I recently compared online spreadsheets. The three were Google Sheets, Microsoft Online Excel, and Apple iCloud Numbers. For this column, I will use the short names "Sheets", "Excel", and "Numbers" to refer to these online services. When I want to refer to a desktop version of an application, I will use the adjective "desktop".
Of the three, Sheets and Excel were easy for me to use, and Numbers was a disappointment.
All three online spreadsheets provide the same basic capabilities: a workbook with one or multiple sheets, each sheet having a grid of cells, each cell able to hold a number, a text value, or a formula. All three allow for formatting, letting the user select typeface, font size, italic or bold, and colors for text or background.
All three work in any of the major browsers. One can use Chrome, Edge, Firefox, or Safari, and I suspect many other browsers. I was half-expecting each to work in the company's browser (Numbers in Safari, Sheets in Chrome, and Excel in Edge) and not in other browsers. But I saw no difference in performance, and no warning messages along the lines of "Works best in ___ browser".
Excel is very similar to the desktop version. The major change is the "ribbon", Microsoft's menu system for its desktop office applications. Instead of a ribbon, Excel provides a search bar that leads you to the desired command.
A big item missing from Excel is macros. Desktop Excel allows for macros with the VBA language. VBA is built on top of COM, and in the web space, COM does not exist. Therefore, VBA does not exist for Excel. I assume it is absent from other online applications from Microsoft, and I further assume that Microsoft is working on a replacement macro language for online spreadsheets.
Numbers is, I presume, an online version of its desktop version of Numbers. I haven't used desktop Numbers, so I cannot compare the iCloud version to the desktop version. I can say that the iCloud version is a basic spreadsheet with the features that I expected.
Sheets is an online version of... no other product. Google never supplied a desktop spreadsheet. With no legacy desktop application, Google was free to design their online spreadsheet as they saw fit. Much of the design is quite similar to desktop Excel. So similar, I suspect, that in the 1980s Microsoft would have sued Google for copying the "look and feel" of desktop Excel.
All three online offerings are limited compared to desktop versions. All did some things well, some things poorly, and some things not at all. Of the three, Numbers was the most problematic for me.
Numbers relies on the mouse for many operations, and that design choice made for a frustrating experience. I understand Apple's intent -- to make things easy for those who are familiar with the desktop Numbers application -- but it did not help me. (I suspect that moving from desktop Excel to desktop Numbers is also challenging.)
Numbers is not the only spreadsheet with issues. Excel would not let me split text fields into multiple cells (a task easily performed in desktop Excel, and in Sheets). Nor would it let me create a chart with two separate columns from the spreadsheet. Excel and Numbers can handle only a single block of data; Sheets allowed me to create a chart from separate columns.
There are some differences in behavior when loading spreadsheets. Excel remembers the active cell between sessions, so when I reload a spreadsheet, the active cell is the one from the previous session. Sheets, when it loads a file, always sets the active cell to A1 of the first sheet. I suppose that either behavior can be desired (or annoying).
The differences in spreadsheets got me to thinking. Why did Microsoft choose to implement some features and not others? What was Google's motivation for an online spreadsheet? And why did Apple make an online spreadsheet?
Google's motivations are clear: They want people to use the Chrome browsers (and Chromebooks) as much as possible (to feed information to their advertising business). People rely on spreadsheets (and word processors) for a lot of their work, and a Chrome browser without a spreadsheet would be of little use to people. Therefore, Google must provide a spreadsheet that can be used within Chrome. (And a word processor, and an e-mail client, and a bunch of other applications.)
Microsoft's motivations are less clear, but I'm willing to guess: Provide examples of applications that run on Microsoft's cloud infrastructure (Azure) and provide competition to Google's online offerings.
Apple's motivations are the murkiest of the three. Apple relies little on Safari; it generates revenue from sales of hardware and services and not from advertising. It doesn't sell cloud infrastructure or services. It offers Numbers and Pages as apps for the iPhone and iPad, and as applications for Macintosh computers. I see no advantage to Apple to offer the web versions, other than to say that Apple is in the cool kids club and can do the same things Google and Microsoft can do.
What can these motivations tell us about the future of these cloud-based spreadsheets?
Google needs its online spreadsheet, so it will support it and expand it. But Google, I think, we expand it judiciously, adding features gradually. I expect that Sheets will never match Microsoft's desktop Excel, which is the result of years of competition and expansion. When competing with other desktop spreadsheets, features were a benefit, and Microsoft added many features. Now, desktop Excel is a collection of features, some of which that do not work well with others. Google doesn't have the pressure to add features, and I think Google wants a spreadsheet that offers a balance of features and ease-of-use.
Microsoft doesn't need an online spreadsheet (not in the sense that Google needs it) but it wants an online spreadsheet. It probably views Excel as a entry point to desktop Excel -- and desktop Excel's subscription fees. Therefore, Microsoft wants Excel to be capable enough for people to use, but without some features that are in desktop Excel.
Apple doesn't need an online spreadsheet, and I'm not sure that it wants an online spreadsheet (although someone inside of Apple does want it). Apple's revenue from app license fees is minimal (and often waived), so I don't see revenue as a driver for Apple. I also don't see customers starting with the online version and then moving to the desktop version; I suspect the majority of Numbers users already have Apple computers or phones and therefore already have the desktop version. And Apple doesn't have to use it as a showpiece for their cloud infrastructure. (Apple doesn't sell cloud infrastructure.) Which leaves... no reason for Numbers and Pages in the cloud.
Unless Apple is using Numbers and Pages as a way to develop its internal expertise for cloud-based apps. That could be a reason for Apple to provide an online spreadsheet. Until they get enough expertise that don't need cloud-based apps to build expertise.
If my analysis is right (and keep in mind that I am often not right) then Microsoft's and Google's online spreadsheets will be with us for some time, and Apple's online spreadsheet is in rather precarious position. Apple may decide, either tomorrow or two years from now, that it doesn't need these online apps.
No comments:
Post a Comment