I know I shouldn't feed them but... The size of Microsoft doesn't come into it. They aren't going to commit the whole company resources to a single application, no matter what platform it runs on.
They make a careful judgement on how much money they can spend, and how much revenue they will get in return. That sets the amount of time and resources they can commit, and effectively puts an upper limit on the number of features that can be implemented in each release. In this case, there were insufficient resources available to finish syncing in areas other than Contacts. Could they have committed more resources and completed the work? Sure they could. But that overspend could well have made a difference between the application being profitable and it not being so. I don't know about you, but I wan them to keep making money out of Office for Mac - that way they will keep improving and updating it. It's a simple equation in business: "No Profit=No Product" As to the icons, I suppose Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder. Your ugly is someone else's beauty. If that's the second worst feature of office 2011, then I guess they did a damn fine job! -- Barry On 30/09/2010 19:40, "Chris Favero" <[email protected]> wrote: > ><http://www.macworld.com/article/154410/2010/09/outlook2011firstlook.html> > >How on earth could a company the size of Microsoft not resolve syncing >issues with iCal before shipping Office 2011? There is no excuse for this, >it's just insane, stupid and lazy! > >And what's up with their fugly icons and GUI? Are they outsourcing their >design work to India now too? > > >-- >YouTalk mailing list >List information: http://www.entourage.mvps.org/support_options/list.html >List moderator: [email protected], [email protected] >To unsubscribe: >mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe -- YouTalk mailing list List information: http://www.entourage.mvps.org/support_options/list.html List moderator: [email protected], [email protected] To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
