Will "Death to Outlook" follow "Death to Word"?

A boring Tuesday in April brings me to contemplate the intriguing Slate.com article entitled "Death to Word" (the title, at least, got your attention). Basically the author’s premise is it’s time for Microsoft to put Word for Windows into the spare parts bin. Some of the targets identified in the article are easy to anticipate. For example, "Clippy" makes yet another appearance as the animated icon everyone loves to hate. Other Word features that the author identifies as not worth having will probably surprise because you might consider them worth having, such as the way that Word automatically adds a superscripted "th" after ordinal numbers. To each their own, I suppose.

I think that the underlying idea is worth considering. Should developers look at applications that have been around for twenty years or so and ask whether they are still fit for purpose or just go on piling new feature upon new feature in the hope that this is sufficient to keep users happy?

Word started off as a reasonably simple word processing application that was capable of snappy performance on the PCs that we enjoyed in the early 1990s. I wrote my first books on a VAXstation 3100 using a WYSIWYG editor called DECwrite. It wasn’t a happy experience because DECwrite was a bug-ridden application that liked to crash a lot. Fortunately, one of the better functioning pieces of DECwrite was its capability to recover from a crash and little work was ever lost. Moving from a VMS workstation to use Word 2.0 on Windows 3.1 running on a DEC 320p laptop PC (80386 CPU running at 20 MHz) was a revelation, if only because the editor managed to stay up for more than a couple of hours at a time. Of course, Word 2.0 wasn’t as functional as Word 2010 but it did the job. And that’s the point really. How many of the features added in the twenty years since have contributed to our ability to use Word effectively? Now that I think about it, I’m not sure.

I guess the same criticism might be leveled at Outlook. Of course, Outlook hasn’t been around as long as Word, but it’s still not a new application. Outlook 2010 is the seventh iteration (for Windows) and another is on the way as part of the Office 15 wave of releases. By comparison, Word 2010 is its thirteenth version. It also has a new version coming in Office 15.

Outlook 2010 can packed full of features. Another way of looking at this is to say that it’s a “fat” client. The question probably should be asked whether Outlook is still a reasonable email client for the kind of communication that we use today. My response is “it depends”. Certainly, Outlook does a fine job for many corporate workers who depend on email communication to get their job done on a daily basis. Some of the features that Microsoft added to Outlook 2010 made it easier for these folks. MailTips, for instance, is quite effective at stopping people doing silly things, like sending email to someone who will be out of the office for the next two weeks. Conversations are also effective, once you get used to the way that messages are displayed, and it’s good that Outlook can access online archives and deal with the kind of massive mailboxes that people consider necessary today.

But if you’re one of the social networking generation that depends on applications like Facebook, Twitter, and SMS-based messaging to communicate with their friends and peers, Outlook seems like an unhappy old uncle who’s constantly muttering that “it’s better this way”. Sure, this generation uses email, but browser-based clients connected to Hotmail, Gmail, and Yahoo! Mail meet their needs and they can’t quite see how to extract additional value from Outlook. For those of us who straddle the two worlds, Outlook’s Social Connectors help somewhat by extracting and displaying information about correspondents from Facebook and LinkedIn (mind you, I’ve never managed to get the LinkedIn connector to work). Add-in extensions like Twinbox integrate Twitter feeds with Outlook and does a reasonable job of integrating that data feed into “normal” email. However, the overwhelming impression is that Outlook 2010 is struggling to be a cool client in an ever-changing world. And older Outlook clients look and feel antique.

Office is a tremendously important franchise for Microsoft. Their recent Q3 results indicated revenue of $5.814 billion for the Microsoft Business Division, much of which is linked to Office. Microsoft’s challenge is therefore to keep the Office applications fresh and relevant, attractive to both corporate workers and other communities (home, student, small business) while accommodating the changing dynamics of social collaboration. It will be interesting to see how Outlook 2013 (or whatever Outlook 15 will be called) copes with these challenges.

Follow Tony @12Knocksinna

Discuss this Blog Entry 3

on May 6, 2012
The same challenges also face Outlook add-ins, such as work-flow tools from third-parties and from Microsoft that integrate into Outlook. As the clients [users] move away from the Outlook client, these add-ins lose value too.
on May 4, 2012
The "writer" of the Slate article obviously doesn't work in a law firm. He's writing drivel that pops into a preformed style sheet that his media outlet dictates to him. So it's easy to create the content in a text editor and simply provide the text to Slate or whoever he's preparing ramblings for. Maybe he should ask his law firm if they're using a plain text editor to write his mortgage agreement, will, or any other legal document. And trust me, in the enterprise, I don't think Outlook is dying tomorrow ... features beyond e-mail like the Journal for tracking years of activities and projects or the excellent Tasks and Calendar features would take multiple apps where you can do it ALL right within Outlook 2010 without having to have one e-mail (e.g., gMail) and then Evernote for project notes, etc. People just like to make things more complicated where the integration in the Office suite gives everything the professional office needs, not some hack blogger that puts content into preformed CSS. Tony, I'm glad you noted the revenue value that Office is to Microsoft. There's media hype and then there's the reality that kingpins in the enterprise like Exchange, SQL or even Office really are. If I told all the lawyers at my firm that we're switching to gMail and an open source editor tomorrow, I guess I'd be on "early retirement".
on May 1, 2012
Tony - here's how I got the LinkedIn connector to work. http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/outlook/thread/b8c8f3de-b440-4373-b444-258baaccec0d

Please or Register to post comments.

What's Tony Redmond's Exchange Unwashed Blog?

On-premises and cloud-based Microsoft Exchange Server and all the associated technology that runs alongside Microsoft's enterprise messaging server.

Contributors

Tony Redmond

Tony Redmond is a senior contributing editor for Windows IT Pro and the author of Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Inside Out (Microsoft Press) and Microsoft Exchange Server 2013 Inside Out: Mailbox...
Blog Archive

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×