office 365 is merely hosted e-mail). Office 20XX itself is not subscription or cloud.

Please cut out all the marketing gobbledegook. For example, "software plus services" points to even more marketing gobbledegook that's even more confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.140.138 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Links to Public Preview sites
With the rtm of Office 365 / 2013 all the old links to Preview sites should be updated or removed. 101.174.204.202 (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Office 365 is NOT a software as a service suite
Software as a service is defined as "a software delivery model in which software and associated data are centrally hosted on the cloud". Many people buy Office 365 for a subscription to Microsoft Office applications. The Microsoft Office applications are not centrally hosted on the cloud. Thus, Office 365 is not a software as a service suite.

Microsoft also uses the name Office 365 for products having features that are provided over the internet. Although the servers for these products are hosted on the cloud, the (client) products typically are not. Again, Office 365 is not a software as a service suite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.21.121 (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, when you obtain the applications for Office 2013 from Office 365, you download a small stub installer, and then it actually "streams" the applications onto your computer as you use them using "Click to Run". And also, what about the hosted Exchange/Lync/SharePoint? Usuaully you install those yourself for a hefty premium, but here they set it up for you. Does that count, anon? ViperSnake151   Talk  04:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

One does not "stream" Microsoft Word whenever s/he runs it. One also does not "stream" the client products for the hosted services every time. Based on ViperSnake151's interpretation (i.e., software that can be installed from the net), is there any software that cannot be considered "software as a service"? If every piece of software is "software as a service", then does "software as a service" really give any meaning?

"software as a service" is just another buzzword that's getting old. Buzzwords like these do not help Wikipedia readers, especially when people who like to use these buzzwords do not even use these buzzwords in accordance with the generally accepted Wikipedia meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.59.36 (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Uhh, if its a buzzword, why does it have an article? You're being quite rude, and assuming bad faith. And I think you're the same as 71.208.21.121 too. Besides, multiple reliable sources do describe it as such, and its even listed on the SaaS article as one. ViperSnake151   Talk  05:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources are you talking about? I have clearly explained that Office 365 is NOT a software as a service suite. What's your explanation? Care to cite your "reliable sources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.59.36 (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The foremost meaning of Office 365 is "subscription". People can understand "subscription". How is "software as a service" going to help people when your personal definition doesn't even match the generally accepted Wikipedia meaning?

To answer your question (you have not answered mine), why wouldn't a buzzword have an article? There is even a page with a list of buzzwords.
 * After a further inspection, I noticed reference to a feature called "Office on Demand", which lets you use the Office 2013 programs on any computer by temporarily streaming it and not fully installing it. If this doesn't meet your crazy, contradictory definition of SaaS, I don't know what will. ViperSnake151   Talk  14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop calling names such as "quite rude", "assuming bad faith", "crazy", "contradictory definition". Let's get back to the facts and reason.

Update: My original interpretation of "Office on Demand" was incorrect. Nevertheless, "Office on Demand" simply isn't how Office applications are typically run, and having this feature does not make Office applications services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.57.44 (talk • contribs) 13:51, March 31, 2013

I have cited the definition of software as a service as it exists on Wikipedia. Where am I being inconsistent? You are the one who seems to have defined it much more broadly as "software that can be installed from the net". SaaS has long been on the list of buzzwords, I did not put it there.

Your argument is a classic example of illicit minor. The Office Web Apps is a SaaS. The Office Web Apps is one of the products available under Office 365. But it does not make Office 365 a SaaS.

You have won for now not on the merits, but by citing Wikipedia editing rules that I am not well versed in. I hardly ever edit Wikipedia pages. But when I couldn't understand what the old Office 365 page was talking about (with its use of buzzwords and marketing gobbledegook), I decided I wanted to find it out for myself and clarify it for everyone.

My best conclusion is that Microsoft now uses Office 365 firstly to mean "subscription". Microsoft has a set of "products" (the Office Web Apps being one of them), and there are Office 365 "subscription plans" that each allows one to subscribe to one or more of the products.

Please visit Microsoft website and see for yourself. Be sure also to visit http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/office-frequently-asked-questions-FX102926087.aspx, "What is the difference between Office 2013 suites and Office 365?" for its secondary meaning.

By the way, not all Office 365 subscription plans include a subscription to Microsoft Office applications. But it seems you have really screwed up the page and that's not the only mistake you have made. I have lost faith in Wikipedia administrators to adjudicate based on the merits. I will just have to keep the faith in the greater community to correct the wrongs made by you if you don't correct them yourself.

How about simply "subscription-based products"?
I see that someone has already corrected the wrongs made by ViperSnake151 (update: ViperSnake151 has vandalized the page again). However, it now describes Office 365 as "subscription-based software plus services products". Instead, I suggest simply "subscription-based products".

First, the "software plus services products" description is incorrect. For example, the most basic hosted e-mail for businesses is really just a service, it does not have a software component.

Second, does the "software plus services products" description really help readers to understand Office 365? I submit it does not, because it leads to even more (marketing?) terms that do not have concrete, everyday meanings.

I again believe it is best to simply define Office 365 as a set of subscription-based "products" from Microsoft, and there are Office 365 "subscription plans" that each allows one to subscribe to one or more of the products.

(I am unable to edit the page due to ViperSnake151 abusing Wikipedia editing rules.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.57.134 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, software plus services is an apt description of the product because that's exactly what it is: a set of different combinations of software and services - the fact that some plans might not include one or the other doesn't change the general categorization. Additionally, there is no "subscription-based software" article that I could find, so - unless you know of one - it likely wouldn't be possible to change the infobox to match the description of the product in the lead, as it should and currently does. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the wrongs made by ViperSnake151 and thank you for the explanation. I agree I cannot think of a better description for the infobox. But how about changing the first sentence to simply "Office 365 is a set of subscription-based products for business, home. . . ."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.57.134 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, the infobox should match the product description in the lead (for purposes of confusion avoidance and consistency). Your response did not address that.


 * (By the way, you should sign your talk page messages.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(Thanks, I was hoping for quick edits, and didn't think it would turn into a long discussion.)

We need to fix the infobox then. I hope you agree that the most basic hosted e-mail for businesses is not a software plus services product (no "software"). Also, I wouldn't call the Microsoft Office applications a software plus services product either. For example, Microsoft Word does not rely on a document editing service on the web (no "services").

"Software plus services" is more fitting for Microsoft's secondary meaning (i.e., products having features that are provided over the internet). For example, the SkyDrive app plus the SkyDrive service can be considered "software plus service". But "Software plus services" is incorrect to describe the other products and Office 365 as a whole.

We should simply delete the "Type of site" entry in the infobox. Services are not provided at the office.microsoft.com website, so "type of site" is not relevant. Rather, the website is where Microsoft sells the subscription plans. If we must add something, perhaps reference to subscription business model instead? Also, instead of "URL", perhaps use "Website office.microsoft.com" similar to the infobox for Microsoft Office?

Office 365 is NOT a set of software plus services subscription plans
Both "software plus services subscription plans" and "a subscription-based software plus services suite" are incorrect to describe Office 365.

First, hosted e-mail is not a software plus services subscription plan because there is no "software". Thus, the statement "Office 365 is a set of software plus services subscription plans" is already incorrect.

Second, software plus services is meant to describe a single product with both software and services. One might make a strained argument that, for example, in a subscription plan the Microsoft Office applications provide the "software", and SkyDrive provides the "service". But they are different products. Microsoft Office applications do not require SkyDrive to function, just like SkyDrive does not require Microsoft Office applications to function. Software plus services is not meant to describe separate products that are not required to operate together.

I continue to believe that Office 365 is a set of subscription based products, and more specifically a set of subscription plans that each allows one to subscribe to one or more of the products.

Using words such as "software plus services" only serves to confuse readers. Even if the statement "Office 365 is a set of software plus services subscription plans" is correct, does it mean each underlying product is a software plus services product? No, some are, some not. Then why even say it, so please simply say "Office 365 is a set of subscription-based products" or "Office 365 is a set of subscription plans".

"subscription-based software plus services suite" is even more confusing (for example, what does "suite" mean? Is it one thing or multiple?), and suffers from similar problems as "software plus services subscription plans". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.57.134 (talk • contribs)


 * Our article for Software plus services says that it "combines hosted services with locally running software in a variation on cloud computing". Office 365 as a whole is a product; in the case of the home version, the subscription combines the Office 2013 software with additional storage for SkyDrive (itself a service, which is also tightly integrated into Office 2013) and Skype credits; however in this case, they are value-added services. The business versions do the same with hosted instances of Exchange Server (an e-mail/communication platform that works best in Microsoft Outlook, although it can be used with other applications/services with support for Exchange) and Lync Server (which requires the Microsoft Lync client to use).


 * Besides, how we describe something depends solely on how reliable sources describe it. If reliable sources describe it as being "software as a service" (which you suddenly are against for contradictory reasons which you consider "vandalism"), we must explain it as such. Your arguments are original research, and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. ViperSnake151   Talk  03:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't fully follow your point in your first paragraph. I assume you agree that Microsoft's secondary meaning (i.e., products such as SkyDrive having features that are provided over the internet) better fits "software plus services". However, "software plus services" does not fit Office 365 as a whole.

"Value-added service" is defined on Wikipedia as a popular telecommunications industry term for services beyond voice calls and fax transmissions. I don't understand how it applies here.


 * But the article also says that its a general term for offering additional "services available at little or no cost, to promote their primary business"; if the primary business is cloud-based services/collaboration, offering preferential access to their other services makes it value-added. ViperSnake151   Talk  19:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As to your second paragraph, I am relying on the "software plus services" definition as it exists on Wikipedia. I am not relying on original research. Rather, it's simply applying basic logic. For example, the "software plus services" page talks about "combining" twice in the first paragraph, and the first bullet item talks about "local software as the internet client". You do not have to combine Word and SkyDrive to provide document editing service. Clearly the page is talking about a single product with both software and service components (e.g., the SkyDrive app as the local software plus the SkyDrive service).

I am sorry I don't understand what you are referring to in your sentence 'which you suddenly are against for contradictory reasons which you consider "vandalism"'.

User:71.208.18.56 (talk) 6:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC) (Looks like I am on a new IP. But it's me.)

Office applications are not services
While Office Web Apps might be considered as a service, Microsoft Office applications clearly are not services. To argue that Office applications are services is to make the same illicit minor error described above. It is simply incorrect.

Microsoft uses the word "product", for example http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/, but not the word "service".

User:70.56.57.134 (talk) 3:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No. They're saying that the Office 365 subscriptions are products. These are SKUs of Office 2013 that are either the separate applications, or SKUs that consist of an Office 365 subscription. ViperSnake151   Talk  03:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have never said Office 365 subscription plans are not products. But these particular products are more specifically called "subscription plans" (and please don't confuse the reader and please don't specifically say subscription plans are products). On the other hand, Microsoft Office applications (which is a product) is definitely not a subscription plan. Thus, a product is not a subscription plan. The goals is to have a reader associate the word "product" with the Office applications, SkyDrive, etc., rather than the subscription plans.

This distinction allowed me to first say "Office 365 is a set of subscription-based products", and then say "more specifically subscription plans that each encompasses a subscription to one or more products". Later both "products" and "subscription" could be expanded/defined in their respective sections.

Also, Microsoft calls Lync a product, and Microsoft Office applications a product. Microsoft does not call Microsoft Office applications a service. Your edit is inconsistent with how Microsoft describes things.

You changed the "products" section to "services". While "subscription plans" are services, you say that Microsoft Office applications are also services. When your reader sees the word "service", are you referring to Office 365, subscription plans, or the underlying products?

Equally confusing is the use of the word "software". Similar to your definition of "service", all these products are "software". If everything is "software", which is which?

I urge you to re-read the page as it existed on 3/12. My goal was to help a reader not well versed in software terms to understand what each word means. The meaning of "subscription" was defined in the first sentence. To make it clearer I added examples in the second sentence. Words such as "products" and "subscription plans" are further expanded/defined.

Then read your edit. Do you fully understand what each of "software", "services", "suite", "various services", "platform", etc. really means? Do they really have clear and distinctive meanings? Is the Microsoft Office applications a "platform", "suite", "service", and/or "software"? It seems to be all of the above.

As already noted above, your statement "[a]ll subscription plans for Office 365 include access to the current versions of the Office applications" is incorrect. Please see the "Office 365 Small Business" plan. This also makes your first sentence incorrect.

User:71.208.18.56 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC) (Looks like I am on a new IP. But it's me.)

You said: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk  15:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)"

You blocked me from editing the page because you abused Wikipedia edit rules. I cannot edit the page to correct your wrongs until 3/22. You are the cause that the I am NOT free to change its content.

You are the first one to show disrespect. Did you read carefully what was there before you deleted them? You simply said "re-write lede". Why did you make the rewrite? You explained nothing.

Above I have tried to explained the logic behind what was there. You seem to fail to grasp the basics of good and clear writing: use terms having clear and distinctive meaning, don't use more terms you need, and define terms clearly. Instead you just keep throwing in what I have called buzzwords and marketing gobbledegook above. As shown above, you didn't even understand SaaS, yet you used it. You talked about "value-added service" when it's a telecommunications industry term. You mixed the use of "software", "services", "suite", "various services", "platform", etc.

It seems you have done the same with a few other pages (Windows 8, Office 2013), again showing disrespect of what was already there, and in my opinion made the pages worse.

User:71.208.18.56 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ViperSnake151 did not block anyone. Only administrators have that power, and ViperSnake151 is not an administrator. Furthermore, you were not singled out. All IP editors were temporarily blocked because of edit-warring and vandalism. There is a discussion about this at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that non-autoconfirmed users are blocked is clearly due to the appearance of ViperSnake151 and ViperSnake151's abuse of Wikipedia rules. The sequence of events is as follows:

There were no problems prior to the appearance of ViperSnake151.

19:16, 14 March 2013‎ ViperSnake151 vandalized the page with no explanation ("re-write lede" explained nothing).

02:56, 15 March 2013‎ I restored the page, and explained it on Talk page at 03:14.

05:10, 15 March 2013‎ ViperSnake151 vandalized the page the 2nd time.

05:20, 15 March 2013‎ I restored the page, and explained it on Talk page at 05:16.

05:22, 15 March 2013‎ ViperSnake151 vandalized the page the 3rd time, and called me names ("quite rude", etc.) and talked about "reliable sources" but couldn't cite anything.

05:34, 15 March 2013‎ I restored the page, and explained on Talk page at 05:16, 05:30, and 05:37.

05:37, 15 March 2013‎ ViperSnake151 vandalized the page the 4th time, and abused Wikipedia rules by citing 3RR against me. ViperSnake151 completely failed to respond on the Talk page before abusing Wikipedia rules.

Bbb23 adjudicated by restoring ViperSnake151's vandalism rather than restoring the page as it existed prior to 19:16, 14 March 2013. Bbb23 also blocked non-autoconfirmed users. Without ViperSnake151, none of these wrongs would have occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.135.186 (talk • contribs) 19:18, March 21, 2013

My logic
Your statements have become confusing and too hard for me to follow, so let's start from square one. While I'm here, I must also ask, why are you so hesitant to create an account?

But anyway, we have to go by reliable sources when we describe anything on Wikipedia. Your interpretations are based on your own original research and definitions and cannot be included. By my interpretation, Office 365 as a whole is a service which has various plans offering subscription-based access to different services built around the Office family of products. Software as a service makes sense for describing the hosted Exchange/Lync/SharePoint because usually, that is software installed by an administrator locally on their own network. But here, they're having it hosted right through Microsoft, so it is in fact, software being offered as a service. When it comes to the Office applications, my interpretation of the sources says that on some plans, access to the desktop Office applications during the length of the subscription is a service. It may sound confusing, but it in fact, makes sense; because usually, Office is distributed as a series of products, but here, it is offered as a service that they maintain on their own. Multiple sources (even Microsoft themselves) use the term SaaS to describe it. If this is how reliable sources describe it, this is what we go by. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

ViperSnake151's "My logic" is clearly wrong
Even if I create an account, I wouldn't be autoconfirmed anyway, and wouldn't be able to fix the page. Before your appearance, there were no problems. I am not going to waste more of my time because of you.

I have no idea why you keep talking about reliable sources, etc. You again accused me of using my own original research and definitions (like what?), yet I have cited my definitions over and again. You are the one who used SaaS incorrectly. You are the one who utterly failed to cite your "realizable sources". Are you really still in high school with all the false accusation and name-calling?

Perhaps you should write to Zacks, and explain to them that Office 365 is not a SaaS as discussed above.

The "Microsoft themselves" article you cited is not date stamped, and mentions Windows Server 2008 R2 that came out in 2009. Windows Server 2012 came out in 2012, so that article is not current. I have explained above that Office 365 now has a very different meaning. Please cite more recent articles.

I have never said Office 365 is not itself a service. Lync and SkyDrive are also services. But Microsoft calls even these services "products": 'We use the name "Office 365" for products that include features enabled over the internet, such as additional online storage with SkyDrive, Skype world minutes for home use, Lync web conferencing or Exchange Online hosted email for businesses.' See http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/office-frequently-asked-questions-FX102926087.aspx, "What is the difference between Office 2013 suites and Office 365?".

None of the three articles you cited describes Microsoft Office applications as services. Yet you keep mixing up the terms. Just because Office 365 is a service does not make Microsoft Office applications a service. Sure, "allowing access to XYZ" may describe a service, but it does not mean "XYZ" itself is a service.

I cannot tell if you continue to confuse Click-To-Run as a service. The idea behind Click-To-Run is to speed up installation, so that you do not have to wait for download/install to finish before you can run the Microsoft Office applications. The applications are downloaded/installed once (meaning one single time). The Click-To-Run feature does not make the Microsoft Office applications services.

It seems your best explanation for disrespecting what was there and deleting the whole Products section is due to your interpretation that "access to the desktop Office applications during the length of the subscription is a service". Your logic for deleting the Products section is thus clearly wrong, because "accessing XYZ" is clearly not the same as "XYZ". Again, just because "accessing XYZ" is a service does not make "XYZ" a service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.135.186 (talk • contribs) 19:18, March 21, 2013

"Products" and "Subscription plans"
The bottom line is that yes, Office 365 is a service, but it is more clearly called a set of "subscription plans". Yes, Lync and SkyDrive are services, but Microsoft calls even these services "products". None of your cited sources describes Microsoft Office applications as services; Microsoft Office applications are not services, but are "products". Your confusing and incorrect edits must be deleted, and the page as it existed prior to 19:16, 14 March 2013 must be restored.


 * Again, do you have reliable, secondary sources that describe Office 365 in this manner? Again, your comments are original research per interpretations of primary sources. We must use reliable secondary sources, and if they describe it as being an SaaS suite, then we shall. And again, Office.com is not entirely a site about Office 365; in this case, the term "products" counts the separate Office applications as products, the Office 2013 suites as a whole as a product, and Office 365 subscriptions as a product. Wikipedia is not a place to insert your personal opinion on what something is or isn't. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia defined by reliable sources. The "features enabled over the internet" part of Office 365 was the old Business Productivity Online Suite as mentioned in the article. ViperSnake151   Talk  21:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You now admit that "the term "products" counts the separate Office applications as products" and "the Office 2013 suites as a whole as a product", then why do you still have "Office applications" under the Services section? You deleted the whole Products section, and added Services. Now, even you admit that your edit is incorrect, because Office applications are "products".

I have cited multiple times above that Microsoft calls even the services that include features enabled over the internet as "products". Your edit for putting these products under the Services section is thus incorrect.

You are the one who put Office applications under the Services section. You still cannot cite any source that says Office applications are services. Instead, you cited sources that say Office 365 is a service to argue that Office applications are services. I quote from Wikipedia:OR: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." The fact that you deleted the Products section clearly shows you have been the very one who has engaged in prohibited original research.

You keep saying my comments are original research. Like what? You still cannot cite anything. When you accuse someone or call someone names, you need to cite something concrete so the other person can respond. This is not high school. Taking college level courses like introductory logic would also help.

Here I am repeating sources already mentioned above:

Visit http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/, you see "PRODUCTS" on top. Click on "PRODUCTS". At bottom of page, you see Office applications, Related "products". Visit http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/office-frequently-asked-questions-FX102926087.aspx, you see: We use the name Office 365 for "products" that include features enabled over the internet, such as additional online storage with SkyDrive or Skype world minutes for home use. Thus, the subscription plans, Office applications, related products, are all "products".

Back to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/?CTT=97, click on "Compare" under "For Small Business", you see Select an Office 365 "plan" for business. Under "See also", you see Education "plans", Government "plans". The first table entry says "Subscription" to Office for up to 5 PCs/Macs per user. So these products are more specifically "plans", and even more clearly "subscription plans". If these "plans" are not subscription plans, what kind of plans are these?

You now call these subscription plans "Editions". This is yet another example of prohibited original research by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.57.44 (talk • contribs) 13:51, March 31, 2013


 * Office 365 is a service; you are giving them money, they are giving you things in return. That's what a service is. Yes, they are giving you a so-called "product" as part of this service. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for 3rd opinion.
Various IP editors, presumed to be the same person, have constantly attacked and edit warred my revisions on this article to re-introduce one that uses messy and complicated terminology that misrepresents the service. Among the crux of his arguments are that:


 * 1) Because the Office website itself labels them as products, we cannot call access to Office applications as part of Office 365 a "service", and because of this, forbids the term "service" to describe any portion of Office 365 and requires it to be described as "a set of subscription-based products [..] that require periodic payments to Microsoft in order for the subscriber to use the products" (I objected because "product" can refer to SKUs in this case, and Office 365 prepaid can be bought at retail now)
 * 2) He also asserts that we cannot call it software as a service or software plus services (calling it the latter is one of the rare things me and Dogmaticeclectic, a user me and a few others had been having issues with lately, actually agrees with) because Office 365 is not a service, and because they are marketing terms. He also disrupted Wikipedia to make this point by removing Office 365 from the Software as a service page, despite many reliable sources in fact, describing it as SaaS.
 * 3) Considers the History section to be a "waste of time", despite these sections being common on software articles to talk about version/development history.
 * 4) He also considered my changes to be vandalism because he did not agree with them, constituting ownership.

Could we have a third opinion on this? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you are saying? ViperSnake151 apparently cried to HJ Mitchell saying that you formed a consensus. HJ Mitchell then aided and abetted ViperSnake151's abusive behaviors by locking the page.

Are you saying Office 365 is a SaaS?

Are you saying Office applications are services?

Are you saying the fact that ViperSnake151 deleted the nice comparison table is not vandalism?

If you are saying those things, could you please explain your reason?

If you are not saying those things, then there is no consensus, and ViperSnake151 lied to HJ Mitchell.

Facts about ViperSnake151's Vandalism
The following are facts. Facts are not personal attacks. Is any of the following not a fact? If there have been personal attacks, it has been ViperSnake151 who first called me "quite rude" and "crazy" as early as 15 March 2013 and ViperSnake151 has continuously attacked me all this time. Ask yourself, what kind of person would pick a name like viper snake?

1. ViperSnake151's vandalism at least included deleting existing sections of Products, Subscription plans, and a nice comparison table. ViperSnake151 never offered any explanation for his vandalism. ViperSnake151 was the one who made wholesale article changes without tagging individual items of concern. ViperSnake151's abusive behavior of viciously attacking those who have labored to restore the page constitutes "ownership" himself.

2. ViperSnake151 asked for, and I have clarified and cited multiple sources (directly from Microsoft) over and again about the use of words including "products" and "subscription plans". In #1 above ViperSnake151 is now offering prohibited original research to justify his vandalism. This is plain wrong and unacceptable.

3. ViperSnake151 continues to be confused about Office and SaaS. The Wikipedia definition states: "SaaS . . . is a software delivery model in which software and associated data are centrally hosted on the cloud. SaaS is typically accessed by users using a thin client via a web browser." Clearly, Office 365 is not SaaS as clearly explained above. Dogmaticeclectic deleted ViperSnake151's vandalism because Dogmaticeclectic disagreed with ViperSnake151. Because Office 365 is not SaaS, Office 365 should be deleted from the SaaS page; if it remains, it is incorrect. No reliable source would correctly call Office 365 a SaaS; any source that does so is clearly not reliable and simply incorrect.

4. A viper snake is a vicious, venomous snake. Do not let your judgment fooled by someone hiding anonymously behind such a user name. Please make your judgment based on facts and reason; whether someone who uses an IP address should not diminish the strong facts and reason calling for the page as it existed prior to ViperSnake151's repeated vandalisms to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.213.205 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Part One of your report: Summarize the results of your Technology Watch postings over the last few months. Be meticulous about citing the information you are summarizing. From the beginning of the Tech Watch posts included details about allowing up to 5 devices and the cloud storage being upgraded to 20GB. The beginning of the watch also discussed about 60 minutes of skype for free a month. During the next month of our tech watch we discovered that Office was available to the commercial for use. We discussed how different companies benefited from the use of the new office. During the last month of our watch we saw that Microsoft is a reliable company and comes through with its product. The new office saved one company over $600,000. [1]

Part Two of your report: Review the Wikipedia article of your Watched Technology. Where is there room for improvement. Compare your Summary from Part One with your review of the Wikipedia article page. After looking over the existing Wikipedia page for Microsoft Office 365, there is a lot of room for improvement. The parts that need the most work are the “Features” section, as well as the “History” section. The strongest part is the “Background,” but it is still lacking. Since Office 365 is still in its early stages, I think the Wikipedia is very well kept up. There is not a lot of information out there, so the Wiki page is going to be lacking anyway. There is information in Part One that will be useful to add to the Wikipedia Page.

Part Three: List the changes that you are proposing to make to the Wikipedia article for your Watched Technology. The Wikipedia article on Office 365 was short in length but also informative at the same time. To improve this article, we suggest that they include: The prices of each package offered for businesses The features for each package for businesses Major stores/businesses that are using this program successfully

Androuawad (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoring page to delete ViperSnake151's edits
I am restoring the page for at least the following reasons:

ViperSnake151 completely disrespected the existing page, when ViperSnake151 did not even fully understand Click-to-Run as shown above.

ViperSnake151 failed to comprehend basic logic and repeatedly made logical errors, such as illicit minor above.

ViperSnake151 failed to write clearly, for example by using words and terms ViperSnake151 didn't fully understand, such as "SaaS" above, mixing/equating "allowing access to XYZ" with "XYZ", etc.

ViperSnake151 put Office applications under the Service section, when ViperSnake151 now admits that Office applications are products. ViperSnake151's original research that is inconsistent with the facts is prohibited.

ViperSnake151 relied on out of date third party sources and ignored current (up to date) description directly from Microsoft. Office 365 has been confusing and has meant different things to different people. What's important is what Office 365 means today. The History section is confusing and wastes people's time to read.

ViperSnake151 deleted the nice comparison table and other useful information without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.57.44 (talk • contribs) 13:51, March 31, 2013
 * The bot failed to archive this. Perhaps this comment will help. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Table for plans of Office 365
Here is a table of Office 365 plans, which I started on the German article about Office 365. So fare I haven't been able, to get the formatting. I would like to point out, which applications can be used without operating system


 * Added the colors --Darwipli (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Added symbols for yes and no and I think its ready to go. --Darwipli (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)