Slashdot Mirror
How Will Subscription-Ware Affect OEMs?
TomCampion asks: "I've been reading a lot about how software makers want subscription-based services to be the norm, but how will OEMs handle the distribution of this new type of software? Today Dell ships a copy of Office 2000 that will run forever, but does this mean tomorrow they'll ship a copy of Office XP that will run for one year? How will this affect the prices of PCs?" I suspect that, if the foul idea of subscription-ware catches on, OEMs will effectively be relegated to the role of hardware pushers. The software will come foamed in with the hardware, with the install procedure being simple: plug in the computer and the phone line/network cable; insert the CD; and then turn the machine on. Your software company will then happily install all the software they think you'll ever need for a nice, (moderately) low, monthly price. Nice idea, however I don't think I trust commercial software enough for them to force this idea down our throats just yet. Do you?
We have a license for SAS which is sold on a subscription basis, one year at a time. The software checks the date, and exits with an error if the license has expired. You can set the date back on the computer, and the program will run untill you ask it to deal with a file whose date is after the the current time. That is enough to keep people honest, I guess without putting much burden on the OS to enforce things. There are no enforced upgrades - we are still running a 2 year old version because later versions were not very attractive (no one else updated either). With a rental like this support is very good - always an intelligent person on the phone, but the price is fantastically high. A SAS license costs more per year than the computer it runs on by a factor of 5 or 10, depending on the number of modules rented.
Subscription based software is a good idea. For example, I do not usually use Microsoft Power Point. However, if I need to create a presentation, I do not want to buy the entire application if I will use it only once. It would be much cheaper for me to simply rent it for a few days to create my presentation. For people who use the application often, it would be cheaper for them to actually buy it. I like this idea for certain applications, but forcing everyone into it is not a good idea.
I couldn't agree more. This is basically leasing software - and that is in my experience a pretty expensive way of buying your goods. Over the years we would all end up paying more. That's what its all about. I'll then convert my company to 100% open source.
remembah: all yer base arebelong to us
f1r5t p0st4 ya!
Don't you mean "411 j00 8453 4r3 6310n9 +0 u5"?
I kiss you!
\/\/47 u s4y!
I am thinking micro payments... What if it only cost you a few pennies a month to upgrade to the latest greatest software you DO want to use? Is this not worth it? I see a lot of uses for this. Instead of having to dish out anywhere from $50 bucks for that new game to ~$300 for the latest office suite it would cost you pocket change each month. I see this as the holy grail of copy protection. Software/media would be so cheap that it makes no sense to steal it. Think of what that could mean for the gaming industry. Instead of them having to charge through the nose for some game, you can can pay some nominal fee the play the game for some arbritrary amount of time at which point it expires and you either pay to keep it longer or if you really like it possibly pay for a full/nonexpiring version. I think that this is the route that most forms of media will take in the future. If companies make things so cheap that it makes no sense to steal it everyone would win. Users get the media they want at a very reasonable price, and companies dont have to waste resources protecting themselves from piracy. Its a win/win situation. I definitly agree that there is room here for abuse by both sides (users and compaies) if this inst implemented carefully, but it really isnt as bad an idea as some people make it out to be.
Thank $DEITY my upgrade subscription process involves "apt-get upgrade && apt-get upgrade" :) (or rpm equiv for the redhat people out there).
:)
This is another reason I'm here with linux. Because linux is by users for users, and because of that there is none of this pesky money stuff to worry about
Microsoft could easily regret the subscription model they are pushing here. In fact it could destroy their domination in the market even faster in the long term. Consider this scenario:
Linux vendors can offer a subscription service. They can even offer levels of subscription services. There are various features that can be offered. Technical support experts on call are one of them, obviously enough. A second one is keeping track of bug fixes and security fixes as well as new feature releases. These can then be offered in some sort of automated update system. Companies that really want peace of mind can go buy a service where the company maintains programmers to do immediate bug fixes for problems and then submit these to the software groups in question (a way that companies can honorably make money off of open source that benefits the community).
Whether or not a company is viable this path remains to be seen, but under a cheap subscription model it can possibly add up enough to make a profit. Now the whole thing is that anyone else can go into the service business. As a result the whole thing is going to be horribly competitive. There's no inherent development costs but your margins are as thin as you can make them. So what does one of these companies do in order to get more subscribers?
They offer a "finder's fee" to the OEMs. They *pay* the OEM a certain amount for bundling a PC with a contract that requires a certain length of subscription and a penalty fee for opting out before then that turns them a profit even if the customer bails out on them. Now all of a sudden there is a lot of incentive to push PCs out the door with this Linux service installed on them. The Linux vendor can even offer customizations like PC OEM branding as well built in, once the other services follow suit.
Now Microsoft is still going to be a big brand name at this point and PC OEMs are going to be reluctant to directly cross the Redmond giant even then. But there are sneakier ways for them to push Linux without appearing to push Linux. In all of the major trade magazines, the OEMs start advertising the prices of their machines at the subsidized Linux rate while talking about the benefits of Microsoft software. Customers go to buy and find out they can only get the lower cost with Linux software, which their reps assure has the equivalent functionality for basic application software. A lot of consumers might well decide to give Linux a try just because of that.
All of a sudden Microsoft is hoist by its own petard. They crow about subscription models and then find the hypercompetitive Linux subscription market finding a new way to get their foot in the door. Microsoft can only do one thing and stop receiving a tithe with every PC sold and start paying the OEMs more. Of course they end up charging more on a monthly basis to make back their costs and support their developer base. Now the OEMs are happily sticking the screws to Microsoft and being paid to carry their software and Microsoft is taking damage to its revenue streams from the PC tax, which now comes from them.
Of course the companies can fight back, if they cut the OEM dealers in on a percentage of the subscription for a given contract. Shaves their margins even thinner but it gives incentive for the OEMs to push the Linux service. Some OEMs might decide to even go with their own Linux distribution and service contracts and cut out the middleman. Either way, this forces Microsoft to offer a percentage of their subscriptions to the OEM in question, further damaging their revenue streams. At that point you've pretty much finished all you can bribe the OEMs with.
Short term this restores Microsoft back to its dominant position. They can pay more because they can rent more expensively. In the longer term though I think it will burn them in the end. IBM has a reputation for service and will be pushing a service model of their own in time (I still believe that for all of their vendor agnosticism once the service model becomes dominant IBM will break down and create their own distribution). In the long run companies look at those monthly rental fees and their beancounters eventually will realize the Linux vendors are offering more for the dollar and switch over.
Of course some weird geeky types will decide they'd rather not go with a subscription service. I figure you'll see a few small name PC vendors that you can buy a vanilla PC from with the Linux distribution of your choice with no service contract built in. These are the sort of people who watch freshmeat and handle their own software upgrades or even roll their own distributions.
So in short subscription-ware in the long term will be the best thing that ever happened from an OEM perspective and from a consumer perspective. From a software vendor perspective its miserable, but that's the whole nature of business. In the long run I think Linux still beats out on Microsoft because it is cheaper for everyone involved, even if it is less profitable for some.
To a certain mentality, the fun comes in having the tools to play around with, to make interesting projects on a spur-of-the-moment basic. Or so I understand from an uncle of mine.
And I'm not sure if it's common, but there really is that type of business in my hometown. They rent out anything from powersaws to snowplows. Sort of like Home Hardware meets Blockbuster.
Slight corrections:
1. You've already paid to upgrade.
2. You have no choice to upgrade.
No company is going to upgrade you for free, they just bury the price in the subscription fee. However, they will upgrade you when they want, not when you want (gee, all your files aren't readable by your friends anymore? tell them to upgrade to the latest & greatest XXX for only $yyy!)
StarOffice isn't that bad, and on a 600+ MHz CPU with 256MB or more, running it is actually believeable. So long as you're not attached to the email side of it. :shudder:
--- http://foo.ca
well, when it comes to computers my parents are morons. My dad is quite intellegent when it comes to what he does, but he would not have the first clue about M$ charging per year except he wouldn't like it.
What is sad is that quite a few of the people who are clueless about computers are not really dumb, but when they try and talk about them they sound it. But overall I think you have a 10-1 ratio of total idiot to intellegent person when it comes down to computer illeterate. I know that I deal with allot of people who arent good at anything (including computers). Scarry.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
This can only be good for the open software movement in the end.
I hope your are right. The thought of subscription based service scares me quite badly. I personally have no trust in most large corporations since they do what is good for their profits and not good for us.
Now let me give an example of what I forsee happening. M$ comes out with Pay Per Use (whatever time period) Windows. Now every so often you must have an internet connection or a phone line to keep you updated (or just to check you out and get any details they might need for marketing...ie history..stuff like that). Now after a year or so M$ decides its earnings are low, oh well, for a fix everyone gets their price per use jacked up. Now, not only are you paying more, but since they have such a hold on the moron population of the country that don't understand unix, they are releasing crappy os's to go with it. Buggy isn't a problem any more...M$ can patch it whenever they want...assuming they want to.
There are a few things I do see as subscription based software, and have no problem with it. Utilities that perform certain functions for you which requires some work on the companies part.
Honestly, people have been comparing software to cable tv. How is office like cnn? does office provide you with late breaking news...no. Does office change to show you the latest stock prices, give hints and some background...no. Well what does office provide? Word processor, Spreadsheet, Orginizer, Flat file Database, and Presentation software (Frontpage in v2000). So now what is it about any of these static programs that is so valuable that they deserve regular payment. In reality M$ has to do absolutly nothing once it is on my machine to make it go. My computer runs the program, stores the program and resulting data, and provides all the needed things for the program to run. M$ designed and sells it, but why would I myself want to lease something that M$ only really needs to do is the bug fixes. Paying for tv is paying for a continual set of changing entertainment. Office doesn't come close to providing half what my cable tv does.
I wouldn't mind an option on games to be able to pay a smaller fee to play them for a couple months and then not again. But I would still want the option to pay a higher price for the "run forever" version.
I think too many people have grown too complacent with big business running our lives. Trust them and we will eventually be reduced to mindless slaves.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
If software goes this route, I really want to see the requirement that the billing notice comes at the front end.
"Welcome to Microsoft Office Ca$H, using this product costs $0.10 per hour"
I don't think many people will be happy with back end billing.
"Thank you for using Microsot Office Ca$H last month. You used 720 hours and now owe us $72.00."
Think of the effect of instant messaging and other "hidden effects" that can trigger applications and keep them alive in the background.
.NET services had better come with an upfront desktop meter shown current price/hour of the active software.
Personal grip: I wish long distance carriers would tell you the price/minute of a call before the call is connected rather than not know the cost until it shows up on the bill.
I fail to see why anyone has to be concerned
here except to the point where morons may
dump winblows to invade the Linux world.
Considering that Linux isn't likely to be
available by subcription until hell freezes
over I don't see anything to worry about.
You are correct in assuming that I won't be using Office xxxx in 5 years time. The odds that I get get drunk enough to boot winblows and run Office are rather low. Even if I did try I would have a problem since I have never been stupid enough to buy it. The reality behind program subscriptions is that it is a scheme to screw us big time. And if you think that at any time in the future that Linux would be for rent only, you must have sniffed some flour.
I can see one major reason why companies like Microsoft are going to like it so much.
They'll be getting money for doing nothing.
Think about it.
Right now, if they want to make money, they have to keep pumping out upgrades. Now regardless of what we might think about the upgrade churn problem, it does mean that they have to have a whole bunch of people constantly "innovating" useful new features like the paperclip.
With subscription software, they get paid regardless of what they do. If users get locked into their stuff, they don't even have to fix bugs. What are users going to do? Stop paying? What kind of moron CIO is going to drag their entire company to a screaming halt because of a minor formatting bug or even a major security hole?
c.
Log in or piss off.
But it is not like you have to upgrade what she has in the first place. If she's fine with what she has (it sounds like it's a little behind the times as it is) then why upgrade? Or why feel the need to upgrade?
If water were beans, I'd be 70% beans.
Hmmmm...let me see if I can do this right:
From your high userid, I can tell you haven't been online for a while, or at least not here very long. Probably an AOLer, eh? You've *obviously* never heard of courtesy. Anyone who has ever posted a message online knows that it is better to be correct and polite than wrong and rude. I don't know if you were dropped on your head as a child, but your lack of verbal skills makes me wonder if you face-type all your messages as you obviously did the one for me.
(for bonus points), I might add that I've been participating in computer-based messaging for going on 16 years now (yes, since Reagan was President), so I'm especially well-versed in the subject.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d s+:+ a- C++++ U+++ P+>+++ L+>++ E- W++>+++>$ N+ o? K? W++++$ O--- M-- V PS-- PE+(++) Y+(++) PGP(+++) t+ 5 X-- R++(+++) !tv b++ DI++++ D---- G++>+++ e++ h r z+
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Was that better?
Not to seem like a pushover, but I have to agree with you as well! (~sigh~) The overall level of the conversations here seem to be at about medium-flame constantly.
Oh well...
PS: I just realized...I really have been doing this since 1985! Scary. Time has really flown.
Sure? I once witnessed an Win update (don't remember which) doing the update by removing the old files (known to be old Win versions) and copying in the new files. The (formerly) used (and removed) Microsoft driver was NOT among the ones listed with the new Win. Oops.
Yes, drivers are tied to hardware - but they are also part of a software system. And if that system is too good in removing its own "garbage", there is a problem.
Then it depends how the "BuzzWordWare(tm)" company will be handling OEM rollouts - and rollout of the updates. Will the OEM hotlines be able to offer immediate help ("just keep on paying and we prolong your subscription for you") or will they have to forward that to the other company?
Another problem may become orphaned device drivers. What if the "BuzzWordWare(tm)" company decides that this or that driver is outdated (as has happened to some of the Win9x drivers)? Then all of a sudden the whole system will stop working - no chance of keeping on using the old driver. You have subscribed, so you have to update or stop using, remember?
I dont see this being feesable. I have both worked for a software companies tech support and have also been onthe other end with autodesk. the basic premis is to update software takes time and money, money to train users and just transition. Where I worked prior they decided not to allow the use of previous versions at the same time. this resulted in may custumers simple returning the software waying it's not worth the time to learn it. in most cases there is one person who's job it is to learn and intigrate the software. and as a rule of thumb most smart firms stay a year behind. that way you dont get on the band wagon until all the bugs are cleared out. the problem is suppose I dont need the latest and greatest, the current version works fine. I cant' tell you how many firms I've seen running win3.1 and old software happy as ever and there really is no practical reason for them to upgrade because what they have works and does the job.
Lest we all forget, before microcomputers turned everything upside down, renting software by the month was normal. In a manner extremely similar to our large, dynamic web sites and services today, in the 60s and 70s, you sat before a comparatively simple terminal (browser), while all of the application's functionality resided on the mainframe (server). Your company bought or leased an IBM mainframe (or even rented time on someone else's) that supported hundreds of simultaneous users (sessions) and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition to this, your company paid separate monthly rental fees for the OS, libraries, development tools, and application software. These monthly software rental fees alone could easily add up to tens of thousands of dollars. In Fred Brooks' "The Mythical Man Month", there is even a reference to the monthly rental fee for a RAM module (in 1974, about $12/kb IIRC).
.NET ain't nothin' new. It's a return to the Bad Old Days(tm) of the 1960s and 70s, only this time it's Microsoft instead of IBM that is clutching 90% of the computing world's collective scrota. Don't you think it's ironic that the man who was possibly the most instrumental in breaking the IBM mainframe paradigm is trying to get the world to return to it, now that he's on top?
Yep, y'all,
It's interesting to consider that the DOJ ran an antitrust trial against IBM for about 2 decades, dropping it only when it became clear that market forces had made the case moot.
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/About/The_Courses/cs301/ when_enough.html
I suspect your brand new Windows box will come with a collection of "lite-ware" or "barely there ware" if you prefer.It will do very basic stuff but to get the real function's you will have to rent. An example would be an office suite that prints but does not allow you to fax.Perhaps a spread-sheet that allows limited calculations or cells.Or maybe the whole lot will be on a free trial basis and just time-out on you.
.Net will be Ballmer's Waterloo.He & Microsoft have *grossly* over estimated the average users bandwith (no we don't all have cable,dsl or T-1's!).The downloads will be horrible in respect to time & disconnects.Hell it will make the average AOL connection look downright speedy.. ;)
I personally believe
On the flip side...a great day for GNU/Linux and Open Source as people flock to distro's that offer ease of install & FULL applications.
Tired of being another body in the flock? Linux ! We are not sheep anymore.
This is how:
LG
Sigura Non Grata
This makes it harder to steal software. When users can't get commertal software for free they'll turn to free software...
I don't actually exist.
'like a book' should apply to software. Borlands license used to be 'like a book', and may still be. You could use it on any machine as long as it's being used once at any given moment, sell or trade it off, etc...
The computer is 'like a car'
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
a=b (ok)
;)
; 2b=b;2=1
a^2=ab (ok, both sides *a)
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 (ok, both sides -b^2)
(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b) (ok, simple factoring)
to get to the next step a+b=b, we must divide out (a-b). Now, this is all good and fine if we forget for a moment that those letters actually represent something.
I like using it as a sig, because it reminds me to always look at the little details. Because if you ignore them, they can come back to bite you in the ass.
---
a=b;a^2=ab;a^2-b^2=ab-b^2;(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b);a+b=b
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Yeah.. So Microsoft turns around and says "if you don't pay we'll cut you off."
Suddenly all those Word documents and Excel spreadsheets that you saved on DriveSpace.NET are useless to you. Yeah, StarOffice supports Word docs, but will it support Word.NET docs?
---
a=b;a^2=ab;a^2-b^2=ab-b^2;(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b);a+b=b
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Heh.. I still use Wp5.1 for Dos. I love it. Works great. Even when I'm in Windows, I prefer "EDIT" to notepad and Word.; 2b=b;2=1
---
a=b;a^2=ab;a^2-b^2=ab-b^2;(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b);a+b=b
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
In theory you are correct. In reality the problem is that the new products will eventually not have any backward compatability built in. This happens naturally over time as technology advances, as well as intentionally to attempt to force people to upgrade to the latest and greatest to generate more revenues.
That's why companies hold onto and try to lock people into using their own proprietary formats/protocols. Once something is an "industry standard" , ie MS word, then if you want to do busines in the real world you will need to be able to talk the same language, which means you better be prepared to start shelling out the bucks.
Yes it's evil, but it's not anything the software industry invented, it's just big business. It is, however, very well suited to software and MS has done it very well.
Gates and company keep using the term Innovattion. .NET and shifted the focus of thier whole company. By the time they
but M$ never inovates they look for what appears to be the next innovation
then they asimilate it and claim it's thier idea. I think M$ jumped the gun on
software as a service Idea. They jumped on an idea that wasn't proven yet because they saw
all these companys getting into the ASP market and thought they were missing the boat
so they came up with
figure out that it wasn't the next big thing I think it will be to late for them.
Bye Bye M$
http://Lenny.com
Just because I don't live in reality dosn't mean I'm not right ;-)
.NET and they might never recover
M$ is just a sofware company software comes and goes practically over night
One major screwup on M$'s part like
http://Lenny.com
I'm pretty sure that Dell, Compaq, IBM, etc. will sell the subscription for a one to three year license with each computer they sell. Requiring users to put a CD and send their credit card number to Microsoft will not work. It will be a loss for both Microsoft and hardware distributors.
Instead you are likely going to be able to chose a bundle of software based on your user category (home, developer, small business, enterprise) and pay for a 1-3 year subscription, like a magazine.
Other applications may be available in a Red Carpet like fashion.
Of course as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather stick with Linux. And hopefully Linux will be ready to provide similar services in less time and in a standards based fashion. That's why Ximian, Eazel, etc. should all work together in creating an installer architecture. The OpenSource community and companies need to make it easy for companies to leverage their solutions. We aren't there yet, but in the 5 years I've been using Linux we have come a long way in that direction.
------Quoted------ if you pretend that you're still going to be using those P3's running Office xxxx in 5 years time, you're wrong. ------end quote------ Why not? I'm useing Office 98 on a Mac 8100. The 8100 is a 1994 macheine, so 98 came out 4 years later. Works great. The real point of this though is, if a programme is working for you, why fiddle with it? If I have an old computer, connected to the net, and my old software works on my old computer, I don't want the software company to tell me that I MUST upgrade and that my word processor no longer works untill I do. What if the new software version is incompatible with my computer? Subscription services only work if there is MORE backwards compatibility and LESS bugs than there are now. Otherwise it's the company forceing you to upgrade not just your programme, but your OTHER programmes, AND your hardware. -Donald
~Donald / Just RTFM
Trust me. The list of reasons is too long to post.
I have yet to see anyway around the problems with
the current tech or public sentiment. For every
reason they ANYONE gives me that it is a good idea
and will work, I can give you 2-5 why it wont.
And I have to pay for this? Their software has bugs and I have to go get a subscription to have those bugs fixed?
Can we say *whap!* "Homey don't play that." I thought we could.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
So what if all the commercial software companies go to a subscription model? If consumers don't like it, they will look for alternatives and they will find piles of open source applications. This could be a very good thing for open source...
Well if you feel that you can compare this new subscription based software to DVDs then let's
hope it goes the way of DIVX. And if that market can be used as a bell weather then we, software users do not have much to be concerned about. However Micro$oft does have a bit more market share then the DIVX people did.
-Scott
It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
An intresting angle to a subscription service based software is that people have different expectations then with a stand alone product. People will have higher expectations in terms of reliability, and can switch software with less financial impact. The result is potentially a more competative market model (esp compared to the OEM giving you everything you need).
well, it kind of fits in context... ...but they are in most places the de facto standard, and because of that...
:P)
1) Microsoft products suck.
1a)
2) Microsoft better not limit access to their software.
(note the delete of "my" from 2)
Heck, basic reading skills are all that is required around here anymore - certainly no thought or sense of humor...
Judging by the quality of the four posts (this one included) in your history log, I must say that I am completely underwhelmed, but (for whatever reason) I will justify your questions with responses:
"Do you use MS software personally?"
Yes, I do - the few games that I play don't work very well on anything but Windows right now (mostly EA Sports titles). Also, MS Money and Quicken are still head and shoulders above GNUCash or any other finance program I've found... this holds true with several other apps that are fairly useful, too. That being said, I run Linux (Mandrake on one, Slackware on another) on other systems at home, and use that for many other things. Have been doing that for a number of years, and, while things are greatly improved, software support (in terms of titles) is the single greatest factor keeping my other box running Windows full-time.
"OR does your office use it."
Actually, I run AIX on an RS/6k... but it is used on the Thinkpads (not that I have one
While your Debian trolling advocacy program is going well so far, maybe a little bit of substance in your posts wouldn't hurt.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
the trick is:
...but they are in most places the de facto standard, and because of that...
1a)
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Right now, there are several F/free office suites that read M$ office file formats (e.g. StarOffice). what might happen is that in order to make itself the only office product, M$ will cause updates to change the format of files at every update. Everyone will be forced to use M$ because only other office products will be able to keep up with the forced encryption.
----------------------
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
I think you've got it all wrong here. Microsoft would stand to make a lot more money if it secretly started causing cancer, then they could get kick-backs from the us medical system for extra business. Then, when the medical system fails, Office XP Cancer Edition will be used to treat the then trademarked MS Cancer. What a plan! Who needs a hospital when you've got MS Cancer.
For instance, you say that "I foresee a few legal cases testing the ability of consumers to modify and extend products they are paying for the use of, but never really "own." Guess what? No-one legally owns the software they "buy".
No argument there. The quotes were intentional. Most people talk in terms of "I bought Windows 2000." They hardly ever say "I licensed." Maybe they aren't interested in the symantics, but the lawyers and shareholders are. Most folks, I think, would be surprised to find that Microsoft, if they wanted, could legally forbid them from using Windows after having purchased a copy.
You do not own the software in any sense. So switching to a lease model makes no difference.
I disagree. Basically, if presented with a monthly bill for software, they may see it in terms like cable, or their telephone service. If they don't like it, they cancel the service. But, notice, cable companies are very explicit on the bill about "equipment rental." They do a better job of it.
As for your points on delineation between software, did you follow the M$ case?? That was all about delineation of applications. Where does IE stop and Windows start?
Again, no disagreement, but my point is less about what SW makers want than where this might go, taken to one possible extension. In fact, I state that this possibility is most likely *not* what Microsoft wants. But, I think if the lease model in SW is going to be what it is in other sectors, a one size fits all approach will be met with resistance. My opinion is that if consumers are going to be asked to pay a monthly fee, they are going to want to taylor what they are paying for. Remember, Microsoft wants the lease model to both increase their cash flow and to make it more predictable. I'd be surprised if, as the world's largest software company, they *didn't* want to do this.
Finally - what makes you say that publishers will try and prevent third party add ons?? You make this claim but offer no evidence or reason to back it up. It really doesn't make sense to me.
True. But consider Sony's reaction to Bleem! and Connetix VirtualPlaystation. They sued, even though it could have ment higher game sales. They sued because they didn't like what it represented, a loss of complete control over their platform.
Look at photoshop (you use it as an example). It's extendability is one of it's biggest selling points. In fact, it's plugin format is so "standard" that other apps support it. So if Adobe were to take that away there would be an uproar. The world's graphic designers would either (a) switch to a different app or (b) refuse to "upgrade" to the new version. Either way, Adboe lose big time. Can't see that happening myself. But, for the sake of argument, you aquire access to Photoshop on a lease model. You're allowed to break it into modules. You're a web designer, but don't like ImageReady. You want to use Photoshop's tools, but you want to use a third party optimization tool. Are you all that convinced Adobe's going to be completly happy with that arrangement? Especially, if it's opensource? If you're Adobe, you've suddenly lost revenue. Software leasing is to me bad for different reasons (which I won't go into in detail as this post is already too long). Primarily, the security/privacy issues, the cost involved in not upgrading (i.e you can't just carry on using the same app forever, you have to pay for it forever too), and the ways in which it will aid the big boys in increasing their monolopies. Well, it's bad for all of those reasons, too. I can definately see where purchasing a certain configuration of SW is going to be required for a company to allow you to use the support you purchase access to.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
I seriously doubt, though, you'd have to pay for a second subscription if you lost a drive. they may give you some hassle about reinstallation, but remember, you're paying for access. Microsoft may be evil in many arenas but they're generally careful not to piss off their customers. Or, at least large numbers of them.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
I think the biggest reason that renting software will fail is that most people I know rather have old software with bugs that they know about than new software with new bugs that don't know how to work around.
The reaction to subsription-ware should be obvious. Witness the flames directed at SGI re support contracts on comp.sys.sgi.* and the minimal presence of Linux on SGI hardware. Speaking about home users, most owners of SGI hardware I know still run Irix; they just don't pay to stay under a support contract or renew licenses for compilers or other flex_lm ware.
-jpeg
Female Prison Rape in NY
I'm a Mac user, but this issue applies to myself as well as the Winblows community.
Developers shooting themselves in the face, and they don't even know it: greed has blinded software developers to the obvious, that a higher version number does not necessarily mean BETTER. [example- differences between word 5 and office 98 on the Mac] What more can be said on this that hasn't been said already? Just because a new version of software comes out doesn't mean that you *have* to upgrade- I'm still using Photoshop 5, despite the release of 5.5 and 6. I've tried both, have little use for 5.5 and really, truly cannot stand the sight of six. [ditto for Illustrator 9 - 8 is better and 6 is by far superior in terms of speed and RAM.]
I don't upgrade unless the new version does something critical that the old version didn't. Beyond that, I refuse. The last I swapped out software was with Fireworks- version 2 crapped out when slicing images [on the Mac] and version 3 did not. It was worth it, more so than attempted upgrades and tweaks of other, more mission-critical software.
I use my graphics apps daily, religiously: and I will probably never, ever upgrade them. They work just fine as they are, and newer versions have features I don't want, take more RAM, and have different keyboard shortcuts. From a performance standpoint, what I have works and what I've seen that comes after it does not. I continue to use MacOS 8.6 where possible, as 9 is a giant pain in the ass by comparison. I would never subscribe to any of these services, as in my opinion, the quality continues to drop as the RAM useage continues to skyrocket.
Free updates are one thing- Apt-get for Debian and the Apple Software Updater are good examples, and the ASU has saved my ass with firmware updates several times. By regularly checking for updates, you've effectively "subscribed" to the application being updated, though in both cases you have the *option* of doing the update, where as in this proposed case, you do not. A convincing argument in favor of the OSS movement- would you rather have the *option* to update your apps and system every six months for free, or be *forced* every year for, say, 5,000 $ / seat in addition to hardware upgrades?
As this takes hold, it's only a matter of time until the less affluent begin to turn to free or low-cost, one-time solutions, as they will not be able to *afford* the mandated upgrades. What a charming and delightful strategy from keeping poor artists and home users from having access to the tools they need to do better themselves. Yep.
Picture the day when all computers are downloading Microsoft Works (ha) and enjoying "improved security."
One single, trusted source of reliable, secure software.
A whole internet of cookie-cutter systems.
Now, any given security hole would be
A) plugged immediately in the next download,
B) exploited with unimaginable ease by crackers.
Iterate these options over the range of security holes.
The moral is: a diversity of security implementations protects the internet by limiting the amount of damage that one security hole can do.
First of all let's state the obvious. Software makers would not be interested in going to subscriptionware unless they thought they could increase profits by doing so.
Increased profit for software companies does not necessarily mean decreased value per $ for consumers. At best, it allows far greater flexibility in creating targeted products (lite, home, student, professional, legal, medical, etc.), without having to create separate shrink-wrapped packages, saving production costs.
This could mean more value for paying customers, however, no value for pirates. No pay, no use!
There has often been an uneasy truce between software companies and those who make illegal copies, for instance the way MS tolerates piracy in China, and by most students. On the plus side, it gives them market share, and prevents their competitors from making inroads, and they have the hope that some day all these people will start paying, and they will rake in loads of money from it. The availability of pirated MS software is the biggest reason Linux is not taking off faster in China. I have lots of Chinese friends and when I show them my Linux laptop with tons of free software, they say "so, I got MS Office for free too, why should I switch"
What about Free software? it will only stand to benefit from subscriptionware. If people don't like the terms that ASPs give them, there are alternatives, becoming more viable all the time.
Also, what prevents Free (Speech) software from being delivered through the same ASP channels? A company could take Ximian Gnome, dress it up, and deliver it though ASP channels for a much lower fee than MS Office. Come to think of it, Ximian could do that!
Intriguing possibilities!
----
"Here to discuss how the AOL merger will affect consumers is the CEO of AOL."
grep -ri 'should work'
I have to admit Delldows has a certain ring to it.. I can see a girlfriend asking for some Delldows software for Valentine's ;)
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
Imagine, I already pay $40 a month for my DSL. Imagine if for only $10 more, I get all the software I need downloaded right through my high speed connection. Imagine. I plug everything in, insert the setup CD, and everything just works. Now if this worked in fact, and not just in theory, it might actually be worth it. $120 per year is more than I currently spend on productivity software, and they have minimal distribution costs. I think it might actually work. I'm just not sure if it's a good thing or not.
You are assuming that they will have no options for those without use of a credit card. Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of folks out there that are unable or unwilling to get and use credit cards. Will "modern" computing be denied to these folks? I don't think so.
-Joe
> It doesn't matter if you trust them or not, they will do this.
Not without customers they won't!
> I wholeheartedly disagree. I still run Office 95 on my P3. Why? Simple - it runs a *lot* faster than any of the more recent versions, and it offers all of the features that I am interested in.
Exactly!! I still run Office 95 on my AMD 1.2Ghz. I don't need all the bloatware of Office 2000.
P3-500's ARE fast enough to run office. People don't upgrade their hardware to run office faster.
I have been saying this is where Microsoft is going as soon as the announced .NET. My posts have been lost in the clearing of old posts, but those people who live total inside the Microsoft world better get used to this.
Subscriptions are just the start. Eventually you will be paying to use the software just like you pay for your electricity in the US! While Microsoft may have lost some of it's power, it is not dead yet. They still have enough power to require EOMs to put the subscription version of MS Office on there computers. Remember, the next version of MS Office will also be sold as a subscription.
We, in the Linux and open source community, need to move foreward to prepare Linux to be the best desktop it can be. When consumers are forced to switch to subscription services, or forced to pay for software as a service based on the time you use the software, they will eventually start to look for other alternatives.
Originally, just before ".Net" was announced I thought we'd have more time. I underestimated Microsofts aggresive time table. We need to prepare! Otherwise, consumers will look elsewhere!
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
I'm replying to agree with bbcat, and to possibly engage in a public discussion on why the subscription service is dead in the water.
;j
Imagine if, 20 years ago, the Atari company had access to StarOffice on 600Mhz Pentium3's. How many more 2600's would've shipped? Would 900Mhz Athlons/Office2000 have been better? Should they have upgraded? Has the business model changed so much that they would've been unable to integrate the "productivity machines"? Or maybe it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference either way.
There is now an communications infrastructure only *dreamed* of since the dawn of civilization. As a species we've made a quantum leap from where we started. I think that, given the tools we currently hold, there's nothing stopping us from....
#The thing is, subscriptions are just being realistic - if you pretend that you're still going to be using those P3's running Office xxxx in 5 years time, you're wrong#
let's see who's pretending and who's being realistic. It's my opinion the subscriptions are pretending to give us continous improvement value for our $$$. At this point, what more could They give us? More bells, whistles, and another monthly bill. Boooo.
Is this the new luddite voice? Are the winds of change starting to chill me in the autumn of my life? Or is good-enough-5-year-old software/hardware going to become the standard instead of the butt of wiseass cracks from punkass kids?
As for how subscriptions will affect OEM, i thought "junk culture" was a fantastic album
Ok, I'm gonna use this little space of the web to say what I want from a software company...I want a CD when I buy software, and I only want to pay for it once...I want it full featured!
I have to pay for my car payment, cell phone, student loans, etc on a monthly basis, I don't want to have to worry about paying for my software monthly too.
Usually, when I buy software, I ask myself...will I get good use out of this or will I end up upgrading it in the near future? If the answer is the latter then I look on.
</rant>
Actually subscription based upgrades are being utilized by opensource based companies. SuSE for example sells a subscription based CD for their distro. (See this link for what I mean http://www.suse.com/us/products/susesoft/suse71/ch oose.html)
.NET as a way to circumvent this problem a little by selling the server side software/paradigm to businesses so that customization to fit particular needs could be realized.
Red Hat even promotes it's Red Hat Network service. What this is in effect is a subscription based service to ensure your machine(s) are current and up to date if running thier distro. (Here is the link http://www.redhat.com/products/network/)
Subscription services have been in the Linux community for some time now. If I recall correctly even Cheapbytes used to offer a subscription service to send out updated CD's of various contribs and/or distro's.
The distinction, no matter how slight, is the issue of forceing a subscriber (or potential subscriber) to use the subscription service.
I do not see this type of marketing in the future of Linux. But that is not to say some form of "subscription" services will not be available to Linux users.
I personally think any software company who only offers thier software via an "internet subscription" service would be committing fiscal suicide. They may enjoy some success with typical home desktop users for a while, but this would grow old quickly me thinks.
I also believe "internet subscription" services aimed at business intranets would fail miserably. There are too many customized setups out their for any company to automagically "upgrade" anything and not run into problems with a corporate lan. I see M$'s
The real issue here is not whether subscription based software is good or bad, but who is in control of the software being delivered.
Imagine the EULA M$ uses. It can be argued that you do not own the software but simply license it to be used. Now think about the implications of software distribution via automagic delivery and installation through the internet. With CD distributions gone the enforcement of thier EULA takes on a whole new meaning. You no longer would have the ability to sell your licensed CD of Office to Joe Blow if you wanted to because there is nothing to sell. No CD's, no manuals, no printed license, nothing!
This method of delivery would simply be internet distributed, time limited software.
And thats only the tip of the iceberg. I do not even want to get into the privacy issues this could open up, or the security implications.
I think subscription based services are OK if you want to utilize them. But it should not be required
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
There's one major flaw in your reasoning here. Software is not just *any* service like radio, cable, TV etc... It is something that you interact with and rely on. I don't know many people that rely on TV for anything other than entertainment (and the occasional educational show). I could easily live without my TV/Cable if it for some reason stopped working, but I can't say the same for computers. There is also an element of control involved that you failed to see---we don't really control what goes on in the TV set. It is a bunch of advertisement, consumer review driven pre-programmed shows in the which making we have no part. Our documents and files and almost everything we do with a computer is an extension of ourselves, almost like an appendage (as in arm or leg). How many of you would like to pay for an arm or a leg every month? Oh wait, you forgot to pay for those extended features? time to disable your fingers...
That's just great!!! Just another bill to pay at the end of the month---I'm sure 99% of the people will relish another monthly bill.
For instance, you say that "I foresee a few legal cases testing the ability of consumers to modify and extend products they are paying for the use of, but never really "own." Guess what? No-one legally owns the software they "buy". You only purchase a piece of plastic (the cd), maybe some paper (the manual) and a license which allows you to use the software in a certain way and according to certain restrictions. Those include agreeing to not copying, disassembling, modifying etc. You do not own the software in any sense. So switching to a lease model makes no difference.
As for your points on delineation between software, did you follow the M$ case?? That was all about delineation of applications. Where does IE stop and Windows start? The answer to your question of how will they sell the individual little bits is they won't. Just like you can't (afaik) buy Word on it's own, you won't be able to rent it on it's own. You get Office. The whole thing. If you pay a bit more you get Office Pro (including vba etc). Again - theres no difference here between the two payment models.
Finally - what makes you say that publishers will try and prevent third party add ons?? You make this claim but offer no evidence or reason to back it up. It really doesn't make sense to me. Look at photoshop (you use it as an example). It's extendability is one of it's biggest selling points. In fact, it's plugin format is so "standard" that other apps support it. So if Adobe were to take that away there would be an uproar. The world's graphic designers would either (a) switch to a different app or (b) refuse to "upgrade" to the new version. Either way, Adboe lose big time. Can't see that happening myself.
Software leasing is to me bad for different reasons (which I won't go into in detail as this post is already too long). Primarily, the security/privacy issues, the cost involved in not upgrading (i.e you can't just carry on using the same app forever, you have to pay for it forever too), and the ways in which it will aid the big boys in increasing their monolopies.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
With UCITA EULA's given over the internet are not binding. Only the shrink wrapped licenses on CD's.
So when GPL says that there is no garuanty on software that is not binding unless you use the CD version with a shrink wrap lisence.
I prefer REAL choice.. no thanks to the communist software sales... no thankx to m$
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subscription software can be rented for very low prices on a monthly basis that are sure to bring in a residual income that pays much better over the long run. The lack of a quick-restore CD will drive customers to this service only faster and make more for Microsoft.
Linux can't compete on the desktop with in its current state of rapid, dramatic change. Software is no longer compatible with any distrobution shortly after hitting the shelves at Best Buy. This can't work for commercial software vendors of desktop software at all. It's not economically or logistically viable.
Will OSS developers ever learn to maintain a downward-compatible API of any kind? That's the decisive question.
-- Matthew C. Tedder
Yet another poor soul deluded by the statements of the MPAA. You do own copies of copyrighted works you buy. Go ask a lawyer.
-RickHunter
Well... Maybe now we won't have to pay for software we won't use.
If you have to pay for at subscription of windows *after* you've purchased the computer, just don't pay if you're using a free os.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Interesting view on my view. I didn't mean to sound arrogant, I simply make the point that there are experts in every field and the average person cannot be an expert in all of them.
I go to a doctor when I'm sick; I do not try to do surgery on myself.
I go to the electronics store when the tv breaks; I do not try to fix it.
The average person does not want to be a computer expert; they want to write documents and surf the interet. the computer is a tool; not more interesting than any other tool. Corporations are trying to control this tool just like they control medicine and electronics. When in fact there are other tools available that the consumer just needs to be educated about (free tools in fact!).
We simply need to help users to understand that they DO have a choice. If they choose subscription based software; then fine.. come to me when they screw you and I'll help you find another tool.
I think of myself as libertarian... personal freedom before all else... I can see why you thought I sounded a bit liberal though. Does this clear it up?
.plan!! what plan?
I think that even Joe Sixpack wont like the idea of spending regularily money on software. People who spend a couple hundred dollars on a piece of software don't want to hear it stops working after a year, so they have to pay more money.
There are people out there who use old software. I know lots of people, (especially Joe S. types) who are still using Office 95 or 97 for example. Just because it's old doesn't make it a piece of junk. Hell you can even use WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS to write perfectly good-looking documents!
I'm not saying suscriptionware is bad. The inminent lack of choice is.
~
~
~
~
:wq
We'll cut you a $400 rebate on this $800(retail) machine and you get internet acess for "free", but were going to charge you $21.95 for the next 36 months, which comes to 790.20 + the 400 up front that's 10.84% interest, and you can't upgrade to DSL/Cable/Sat/Wireless/Next big thing service.
My bank charges 8.9% APR on computer loans and I pay 14.95 for 250 hrs/mo for dialup or 50 for DSL, I'll pay the extra 400 up front thank youRead my plan to save the Bengals
Finally, this actually means the end - or at least lowering - of the M$ Tax.
Since the software will only be valid for limited periods of time, it makes sense that they will cost less upfront, lowering the M$ grip on OEMs. Granted, this might be due to their court problems, but still..
All the more advantage for M$-free users.
Cheers,
Michel
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
I like free software. I get all my software for free. (CDs copied from the ol' employer)
If (and this is a big IF,) Microsoft were to make it so you really had to pay for every copy of their software out there, and there was no way around it....
... I'd switch to linux. And I'd start working on the software so it did what windows always has done for me.
But Microsoft wants my business (that is, the business I'll give them after I graduate) so I don't think this "problem" is going to be a problem in the end.
-Erik
Not if you pay for support.. they may decide that thier best support route is to upgrade you.. Then they will.. They may just FORCE the updates on you.. That is the problem.. you may need to have support and the license is such that they can upgrade you at any time for any reason they see fit... and based on the DCMA they can....
UPS Sucks
just out of curiosity, what about people like me? i don't have a credit card, and i don't have a checking account. now it's fine and great when i can get $50 together to buy some software i need, but without a credit card or checking account, how am i going to make these quick easy payments??
I once witnessed an Win update (don't remember which) doing the update by removing the old files (known to be old Win versions) and copying in the new files. The (formerly) used (and removed) Microsoft driver was NOT among the ones listed with the new Win. Oops.
That's what happened to me. I had to reinstall my video drivers from the disk. But the point remains that you have the option not to check the box.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Personal grip: I wish long distance carriers would tell you the price/minute of a call before the call is connected rather than not know the cost until it shows up on the bill.
They do. AT&T was the first, with 15c/min One Rate. Then there was an explosion of 10-10 services (10-10-321 16c/min but 50% off all calls over 10 minutes; 10-10-220 99c first 20 min 7c each addl). Then Sprint countered with A Dime Anytime. You can always look up current rates on a telco's web site.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Anyway, as long as this [subscription] pricing doesn't move to games, I'm not too worried about it.
It already has. It's a good thing you don't play EverQuest.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Leasing is taking off in America and has been around for a while. It give us something new every 2-3 years. People love it. It doesn't make sense economically to the consumer, but after the Fox new "Conspiracy Theory - We didn't land on the moon" special just because something does or doesn't make sense doesn't mean that we do the right/smart thing. I think we like throwing our money to the big corporations.
Consumers are going to eat this up. No more paying $200 for Office 2000. It's just $20 a month! Wow, I'm saving money! They'll say. Of course they'll be paying for the rest of their life.
Microsoft (and other software companies) will love the fact that they will have a steady cash flow. Remember, Cash is King! Investors will love it too (find a company with strong positive cash flow growth and buy stock in it, and watch it soar!) And the subscription probably won't be based on how much you use it, just that you have it.
There's three solutions to your problem.
.NET-enabled desktop, but had the 1 or 2 applications that you were planning on using on a CompactFlash card or similar? You could store your work on the same card and just stick it in your computer when you got home, which would hopefully update all documents on the server to their most current versions, and clear the Flash card. (Note: this probably won't happen anytime soon. :)
.NET, which would also be your email name (this works well with M$'s and Apple's multi-user feature on XP and OS9, respectively, although for single users you could use auto-login on your own computer). On shared computers, you could just log in and instantly access all your documents; this way you don't even need to be carrying around this laptop everywhere you go. Obviously the downside is that you couldn't work in parks, but possibly that's a good thing for park-viewers without computers?
1: Pretty soon, wireless Net access will be a reality. Already there's working 802.11 implementations, especially AirPort, and there's definitely room for expansion.
2: Laptops and other portables could theoretically be embedded devices. What if your laptop was running that same OS as your
3: Require a username for using
I personally think #3 is the best solution.
This is good even from Microsoft's perspective. They no longer have to support people using older programs or operating systems (because they don't exist), fix any install problems (or if they do they only have to fix them once) or distribute ANY updates and/or service packs. Theoretically, they don't even have to report bugs (because they can fix them transparently), and avoid both hackers and excessive media attention. The only problems Microsoft could have is keeping all the NT servers running, and they can outsource that to dedicated ASPs, making Microsoft (and Sun, and Oracle, etc.) application developers and multiple other companies (Dell, IBM, maybe some startups) service providers. The percentage of people who would no longer have problems with install or repair FAR outweighs the percentage of people who would have problems learning the (barely changed) new system, even including the people who get cut off when they didn't pay their renewal fee.
A good comparison is with television. Most people buy a TV and/or speaker system, but rent a set-top box, remote control, and pay a monthly fee for their cable. You get a basic set of channels, and then you can pick additional sets that you want, which cost an extra fee to get. Some services are also available at a pay-per-use charge, and most services let you order the pay-per-uses straight from your TV.
Now imagine that your computer used .NET or comparable subscription-ware. You might buy your monitor but rent the "set-top box" (the computer itself), and the "remote control" (the keyboard and mouse). Depending on your service provider, you would get a different set of base "channels" (software) and have different optional packages and/or pay-per-use services.
To all those people who don't think that Joe Sixpack would pay a monthly fee for software: Imagine if, instead of getting cable, Joe bought one (or many) DVDs that had everything that was going to be on TV on a certain channel for two years. He had to buy each channel separately, although they were sometimes available as bundled packs. Some of the better channels required that you left the DVD in while you watched it, while others just let you "install" them to the TV and watch them whenever you felt like it. How much do you think he'd like that?
For a good non-Microsoft example of subscription-ware, check out the New Internet Computer at http://www.newinternetcomputer.com/. This computer has a version of Linux with a base set of installed software on a CD, and you update the software by putting in a new CD. The device costs about $325 with monitor. However, the most promising use of this is with Citrix MetaFrame software, which lets you run Windows or UNIX software from a server, without installing it. Obviously, it can be auto-updated.
Subscription-ware is definitely the future, if not just because Microsoft is soon going to make that the only thing they offer. However, there's always non-M$ alternatives, even ones that take advantage of subscription-ware. Use them while you can.
"Very well put Yoshi! TCO is something that's often overlooked by non-financial types, but it ends up right on the bottom line, IMHO"
Excuse me, but while I would assume that your low userid number means you've been reading slashdot for a while, your post indicates that you are clearly confused. All slashdot replies must be of the following form:
Always begin with a sarcastic remark about the person's stupidity or ignorance. When in doubt, pick a single sentence out of context and simply say something like "From this sentence, I can see that it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about." Doing so means that you are incredibly smart, and makes your post more correct. Other good choices are:
"You've obviously never heard of -x-."
"Anyone who has done -put simple thing here- knows that you're wrong on all counts."
"I don't know if you were dropped on your head as a child, but..."
"I'm thoroughly surprised that you are able to form complete sentences. Were you drooling on your keyboard while you typed that?"
Bonus points if you add that you are especially qualified in the subject, because you claim that you've been involved with it thoroughly for some time (greater than 5 mins is all that's necessary for condescending tone).
Always refer to the article and claim the person didn't do their research. This is always a favorite because it is similar to the oh-so-famous RTFM. Even better if you point out that slashdot doesn't do their homwork. Don't worry if people before you have already pointed that out, because sometimes people can miss 10 comments in a row.
Lastly, end with an encoded message or silly programming puzzle of some sort. Perl is always good. Most slashdot readers just hang out for the puzzles at the end of each comment.
Your post was entirely too friendly and, even worse, it agreed with someone. See that it doesn't happen again.
$a = "Ypv bsf xbtujoh ujnf xjui uijt tuvqje nfttbhf";$a =~ tr/b-y/a-z/;
print $a;
Say I use the internet so much at work, tht I don't need it at home. What happens if I want to buy new subscription based software that NEEDS an internet connection to load? Also, what prevents these same companies from turning off my software after a certain time, to force me to upgrade? Companies that don't upgrade software as often as they should would be killed if this were done.
Just don't expect anyone else to be able to read your documents. Office 97 when it first came out couldn't write Office 95 files, and O95 couldn't read O97, so you had to upgrade your entire office. Assuming the internet will reach into places like Africa, how do I send them a document when they will have to subscribe to read?
And will I be able to use it at my local library?
Also, trading a $350 one time cost for a $400/year bill eats into cash flow assuming current interest rates. You can get a loan or spread out a payment on your credit card if you have a cost v.s. cash flow problems. Maybe the dot-coms are bombing because the people running them don't understand basic economics and accounting.
And you will have reduced productivity because of the gratuitous changes in the upgrades and file format conversion time and whatever and you will have NO CONTROL over doing this.
Just wondering why you don't use LaTeX (possibly with LyX) or SGML or one of the many other good typesetting languages available. Sure beats MS Word.
Those who do not know the past are doomed to reimplement it, poorly.
I hear all this talk about .NET, but what is it? I've heard its XML stuff, I've heard its like Citrix...What is .NET exactly?
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Sadly, this is not an ideal world. You can bet your ass that the first "upgrade" is going to be to a new version with an incompatible file format (and probably crippled backward compatibility), so that all of your friends will have to upgrade to the subscription version of the software to read the files you send them. It's not as though we've never heard of any company doing that before.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
you will be forced to upgrade _and_ pay up more money
You know, one of the things about subscription software is that you do not need to pay anything to upgrade. This would seem to be one of its salient obvious features.
Not only will it cure cancer, but patches and upgrades will include cures for AIDS and more as yet undiscovered diseases! Aren't subscriptions wonderful? Still, what happens when you get a BSOD in the middle of the curing process? Do you crash as well? 'Cause people aren't quite as easy to reboot. Better start putting Ctrl+Alt+Del keys on defibrilators now...
It may be unpleasant for administrative types, but depending on how they do it, the whole concept could be very nice for occasional users: "Hmmmm, I'm unhappy with my job, let's reactivate my word processor this month, upgrade my resume, then let the license expire." Granted, they could make this very unpleasant, but if done correctly, could be nice to use.
If people run out and buy this it will become the standard and we all will adjust. Some will switch to a new OS but my guess is MS will not allow there base to go running. There will always be plenty of packages and ways for all of these companies to take your money. This is just another way to grab some cash.
Edit may be a little extreme, as there are VERY little formatting options. I know, who needs bolding and italics, it is fine for most things, but it is needed when trying to make a good looking paper. WP5.1 would work great for me as long as I have the capability of printing to PDF (which it does as a postscript) so others can read. If you purchased the older 97/95/whatever, they can't take it away from you, and it basically already does everything you could need a Word Processor to do.
Thats when the world goes to StarOffice. MS Office 95, 97, and 2000 is nice, but I can make my documents look just as nice in Wordperfect for DOS, which I will use if I have to pay by the month. The day .NET comes is the day I switch to Linux/BSD/Mac/or
Works for me.
The current strategy for the use of brand-name software (from the home user point of view) follows:
1. Buy package for ~$100 - ~$300 (that covers most Windows-ware, right? assuming that you have failed to move from a lifetime of MS-DOS/Windependence to the open-source arena)
2. Haunt the user support groups/sites in order to keep yourself up-to-date on drivers, patches, and such - they are all exclusively online at this point, so you already need Internet access.
3. Within one to three years, we'll be forced to...how was it put so recently..."upgrade or miss out."
I see three main differences between one-time expenditure and subscription-based software:
a. Increased dependence on internet connection for up-to-date software means less value for those with less bandwidth. 56k is plenty for surfing, but not so great when downloading whatsits/registering for your software upgrades.
b. Perception. Many of us choke on the "subscription" term, understandably. I don't need help managing my finances, thank you. I find it interesting how many of my utilities have offered to "help me with my budget" by "spreading out" the costs that differ according to seasonal use. All I tend to see is a desire to earn interest on my money.
c. A user base that upgrades simultaneously. You're already paying to be on the Forefront of Technology, so why not be like everyone else and upgrade to the latest ASAP? Such a scenario guarantees that the software company will spend less to support older versions.
I *really* don't think any of this will ultimately benefit the consumer. It's a winner for the company, though.
If it's really such a bad business idea, it will flop.
Right?
I don't think subscription-based software makes much sense for PCs.
On the other hand, subscriptions to remote services are a natural. Users never have a copy of the software so running the old version isn't an option. Users don't have to worry about upgrades, someone else does that for them, so upgrading doesn't even have to be noticed. Feature bloat isn't a problem, the user doesn't have to worry about storing the executable anyhow.
Wow, I think you just captured the essence of liberalism. Average people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions so we have to "help" them make the right ones. How arrogant!
about the people without credit cards? I have one, and only one, and never use it. I dislike instant credit, but many of my friends loved it to death, and now have no chane of getting a card for some time? How do they subscribe? What about people below the age of 18 (can't get a card) who want / need this software?
They didn't reclaim a damn thing, we were out of operation for less than two weeks.
Cheers.
Don't take life so seriously; it isn't permanent.
I have been trying to buy a new computer for my in-laws, who would use it almost solely for internet purposes and for light wordprocessing. The lowest-end computers that most recent advertising circulars for the mass-market computer chains are featuring have 900 MHz+ CPUs and run $1000 or more (w/o a monitor and before application of the 3-yr internet service contract $400 rebate). The story is similar at the Dell site. While both the stores and Dell may have lower-priced Celeron and Duron machines, these machines are certainly not promoted any longer and the pricing on them seems to less competitive than on the higher-end models. I am seriously thinking of just giving them a 200MHz PI I have, set up with Linux and icons for just Mozilla and AbiWord.
Considering that most computer purchases will be either (i) first computers purchased by complete neophytes or (ii) second or third computers in a multicomputer household (for instance, for school-age children), I do not see a big demand for 1.5 GHz P4s. I am currently running a 3-year old 400 MHz PII and I do not feel much of a desire to upgrade -- and I am sure I do much more processor-intensive activities than most people (for instance, compiling -- my 400 MHz PII, w/ 224 MB of ram will compile the Linux kernel in about 7 minutes).
It seems that the industry generally has been pushing digital video editing as the "killer app" necessary to drive hardware sales -- PC Mag and other industry rags are featuring it and the major stores are pushing it. I am skeptical, however, that the typical user is actually going to do much of this (heck, I find it a hassle to scan in the occasional photo).
Maybe the tide will turn once the average computer user has a high-speed internet connection (I guess heavy processor power will be necessary to handle high-quality real-time video feeds), but until then I think there (i) will be a real slow down in the PC sector (no news here -- witness recent Dell layoffs) and (ii) a real opportunity for "internet appliable"/"thin client" vendors, as well as for open-source and other non-MS OS and software vendors. In the IA/thin realm, nobody has quite hit the magic mix yet, but they seem to be getting closer.
Regarding the main topic -- subscription software --: given the minimal software needs of most home computer users, I do not see this happening. Like others have said, I hope the proprietary world tries this, as it will give Linux and open-source generally quite an opening.
I see this as working to the PC seller's advantage because you can cut the price of the hardware when you're getting a kickback on those software subcriptions that pay a lovely annuity every month. Just like those free/$400 PCs they pawn off these days when you promise to sign up for an ISP service for 3 years. Microsoft was probably the most successful at this and they've clearly seen there's more money in subscriptions than hefty one-time price. PC sellers will be able to ship cheaper systems with greater margin than ever before. Gateway also had pretty good success on their lease PCs where you trade it in and get a new box every 2 years for set monthly fee.
I wonder what this will do to the accelleration of power the average user has on his desktop. Will it become in software seller's interest to write software that will run on slow computer to cut your overhead on the free/$400 computer?
This sounds like M$ tring yet again to copy what *nix (linux, bsd, solaris, aix, hp-ux,etc) can ALREADY do.
If not, please explain it to me.
Hah!
I envision companies doing the "compuserve" thing
$20 monthly flat rate. Plus some vulgar $4 a minute fee for using an "optional" thing like a spell check or autocorrect.
I think that this is clearly going to cost companies more in the long run. Whether they will save on support I have no idea, MS says that it will, but MS says a lot of things...
It'll also be fun when the EULA has a clause that includes "variable billing" and a "eula change" clause which locks you into a 12 month contract.
augh.. whatever....
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
But what happens when the hard drive, or the motherboard, or any other component goes out? Does he go looking for the older OS disks, and hope they still work on the replacement components; x86 compatiblity may be non-existent 5 years from now when the components give up the ghost. He has a very valid point, not every computer wants, or needs internet access 24/7, especially not for simple things like word processing.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Don't pick on GW Bush? The man himself said that big companies should have _no_ restrictions. We all should stay out of their affairs. Particularly the government and public interest groups.
The man who has a repetitive history of siding on the rights of big companies over people, the environment, and anything else that stops maximum money flow. The man himself that said as president will try to see that Microsoft get off without any real "harm" done to it.
Nope. I can't pick on Bush, because I truly believe that he has my best interest in mind.
A CDR, perhaps with a fancy label that flies off in the 250x DVD drive, causing the OEM an overall cost of 10 bucks per dozen.
Filled with frickin' 0.5Meg installers! Now that would be a bad surprise, wouldn't it? And not only would the $oftware companies not be mad about it, they would welcome it. Why? Because they don't have to print manuals (outdated every 2 weeks anyway) or press any discs anymore.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Speak after me: Who created it? XEROX!
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Privacy will probably go down the drain even further because now they know that you're using their software. They know your credit card number. One word for that: fraud. I don't necessarily mean that Micro$oft will become even richer by performing a nightraid, emptying all their users' accounts, but instead someone could use freshly patched backdoors to link up your data against other databases. Think about it.
Last thing I want to mention is: when I pay for software, I don't want to have crippled nagware that's calling "Pay Me" every month. I paid for it, I want to use it. And if I like to use it on my laptop and my desktop, that's frickin' up to me. I don't have to pay twice even if some big $chmock company tells me so.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Since you seem to believe this is inevitable (well maybe it is), then it is also inevitable that there will be a need for some sort of easy-to-use software package that will handle these subscriptions. I think there is much to be earned for someone who can come up with a clean and efficient library to handle this stuff, with the possibility of Microsoft buying that someone out for huge wads of moolah, more than enough to fill a living room with Pengiun rack servers :)
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Trickier than that, there might not be any upgrades!
Think about it Microsoft release new versions of Office, not so they can have a nice warm glow inside but so they can get money from people buying it. If those same people are already paying every year then why would you want to waste your R&D money improving the product!
Leasing is always attractive to businesses because they dont want to tie up their capital, in fact there is a very large company at the moment that is selling its own property only to lease it back again!
no sig.
I don't trust subscription plans and I will not buy a package that uses it.
One, that would require an interface to your local ISP. I have good reason to keep certain PCs isolated from the internet. It's both a privacy issue and a reliability issue - I have two separate machines, one only for music and one for internet and everything else. It has been a long established convention that a Windows PC used for music is more reliable if it is used ONLY for music. I don't need a virus or a corrupted registry or driver to bring down the entire system, thank you. Windows becomes too unstable when you add bells and whistles. I will shop around for a non-subscription equivalent or do without, but putting certain PCs online is out of the question.
Two, the temptation to download personal info behind my back (contents of hard drive, etc) is too great. Want to peek at my checking account in MS Money? No thanks, that's off limits. I value my privacy.
Three, WIN95 has been known to engage in a hunt-and-destroy mission for competitor's software - many users, including myself, have seen entire directories and non-M$ applications simply disappear, Netscape among them. Whenever I install an app I always change the default directory name, IE net$cape in place of netscape. I have no question this "feature" has remained in succeeding versions. The potential to download a "bomb" or virus on my PC is just too real.
If this is M$'s idea of a business model for the future, they can shove it. I have my own retirement to fund, not theirs.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/About/The_Courses/cs301/ when_enough.html
*Impressed by the even handed response - they are rare on this board*
.NET strategy is iffy at best - still, the amount of capital they have available makes them very dangerous and quite capable of yanking rabbits of hats.
I will concur - the
The Game Guy
I agree - MS has never innovated a thing.
But if you think MS is on the way out, put down the crack pipe. Just makes you sound like another linux person that doesn't live in reality.
The Game Guy
If you can switch month-to-month, the software will have to really be worth having. Of course, they are going to try to rope you into a yearly contract (which basically means you buy the software)...this whole things stinks. They way they are trying to control our computers is unreal.
The Game Guy
Except that (at least in European countries) government keeps some control, and has something to say in what is extra, and what is free/non subscription based.
.NET, I only expect that to increase, and the amount of control over your own computer to decrease.
With the software subscription mechanism, that isn't the case, and nothing keeps them from tying them in with the hardware.
(big) OEMs are already forcing useless licenses down our throat, and if I hear the rumours about Windows eXPerimetal, that will only increase.
With
e.g. What will happen to Open Source OSes when Microsoft creates an OS that doesn't allow other OSes partitions on the HD?
I see this as potentially a good thing for things like Star Office, and Linux.
Can you see people switching quickly after they forget a payment, or change creditcards and their copy of MS Office expires?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Isn't this kinda like saying "Who would pay $400/month for a car, then not own it?"
It could go over very well.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Their computers will come "Free" with one year of Microsoft .NET access!
The MS EULA on anything post DOS/WIN3.1 clearly states the software may not be deinstalled then reinstalled on another machine. The wording is along the lines of licensed for the machine it was originaly installed on. I have no idea when my old machine becomes a new machine and may violate the EULA as it has been incrementaly upgraded over the years. It started as a Laser 386-25 but is now a Pentium class machine. At one point even the case/power supply was changed as a new case was cheaper than an OEM power supply. Only the 5-1/4 floppy is original. It still has some use but will be lost in the next rebuild.
Where would the EULA become violated? When the motherboard was replaced?, When the 2nd hard drive was added? When the case and power supply was changed? When the 2x CD ROM was upgraded? When the original HD died and was upgraded and replaced both drives? Anybody know where the legal line is and if it was crossed?
The truth shall set you free!
I just bought Star Office and was pleased to find it runs on Windows, Solaris, Unix and Linux. It will read and write MS Office files. It comes with a relational database. It will install on a network without legal troubles. It was less than 100.00 US. I think the competiton will show the value that the bean counters and the legal department can see. How can Microsoft compare with that. (besides trying to declare OSS illegal)
The truth shall set you free!
Something I keep thinking about is how this distribution model will affect interoperability issues between large and small software manufacturers. For example, I upgraded to Adobe Illustrator 9.0 as soon as it was out only to discover that it conflicts with my font management program Font Reserve (I use a Mac, but I'm sure there are similar issues on the PC side of things). Font Reserve is a very powerful font manager and regarded as one of the best. It also comes from a tiny software publisher called DiamondSoft. Adobe's impetus to resolve the problem comes from the fact that they know designers use FontReserve, and may not upgrade to Illustrator 9 until the conflict is solved. If Illustrator users are forced to upgrade, not only does Adobe not have to fix the problem, now they can steer FontReserve users toward Adobe's own font manager, ATM! Consumer advocacy groups really need to look into subscription-ware. I'm getting sick just typing this.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
No, this will be bad. And don't get me started on .NET. But I'm sure it will fly since telling Joe Shmoe to buy Office for $750+ doesn't work for home users, but telling him, "here, use Office for a year for $99" and get him hooked and coming back like a crack whore will work. It gets the price down to comfortable consumer price points because consumers don't factor time into the purchase. Plain and simple...
And it works for businesses too: Hey Mike, go buy 5 new licenses of that Office 2002. Oh, it'll cost $2500?! Forget it!
versus: Hey Mike, go buy 5 new licenses of that Office 2002. Oh it'll cost $500/year?! Yeah, we'll worry about that next year.
Up front costs are all that people see. It's why cheap PCs sell even though they have lower reliability and will need to be repaired or replaced sooner. Microsoft is just applying the same principles to software.
in a.d. 2001, war was beginning. ....
captain: what happen ?
mechanic: microsoft set up us the bomb.
operator: we get signal.
captain: what !
operator: windows media player turn on.
captain: it's you !!
gats: how are you gentlemen !!
gats: all your base are belong to us.
gats: you are on the way to destruction.
captain: what you say !!
gats: you have no time to survive make your time.
gats: ha ha ha ha
operator: captain !!
captain: take off every 'wpa'!!
captain: you know what you doing.
captain: crack 'wpa'.
captain: for great justice.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Also, I didn't pay for either Win2K or Office 97; my family got Office 97 as a gift from a college professor, and I won Win2k at a Microsoft RoadShow. At the RoadShow, they "trained" us on how to sell Microsoft products. Well, I no longer work in the retail sector, and I certainly won't advocate or suggest the use of any XP product from Microsoft.
To me, XP stands for eXtreme Penetration -- into the user's wallet!
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Why pay a monthly fee when I only have to wait for some cracking group to post a fix that skips over the code that ensures my subscription is still active?
If software piracy is already getting around current CD-ROM anti-piracy schemes, what makes anyone think that it won't get around the monthy subscription idea?
Microsoft wants to force everyone to upgrade to their latest feature bloated version and pay for it whether they want to or not. If people realize this then I don't think they'll buy newer M$ products and I know the Slashdot readers won't go for it.
I think this will go for a short time but in the end you'll see it go away like some other "alternative software distribution methods" tried in the past (anyone remember Softbank?) And if it doesn't, forget Windows and upgrade to Linux...
Josh
devnull
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Your sig is making my head hurt! There has to be something wrong with it, but I can't figure it out... someone, please help me, I know there has to be something wrong with it... but what?
Quoth the zombie, braaaaaaaains
and a-b=0... okay, I'm just glad that it's not driving me crazy anymore...
Quoth the zombie, braaaaaaaains
What's going to happen when the computer I purchased 3 years ago isn't powerful enough to run the latest greatest version of office, I'm perfectly happy with the version I have and M$ forces the new version down my throat? I guess I will have no choice but upgrade my hardware.
'What your still using That old POS! no, no, no! Spend some more money if you still want to compute.'
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you'd better start looking for a carpentry job.
My second job was for a small computer company that went to customers sites and repaired computers, or they bought them etc...So here are my thoughts about what Joe average will think.
The article misses a crucial point that will be part of this subscription package. The anti-piracy features of XP! Sorry, but you only get two chances to install the software on the PC then thats bad. I very much doubt MS will have fixed the registry so that it does not screw up...That maybe enough to tip the balance, the only thing holding back is so many of these small businesses only know Windows (although that is improving slowly).
When I was at that job, so many users were daily asking me *why* does windows BSOD, why does it crash, why does it get resgistry errors! Next thing I hope they ask is: Why should they pay a subscription service for this software? I cannot see the future, but there is a good possibilty that this could be MS's last real stand as the only OS at 90%, I predict it is going to fall quite far below that....
For many people this will be a very good technology, allowing them not to worry about their computer. You just plug it in and it will have all the latests software. You want a new game? Well no problem, you click a button and get charged at the end of the month. Schools and other large institutions with many computers would most definately like this because upgrading all their computers is quite a tedious and time consuming process. On the down side, not everyone wants this kind of autmation. There are many people, even those not using Linux or other free OSes, that want to have much finer control over what gets put on their box. For these people subscription ware might not be a viable option. What happens to the bandwidth? What happens when every time a computer boots up it logs on and checks for updates to every single program it has installed? If subscription ware is put on millions of computers, people will definately be able to see a drop in the available bandwidth. For that matter, what about people who use this service but only have a 56k modem? Currently the update for a fresh install of halflife is 53 megs. If all your programs needed to be updated, it could take quite while on a slow connection. The Z Master
If I have to pay a subscription, I better be getting support 24/7 for the application for as long as I'm a subscriber. Of course, If you load any applications that aren't MS approved, that would violate your EULA for the support of the subscribed application.
Now I really need to find a local Linux user group to help wean me away from MS.
The age of unlimited use software you buy is going away. Just deal with it. Broadcast TV is next. Expect over the air TV to go away within 50 years.
You can't compare Broadcast TV programming to software. Renting software is like renting a hammer or cordless drill. You don't rent tools! (unless it an aerator or something)...you buy them!
The reason pay-per-view TV works is because you get NEW content. If they showed you the same old programs, over-and-over again, their business model wouldn't fly. Less people would be watching TV and more would be reading books, or exercising, or spending time talking to their families. However, they do update their content, and people want to see it, so they can charge for it.
I wouldn't mind subscribing for software if I was assured that the software companies would provide useful updates occasionally. As it stands now, Word V6.0 could handle about 99% of my word processing as well as the current release of Word does. Why would I want to keep paying for it? For the updates?...I think not.
If you want people to subscribe for software, M$ and whomever else better figure out a way to justify the subscription cost or they'll find a lot of people jumping ship. All it will take is one software company opposing the subscription bandwagon and that would be enough to doom the movement. Remember when internet access used to be pay-as-you-go, $20 for 20 hours? Then some bright person came up with flat-rate service and bingo...better option, now everyone does it. Subscriptions will only work if there's collusion in the software industry or if the consumer sees the benefit. I give this about the some chance of work in the consumer market as the "Net Applicance." In the business sector, they might have a chance.
Ruger
According to this article, there will be, basically, 2 versions of Office 10. A subscription based and nonsubscription.
If I have to pay a subscription, I better be getting support 24/7 for the application for as long as I'm a subscriber. Of course, If you load any applications that aren't MS approved, that would violate your EULA for the support of the subscribed application.
You get support alright, but you'll pay on a per-incident basis for it... and for your $100/hour you'll get to wait on hold forever, then finally get to talk to some bubblegum-smacking teenager who only knows how to parrot the owners manual back to you over the phone, exactly just like the quality of software support available today. Think about it.
Not without customers they won't!
You're right. No one will jump on this willingly. But then the software vendors will insist that you uninstall the software and return all installation media to them (as the EULA allows). Then there will be many (unhappy) customers.
For the simple reason that when I buy a piece of software, all I want is a simple, shrinkwrapped solution. If I want a constantly (monthly/yearly/etc.) updated piece of software, I'll compile from CVS thankyou.
The truth about Michael
Don't play games on your computer! Buy a Playstation or Nintendo. Computers are for real work.
That's always been my big complaint about computer games. I have two computers, one for work and one for games. What I want to see is games that do everything from a bootable CD. Insert, reboot, and play. No hard drive hogging bitmaps, DLLs, registry entries or other system fragmenting files. Just play from CD only. The game on the CD shouldn't even need to be OS dependent. Linux will boot from a CD, and QNX will boot from a floppy, why not games? If compatibility is an issue, maybe an autoconfig patch would be the first thing to load. Then when the game is over, remove the CD and reboot to a system untouched by games.
Money can't buy me love, so I guess I'll just have to rent it. - Weird Al
What Micro$oft and others really want is for us to RENT software. "subscription" is a semantic-games/marketing-weasel term.
I find it strange and odd that a company wants us to rent software. The reason that I normally rent/lease items is that they are too costly for me to purchase out of hand. I am accustomed to renting/leasing cars, apartments, etc.
But software? This seems to me to be a left-handed way of getting people to (pay for the updates and patches that either shouldn't be necessary in the first place) or (given away for free so that people don't think your software is crappy, even if it is).
I expect that the RENT-based model will be a big success for Micro$oft and others, but that's because I can always bank on the vast majority of consumers being dumb & lazy.
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
Subscription models are UNAMERICAN!!!!
Where's the beef?
Once software makers realize that they can start making loads of money by making people re-subscribe after 3, 6 or even 12 months, everyone will start doing it. Now the only problem that I have with these sort of products is they are making us pay to use a product that we have already paid for orignaly. So what is one to do about it. Who knows, write oodles and oodles of emails telling them to stop it, but thats about it. Someone will probably say to boycott the software packages, but that never works either becuase there are always people who must have it in order to run the business'. I guess this message is just more of a personal statement about that type of marketing, but like I said before, what can we do about it if they decide to take this route in marketing.
"Hey Microsoft- I'll Paypal you $.10 cents to use Word for one hour."
Suppose I download the latest version. In order to install it, I need write permissions to the directory: something that I can restrict to the net-browser user or to network users. Therefore the app does not work properly.
Alternately, it may use secret passwords, and install despite the permissions.
Just imagine the mayhem that network administrators would have as assorted copies of WinWart and Exasp start expiring around the office. Oh the joys of it. *NOT*
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
When you rent something, you must turn it back at the end of the paid time and/or usage.
Stardock has a subscription service. You can download the bits that you want while your subscription is valid. At the end of this time, the material you have remains available to you, within the limits of copyright law.
Pay per use, or pay per period is rental, or service, not subscription.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Consider the Linux Distro model as an alternate way of selling software. You could inject and break up the monopoly at the OEM stage.
Here's how it works. MS is forced to licence their OSes at competitive rates to Distros, like they do to OEMs now. The distro then makes up an install that installs it and/or other software, and sells it to OEMS (great and small).
So Corel could take Windows, and add to it, say Perfect Office, and a few other toys. Lotus could take Windows, and add SmartSuite and Netscape, and so on. This is something akin to the Linux distros. The distros would have in them the appropiate recovery disks and installs. Another vendor could make one out of Windows + MS Office.
I buy a computer, and I can then select the distro I would have on it. I could then select the distro off the shelf, and add it to the computer. This would replace the current OEM software.
The model could work, and encourage competition in the market. Vendors and retailers would not be locked into one supplier.
Possible workable packages right now are:
- Windows + MS Office
- Windows + Corel PerfectOffice
- Windows + Lotus SmartSuite
- OS/2 4.5 + Lotus SmartSuite 1.6 = eComm Station
- BeOS + ???
- Solaris + StarOffice
- Linux distros.
- BSD distros.
- Apple OS/X86 + something
When you get the computer, you are given an OEM card, which you could then register to one of the distros. You could pay a bounty for a second one, if you want to make a second licence on the same machine, or some home grown thing.This would put competition back into the distros and office suites, without choking the internet. {/offtopic}
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Subscriptionware is the result of taking the Intellectual Property meme and taking it to its ultimate conclusion. Remember: You didn't really buy the software you think you bought; you merely licensed it. The battle between IP giants and Open Source is looking more and more like the war between heaven and hell, a collision of extremes between whom there is no quarter, battling over the "souls" of machines rather than humanity.
One good thing about this subscription model is finally you won't be forced to buy your operating system with your computer; instead of paying that monthly or annual fee, you can simply toss the installation disc and use a BSD CD. My only worry is that Microsoft and its ilk will finally coerce hardware manufacturers to tie the OS so tightly to their machines that there is no way to switch.
This will bring the initial price of the system down, making the $1000 pc an $800 pc. ...
For those Linux/BSD/whatever fans who know what they're doing, this might be nice way to get a cheaper PC (make sure the hardware in the box is supported by your favorite OS before buying!).
Actually, I find that these days building a complete PC from parts is just as expensive as buying a complete one. Now assume the one year subscription is free to get you hooked, and the $800 instead of $1000 might be correct.
Get that PC, run it a few days with Windoze to see if all the hardware works, then format c:
C - the footgun of programming languages
Well personally, and I could be wrong, but this would be a nightmare for me. Why?
-well, if it's on a pay-per-use system, then I have to keep track of how many times I run each piece of software.
-What about the programs that load on startup?
-You mean I have to pay an extra xx amount each time my computer crashes and I have to reboot (thus restarting the OS and any auto-start programs)?
-Am I going to have to hire an accountant to keep track of how much I am spending on software, and to make sure the companies aren't overcharging?
-I will have to drown my computer resources so that I can keep 20 programs open all the time so I can cut back on the "per use" fees.
The day this happens, I will permanently delete windows and go straight to Linux or FreeBSD. I can live without a couple games so that I am not maxing out my credit card all the time.
You might not want to click it.. unless you're into that kind of thing.
Douglas Adams
1952-2001 :(
If consumers threaten to involve the PUC (Public Utilities Commision) (so the control of pricing and quality of service is taken out of the software producers hands) Would that be enough to get them to change their minds. I could easily see subscription-ware being held to reliability standards, refunds for lost time, price caps, etc.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Mozilla is supposed to compete with .NET using their new XUL. I haven't heard many mentions of this, and I'm not sure why not. Open source could really take off if both commercial and open software were ASP (open software would just be free, distributed programs). Star Office, available without instalation over the internet might be great for those who are reluctant to install Office XP on thier second computer (or work PC).
Subscription based software models should give open source an even greater advantage than ever - especialy if XUL (or some other replacement for .NET) can be used for quick-install, cross platform subscription based open source software (sorry about the buzz words)
If,say, Adobe produced a pay-per-usage based Photoshop, theres a good chance they could cut piracy way down, as people like me who only occasionally need that powerful of a graphics program wouldn't need to be intimidated by the $600 up-front price. I don't advocate eliminating the buy-once use-forever version, but a subscription service would be very convenient for joe public.
business's could be in favour of this from a getting support point of view. ie 'you fix my software or I cancel my $2000 a month subscription'
But don't you see the difference?
I subscribe to AOL (or rather: I don't) and receive a certain cervice anew each day. Someone al AOL's wirks every day while I pay to provide it for me.
I subscribe to anti-virus, and while I do so, someone at their offices compiles new virus-data all the time and hands it to me once a week. I pay to keep that man working. If I choose to not pay anymore - I can still use the software, I just don't get the virus-updates anymore.
I think this is a horrible travesty. I think if this is the real killer of creativity and un-american not open source, after all why should M$ make a new producte when people are willing to pay for it month after month? Also what happens if the new OS dosen't run on the old machine? since you never owned the OS for that machine your stuck with hardware you can't use and you have to upgrade just so you can pay for the new OS, I think the consumer gets messed.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"-Unknowen
Their Legal expert explained that it would be difficult for Microsoft to start this kind of business in Germany, because the terms and conditions would dramatically change aginst Microsoft. Apparently according to German law, in case of rental contracts, the lendor has the responsibility to maintain the object of renting in working conditions at own cost!
Software is never flawless but from this alone there is no legal responsibility to fix all problems, and owners can be expected to share some of the burden (e.g. download a patch).
However in case of rental, any such flaw would have to be fixed by MS itself, without cost for the contract partner. (i.e. downloads would cause cost for the user).
The author's conclusion was, that because of this legal background, it would be unlikely for MS to start lending their software.
As a last thought, it should be noted that in the past many US companies offered products in Europe with the original Contract conditions as in the US. However, most of these were in fact not legal in Germany, so that consumers had the right to cancel their contracts despite special clauses forbidding this. (eg. AOL, Microsoft OEM, ...).
I for one will not pay for a subscription for software. If software companies think they can force this upon us they are wrong. With as many free applications and other companies not doing this it just gives us more of a reason to move the average user away from MicroSoft. I for one will install and support Linux on my friends and families PC before I install software that forces a network connection and subscription fees. Just my two cents.
The biggest problem that Microsoft is facing right now is that Word and Excel are pretty much "finished" products. There is nothing revolutionary or even evolutionary that they could possibly add to them in the forseeable future that will make people want to go out and buy a new verson. Other than some polishing and bug fixes, there isn't much left to do.
So in the long term, Microsoft's profits are going to go down and down to barely a trickle of what they once were for Office. Thus a subscription based method of revenue is the only way they are going to be able to maintain their profit margins.
Microsoft's problem may not be unique. What happens in the future when more and more products are "finished"? Unlike manufacturing, code never gets "old". If you get a product working pretty much perfectly with all possible features, what do you need programmers for? Of course it may take 30, 50, or 100 years but how long can you possibly work on a Word Processor? Sure you can change things around the edges like processors, OS's, etc to force you to reprogram apps. But fundamentally products may get to the point where they are 99% complete for all time and any other revisions will be a case of severely diminished returns.
... about the whole subscription model is the presence of .NET (which is said similar to JAVA and crossplatform -- in any event, interpreted on the fly rather then compiled into native executable code, though declared "compiled" regardless) being used as backend for this "new technology." I do not know much about .NET, but I know it is not the same as a natively executable file. Therefore, it takes a performance hit. We already have many many interpreted languages with cross platformness their strength and Microsoft hasn't stated they will be providing .NET for any of the UNIX environments. Which brings me to the point of this message...
.NET clearly seems like more of a buzzword in the presence of the new subscription based Office then any real innovation. Why? ANY executable program can control its expiration, licensing, and most importantly, automatic updating. It doesn't seem very appropriate to run such a large program in an interpreted language -- past efforts by different companies have failed in that regard, atleast with Java. .NET will/does have purpose, perhaps, but I question it in the largest and most commonly used software package (Office.) In fact, I will be somewhat suprised if Microsoft even makes enough sales to justify continued work on the product.
... with all this in mind,
mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
The moment that I'm ever required to move to subscription-ware for any reason...that will be the day I switch to Linux. I object to this business model on so many different levels!
It's yet another way that the consumer is being nickled and dimed to death. A monthly fee probably means forced upgrades. Eventually those upgrades will outstrip the capabilities of your PC. Then you'll be forced to upgrade your hardware. I should think that PC manufacturers (OEMs for those who love their acronyms) would LOVE this plan.
If the consumer has the choice not to upgrade their software each month, of course they'll still have to cover that monthly fee. Which of course means that they will be paying far more for their software over time.
The whole plan stinks to high heaven. I sincerely hope that someone cracks the process or that it dies a quick death a-la DIVX.
The continued over-commercialization of closed source software is beginning to make me ill. Every day I'm moving closer to ditching Windoze and Micro$oft entirely...
"War makes me sad." - Me
Humans are territorial by nature and rather possessive creatures. When man perceives that he owns something, it's his.
I can hear it now ('cause I've already heard it):
"Whaddya mean I have to pay for it again?!
"It's mine. I payed for it. You mean I can't install it on my daughter's machine too?
"You want me to keep my documents where? Oh, yeah. My ISP's so *cough* reliable *snark* I can't imagine ever having trouble accessing them." *hysterical laughter*
Personally, I want my files right here on my hard drive on my computer where, if something goes wrong, it's probably my fault and I might have a chance of recovering.
Gotta admit, this whole rental-software-.net thing's going to be entertaining to watch.
</opinion>
Sooooo...time to learn Linux, methinks.
This is just Microsoft's way of "testing the waters". If ASP's turn out to be profitable, you can bet your ass that MS will skip the middle man.
I dunno... What do you wanna do?
Sure, they can do this... but I plan on keeping all my old copies of SW around. They can have my CD collection when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.
When subscription MS office comes presintalled, I will happily wipe the disk, install what I like and not miss a thing. I recall numerous machine that came to me, bundled with MS Works... I have thrown away every copy.
And because of that, what? Do you use MS software personally? OR does your office use it. If your office uses it, what does it matter to you?
__
Debian
__
__
Debian
Don't steal Microsoft's software, that's wrong. Use Free Software instead.
__
__
Debian
Well, it's already a fact with TV.
Here in the Netherlands, we have a basic
TV package, with some non-commercial, and
a few commercial TV stations. If you want
to have more channels, you pay an extra fee
per month. The same counts for the Canal+ movie
channel, you pay extra for it if you want to
see the latest movies. You can even make a selection, 5 standard channels and 2 extra
to choose from.
I don't see how this is any different from what
you are saying. And there will always be
Free Software to use.
--sn0w
/* This is the way forward, and it's not something to be afraid of. What people always forget, is that TCO is the only thing that matters. By having a regular upgrade/subscription cycle, we have the following: */
snip!
Your working on the assumption of hard working, straight up and down software companys that believe in producing a good product, that people want, and will use.
If we look at Microsoft Office, On subscription we suddenly have to pay extra for Office 2000, we have new bugs, that weren't there before, we have more bloat so our computer run slower, we have all these extra features we don't want but we get given every upgrade. So really what weve payed for is the priviledge of having to Upgrade Hardware more often and have different kinds of Bugs than before, and an increase in the amount of useless stuff.
Who here finds that Office 2000 does anything they need to do that a poxy 5 year old version of Microsoft office can't do?
So what it will do is just invite companys to be even more lazy, if you've got a subscription then you have guaranteed income, apart from that it adds the holy grail of 100% registered products,
imagine the joy of all that extra demographically aimed crap landing on you.
Subscription is Like Communism, It would work in an Ideal World but not in this one, because the people who have the steering wheels are motivated by greed.
I'm not a Troll i prefer to be called a Goblin.
/* For a start there's the fact that for Joe Sixpack and his family, installing and configuring software is a task that they don't want to be dealing with. */
snip!
They probably don't want to worry about who to vote for either, or worry about paying taxes, or worry about where to send there child. But they have to worry about these things.
But they are willing to let someone else take control of there computer the same computer they ahve invested a couple of grand in, yet they won't invest a couple of hours to learn how to use it how it works.
I disagree, Subscription may be a way to dumb down the population to computing, But i think we should drag them into digital sentience kicking and screaming.
# You start letting someone else recompile your kernal, and your children will be next! #
I'm not a Troll i prefer to be called a Goblin.
/* There are precedents for subscription-based services out there, and if the software business handles this right, they can do the same.
There is the cable service lots of Americans already use */
snip!
And also the satillite TV/Digital in the uk, theres a lot of subscription services, but they all have one thing in common. A very small minority of the population use them.
Why? because We already ave to pay £100 for a poxy tv license i don't want to pay an extra £20 a month to get extra rubbish. I can't afford extra rubbish.
So what happens, you have sucessfully alienated 90% of your market because they don't want to use a subscription service.
So what do you do, you keep non subscription and subscription, Now that is just a little pointless no?
of course never underestimate the momentum of Microsoft. (despite the recent flagging of late)
I'm not a Troll i prefer to be called a Goblin.
This is a joke... here is why...
EMC sells units that are designed for high-end storage, usually RAID 5/10 arrays for redundant and protected storage. They have a "service option" which allows them to dialup through a telephone line into the EMC unit to do maintanence.
When EMC recently came to our business trying to sell us this product, we asked a simple security question of, "How can we be sure you can not view the data located on our unit?" Their answer was less than acceptible. Basically, we couldn't trust them with the data located on any of our units due to the sensitive nature of the material (we deal in pharmacutials).
This is similar to what subscription based software will be. What's to say Company A isn't going to try to download C:\My Documents when they are upgrading me to the latest version of Office? In a corporate environment, especially in one similar to mine, this would be unacceptable as it would pose a security risk to not just the individual workstation, but the entire network (which we have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure from the Internet).
And yes, people (I'm speaking to all you open source advocates), speak all you want about the value of open source projects, but corporate America (or Europe or Asia) is not running Linux w/ StarOffice for various reasons, which I will not get into. But because of this, subscription based software will fail miserably since you figure a good percentage of commercial software is purchased for corporate environments. The ONLY reason I run MS Word at home is to read the MS Word documents I create at work! Otherwise (g)vim would work fine for me (I dont care if I can bold or not). I'm sure I'm not the only one! Apple did this for years, selling systems outside of the education environment to parents of kids who used Mac's in the schools, despite the acknowledgement that IBM compatibles were more highly regarded in the business world.
Anyway, I'm done now.
=)
There are a lot of comments here suggesting that subscriptions are no different than subscribing to cable TV. I beg to differ: by buying subscription software, you are allowing the vendor to hold your data hostage. If you can't see your own documents a year from now, you will be forced to upgrade. That's quite different from not being able to watch recycled TV fare.
It also gives large software vendors another way to eliminate competition with artificially low prices, and then milking the subscriber base in years to come. That has already happened with non-subscription software. Why should this be any different? So much for people hoping to plan their software budget--unless by planning they mean planning for exponential price increases.
Amazingly some people consider forced upgrades an advantage. Half the upgrades I have paid for, I didn't buy for the feature bloat they came with, but rather to fix bugs. And because upgrading one piece of software often requires other upgrades (including hardware upgrades), you are guaranteeing that everything will become obsolete once a year, even if it works.
In all fairness, Microsoft and many other software companies probably look at subscriptions as a survival issue. PC sales are leveling off, and who needs yet another buggy feature in MS Office? Subscriptions are a substitute for innovation, in an area where there is little improvement.
The bottom line is, that subscriptions give software vendors (mostly big ones like Microsoft) unprecedented power. We'll see if the public is dumb enough to let MS and company do that.
As for how it affects hardware vendors... it's great for them if it works out, because as I said above, software upgrades often force hardware upgrades. And that's what hardware vendors want.
All of this might be a bit depressing, if it wasn't also the greatest opportunity in 20 years. I believe there will be a lot of people smart enough to see through this transparent ploy by software vendors to extort payments, just for the privilege of being allowed to see their own data. Open Source software is one of the answers, which is why Microsoft believes it to be anti-American.
--AM
I believe that the market will decide whether it's a good thing or not to have rentable software. Of course, this depends the existence of choice. When the consumers figure out that the do have a choice (i.e. other software manufacturers, open source, and free software), the story will get more interesting.
If you aren't paying for it then it can't be any good. Microsoft's latest mantra. What happens as more and more free *nix users start showing up. When the Windows users start to notice how easy our experience is and how much more productive we are then they will want to switch too. Wait till they hear the price. The OEMs can just start offering *nix boxes loaded up with whatever you need. For a discounted price from the pay as you play OS. A neophyte friend was using my computer the other day and all he could say was "Your computer works the way I think most people expect a computer to work."
First off, there is no guaranty of upgrades, and if they do put it in writing, who is to say it would be necessary every time it was mandated? You cannot win that fight. On top of that, why should they update, they are going to get your money either way! What will this do to the Linux community.. It may be a boon at first but later it will kill it. Why? Think about what it requires for you to convert now, if you have a new system with a restore disk. If something goes wrong, you lose everything when you restore. So many people with OEM systems are afraid to try it, or get stuck with having to go buy ANOTHER copy of Windows, or "borrow" a copy. With a subscription service, it will become nearly impossible to try an alternative OS. What if they decide you cannot modify your boot sector according to the contract? Or if one of the changes alters your boot sector. It can happen, and probably would. Lastly, are you all forgetting M$ cannot make a secure system to save its life!!! Now, they expect to host all your programs, files, and personal information of 90% of the computers in the world.. NO THANKS!!! Not only can their servers not handle the load (by far), they do not have good enough security, and net connections are not good enough. No business is going to be happy if they cannot even take appointments due to a bad connection. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen. I do not think M$ can pull this off and if they do not change their plan soon, I think we will not ever see a DOJ vs. M$ decision because there will not be any M$. One last thing.. What happens when they decide your P4 1400 is no longer strong enough to run the latest updates? Will it be an option to continue without the update? This sounds like highway robbery to me. They control when you upgrade, how you upgrade, and they also control what you can do with your hardware and software. On top of that, once they have you on their system, they can charge what they want. Monopoly or not, they are only a "subscription service" you can always quit! You will not have a PC to use, but you can always quit, we will reconnect you for a $500 reconnect fee.
In my opinion Subscription-Ware will just cause confusion, especially for OEM distrbution. I really dont forsee this idea catching on, but than again I may be wrong. It is for ideas like this that I am a proud supporter of free, opensource software.
I believe we have to start shifting our proportions a bit.
Has it occurred to you why insurance companies don't blink twice when you ask to insure your computer hardware, but when it comes to your actual *data*... The point is: The only thing that's actually WORTH anything on a computer is the things installed on it - a monitor might set you back $300, but a report or an unfinished script might be irreplacable (sp?).
These days, the hardware is just about thrown at you. I can see it happening in the near future; The software companies give away free computer equipment, against you having to buy their software. After all - software is all that *really* matters nowadays.
-- Haje Jan Kamps -- www.kamps.org -- Freelance journalist / Photographer
Buy now, for you will never get better terms than you will now!
Microsoft is moving Office to Office.NET, and if your internet connection goes down, so will your word processor. You will rent everything, and the government won't even have to take your computer to steal your stuff.
You will have no privacy, and no freedom. This is the future as written by Corporate America. And now, with G.W. Bush at the helm, we can expect them to be rewriting history for us, as well.
Anyone want to start a country? We could take over Mexico, or Canada, easily...
I'll harp on this since a couple have touched on it but nobody has harped on it.
If M$ can update software on your machine, they can do other things like snoop around. How is our apriori Joe Sixpack going to like that?
All his finances are on his computer. He's got online banking. He uses Quicken. He uses TurboTax. He's got some excel worksheets and word files with sensitive info in them.
Not only has he shelled out a couple grand for the the latest computer and is none too happy to find out that his software turns back into a pumpkin after 1 year but now he learns that somebody has been lookin' thru his shit. He'll find out because they will sell this info which might have some tidbit in it that can be found nowhere else. He'll know it had to have come off his hard drive. He will not be able to articulate how it was done but don't take Joe Sixpack for a fool. He may be the salt of the earth but he's not stupid.
Every company and every police organization these days wants to get in your mess. What do you have to hide comrade?
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I could see this going two ways. First, it may be that since software developers no longer need to depend on feature checklists to keep money coming in, they'll concentrate on fixing and improving core functionality. This would be good.
OTOH, it could be that with sufficient customer lockin and difficulty of changing apps, vendors no longer need to offer any improvements at all, since customers will be forced to fork out cash periodically just to maintain access to their data.
Once she has a Delldow she won't need you anymore.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Are you all fucking daft? If you don't want to subscribe to Office XP DON'T BUY IT. If you don't want subscrib-o-ware at all DON'T BUY IT. If you don't buy it the producers of said software will not produce it in the form they are not selling it in. Besides which, the question is about OEMs. OEMs stand to make a killing with subscrib-o-ware. As it stands Dell and Gateway and everyone else have to pay for software licenses in bulk. Not only that but OEM software's support is the responsibility of the OEM and not, say, Microsoft. This also costs the OEM money that could be better spent elsewhere. With a subscrib-o-ware model the OEM simply bundles a subscrib-o-ware capable OS and lets the user decide which software packages they want. Support for this subscrib-o-ware is now the responsibility of the developer rather than the OEM. Your next Dell or Gateway may just come with Whistler preinstalled and let you pick and choose from a list of options what software you want. Not only do the customers save but OEMs get to put a little extra money in pocket from not having to pay for a bunch of software people may or may not use or even want. Case in point; my grandparents bought a new Gateway last year that came with a mound of software. Most of this software has to this day gone unused which means both they and Gateway paid for a bunch of stuff that is essencially useless.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
You wouldn't pay monthly for something you only use monthly.
Sure you would. Lots of people already do it for lots of things. People pay for garbage collection, but that only happens once a week. People pay for lawn maintenance but that only happens once a month. People pay a monthly fee to have someone come and shovel their sidewalks when it snows.
How often you pay for something and how often you use it aren't really related.
I see three problems with subscriptionware that should ultimately doom it:
- Bandwidth. The vast majority of the users on the Internet are still connected by 56K modems or slower. Packages like Office run in the 20 to 100 megabyte range. You think Joe SixPack's going to accept having his computer sit there for 3-4 days downloading software?
- Reliability. Everyone can point to a situation where a company screwed up and flubbed crediting one of your payments, or where they had to let a payment go for a few days to a week to let the paycheck hit the checking account. When a flub or being a bit short this week makes your computer shut down at the beginning of the month, Joe SixPack willl scream bloody murder.
- Upgrades. We all know about the conflicts when upgrading software, and the reasons lots of people can't/dont' upgrade specifically because upgrading would break their systems. Joe SixPack isn't going to be happy when a forced subscription upgrade breaks half his system, and every fix/upgrade breaks other things. He's gonna be even more unhappy when his local geek shrugs and says he can't do anything, Joe doesn't have the older software and the subscription service doesn't provide it.
Frankly, I think this, if implemented, will be the nail in the coffin for the worst of the big software companies. Right now their practices are headaches for the geeks. Under this model, they become a headache for Joe SixPack, and there's a lot more Joes than geeks and various people can't afford to ignore him.I'm sorry, net://word.microsoft.com is temporarily unavalable to serve your request. We apologize for this temporary interruption of service and any damage to your buisness that this may cause. We're so sorry that the critical document you needed is only accessable by our software, and we're sorry that there is really nothing you can do about it. I think you should get an account on workopolis.com or monster.com, because once the boss sees that you were the one who insisted on purchasing .net, you'll be the first to go.
; 2b=b;2=1
Have a nice day.
--
it's funny.. laugh.
.
---
a=b;a^2=ab;a^2-b^2=ab-b^2;(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b);a+b=b
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
---
a=b;a^2=ab;a^2-b^2=ab-b^2;(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b);a+b=b
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
I believe that I have rights when I pay for anything that is not physical. Just like a service, they are accountable to me in terms of ownership. However, I also believe that the people who create content must be rewarded for their efforts. I should not have the right to dictate to someone else how they release their creative content. If they give it to me... fine. if they sell it to me... fine. THEIR CHOICE, not mine.
.NET thing happen, it could spell doom for true innovation. However it could presumeably add to the software liberty movement (I prefer not to be flamed about which one is best) by forcing people to realize that they don't have to pay for software.
; 2b=b;2=1
I will agree that the MPAA goes a bit too far. When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to do ANYTHING I WANT with it - including, and especially, decrypting it so that I may play it on my Linux PC (since they seem to not want to license any players with a key).
What a lot of people seem to forget is that someone worked very hard in creating something and should be able to decide how their stuff is sold. Whats worse than the MPAA is the way that the music industry sucks the life and money from artists.
I believe in a Napster-like system where payment for music goes to the ARTISTS (and then a cut going to the record companies for their service to the artist). What record companies forget is that they are providing a service to the Artist, and not the other way around. The artist should pay them for services rendered... instead it has become a state of the label 'owning' the artist through anal agreements.
Back to the subject at hand, subscription-ware affecting OEM dealers, you can see that Microsoft wants to control consumers and dictate what we buy. Lets look at the way 'normal' buisness works and then look at the Microsoft way. A normal consumer oriented buisness will manufacture a product and SELL the resulting product to wholesalers or distributors who, in turn, sell their product to consumers. Microsoft does this partially, by signing off all support to the OEM, but retains the rights to all the stuff that leaves their factories. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't help when the OEMs sit back and get fat off a small markup on Windows (and a large one on hardware). Currently there is a downtrend in PC sales - everyone and their mother now has a PC. OEMs aren't buying as many licenses for Windows because they aren't selling as much anymore. But Microsoft is doing an end-run around them by selling upgrades in stores. The consumer upgrades the OS and the company that sold them the PC w/OS gets nothing. Furthermore, Microsoft knows that most consumers rely on Windows so much so that they force silly things like monthly subscriptions. Sure, they'll say you get free bug fixes (which we do now) and new features at no extra cost. Ummm.. at no extra cost from the monthly fee. I don't think Windows is worth even $10/month let alone what they are planning to charge.
Now read my wording carefully here:
End users get ripped off, content creators FEEL ripped off, and standing in the middle is the content providers. This is a perfect analogy for the movie and music industry - where artists get ripped off and exploited by mega companies (and the mpaa). In the software world, though, Microsoft is both a creator and provider. They are trying to now dominate the entire industry and dictate to others how to create, distribute, and innovate.
If your government lets this
I'm sorry that I wasted your time, please forgive my rambling nature... also, the left shift key of this terminal seems to be broken. I have to use the right one and it just feels wrong and has added to my irritation level. Please accept my apologies if this text seems ranting and raving.
I would like to also apologize for the above apology (for this one as well).
---
a=b;a^2=ab;a^2-b^2=ab-b^2;(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b);a+b=b
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Consumers are a funny animal - they especially hate subscription based services, especially ones that make no sense to them. I'm a consumer and I'm still wondering why Microsoft is turning the product line that they have into subscription based services. "No Johnny, you can't do your homework because Mommy didn't pay the Microsoft bill" - I think not. Consumers enjoy ownership. Why don't we all have a an internet Jukebox that has every song ever recorded so on demand we can listen to a song? Why wouldn't this fly? Because people like to own things like music, cars, movies, and computers. If they feel that is being threatened they will just go to another Vendor. I'm quiet sure that Apple, RedHat, Linux-Mandrake, and TurboLinux wouldn't mind the business. Hell, I'm really just waiting for Microsoft to do this to more of the product line - it's going to be a great sweeping time for "alternative computing solutions" as people tell Microsoft to stick it.
***1. improved productivity, thanks to the improvements in software effected between upgrades***
This is one of the biggest falshoods propagated by big software companies, and for the most part they get away with it. It's almost like saying you should buy the new Mrs. Smiths cookies because they are new and improved and have 25% more flavor than the competitors cookies. If you say it enough it becomes true to the general public.
****2. no compatibility issues - again these cost money; by constantly being up-to-date, we have no risk of not being able to read that vital document.****
In theory, yes. I think reality might be a different issue though.
***3. better budgeting.****
Here you do have a good point. However you must also realize that the goal of any company is to increase profits. Thus you can be sure that your costs will contiue to rise and after you have committed to this platform you will have very little choice. Thats why competition is a good thing. If we are not going to see competition between similar services then you should be aware of the dangers.
when M$ updates your sofware and it conflicts with another app on your system?
I've seen to many updates cause problems with a system thats running fine to
believe that these magic auto updates are gonna fix more problems than they create.
http://Lenny.com
It's perhaps less obvious in the Ask Slashdot colour scheme, but the Slashdot style is to put the submitter's comments in italics, and the editor's comments in the regular font. It is Cliff who doesn't trust closed source software, not TomCampion (although he probably doesn't).
--
--
E_NOSIG
This type of service will never be successful so long as we are still transferring data through a bottleneck.
Code commentary is like sex.
If it's good, it's VERY good.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
One type of software that IMHO should be rentable is games. I believe games will play a major role in the future of selling software (creating new games in pace with gamers is a job that needs lots of resources). But games aren't day-to-day utilities - you play with them until you get tired of them. After that they are paperweight.
Rentable games would be cool. You could test them for a while and play them as long as you like. And you would only pay for the amount you play. Of course, for those who really like the game there could be a version in a cute box that would work forever, or long rental periods for a low price.
This model may be becoming true also with GPL games where the server-side space is rented.
I doubt, therefore I may be.
One nit: health club memberships are actually two contracts, one to get access for N months for X dollars, and a second financing contract to spread those payments out over N months, plus interest. The contracts are completely unrelated, which is why some people have been forced to pay for their membership for years after the health club itself closes.
The connection with software subscription is that the software may be sold in the same way - pay X dollars for N months of access, and if the software is unusable for any reason (e.g., you had a disk crash and had to reformat/replace it, changing the SDMI(?) keys then you're SOL - you'll have to buy a second, separate subscription).
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Pretty much, I meant that it wouldn't work as well if the tax preparation software had to be paid for on a monthly basis or if they charged the same amount as a program you use everyday. Another way to look at it is if MS made people pay $10 per month for Office (which is used every single day by people in a business) and you only use it once a week at most (for school or home use); would you be more likely to pay for software that costs one person $0.30 per day while it costs you $3 per day to use?
Subscription services only work well for programs that are guaranteed to be used a certain number of times by a majority of users (tax software and OS's) and not as well for applications like Office and such. I'm not an economist or businessman, so maybe I'm wrong.
IANAL, but I play one on
What I meant was for payment programs that are designed to be used on a daily basis (like an OS) applied to software used only on a monthly basis. This would probably not be a problem for VERY specific programs like inventory software that is designed for the low use area, where designing a payment programs for its usage isn't pretty simple. It would be nice to pay per use on something that only needs to be done rarely.
On the flip side, though, would be if they tailored their payment model based on the usage statistics and you only use a daily type program (like Windows) on a monthly basis. That is where the problem occurs with this payment model. Some large offices pay to have their trash taken every day because they need it. Would you pay the same amount to have your trash taken once a day when you only need it once a week? The trash companies have set their pricing around this (I'm guessing), but would the software industry? I'm sure the large companies (Sun, MS, etc) would and already do to a certain extant. But what about the small companies that just don't have the clout to make a business pay more than an individual (or even the technology to check to see how often someone is using their program)?
IANAL, but I play one on
If you use open, non-proprietary formats for your data, you have no risk of not being able to read that vital document. If you use closed, proprietary formats, you always run the risk of not being able to read that vital document. Remember documents don't cease to be valuable after three days. Can you guarantee you closed subscription software can read the documents that another vendor's closed subscription software produced three years ago? You can't. The only way to protect your data is always to use only open, non-proprietary data formats.
There's no financial difference between this and using Open Source software with a good support contract. Certainly no benefit to the user.
If you go down the open source road, you don't need to pay anything up front. You can start your support contract at the point where you believe the business risks justify it.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Actually I expect subscription software to be more expensive. First, there's the infrastructure needed to support subscriptions (bandwidth, databases, employees) the cost of which will have to be recovered. Second, it will likely take advantage of most people's inability to to do math. ("Well, you could pay $200 for this software, but with our new E-Z-Save subscription plan it's only $10 a month! (forever).")
Don't complain just because it's Microsoft that is doing it.
I'm complaining because in most cases it's a bad idea, whether it's done by Microsoft, Apple, or RedHat. Subscriptions make sense when there is an ongoing service that the vendor is providing. Cable TV and ISPs fall into this category; software does not. (Upgrades don't count, those are discrete events.) What I see Microsoft doing with .NET is introducing an unnecessary dependency on the network so that they can claim to be offering services (i.e. the 'service' of not revoking your license) that they expect you will be happy to pay for in perpetuity.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Yeah, if we're only getting screwed one way, that's bad, but if the whole world is going to hell, well, that's okay.
Just a little bit of good'ol'time phone line hijacking and the d-net client will be installed on every new machine munching keys for team 2600 :)
--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
I don't think I trust commercial software enough for them to force this idea down our throats just yet.
This seems like a rather odd comment to make without justification - TomCampion, why don't you trust closed source software? I'll assume you don't mean commercial software (as this would include many Open Source projects, such as Red Hat Linux), but rather closed source, as many Slashdotters fail to undertsand that Open Source != Non commercial.
This seems liker a broad statement - why don't you trust closed soruce software? Reliability? Privacy concerns? Evil business practices? Many of these aren't unique to the closed software world (eg, Ximian a couple of weeks ago). And while Open Source usualy has a positive effect on reliability, it does not always. As someone who plays with OMS, Xine, and Videolan regularlarly, if you were looking for a reliable DVD player for Linux that works on a PII 400, I'd tell you to wait for LinDVD.
Open source might help these things but doesn't guarantee them. As a professional Linux writer, I'm forced to use Microsoft Word because
* Staroffice can't do a word count on a section. I need this to be able to do pages for my editors
* WordPerfect Office 2000 is incrediably slow in its UI, and not aprticularly stable, because of its Wine basis
* Applixware lacks word counts completely, and handles MS imports poorly
* Abiword still isn't finished.
* Text editors aren't usually visually oriented, and having headings, for example, in a large font makes
So I use MS Word for the same reason I use Linux, GNOME and KDE, Postfix, Apache, PHP, ProFTPd, etc - its the best tool for the job. Sometimes beiong Open Source makes them the best tools, but not always. I think blanket generalizations about closed source being hard to trust are unfair, but I'm interested in reading your own rationale behind this rather odd statement.
Anyway, as long as this pricing doesn't move to games, I'm not too worried about it.
I never really thought about that before, but now that I do, it sounds like a great idea. I'd like to pay for my own low usage of the game. I don't install every mod, spend all my time LANning, or do anything much than enjoy the game once in single player mode (Generally no time for naythoing else these days).
I'd love to rent Alice this way, for three months until I'm done with it. If I really like it, I could buy an indefinite license...
Making software available by subscription if IMHO the worse way for the customer to pay for this software. Why ? Because he will pay for a time lapse during he can use the software, whatever how much he does effectively make use of it. The current pay per release is more fair because he pay for an unlimited in time use of the software.
Currently they are some companies that practice the upgrade strategy to artificially force their customers to pay more. This can be done in two ways:
- fix bugs in next paying release. Introduce new one in the meantime for the next upgrade. The customer that is annoyed will purchase the upgrade. Example: Win95 -> Win98
- change the file format for the new release, remove the old release from the storeshelves and make it difficult to exchange data back an forth so that most of the previous users will upgrade to the latest version to be able to read document made by new users. Example: MS-Office every 2 releases.
Making software purchase a subscription for limited in time use will introduce a thirs unfair practice for conmsumers: private data file format. Currently, lot of proprietary software does not come with the info to reread their data from another program. This make these data being tied to the software. But since the software supposedly work for an unlimited time you should be able to reread it in the future. Hence not documenting the file format does not specifically tie the user to purchase the upgrade. But, is the software can't be used if the user don't pay, it is unlinkely that software companies will make sure you can't reread your data in the future without paying their software again.Perhaps this practice will help pushing open source software and it will be a great opportunity for all the Open Source Developers. Just because Open Source software also provide freedom for data format: how can you prevent others to read the file your program generated if the source code for this program is available !
Hub
This is the logical next step. Just take a look at the modern computers these days; if you buy a PC and/or laptop you'll notice that the OS license is pinned on the machine these days. You don't buy yourself a computer and an OS, you'll get a computer with an OS. And if you decide to use another OS you cannot use the shipped OS on another computer. Simply because the license is pinned down to the computer.
I dislike that concept and I think this is a very bad thing(tm)as well. Its basicly the search for more money, nothing more nothing less. And I truly doubt if this increase of income will eventually lead to better software. Developing software is expensive, esp. for a company, and therefor I think they will use that exact 'excuse' to introduce this shit. Fortunatly people tend to become aware of all the options and possibilities M$ doesn't want us to know about. My personal & recent experience was with SSL.. Do it the M$ way and pay up ($895 / year). The *nix way would be openssl. Oh; I forgot; you need a brain for that :P
I didn't buy brand name pre-loaded hardware before. I won't buy it after. That's really the only way to avoid the Windows tax.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The reasons for this move are simple. Computer sales are slowing down, as most places now have computers fast enough to do what they need to do.
.NET initiative, which means you will pay every year to use Microsoft products. Office will be first.
Microsoft's profits come mostly from OEM sales of their software. Since OEM sales are down, their insanely high profits are down too. In order to recover, they will move to the
As a side benefit, M$ will see a dramatic decrease in the number of pirated copies of their software. They will force this down everyone's throats. They will claim it is an inherently better model. They will market it. They will introduce problems with backward compatibility. They will do all this to make money.
The real question is what consumers will do. I sincerely hope the day is coming when I no longer need to have a Microsoft box around to look at documents people email me.
If your upgrade process is buggy, then you're not helping yourself compete better. Moreover, you don't need to add the kitchen sink to your word processor in order to make it seem like a `new version,' so you can focus more on making what you have work better.
The question is, of course, how subscriptions would work, which beyond the Everquest-like version of, I haven't seen an example of for consumers (the Everquest problem is that they are charging for the software, a mistake in my opinion...Everquest is a drug, so they might as well give free samples on the playground). Are we talking pay for a month, a la Everquest, or pay for usage, a la long-distance telephones, or your choice, like local telephone service in the States? How much are you talking about in each case?
I can see it now. We will start geting CDs in the mail from Microsoft, "New Windows Version 5.0! Amarica's most popular operating system, now with 500 free hours!". It'll be just like AOL all over again.\ =\=\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
Like most people who don't understand the time value of money, you have been suckered into a serries of payments. Look up the total present value of $20/month for a couple of years some time. $800 and a series of payments is not a good deal.
What's sinister is that the makers might try to make the computer ONLY work with the subscription service. Think of it as the "Naked PC" reaction taken to it's logical conclusion. Such a box would be a finacial liability, security risk and would end up pushing adverts on you, as long as you want to use it and MS supports it.
No thanks. I'll stick to my free subscription service, Debian.
Bill Gates says, "Thanks for your interest in working for MS. As you gave us your best idea, we'll forgoe paying you. We look forward to screwing you again."
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Updates are a useful thing. But functionality off-loaded to some server while your software merely uploads the input and output may not be a great idea. Besides the issue of cost, there are issues of privacy, and control to consider.
This is not to say that subscription-ware is necessarily bad. The consumers should have a
choice
of which version to get.There is the cable service lots of Americans already use. You don't get to pick the channels that your service provides most of the time. You can purchase upgrades, like premium channels, for more money. And you can't control most aspects of the system. This is pretty close to what I can imagine a company like MS would want to do with their software.
Perhaps closer to software subscriptions is AOL. I've never used AOL, but my impression is that it takes over your desktop and network connection and presents you with lots of highly processed online content and online interaction for a monthly fee. Here, the software is probably "free" in that you don't ever see a bill for the software itself. But the line between "software" and "service" is pretty blurry already.
The extension of the cable and AOL ideas to software like MS Word and even games seems like the natural next step, from the point of view of the creators of that software.
That doesn't mean I like the 1984 and Brave New World taste of it.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I just thought of something.. Software Certification. What if you have software (for running.. The power grid of a major area) and its certified for version 1.2.3 of some OS.. they decide you have to upgrade and upgrade you to 1.3.0 and it fails.. What do you do ? you won't be able to back grade it.. You won't have any legal recourse to sue them (you would have waived your rights as part of the DMCA)... This is something people need to think about...
UPS Sucks
Get behind StarOffice and push.
I don't use windows at all, but I'm telling you, if Apple ever tries to put copy protection deep into their OS, or tries to rent me software, I'll finally just switch all the way to Linux.
MyopicProwls
MyopicProwls
My homepage
Why pay a monthly fee when I only have to wait for some cracking group to post a fix that skips over the code that ensures my subscription is still active?
Not if the clip art, spell-check, grammar-check, thesaurus, etc. features run server-side, and the program authenticates to the server with a name and password. And if name and password are shared like serialz, the app server can easily bankick known pirated licenses.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If,say, Adobe produced a pay-per-usage based Photoshop, theres a good chance they could cut piracy way down, as people like me who only occasionally need that powerful of a graphics program wouldn't need to be intimidated by the $600 up-front price.
Remember, if you don't need Photoshop's prepress capabilities (and bloat), you can always run GIMP on your GNU/Linux, BSD, Darwin, or UNIX box or WinGIMP on your winbox. It's a nice tool for web graphics (more powerful than Paint Shop Pro), and it's both free and Free.
(Yes, I did mention Darwin. Read the comment before replying.)All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
6. Make it relatively easy to transfer licenses between computers. Once that old P3 reaches the end of its life in 4-5 years, you should be able to submit a web form, register the other computer as "killed"
You said it. If BIOS (the ROM boot code) moves to a subscription licensing model (silly but a possibility), a computer without a BIOS license really will be "killed."
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
What if the "BuzzWordWare(tm)" company decides that this or that driver is outdated (as has happened to some of the Win9x drivers)? Then all of a sudden the whole system will stop working - no chance of keeping on using the old driver. You have subscribed, so you have to update or stop using, remember?
Windows Update does not currently work like that; driver upgrades are voluntary. (Do NOT get the NeoMagic video driver update; it'll remove all ability to use DirectDraw.) More to the point, drivers are tied to the hardware (video card, sound card, CD burner), and you don't license hardware; you buy it.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
And how does a company propose to do this for those people who do not have external access. This is a very REAL thing...there are many Windows machines I have seen that have no connection beyond the firewall. Internal liscense servers? hmmm..just another excuse to move to another product.
Actually, there's an excellent example of a software package that people are pretty much guaranteed to use only once a year- tax preparation software. It's already built on essentially a subscription basis; every year they update their software to deal with changes in tax law and people pay the fee to get the latest version. It seems that people are willing to pay a periodic fee for software that they use only occasionally, so long as the value of the updates is high enough.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
If you really think that constant upgrades are the route to increased productivity, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Every time your software changes, users will have to be trained in how to use the new functions, which is expensive, and even with training they'll lose productivity while they're adapting to the new way of doing things. If you figure an hour of training plus an hour of total lost productivity every month, you're talking about effectively three days of lost time per year per user to deal with constant upgrades. Counting salary, benefits, training costs, etc. that's several hundred dollars in costs per year on top of the software costs. And that's assuming that there's no downtime because slight changes in the way that the system software works prevent your admins from being able to fix problems.
I can tell you that real businesses don't change their software lightly. My employer, for instance, is sticking with NT4 and Office97 with the computers it's buying today rather than upgrading to the 2000 versions of both despite their potential advantages. Why? Because they know that they'd have to retrain the whole damn company to use the new versions if they switched and it's just not worth it. For most users good enough is good enough, and the endless upgrade cycle is a pure, 100% waste of time.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I'd guess if open office was stable and usable by the time this net stuff comes around, and companies like DELL could ship it without liscensing worries, it'd be pretty damn attractive to them, and everyone else. Not to mention beneficial to the customer.
________
Two points.
> and especially non-subscription based products where you do not ever possess ANYTHING
Same holds for software. You don't own your windows or office copy. Or your ORACLE copy. And those become useless as time passes, as ORACLE is useless without technical support, oor windows without upgrade for new hardware.
> and they can just take away your software at their will [oh, you write web pages bashing MS, fine no more frontpage for you!]
When you buy ORACLE, you agree to a license that prohibit you to publish benchmarks of ORACLE. It'll, of course, be the same with those subscriptions-based software (to protect the 'corporate image', you'll have to agree to shut-up)
I am ROTFL with this. It is so... gross. As soon as you start subscribing, the they will send you more and more deadly EULAs (because they'll have your files in hostage), and just start milking more and more money.
In the mid-80's (wov that starts to be old) I recall all industry pudits predicting that the future cost of a computer would be 20% harware and 80% software (recall, it was before open-source for the masses). Subscription based may get this (of course, hardware will be free. You would just sign for a 2 years subscription). And, as this is a business model that needs to be protected, stay tuned to see laws to prevent you to hack this (Example: no-reverse engeneering, no-possibility to run untrusted code <ie: not-subscription based>, no right to use open-source software)
All-in-all, I am not worried. Such ugly proposals guarantee that there will be a pool of brillant people to develop free(dom) alternatives. And, after all, if joe random clueless user want to run subscription based software, I don't give a fuck...
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
I'm a technology worker and so far the fastest PC I've worked on is a PII-266. I'd love a faster PC, but I'm only going to get one when the department upgrades to Windows 2000 and it will be necessary. The 233 I've currently got is plenty fast for Explorer 4.01, Office 97, Lotus Notes, and various other software. Why upgrade any of the software. NT is good enough (although annoying at times), Office 97 is good enough and although Notes is horrible, that's nothing to do with the PC.
Another question is: will companies be prepared to sacrifice network bandwidth for the latest and greatest Office? Can you imagine Citibank ATMs with a message up saying 'Our systems will be unavailable for the next 12 hours while we update Office'? It might catch on with home broadband users, but IT management are fairly conservative so, as with Windows 2000, the take-up may take years as most wait for the technology to be proven.
Yeah fair's fair. My family are always asking for help and being embarrassed because they don't know. I don't sneer at them, they know more than me about other stuff, but as you say I would be steering them towards Linux or BeOS should Microsoft make Windows and apps subscription-only.
In fact if the next Mandrake is up to snuff I'll try and steer them towards that.
I agree with your sentiments, but my father, the accountant, and my brother-in-law, the law professor are not morons merely because they don't understand something complex. Are you a moron because you don't understand the taxation system or the legal system? Of course not.
Not morons, just nervous about something they don't understand, like I am about law and accountancy, or flying a jumbo jet for that matter. Knowing about computers makes me knowledgeable about computers, not a superior being.
"
1. improved productivity, thanks to the improvements in software effected between upgrades
"
BigCompany Inc has noticed your software is out of date. We are upgrading it automatically for you to version 365. You are currently number 7890 in the queue and your computer should be reenabled in the next 4 weeks, 3 days, 12 hours, 4 minutes and 8 seconds.
[wait]
Unfortunatly your computer does not have enough memory to run version 365. Please contact your hardware vendor for an upgrade.
Seriously - If the software version I am using now works perfectly why should I have to upgrade it to a newer version which may have bugs in that I don't know about and don't want.
"
2. no compatibility issues - again these cost money; by constantly being up-to-date, we have no risk of not being able to read that vital document.
"
Congratulations on upgrading to dull office software version 365.
Unfortunatly compatibility with verions prior to 362 has now been removed. You will find the dustbin by the door for your CD document backups.
"
3. better budgeting. If we know that our software will cost $x/year, every year, we can budget for that. There is then no risk of unseen costs.
"
Vicious Software company Inc regrets to inform you that we have gone bust. All copies of our software will now be disabled. Regretfully no conversion filters exist to rival software manufacturers.
"
4. reduced impact on cashflow. Subscriptions mean that there is a lower initial cost - this means there is more money available to develop the business *now*.
"
You have a point there, but only if you're talking about non-free software.
"
The thing is, subscriptions are just being realistic - if you pretend that you're still going to be using those P3's running Office xxxx in 5 years time, you're wrong.
"
Ever been to a university / school / educational / public sector computer.
Many of these are still Pentiums with the odd 486 lying around.
"
All the subscription/ASP approach acknowledges is that we have to upgrade anyway - companies are always upgrading hardware and software in order to gain the productivity benefits they attract.
"
The subscription model changes it from
we choose to upgrade for a benefit we want
to
we must upgrade for benefits we may or may not want
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Every single one I've used has been a complete pain in the proverbial when it comes to obtaining the license. I had a couple of really bad experiences.
One problem was with a backup package that was needed to restore a server. I had to contact the supplier's UK office, and was then passed onto a European office to a native German speaker. To obtain the 12 month activation key I had to read out a 40 character string over the telephone, and then wait a hour or so for the activation key in return. Luckily, depsite the langauge problems, the first attempt worked.
The second problem was with an SMTP mail gateway for an obscure system. The system just stopped working with no warning, due to it expiring. The software did require an email account of an adminstrator to redirect expiration warnings to, but my ertswhile collegue responsible for the original installation somehow redirected this to /dev/null.
Another concern is people that buy (or are given) a computer only to use for word processing, spreadsheets, and games. For example, my mother-inlaw has a computer at home, but does not have an internet connection. For one, she can't afford to and for two doesn't need/want to be connected at home. How will subscriptions be validated/authorized. It sounds like a subscription (dis)service would be tcp/ip based rather than dedicated dial-up.
My next Slashdot post will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
but Joe sixpack will gripe about it. He can see a monthly fee for AOL, similar to his cable bill, etc. He can put up with this.
But a monthly fee to use his own computer that he just bought?He will choke on this.
Joe Sixpack has signed of on software licenses for a long time, blissfully ignorant of what it means. But to sit there with this same thing applying to his hardware will provide a rude awakening.
Expect lawsuits all over the place. Or laws passed in Congress at this point.
Consumers do not like getting raped in the wallet. It just ticks them off, and you wind up with short term gain of profits, and the long term gain of their hostility.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Nah, once in a while - due to crashes of the service providers servers - your data gets blown into oblivion.
Of course it's only then when you realize paragraph 9) of the service agreement, which states that the vendor is not liable, and never liable, and under no circumstances liable and if you want to sue anyway, you have to do that at the village court of Bogobogo, whose wise men get together at every third full moon.
The same paragraph of course blabbers something of unlikely event and every reasonable care which will do you real good, when you try to prove that indeed you filed your tax declaration on time, when the two IRS guys come knocking on your door.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I know, let's piss off our only remaining stable revenue stream in an attempt to shore up second quarter profits!
As a consumer, if you didn't have a reason to buy a new computer before when software ran "forever," why would you buy one now (the advantage being increased tech support that you don't trust, anyway)?
[I apologise for the previous convluted sentence. Do not attempt to diagram.]
The solution: Embedded Banner ads!
FP's aside (hopefully), let's take a look at this. Logical progression? Your corps all bundle packages, yes, but each hardware distributor will try to advertise their "distribution" and the packages that they can offer you as opposed to another company. Deals will be made to offer the subscriptions at lower prices. You may even see "six months free" introductory offers. What's that? 500 free hours? This AOL thing may not be so bad after all! The advantage? You're always going to have the latest distro if you let the corps manage it. After all, it's a subscription. You don't subscribe to last year's paper. Well, most of us. And the competition may actually help the industry and provide John Q. Consumer (who doesn't care who his software comes from) with more for his money. Am I comfortable with the idea? Hell no. But it could have it's advantages. -Morkeleb
Subscriptions are only worthwhile if you know you'll want every or at least most edition for some period of time. There are a number of software magazines that I buy on the newsstand only because they often don't have anything new I want to pay money to read. The same will apply to software subscriptions. I bought Quicken last year. I probably won't buy Quicken 2001 this year because the 2000 version still meets my needs. If Q2000 became unusable on 01/01/01 I wouldn't buy Q2001, I'd become a gnucash developer.
Overall, I don't care if MS or major software houses move to a subscription model. I can say with fair certainty that I'm not going with them.
There's no reason to subscribe to software. Let's see:
1. improved productivity, thanks to the improvements in software effected between upgrades
There is zero productivity increase involved in upgrading so-called productivity software. Are you really trying to tell me that an office drone is substantially more productive using Office 2000 than Office 97? This technology became mature in the early 90s. As far as creating documents, the MS Works 2.0 on my 486 is almost as adequate as MS Office 2010 - there's no reason to upgrade. The difference between recent Offices is negligble. Face it, we're talking about mature technology here. No one pays perpetually for
This is why Microsoft wants to introduce licensing - so they have a perpetual revenue stream on products that no corporation can justify upgrading. There won't be any upgrades to subscription software because 1)There's no incentive to produce them and 2)There's no incentive to upgrade - word processors and spreadheets are already maxed out.
2. no compatibility issues - again these cost money; by constantly being up-to-date, we have no risk of not being able to read that vital document.
Backward converters always exist. Many major corporations have just skipped Office 2000, which means that people with brains are voluntarily choosing not to be up-to-date. There's so little incentive to upgrade that installing backward-compatiblity utilities would often be a better choice.
3. better budgeting. If we know that our software will cost $x/year, every year, we can budget for that. There is then no risk of unseen costs.
Nonsense. The contract will be 6-12 months long. Once everyone has subscriptions, the price will shoot through the roof. All you know is that there will be a guaranteed outlay for software every year, you have no idea how much that outlay will have to increase.
Also, there's no control over costs. If the budget is tight, an upgrade can be delayed x months in the current model or re-assessed in terms of value entirely. There's no way to reduce software costs under subscriptions.
4. reduced impact on cashflow. Subscriptions mean that there is a lower initial cost - this means there is more money available to develop the business *now*.
Total cost is higher, see above.
The thing is, subscriptions are just being realistic - if you pretend that you're still going to be using those P3's running Office xxxx in 5 years time, you're wrong.
You may not be using the P3's, but why would you want to pay for Office xxxx+n when Office xxxx is a perfectly adequate system?
All the subscription/ASP approach acknowledges is that we have to upgrade anyway - companies are always upgrading hardware and software in order to gain the productivity benefits they attract.
Not completely true anymore. Hardware upgrades are made for largely network connectivity anymore. There's also strong evidence that hardware purchases are slowing since the marginal benefits of upgrading are lessening. Companies have started asking, "Is there any benefit to moving to Office xxxx+n? Is there anything we want to do with Office xxxx that we can't?"
Add some negatives
-1. Productivity depends on connectivity. What if subscriptions expire during a network outage? No memos can be written while the server's down? This is pretty unlikely, but it's the magnitude of risk involved that matters here. What sane person would make all business operations dependent on a somewhat unreliable resource - Internet connectivity?
You assume the subscription system itself will work flawlessly. This is a stupid assumption - someone will need to work on that valuable document one morning only to discover that Word insists it hasn't been resubscribed, despite the invoice indicating that the monthly payment of $20,000 was made last week. Unlikely? Yes. Catastrophic? Potentially. Gonna happen to somebody? Definitely.
-2. No control over upgrade costs and scheduling. In attempt to make so-called "upgrades" seem worthwile, MS will have to redesign products superficially. We'll hear crap like, "we put the Spell-Check function in the File Menu because our million-dollar Human Factors researches tell us that it's more intuitive to put it there." That's all well and fine, but there is a substantial drop-off in immediate productivity, with a very low possiblity of any substantial increase in long-term productivity. And everyone will be told when to upgrade, they won't be able to select an optimal time to migrate anymore. Do you really think a tax law firm wants to upgrade their software in April? They'd most likely prefer September or some other time of year. But they won't have that choice in a subscription system.
-3. TOC will be higher. Assuming I realize that office software undergoes minor incremental changes between versions I'll only purchase every second or third version, at most. The TOC is most likely lowered more by avoiding worthless uprgrades than moving to a subscription model. And if you have to deal with a monopoly, (likely for the forseable future) you're gonna see continous price increases to justify ever-decreasing improvements.
Probably, you'll get the worst of both worlds: you buy the PC with a one-year subscription, to be activated when you first plug in the machine. You won't be able to get the PCs without those pre-paid subscriptions.
Besides, the PC and Windows platforms are so messy that things have to be preinstalled; the "put in CD and turn on" isn't just undesirable from a business point of view for Microsoft and PC vendors, it is technically hard.
If hardware vendors went back to selling plain hardware without any software, that would be great for Linux and Windows-alternatives. It's not going to happen.
the fact that if people are really forced to think about having to renew a subscription for some software that does suit there needs, they won't.
Rather than sticking with some crappy office product because you bought it once for x number of years, people will have the chance to say is this really worth y dollars per year.
Who knows, somebody might start competing with microsoft's orifice.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
Now, rub your knees please, after they reflexively jerked and hit your desk, and hear me out.
What is one of the biggest issues today in desktop computing? Security! Yes, Virii, crackers, trojan horses, worm, etc, any PC connected to the internet is a big fat target.
NOw, for you and I, security is no big thing. We read bugtraq, run SAINT, run COPS, run TRIPWIRE, check out router logs, get decent firewalls, and continually update our virii profiles. But this does take time, an hour there, an hour here, and before you know it, we're talking real time.
Enter the software companies, who see a way to save us time, make them a little money, and increase security. It's the VA LInux model, start selling support incrementally instaed of a program in one fell swoop.
So in the end, it's a win-win situation. We spend less time on tedious security routines, the software companies update our software daily, and they make a business model. It is ironic that the software company poised to make money selling service and support is MS, not RedHat.
Do you honestly believe that their software will be uncrackable? And if it is? We all just switch over to Linux or OSX. A taste of corporate stupidity and competition might turn Microsoft into a company that makes quality products (yes, I was joking.)
The bottom line is that if M$ does this, it'll be the biggest gunshot wound to the foot since Apple not liscensing out their OS back in the day.
Also with subscription based software, has anyone considered the posibility that companies could easily install spyware? (Well, they probably have considered this..) But a company could create a piece of software to check to see if you're paying for your other software, then they sell the list of non-paying customers to another company, blam! It's so simple it's horrifying. Subscription based software would be worse than copy-protected harddrives.
Douglas Adams
1952-2001 :(
So now we'll be forced to have spyware all over our computers to make sure we've got the latest greatest compatible software from software subscription company x?! I would prefer to keep my passwords, personal financial details, and browsing habits to myself, thank you very much!
For instance, if your software needs to do a high-computation task that is also distributable (such as a video filter) and you have a high speed connection to the internet and a relatively slow computer, you could farm out the task to a more powerful computer(s). Depending on how the software is implemented, these central computers could charge a per-use fee or a subscription fee for semi-unlimited use.
I know that sounds sort of irrelevent today, but if complex software really becomes popular (like a full-featured version of Apple's iMovie) I do see a future for this.
cryptochrome
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
As much as the /. doomsayers would like us to think so, I personally don't agree with the view that moving to a subscription-based model of software is a bad thing :) In fact, in almost all cases it'll bring numerous advantages to the consumer.
For a start there's the fact that for Joe Sixpack and his family, installing and configuring software is a task that they don't want to be dealing with. And for some packages, especially on Linux where user-friendliness comes second place to adding new features, the task of setting new software up is too technically complex for them to be able to do it. For these users, having this process automated will be a godsend, and one they'll gladly choose.
Then there's the issue of updates. Microsoft has already moved in the direction of automated updates, and BSD provides the ports tree for a relatively easy way of getting updates, but the majority of software gets updated far more often than people bother to get the updates. This leads to security holes which script kiddies can exploit, as we've seen dozens of times in the last few years. With automated updates, this would be avoided and the net would be a far more secure place.
Then there's the fact that the business world has relied on subscription-based software for years. Most large packages are paid for by an annual fee from thier buyers, and they get all of the advantages above included. If these people, with far more to lose, are happy, I think home users will be.
Of course there will be situations where subscriptions are wrong, such as with embedded software, but for 99% of people, moving to subscription-based software will be great. It'll just become another payment made at the end of the month with your cable bill and your insurance, and with no more hassle.
One of the biggest things holding back open source software in the desktop market is the fact that a lot of people already own the software that they want to use.
If people were suddenly required to pay for software every year, there would be a greater incentive to switch to alternative solutions.
I dunno... What do you wanna do?
I don't know if you are aware of .net, but according to Microsoft's presspass blueprint (to be found here), "We envision the majority of our software applications evolving into subscription services over time" - this is the aim of .net, and so it will happen.
Personally I find it rather frightening - will my letter to my Mom expire in the middle of writing it or what?
Very well put Yoshi! TCO is something that's often overlooked by non-financial types, but it ends up right on the bottom line, IMHO.
Now, what they need to do to be successful in a subscription model is:
1. Make it less expensive than a full-refresh purchase over the same time period (12-18 months nowadays?). Would you rather pay $350 every year or two so for Application_Suite_XX, or pay $10 a month, and always be current?
2. INCLUDE SUPPORT!! By Odin, if you're paying a monthly subscription fee, you should be able to either call a human for help, or at the very least use a very responsive Web-based help desk for product questions...NOT just access to a knowledgebase (which itself is an oxymoron.)
3. Make the auto-upgrade process reliable, and recoverable. There's nothing worse than installing an update and getting a BSOD or equivalent. You should be able to roll-back upgrades that are of...sub-optimal quality.
4. Have a clear, well written and highly public privacy policy on any and all data you collect from users. Something to the effect of "No one outside our company will know anything about you unless they pry the data from our cold dead fingers, and we won't use it to sell anything to you, ever!"
5. Offer users a quarterly CD mailer with all the updates, at no additional cost. If they can put AOL CDs in cereal boxes for free, then a subscribed user surely deserves a CD every now and then.
6. Make it relatively easy to transfer licenses between computers. Once that old P3 reaches the end of its life in 4-5 years, you should be able to submit a web form, register the other computer as "killed", and set up the new one for no additional cost.
7. Offer a discout to multiple-PC users. To Big_Software_Company, there's very little incremental work required to issue a license for someone with two or three PCs as oppposed to one. So there should be a price break there. Say, $10 a month, plus $1.50 for each additional licensed to the same user.
In summary: If you make the process affordable, reliable, confidental and reasonable, there's nothing wrong with software subscriptions.
Or, put another way, if you don't make friends of your uses, they will make you.
Are you listening, Microsoft? IBM? Oracle? CA? Siebel? Sun? HP? Compaq?
I find it a little odd that everyone seems to be so negative about subscription fees for software. I mean, think about an apartment. There are two ways to get one; 1) buy 2) rent. Most people prefer #1 but cannot afford it and thus pick #2 and rent an apartment.
While most people on Slashdot think everything should be free (as in beer), the typical argument for *piracy* seems to be that "I can't afford to buy CD's / software with the current prices!". Well, with subscription, you *can* afford it so what's the problem?
Subscription already works for many things and nobody complains about it so why complain now? Personally, I'd prefer to own my software (and music) but subscription is a good thing and suitable for software in many cases - especially if it's offered as an option. Don't complain just because it's Microsoft that is doing it.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
First, this notion that subscription services will make computers more secure is unfounded. The key to security is control of access and I don't see how paying $19.95 a month for your software somehow makes it more secure. In order for that effect to manifest itself the software companies would have to do the following: a) offer security updates immediately upon availability (software would phone home regularly), b) update virus databases regularly, c) audit the security of the box (e.g. clear passwords, insecure daemons, etc.).
Why do you suddenly think that companies like MS are going to produce patches faster and audit the security of their customers boxes simply because they are now being paying a subscription fee? I certainly don't know the answer to that question and don't expect to see that scenario unfold.
The "VA Linux" model (I would have used Red Hat as an example, but whatever) of providing support for software that is Free can't be compared to a closed source software package being sold as a subscription. If you cancel your support subscription with Red Hat you can continue using your software; you just don't get help when you break something. If you stop subscribing to Windows you won't be able to run Windows any more. Big difference.
It is ironic that the software company poised to make money selling service and support is MS, not RedHat.
It's not "ironic." It's called Marketing.
--
Scott Brady
if you pretend that you're still going to be using those P3's running Office xxxx in 5 years time, you're wrong.
I plan on using my computer in 5 years. But then again I'm on a Mac.
Anyway, as long as this pricing doesn't move to games, I'm not too worried about it. There is a good explination of the technology over at Ars Technica
My main beef with this is: My parents bought a Pac Bell in Christmas of '99. While, I can't stand to use it, its fine for them. They don't need any more power than a K6-2 333 for the internet and checking e-mail. It came with Word 97 and that's the biggest piece of software they use. That being said, this computer came with virus protection. Which is all nice, fine, and good. Of course we all know that you've got to update your virus protection periodically. It logically follows that we had to pay to update this virus protection. In my mind, this is a perfect parallel with installing Office XP on a monthly subscription. If I can't convince my mother that we need to update our virus protection every month, how is Micro$oft going to convince her to PAY(I bought this computer it should work!) again just to use Word the 3 times a month she uses it.
This will be bad, because the vast majority of people that buy OEM will not upgrade their hardware every 2 years. This is why I wish those damn Internet Appliances would take off. My Parents don't need a full computer for what they do. and I know they don't need to be paying every month or year for software they don't always use.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
1) Microsoft products suck.
2) Microsoft better not limit my access to their software.
What doesn't make sense here? I'm honestly confused.
"blue screen of death" gallery
This is the way forward, and it's not something to be afraid of. What people always forget, is that TCO is the only thing that matters. By having a regular upgrade/subscription cycle, we have the following:
1. improved productivity, thanks to the improvements in software effected between upgrades
2. no compatibility issues - again these cost money; by constantly being up-to-date, we have no risk of not being able to read that vital document.
3. better budgeting. If we know that our software will cost $x/year, every year, we can budget for that. There is then no risk of unseen costs.
4. reduced impact on cashflow. Subscriptions mean that there is a lower initial cost - this means there is more money available to develop the business *now*.
The thing is, subscriptions are just being realistic - if you pretend that you're still going to be using those P3's running Office xxxx in 5 years time, you're wrong.
All the subscription/ASP approach acknowledges is that we have to upgrade anyway - companies are always upgrading hardware and software in order to gain the productivity benefits they attract.
Regularizing this, and making this explicit is not a harmful thing to do.
They won't be doing this with Linux or other open OSes, so why should I worry about it? I'll just point at Windows users and snicker. Much like I do now... ;-)
You have an option to use another system if you're unhappy with the way your current one is heading. This can only be good for the open software movement in the end.
Think about the programs that you only use once a month or once a week or once only: financial software, inventory software, OS update/optimization software. You wouldn't pay monthly for something you only use monthly.
What would be nice for those programs and even larger programs (like Windows for us Linux users) is a pay per use program. I only use Windows if I want to play some games or use some random, legacy software. That amounts to a day or two per month. I would pay $2 per month to use Windows (if I didn't get a $5 full use copy through my University). That would be $24 per year and since the design cycle for OS software is about two years you would pay about $48 for an OS instead of $90 or more. Just a thought.
IANAL, but I play one on
It doesn't matter if you trust them or not, they will do this. The major problem I see is that subscriptions will become the main way to sell commercial software. What scares me is that once you are on the subscription bandwagon, as soon as the new version comes out you will be forced to upgrade _and_ pay up more money.
I'm already in upgrade hell on the PC's I support now, forced upgrades would make it even worse.
But, on the bright side, this will only server to make Open Source Software much more appealing to many consumers, and many businesses. Who knows, perhaps this is what is needed to get Linux on the desktop.
Contrary to popular belief on Slashdot, Microsoft has no major plans of becoming an Application Service Provider. Microsoft is primarily a software company and doesn't even handle a majority of its support (unlike, say Sun) but instead has an army of Microsoft Certified Solutions Providers who handle interaction with customers.
.NET servers to ASPs and corporate buyers who will then deal with the user issues. This can also be gleaned by reading Microsoft's ASP Services website instead of assuming the worst of those in Redmond. As for Dell, they've already formed an ASP known as DellHost, and thus it's very likely that once subscription software becomes the norm they will already have the infrastructure to provide software hosting solutions for their customers.
From talks with friends who have worked there, it is unlikely this strategy will change. Microsoft will primarily sell
L4M3R:One who thinks he is l337 because he uses "make" to install software instead of RPM
I can forsee the Dell's et al of this world shipping blank boxes (finally) and a complementary Windows X install CD which requires a internet connection and credit card. It would not suit MS to have Dell pumping out systems without MS getting the feedback they want (and the means to bill for extras) and I doubt Dell wants any more work reselling Windows and it's services (unless perhaps MS is offering them the full source to everything so they can run their own OS and application servers to push Delldows200X (but would Dell really want to do this, and if they did would they base it on the back of a resource that could be yanked from them).
Dell is never going to want to have to deal with customers ringing up saying their computer isn't working anymore only to discover it is because they haven't given MS the credit card details and the 1 year/3 month/whatever length trial has finished. If Dell can no longer ship the MS software they want with PCs as a permenent part of the PC I doubt they will charge for or ship one at all. All we have to do then is make sure all these people know that instead of being suckered for the monthly software fee they can install a number of alternatives (Be, BSD, Linux, Hurd).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
And don't expect them to allow you to purchase JUST microsoft Word. The least you will be able to get will be a Word/Excel/Outlook/Explorer package (You heard it here...they won't be giving explorer away anymore, but maybe they will pretend that you get it "Free" with your rental of Office.) For a slightly larger price, you might be able to add powerpoint/access/picture editor etc. By requiring the bundling, enough copies of their products will exist out there that nobody in their right minds would choose to use anything else. And they can charge more, because you are getting 3-5 pieces of software for one low price.
For example: If the rental price was $5/month/application, many home users would buy Word, maybe get outlook, and probably move to Netscape. Net sales/month: $10 if they are lucky.
But, if the rental price were $20/month for a package of four applications, and this is the least you can get, more than half of those same people who only got Word and Outlook would probably go for it. Net sales/month: $15-$20/month easily.
If the microsoft marketing department is looking to hire, I'm available.
gee, all your files aren't readable by your friends anymore?
:-)
You seem to be making the assumption that you will even have files.
Maybe your data is just squirreled away on the vendor's server somewhere. Convenient mechanisms to get the data into their system from open-source applications, but no easy way to get it back out. (Maybe even none at all, you know that whole DMCA circumvention thing.)
Who said you would have files and get to keep your data that belongs to the vendor?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, get their MCSE.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
You are making a big, big assumption here. And that is that none of the incremental/update releases are going to cause problems or corrupt data.
.net@work document model needed some hooks in the network API?
.001% of users, will be hurting thousands of people.
One big advantage of using Static software is just that: it's static. Normally, barring some external event like running out of disk space, I expect that my copy of office 96 or whatever will run tommorow exactly the same as it is running today.
What happens when overnight, the automatically distributed and updated version of MyWordProcessor (version 11.02.31.21383) brings with it another new version NET.socks.dll that has a huge security hole that was added because the programmers who updated the "Track Changes->Compare Documents->Automatically" command to work fully across the new
What happens is that millions of systems have had their security compromised and don't even know it. The first people to know will be the ones looking for it; the security guys and the hackers. Lets hope the former always get there first. Oh wait, that assuming the company supplying the software will want to fix and update immediately, even if no one has been compromised yet.
The other big problem is the automatic updating of my data files. What happens if an update corrupts or otherwise can't handle a tiny (or not so small) percentage of user's files (because of specific feature combos used in that file, for example)?
What happens is that some small percentage of people have been selected at random to be SCREWED with respect to their documents. Will the subscription update models allow users to go back to previous versions? I don't think so. Besides, if I try opening a file with the newer version, and it auto-converts my documents to the newer format, and in the process some of documents get screwed, then if I can go back to the previosu version (why would they let me? Then I'd have grounds not to pay them) I'd better have made backups of my document files that I didn't know I'd need because I didn't know the "upgrade" is coming.
On that train of thought; what happens if I need to load up some docuemnt from four years ago that I've got backed up offline? Will mySubscriptionWare(tm) be able to read it, even though it's been updated every quarter since then (16 updates)? or am I screwed, unable to access my prior work because it was stored offline, and that file version is no longer supported? With no original disk to install the program I used to create it, what will I do?
Ok, the above isn't to say that it's all doom and gloom, but rather to point out that subscription ware it going to be a double-edged sword. And when you are talking about tens of millions of users (in the case of the largest company), problems that slip past testing and effect
I think it all comes down to the end consumer wanting at least the feeling of owning something. I mean, you fork over upwards of $3,000 for a new PC and what do you get? Some hardware that won't do jack shit without software. You own the hardware (physically, so you can sell it, trade it, give it away, etc, but aren't supposed to reverse engineer it and clone it - but you can) but you do not own the software. Somehow they managed to rip the pages out of the book...
; 2b=b;2=1
Let me explain why a computer is very much like a book. When you buy a book, you own that copy. You can, if you choose, give it to someone as a gift, sell it at a garage sale (eg. private non-commercial sale), rip it to shreds, and/or read it. You can do any of these things in any order you choose (eg. read it and then rip it up) and the author/publisher has very little to say about it. However, you have no rights in terms of the contents of the book - thats copyrighted, and you do not own it. Computers, otoh, you own the hardware and can do what you please with it. Like a book without pages, however, the computer is pretty much useless without software. Using the book analogy, and as an honest computer owner, you could do what you like so long as you do not duplicate the software without permission (just like the book, and this is very fair).
Microsoft will have you believe that the software is more important than the hardware and thus justifies a subscription service. They are partially correct in that you need an operating system to do anything other than look at the blinking lights and listening to the whirring fans of the hardware. I wouldn't mind it if it were an option; perhaps make WindowsXPUpdate a subscription service (although, one wonders why the customer has to pay MS for fixes to their buggy software)...
I guess what people are really upset about is the fact that Microsoft wants its customers to pay for the bugs in Windows. Yes, Windows is not perfect but it is widely used. Yes, Windows ME did include SOME new features not available in Windows 98. It is, however, debatable if these _new_features_ were worth the upgrade cost - you decide that when and if you decide to purchase the upgrade. Some people are still on 95, because it does what they need it to do, and Microsoft is fuming about this. They want you to constantly update and feed their R&D engine so they may engrain themselves deeper into our computers and our pocketbooks. Now Microsoft sees a chance to force consumers to pay and pay and pay for the rest of eternity... Hrmm... I guess the so-called "Microsoft tax" (per computer) is fast becomming a monthly tax. Geez.
I think the thing to do is for every Windows user to record each time Windows crashes. At the end of each month, send a bill to Redmond. Lets see who laughs when consumers start holding them responsable for the crap they want us to pay for.
---
a=b;a^2=ab;a^2-b^2=ab-b^2;(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b);a+b=b
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
So, what happens? Well, it could go two ways, people stop paying for bloated SW packages they don't use the features for. They may only want Word's word processing modules, not Word's HTML export functions or the rest of office. Will Microsoft meet the demands of the market, and allow for customizable software packages? Or, will folks continue to pay for what they don't use, like they will a health club "membership," long after they've stopped using it?
Obviously, the SW makers would be OK with the second model, even if they won't come right out and say so. In fact, I'll venture to guess that they'd fight any such indication of that being widespread behavior. They really won't like the first model for a few reasons.
First, what are the natural divisions in the software. You can start with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access and Outlook. But what about common functions between programs as we now know them. The Office Assistant? Templates? Clipart? file browsing services? VB scripting? help documentation, Spell checking, macros, document module sharing (OLE). In my mind, it should all be up for grabs. Otherwise, why pay for it if you aren't using it? Microsoft will likely say nothing is "bundled," that everything is part of a core feature set of Word, or whathaveyou. The real question, is whether or not people will accept that answer.
Secondly, *if* such a distribution model is accepted, SW publishers would likely fight the release of any information that documents how their software is structured, allowing modules or lower or no cost to take the place of their own. This eats into their bread and butter. I foresee a few legal cases testing the ability of consumers to modify and extend products they are paying for the use of, but never really "own."
Thirdly, in order to preserve their own market space, Microsoft, et al, would likely actively change critical bits of their software in the name of improvements, but would oddly appear as actions to prevent competitors from offering an improved product. How this activity would be viewed by the FTC is unknown at this point. How would their customers respond, though?
Fourth, as an active counter measure, I believe SW manufacturers would explictly change their terms of use in an attempt to contractually prohibit the use of third-party software modules. However, from Wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3 and DOS on, third party modules have had a long, very good history in terms of positively extending functionality for the consumer. QEMM for DOS 5 anyone? Norton AV at any time? What's the backlash when people find out they can't "legally" use these?
If the true a la carte model takes hold (though it may take a while and is dependent upon a few things), it represents what I consider the best opportunity for the open source community to make a meaningful impact to the rest of the computing world. Not to say that BSD, Linux, Apache, et. al. haven't been significant contributions, it's just that most Windows users don't know because they don't see it. If, however, modules for their favorite SW (Photoshop, Word, Excel, Quicken) were able to be replaced with free and open modules, they will see a difference. Ideally (and yes, this is very dependent on "forces beyond our control"), they'll see a smaller bill. And they'll think just how much they might not be spending if the entire package was free.
Obviously, this is quite conditional on other factors, but *if* this is the game the big proprietary SW publishers want to play, this community can, and should, embrace it as a Trojan Horse. The competition would serve everyone well.
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
Today Dell ships a copy of Office 2000 that will run forever
Ahhhh.....But will it do what my version of Office does???
----------------------------
-----------------------
Moderator's essentials
You think as a technology worker...of course you will have a P-IX or an AMD-Superlon in 5 years. Not everyone will, believe me.
For instance our family computer (home usage) is a Pentium Pro 200 running NT4 that is 5 years old and we happily surf, wordprocess and 'spreadsheet 'on it. Damnit, with a Voodoo2 it even plays Halflife and Unreal very well at 800x600. I only did three major upgrades over those 5 years: a Voodoo2, more RAM and an ISDN adapter.
Now you may argue that I'm a computer geek that takes pride in runnnig older systems in todays usage...(which is absolutely true, I munched up a P166 for my sis so that she could do her dactlyography exercises). But let's go to my professional field: one of my clients is a government institution. Their old IT system (until 1999) was based on a Novell Server with plain XT's...as it did since 1987! For Y2K they got shiny new P-II-350's and a funky little server. Remember : Government institution + I did my job right: they *will* use these babies in 5 years. Heck they will use them in 10 years if they can!
Everything depends so much on your needs. And if you choose a computer based on your current needs plus a certain margin (for normal users power +25%, for power users +50%, for graphic users +100% or more) you can keep your computer for a great amount of time.
Oh, something I want to vent too: you talk about TCO for businesses. Now, your arguments may stand, but it should not be mandatory over the internet (like .NET?) Why? A technical reason would be low-bandwith connections but I see another issue: what about financial institutions? They don't want a connection to the internet, they don't want their documents on internet servers. With the security history of Microsoft, I don't think financial institution will trust this kind of option. For normal businesses (who don't really have critical data...hmmm, sounds weird to me) it could be a cost-saving approach, but for businesses where data == hard money forget it: they prefer to have full control and everything inhouse on servers with triple backup tape.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I can see the intuitive appeal for many of these arguments, but I suggest that this only serves to highlight the pernicious nature of the commercial software business. Often, the "improvements" that we see from one version to the next are minimal, and certainly not worth any significant sum to buy.
As far as the attitude that one won't see P3s running Office XXXX in five years - I wholeheartedly disagree. I still run Office 95 on my P3. Why? Simple - it runs a *lot* faster than any of the more recent versions, and it offers all of the features that I am interested in.
Don't forget that the tradeoff for all those bells and whistles that no one uses (how many people really *need* to run text vertically in a table?) is FEATURE BLOAT. Which is why Office 2000 runs no more quickly on my P3 than did WordPerfect for Windows ran on my 386 nearly 10 years ago.