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?
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
They are listening, and here's what they heard:
1. Customers would rather pay a smaller monthly amount than a single purchase price. Your subscription fees will likely be larger than the total cost of the same package divided by the number of months the average user keeps the software before buying the next version. We're going to have a startup fee, too. [ $20/month + $20 setup ]. It will sound cheaper so people will buy it. Just like they lease cars and apartments.
2. Customers want support. Well, we may as well take a note from those Free software fanatics and sell a support subscription, which must be maintained over the life of the software subscription, whether it's used or not. [ $5/month ]
3. Rollback upgrades that don't work? Yes, we admit it. Our software does not work. NOT.
4. Customers want a privacy policy. Yeah. Okay. We keep secrets well. Besides they really think they're going to file lawsuits when we have a human error that lets some private data slip?
5. Subscribers want CDS. Here. [$5/month or $50 one time fee]
6. Transfer licenses between computers. No. You'll be bringing your old computer in for a trade. A service tech (i.e. "high school senior") will perform the transfer of old data to new system. We keep and wipe your old computer. [ $100 rebate for trade-in computer, $100 for service fee, net $0 ]
7. Off a discount for multiple PC households. This is a good point, a lot of families are getting a second PC. Tell you what. We'll forego the setup fee on your second computer. Same monthly subscription cost [$20/month].
I do not have a signature
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.