Peter Bright writes for Ars Technica: In bringing Office to iOS, Microsoft is playing a dangerous game. He mostly makes the argument against Microsoft releasing Office for mobile platforms other than Windows RT, for reasons that sort of make sense, but that are just as risky for Microsoft in its current position. That position, of course, is that it’s merrily spent the past few years teaching people they don’t really need Microsoft Office.

There are exceptions. Some people rely on very specific functionality within the likes of Excel and Word, and they simply cannot transition to other software. But many others are happy using Google’s online suite and free Office alternatives; and on iOS, Apple worked up touch-optimised apps for word processing, presentations and spreadsheets, while Microsoft did precisely nothing (publicly, at least) for the rapidly growing platform that was eating into PC market-share. Even in the more traditional space of the desktop, Office remains notably absent from the Mac App Store.

On Office for iOS, Bright thinks Microsoft

stands a good chance of cementing the role of the iPad as a business tool, eroding the advantages of Windows Phone 8 and undermining the entire value proposition of Windows RT.

This is true to some extent, but there’s also a good chance that horse has bolted anyway. It’s hugely optimistic to hope all those businesses that already have iPads deployed will ditch them because of Office on Windows RT. Those that haven’t yet might stick with Microsoft, but they’re also—unless they’re absolutely wedded to Office—just as likely to go with the iPad, which is the tried-and-tested technology in this space, with a massive underlying ecosystem of apps and supporting technology.

It will also hole Microsoft’s argument that the iPad is “just” for content consumption below the waterline. The upside of Office on iOS? That’s harder to fathom.

I don’t think it is. Office for iOS, if it was good and affordable, becomes a no-brainer purchase for occasional users, and also a means to keep people in Microsoft’s camp who’d otherwise leave it entirely. It keeps Microsoft’s cross-platform game in play (remember Office in itself is a huge revenue generator) rather than having the company retreat only to its own platform. By staying away from iOS—and also Android—Microsoft risks continuing to teach people they don’t need its software and, by extension, Microsoft as a whole.

Bright also argues that in creating an app for iOS or Android, it will have to make the assumption of touch first (no guaranteed physical keyboard), which it hasn’t done on Windows RT, where it

offers (almost) full fidelity reproduction and editing of Office documents

achieved by Microsoft being

forced to make enormous compromises: the Office apps in Windows RT offer only minimal concessions to touch-based usability.

I don’t think Microsoft was really forced in this direction. It’s a lack of ambition and I suspect what the company itself considered a minimisation of risk. Given enough time, money, vision and talent, Microsoft could have created a fully touch-based Office for a new generation of devices. Clearly, the company lacked one or more of those things.