Slashdot Mirror
How Many Times Should We Pay For Our Software?
An anonymous reader writes "An editorial at ZDNet talks about the concept of subscription licensing for software." From the article: "But the software industry is greedy enough to want to go even further. Ignoring the subtleties of DRM -- which snares users by glossing over the unseen ties between content and format -- vendors from BEA to Microsoft are eager to take up the blunt cudgel of subscription licensing, which merely asserts that, if you don't pay up again at the end of the year, your software stops working. The best way to deploy the mechanism of subscription licensing, of course, is as a hosted service, because it gives the software vendor the ability to instantly turn off the software-on-tap if the renewal is not forthcoming. Perhaps this explains Microsoft's new-found attraction to 'hosted everything' (whether or not it can work)."
There's just one problem. This perception of the software-as-services model is a jaundiced misrepresentation of the way that on-demand applications actually work. No on-demand customer pays simply for the privilege of accessing the software. They pay because the software delivers business results. And that simple distinction exposes once and for all the clay feet, the emperor's new clothes, of the traditional applications software industry. Their products don't actually work until they've been tweaked and customized by customers or partners, and therefore the licence of itself has no out-of-the-box value to the end user. Asking people to pay for the privilege of using the software isn't offering a service, it's taking a liberty. It's as much of a nonsense as asking a punter to pay a performance fee for whistling a copyrighted tune. If I'm paying a fee to watch a movie, listen to a song, or use an application, I expect to experience a professional, finished execution.
True on-demand application vendors understand this. Conventional software vendors seem to think the world still owes them a living, just for bothering to write some software.
This article sounds as if the guy was jaded from the start. His complaints are similar to those people who first scoffed at the notion of leasing a car instead of buying it. Some may consider it foolish, but some also see the benefits. In my experience you can lease a car for 12 months, have the "owner" of the car (or software) continually maintain it when it needs it.
Don't read too deeply in on that analogy, please.
But BOTHERING to write some software? By us Bothering to write some software you have some of the best software out there that's been used to secure most of the IT infrastructure the world runs on. Apache, The Linux Kernel, The Various BSD's, SQL Databases, Iptables, SNORT IDS software, OpenSSL, and many many more!
This guy is just trolling. The article is slanted because he believes that once written, any bugs, flaws (as in it doesn't do this the _way_ it should for ME) should all be done for free simply because he or general consumers are greedy. To a point, bug fixes should be fixed like glaring security flaws that could be used to take over your computer (ala windows in general, yes I'm biased) or damage your information etc.
But get real. If you paid ONCE for your anti-virus software and expected it to work flawlessly and capture all viruses, worms etc without having to pay extra every year to maintain that reliability you're just out of your mind. There is no incentive to keep something up for free especially in an evolving industry. One that evolves and almost 2-5 times the normal rate of other industries.
Think of it this way. You pay a subscription service similar to that of an anti-virus vendor. Receive continual updates, bug fixes, serious flaws get fixed for an annual price. This ensures the developers can work and continue to live as well. Why not? If you don't pay for the next years license, you simply don't get major version upgrades (maybe a serious bug fix or service pack) or new "features".
I'm not keen on the idea of keeping your apps on a server/central location, unless it's on my home network and I have the option to install it centrally or on each workstation. It's just foolish to do it that way. But this guy's "it's mine, I want it all forever" after a simple purchase doesn't cut it. Want that new fender or tires? They're better quality than the current tires you have, then pay for them. Don't expect it for free buddy.
This guy really pissed me off. And I have a football game to watch.
Let me answer for the pirates in the group: How many times should we pay for our software? "They'll never get any o me pieces o eight."
Imagine 3-4 hot release a year for...what...US$10 a month? Keep going or grab a new one?
Then what?
Now imagine a corporate user (or CIO) looking at US$120/head for XP and Office.
This is where it's heading, the Net just makes content delivery easier.
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
Though I'd vote for the CowboyNeal option.
I run linux on half my machines and so that is obviously without subscription (although some distributions might try it) and the other half run windows. If Microsoft forces (for example) Vista into a subscription only model then I will stick with XP on the machines I have (I wasn't planning to upgrade anyway), and not buy any new licences. In other words I would move to linux if the need for a new machine was great enough, and stick to what I have at the moment. The average home users machine gets so bogged down with spyware that they replace their machines fairly often, or pay to have it repaired. This means that buying a new machine/paying money every year might be common practice for some people. Plus if it is moved to a hosted solution it might be harder to get spyware on them (but this is Microsoft...) and so a saving will be made with the reduction of costs due to paying people to remove spyware. The only problem might be work needing software that only runs on windows, but I am provided with remote desktop to my windows desktop anyway so I do not need windows at home to work.
Once for the software and a reasonable yearly price for upgrades/updates. Bug fixes should be free. Forthith postist!
1. If the fact that Sun has so-far signed up exactly zero customers for its grid computing product, this concept will be a hard sell.
2. If anything will push customers to open-source, this is it.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
I dread the day when this will happen. There is something wrong about paying something over and over again. This is why I don't play WOW.
And the buddhists shouldn't use swastikas. Right.
"It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
isn't that what the open source business model is already doing? See Redhat subscription , MySQL subscription , SuSe Linux Enterprise 9 subscription
If I don't buy one of these subscriptions, my software doesn't get bug fixes, security updates, which means it is unfit for further use. Essentially it means I have to stop using the software.
Microsoft stops selling washing/drying machines and prefers to set up laundromats throughout the city. This is a free economy so if I don't like to go to laundromats I can still buy a washing/drying machine from another vendor, or I can install one of the machines that hobbyists give away for free (Open Source/Free Software).
look at the sega channel.....interesting idea but it never really caught on. It did give users a chance to use a whole bunch of games that they may have not played otherwise, but I think the consensus was they would rather invest their time/money into a game they could play at their own pace.
Monstar L
\=^o.o^= means "Seig Meow!"
Honest software: It can be bought, but once it's bought, it stays bought.
Paying over and over again for the same thing falls under the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I run Linux and use OSS almost exclusively at home, work and school. If greedy software companies want to push more people to Open Source it can only help. After all, companies only control the market if consumers allow it.
IBM had a vision like this albeit not in a networked environment. They predicted that only a few computers are needed for anybody's needs and that they would provide them. Look where we are today. I'll stick with my linux and BSD OSes forEVER if need be. I'm not buying any of the DRM CRAP. I'll grow old with my Athlon XP and be happy. I don't need new office, new crap all the time. It's not a wearing off. It's still ticking as the first day I installed. It can still tick 100 years from now if all the hardware lasts that long. Software CANNOT be forced down our throats. MS is doomed if they try to pull this off. It might be ok on niche business 2 business markets but not as a consumer product. NO WAY, JOSE!
./ or \. is also a simple wave sometimes. it's just a head and an arm... a tiny example of an ASCII graphic.
././././\../././././
Oh. and this:
is one white guy at a rap concert.
\./ thats just super! Come on silly goose, let's skip to a different rhythm. Air Five!
Why? Because you refuse to get an Internet connection to avoid the monthly bill?
I, for one, welcome our new subscription licensing overlords.
Seriously, though, I think that subscription licensing would be a huge boost for free and open source software. Right now, many people are willing to pay for software since it's a one time cost. A lot of other people are perfectly willing to pirate software, which is fairly easy since all you need is a key. Now, some of the first group may be willing to go with subscription licensing: it's kind of like leasing a car, they'll say. However, for the rest of this group, paying for software every year when it hasn't changed will seem ridiculous. Why pay for something that isn't even new and that I won't really own? The second group, however, will have a lot of trouble with the hosted software, since hosted means that something about you (your IP for example) can be easily logged every time you use the software, which makes piracy inherently more dangerous and more difficult.
Thus, I welcome subscription licensing. It will wake a significant number of people up to the alternatives that are available to them, strengthening free and open source software by improving it and widening its user base.
I'm not deeply opposed to the concept of subscriptions. Disregarding operating systems for a second (I'm an OSX, Linux, Solaris guy), I think that people will have to wrap their mind around the new concept. We are used to paying for an item and owning it rather than paying for the function and service performed. If the price is reasonable . . . why the hell not?
Forgetting that OpenOffice is free, let's say you had the option of paying $350 for each copy of each release of your office software (word processor and spreadsheet program) every couple of years or so. Why not pay $5/mo for the same functionality and never have to worry about upgrades or new releases? Same with games and everything else. Why should software be so different than any other delivered service?
My main concerns would be:
+ What if the service stops being offered or the company goes out of business?
+ What are the security and privacy ramifications?
+ What are my options if I don't want to use a net connection?
+ What will happen to my documents/material when I stop subscribing to the software?
+ Will others have to subscribe to the software service to make use of the content/items I made?
+ Will I be forced into using an "application server" style arrangement or will I still be able to download and install the fully functional software on my actual computer? I don't want to be tethered to the internet for all functionality.
+ Will you charge me per-seat/user even in a household? Or can I still just have one subscription and let everyone who comes to my house or lives with me use my software as if it were not a subscription? I don't want to have to pay $20/mo for four people in my home to access something when I could just buy the software and they could use it for "free" without additional costs.
+ Am I going to have to allow a credit check and offer up my credit card number, social security number, home address, full name and other private data to secure an account with the software subscription service? Won't this make me easy to track in relation to anything I ever read, access, view or create/author? Do I really want this?
There are some things that from an org standpoint, I can see benefiting from this type of licensing *depending on the terms and inclusions in the contract*.
Things like Office or Windows I'd be pressed to call a good idea as those applications rarly (at my org) receive large maintenence on other then patch updates.
Where as things like ERP systems with updated tax codes and compliance issues are often modified quarterly or yearly and are maintained by the issuing/support company. (again, in my experience).
So while I dont think this will catch on for everything, or even the majority of markets, I think that the make or break flag will be whats included for a support contract, and how natural is it for support to be an integral part of the product (e.g. Anti-Virus).
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
the same amount of times we pay for our movies or music when formats change?
yeah, just a head and an arm... harmless ASCII...
I think that the idea of paying an ongoing subscription licensing fee for use of a software project is not only how things will end up, no doubt, but that this could be a great benifit to consumers. Right now high end software can cost any where from hundreds to thousands of dollars. The average consumer can't aford the latest and greates photoshop every time they want to edit a simple picture or make a simple peice of art. So if companies moved to a per use licensing then the consumers would be able to use the latest and greatest a couple times a year. Imagine you log into your music editing service and only pay for the time used, then anyone could edit a song here and there. Yes it would be come more costly for those that need to use this software on a regular basises but I'm willing to pay for that in exchange for being able to use a product only once with out costing me a weeks pay.
If people have the option of staying with their current software, they will almost certainly do so. Subscriptions change this, because the vendor gets paid over and over regardless of whether any upgrades happen. Suddenly, they don't have to develop new features in order to get people to buy copies, they only need to develop new features in order to stop people switching away.
Take a look at Hotmail or Yahoo Mail for example. Until GMail came on the scene, they seemed quite content to sit back and take money from advertisers and paid users without doing much in the way of development. Then GMail came out, and they were forced to begin developing new features in order to stop people from switching.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
This isn't exactly a new concept. FlexLM, now a product of MacroVision, turns 95% of the EDA industry's software into a subscription. You can "buy" a software package, but pick and choose the features you want to pay for. Didn't buy feature X? You'll have 0 keys available for checkout, so don't even try to use it.
I'm torn on the whole concept. I've been known to use old software because I don't need to upgrade as it works just fine for me. Pricing of the subscription would be key. An Office package from Microsoft could still be very usable well into its 5th year (based on my experience), while tax software is only good for 4 months. If I could pay, say, 1/2 the sticker price of the package in subscription rates before the new version came out, it's probably a win if you're always tempted to upgrade. If subscription rates meant I could have owned it outright before the new version came out, it's useless because software upgrade innovation has slowed down recently. There's probably a balance in there that makes sense.
Surely it depends? Thinking that one model fits all is stupid - both for 'customers' and developers.
Some people and business will pay subscriptions for mission critical software. Anti-virus on Windows is probably there for most people. Some applications will be updated semi-regularly, e.g. when the OS breaks it, new hardware comes out or a new feature is good. Some applications will be a buy once affair. Maybe things like a single player game.
Similarly developers/companies will offer different deals: Programs running on servers require subscription to keep working (e.g. MMORPG), some software (e.g. simple shareware) might be free upgrades for the life of the product, some product will work forevers but will require payment for major upgrades. Some software will be free (in terms of money) - and sets the baseline for what commercial (pay-for) software has to achieve to sell (e.g. FOSS). These are not the only models of course - but they are the ones that WORK.
Not fixing major bugs for free is stupid for the developers. Most do, of course.
A more important point is the number of developers STILL not offering try-before-you-buy.
It isn't your software in the first place if you're licensing it!
Now that the OS costs as much as the hardware... and the upgrade cycle of MS's continually evolving beta release model anyways.. imagine not having to pay for your OS up front, but instead paying 9.95 a month.
$120 a year, free updates to each next level, price breaks if you skip major upgrades due to hardware limitations. Sounds just like them and ppl are already conditioned to geting everything month by month.
"How Many Times Should We Pay For Our Software?"
Sheesh... what a lame article. Isn't this like asking, "How many times should we pay for electricity?" The company offering hosted applications isn't trying to swindle anyone. You go in with the full knowledge that if you keep using it, you keep paying for it. The company offering the service keeps incurring hosting costs and they keep upgrading the software as part of the deal. If that model doesn't appeal to you, then you shouldn't have chosen it in the first place.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Subscription based licensing will encourage the release of products that don't suck.
Because if the product sucks, nobody will renew the subscription.
In the gaming realm, companies will be encouraged to continually add new content and improve things to keep the game from falling out of favor.
Once for the software and that's it. I've purchased plenty of software with free lifetime upgrades.
I can see where they could start thinking they could get away with it. MSFT users take a porking and keep coming back for more. They pay for an operating system, prove they own it to get it working, then pay for an anti-virus and anti-spyware subscription to keep it working right. In the business setting I'll watch customers pay for MSFT licenses, then find out they have to buy this or that CAL on top of it, depending how they're using it. It's insane, but they have their passive aggressive little snit fit and write the check.
Somewhere this is going to hit a wall. Open source alternatives are getting better, big software companies are boning their customers at every opportunity. You have to think there's a tipping point where customers will say this far and no more. Some have already gotten there, more consider it all the time. OpenOffice, despite its flaws, is a very functional alternative.
I'm wondering if it will keep happening little by little or if there will be a big bang type migration that will cause big software to start looking at their price points, probably way beyond the too late point? I have a hard time not believing that somewhere, not far away, this tendency to keep porking the customer is going to come back and bite them on the ass.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
If, on the other hand, I'm selling my 'custom' code for $500 each to 1,000 people a year, it's the ongoing sales that pay for the bug fixes and updates.
Once I've fixed the bug for one of my customers it's almost free for me to distribute that fix to everybody on my customer list. It's dishonest of me to charge each of my customers the full cost of fixing each bug. On the other hand, charging them a small fee for ongoing admin and support is completely reasonable, as long as I'm actively supporting the code and you want the new fixes. If you don't want the fixes, then you've paid for my time, and there's no more need for you to pay me.
The Microsoft approach, on the other hand, looks like little more than a greedy grab. I'm expecting that their yearly costs aren't going to be much less than the price of the (old) non-subscription version -- except that you're going to be expected to pay that price every year for the rest of your life -- whether or not Microsoft is supporing it.
Worse yet -- If Microsoft wants to force you to move to Windows 2010, all they have to do is cut off the air supply for people using the XP/Vista versions and you'll have to either abandon your data or upgrade to 2010 -- so now you get dinged twice for the one piece of software.
Subscription makes far more sense for something like anti-virus software because you actually need the most recent data for your code to work ongoingly. On the other hand, I can still do most of the content creation I really want with Word5.0 for MacOS7.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
1: Bandwidth, it takes a lot of network to pull a CD image accross a LAN if you are deploying, say a new version of Office on a network, divide the lan speed by ~200 and that is a good average measurment of "cloud" speed (the speed at which your network head end talks to that of Microsoft or whoever over the public internetwork) and I doubt that the prices of OC3s will fall anytime soon.
2: Lack of access: It it bad enough NOW when the fiber between your small-to-medium size community from the backbone is cut, now imagine that on top of missing the important conferance call because the t-1 for the phones is down, you cant even type out the reports you need to do in Word! this would cause the business world to converge on redond with pitchforks in hand (when the managers realise that it isnt the techies fault)
3: Common logic: "We only pay for computers once, why should we pay for software 3-5 times over the 3-5 year lifecycle"
4: Road warrior -- Broadband isnt everywhere yet -- 'nuff said
5: Security concious people do not ever want their secure documents touching a server they dont controll -- even if it is "just" a temp cache.
Subscriptions would essentially force all users to upgrade to each new release whether they want to or not. Am I the only one who refused to upgrade programs like AIM--or, for that matter, my old cellular phone--because they kept adding crap features I didn't want? Please let us keep the choice of whether to upgrade or not in our own hands.
I think too you need to look at what the value proposition is. For an enterprise Linux, it's understood that it is a work in progress and that, to a certain extent, money in represents value out. In effect, Linux is a clever way for competing companies to cooperate on core infrastructure without having to reveal what they are doing to the competition. It has the benefits of socialism (large resources focussed on a task) with the benefits of capitalism (market driven progress.) A subscription model fuels that by providing a market for people to demonstrate their demand for the product in hard cash.
For Windows, the understood background is that a company has developed a product that is expected to work properly first time (this is written quite seriously, I'm not judging whether or not Microsoft achieves this.) For this reason, companies are expected to pay a lot for it up front. A subscription model allows Microsoft to screw up royally and still get cash while the problems are fixed, i.e. it destroys the Microsoft value proposition. If I buy a car and it fails within warranty, I expect it to be fixed FOC. In fact, nowadays I don't expect it will fail during warranty at all. The last car I bought (VW group) survived its first 4 years with only routine servicing - which is largely why I still have it. When cars were unreliable heaps of junk - i.e. until the 1990s unless there was a 3-pointed star on it somewhere - leasing made a certain amount of sense because the thing was really unfit for use after just a few years of company driving. There was no sense of owing a valuable capital asset with many years of good service in it, it was a case of having a service on tap.
By that analogy, I expect software that comes with a capital asset to be largely subscription free. I would not be happy if there was an annual licence for software to use a digital camera. I would not be at all happy to have to pay an annual licence to boot my PC or read my own archives. But I accept that I need to subscribe for FUTURE services - email, internet connectivity, to deal with new viruses and worms.
To cut the inevitable long story short, I once worked for a company that had one of those MRP systems that had an annual contract and a licence key. One year they screwed up delivering the new licence keys. For three days at a busy time of year, not only could we not enter new business, we could not read old business data. The pain was such that I made it a primary objective to win over the board and replace the system with one which did not stop working under these conditions.
Pining for the fjords
I just don't understand the grandparent's assertion that european counsterstrike shorthand carries any weight on the net as a whole.
Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
As a freelance web designer and Flash developer faced with having to make large outlays for new software (Macromedia Studio 8, Maya) being able to get my hands on the technology for less up-front investment sounds good.
This is a topic that really gets my goat. I can appreciate paying a fee for software updates, but programs like Quickbooks extort money from their customers, big amounts of money, just to update the tax tables in the software. This is ridiculous and someone should start a class action lawsuit. The software ceases to function properly until you pay them for these tiny bits of data that are otherwise public information.
wow.
what a bullshit slanted article.
run be scared! wooo! the boogey man is coming!
Ignore the fact that more and more, Open Source is taking over, giving easy options to avoid the software vendors. Let them charge however they want. YOU DONT HAVE TO BUY IT.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
The problem with this proposed idea of subscription-based software could backfire in the future in a spectacular way that could cost an absolute fortune in support. The problem is this, you buy a computer and take out a support contract, you run the computer for a few years and it works fine, until the support for the software runs out as the vendor does not wish to spend more money on that particular product. Fine, you might save, upgrade to the latest version of that software. But what happens if the latest version of that software is not fit form and function compatible with your requirements, or an additional piece of hardware/software does not work on the new system.
You could be forced into upgrading hardware at your own cost, and if that cost impacts your business, well you could be forced to do the best for your company and its shareholders and sue the software company concerned, especially if the software company promised a number of years service at the beginning. But the software vendor will probably start to say that the software you hired was fit for purpose, and you are using it outside its recommended operating conditions and will refuse to continue supporting your product, even though they retain the right the to software that in some way prevents you from using it. When this happens, only lawyers will win.
What a subscription service will do is make more companies use an open source operating systems and have their software written specifically for that platform, retaining all copyrights to the code in the process. By doing this the company will gain the benefits of an open source platform that is continuously being updated, while your source code can easily be modified to suit your business/application should it become necessary. Not only would this significantly extend the lifecycle of your system, but also you would lower your liability for the recycling of obsolete equipment. Yes, the outlay may be more expensive, but you would get a system that met your needs, and not the needs of a particular software vendor. I think that this is the situation that Microsoft would not like, a real rod for their back for future business.
Just because a computer is old, it doesn't make it any less useful to the right people in the right hands. Think of it this way, a typical automotive manufacturer has to support their cars for at least 7 years after they have produced the last example of that particular model, in the aerospace industry the lifecycle can be over 25 years. Imaging going to IBM to request a replacement 8086 Microprocessor? Or requesting a new set Windows 3.1 disks from Microsoft? These companies would currently laugh at you, but they wont be laughing when they are told that they have to support these systems as they have decided to base everything on a subscription basis, and the company using the software wants that subscription honoured.
The software industry has to learn that product support lifecycles must increase before they even think about subscription software.
I've noticed that Microsoft appears to break features they don't want you to have. Floppies not working with Windows XP Pro is the latest I've found (VFP database support comes to mind). I suspect your XP installs will mysteriously become unstable a few critical security patches after Vista ships.
Your assertion that "pay once, get bugfixes free" is not acceptable is flawed. I payed to have a working product. If they didn't do a good enough job to keep it working in the future, then they need to fix that FOR FREE. No need for bug fixes or anti-virus if there aren't any flaws in the first place. Subscription models aren't even a part of the picture until the vendor makes a bad product. That shows the real problem is the bad product, and that they need to fix it. Don't tell me to pay a subscription for a product that should have worked in the first place. That would just mean they could put out as crappy a product as they want to and "fix it later". I'm not trusting Microsoft to "fix it later", because they never do. You say thats because of no subscription? BS. They're still making 400% profits. They can just count that as their subscription model. They've got an obligation to fix their stuff.
I'm not even going to comment on the merits of subscription-based software pricing. What I will say, however, is that the average guy/grandma/Joe Sixpack will not go for it. How do you convince them that they need to write a check to Microsoft every month to keep using Windows? Or that the anti-virus software they have is just important enough to keep paying month after month to use it?
In the past, they got it for "free" with their computer, and now they have to continuously pay for it? Ridiculous. Even worse still is the thought that they will have to manage all of their countless subscriptions to pay every month. Some people have trouble getting their utilities paid on time...
Like in everything, some suckers will gladly fork-over their dough for overpriced, under-achieving closed-source proprietary crap, and others will simply use open-source free software for the same result.
Solutions That Suck(tm) will simply go the way of the dodo.
The market will decide who will be the winner, thanks to the level playing field.
Hilarious!
And for everybody else who has better uses for their cash (like groceries):
http://www.linuxlookup.com/html/main/iso.html Get Linux.
http://www.linuxiso.org/ Get Linux.
http://distrowatch.com/ Get Linux (or BSD).
http://www.livingwithoutmicrosoft.org/ Learn more about alternatives.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/ Ask a Linux pro.
http://madpenguin.org/cms/ Read reviews of Linux.
But why subscribe? I can distribute DVD on Lulu or sell T-shirts from Spreadshirt. All commission based, doesn't cost me a penny in subscription fees.
Microsoft already charges many people several times for a copy of windows by restricting OEM versions it to specific models of hardware. Many people I know have bought several dells since windows XP came out. Every time they have to buy a new copy of windows. Not to mention the several academic facilities I've worked at which have site licenses for windows. Every time they purchase new hardware they get to buy OEM copies of windows with it, which promptly get erased.
Small businesses to which such software was geared to were trying to beat those restrictions any way possible: changing system date, searching for hacks online (as soon as Internet came around), and SWITCHING to different software, which doesn't require annual subscribtion as soon as it was available on the market.
Any company,unless it is a monopoly as MS, will not succsede trying to get user to pay annually. As with MS,if they ever push this strategy on WinOS, it would be the final push for OSS switch for many of the users.
Many of you seem to like the idea of subscriptions. A number of you said that it will only boost Open Source.
Well, I agree if such a move is made that many consumers will look to open source applications. However, Open Source just isn't ready for mainstream consumers. Many applications that are released are pieces of crap (namely Firefox and ClamAV).
I don't think software subscriptons is a good idea. All those monthly and yearly subscripts will add up.
Who wants to pay $100-$200 ($1200-$2400/year) a month for software on their computer?
How much are you willing to pay? Is $5,000 a year to much to pay for subscriptions?
Think about the amount of money you are willing to shell out to greedy businesses.
\
What I've not seen so far is any comment that discusses how you are supposed to explain to your boss, the guy who has to pay for everything—somebody who is used to buying a truck or a welding machine or a sheet of plastic and then being able to use it any way he wants, including custom modifications—why you can't buy software any more.
It's hard enough to explain software licensing to management, the idea that you only buy the privilege to use the software without being able to rewrite and customize it. (Or even debug it decently. My boss just doesn't seem to understand why "The programmer screwed up" is generally the most detailed answer I can give him when he asks why a program garbled his monthly report or cut the wrong holes in a sheet of stainless steel.)
To management, computers are a capital purchase to be depreciated over several years, and the software that comes with them and makes them useful should be the same thing. Maintenance is for the actual cost of things that get used up or wear out or break, like gasoline and electricity and tires and keyboards. If you want to put a new motor in your truck, you just pay for the damn motor—you don't pay General Motors a fee for the privilege.
My boss gets aggravated enough at the idea that after he pays $20K for a software package, the company expects him to pay another $500 to $1500 per year to get maintenance and updates—but at least the software itself still runs after the first year.
He does understand that tax tables change, and new viruses develop, but it's still a battle to get him to pay for annual updates to antivirus or accounting software.
But if I have to tell him that the software itself will stop working after a year, he's going to go ballistic, and I doubt he's the only boss out there who will. Shifting software to a subscription-only model will simply mean that thousands of small companies will remain on their current software well into the next decade (or until OSS becomes a large enough force in the marketplace to impinge on their awareness).I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
my point, and some have gotten the wrong impression was this: you pay the subscription, and you keep getting updates. Done correctly and you have a happy user base.
for example Apple.
You bought Panther & recieved bug fixes / updates
You bought Jaguar & recieved bug fixes / updates
You bought Tiger & recieved bug fixes / updates
You'll buy Leopard & will recieve bug fixes / updates.
I didn't mean to say you should pay for bug fixes, just the major updates (ala the Apple example).
Few users are going to sign up the such a service, as long as alternatives free of such blatently greedy cash harvesting measures exist. I find the whole idea morally and ethically bankrupt, and extremely offensive.
Microsoft has to diversify into other areas, as its core applications will likely be replaced by free alternatives in the future, unless they to are offered free of charge, and Microsoft decides to derive income from support contracts.
Title of post contains several logical errrors:
* First, you never own software, if we talk about prioritary ones, it should be clear; All you have some limited rights to use copyrighted work of software owner. Hell, sometimes you don't have rights to have even backup copies;
* Second, it is not *our* software, as we never own it, actually;
Yes, I know it is disturbing, people don't like these facts, as they point out - you have to pay about those cool things like software inside our computers.
Of course, you can use Free Software (as speech). As many of us do.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
6k is an understand considering how much gas has gone up because of the huricanes, but then again my company picks up the tab :)
Ive been told (Havent looked it up yet, if anyone has the figures let me know) that Shell (gas company) made over 7billion last quarter alone!...
How else could we buy the $500 gaming rig without pirating XP first? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/29/174823 3
But seriously, IMO, if they make the software impossible to make a crack for, then they deserve their money. If it can be cracked, they don't.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 SU CK IT MP AA
The goal of a business is to maximise its profits - it is an amoral entity. If they think they can make more money with a subscription model, they will switch to it.
When it comes to setting pricing models, customer expectations are just as important as delivering value. A great example is the switch from landlines to cellphones. Landlines involve miles of expensive copper coming to your door, and there's a monthly line rental to amortize the cost of installing and maintaining that infrastructure. With a cellphone, your "line" is nothing more than a row in a database table - they aren't going to run out and deploy a new cell tower because Joe Sixpack bought a handset. Yet, they still have a monthly line rental fee, because people expect one and will pay it.
"The average consumer can't aford the latest and greates photoshop every time they want to edit a simple picture or make a simple peice of art. So if companies moved to a per use licensing then the consumers would be able to use the latest and greatest a couple times a year." - Quote from parent (sorry i couldnt figure out the quoting thing)
... who would pay for that?)... the simple fact is that many of these clients simply didnt find enough benefit in swapping, or the systems developed under NT would be too costly to shift. To force people over Microsoft is declaring software as reaching end-of-life, and are still unable to convince companies to stop using NT (i loved that OS by the way.. and its from 1995 era for gods sake). With a subscription in-place they no longer have this option, they are not consuming a new product because it is in their best interests but because it is in the interests of the software company that made it.
Yes this would be nice, however its a funny thing when a companies profit margins begin to fluctuate. Believe it or not, it wont be long before they start boosting the price on these 'home' users because the difference of $1 or $2 per session is less noticable for a hobbyist than it is a regular user. And you cant tell me that wont happen, what do you think is happening with iTunes, why sell music at 99c when you can sell it at $1.50 with the much higher profit margin. If your collection is only small you wouldnt notice the difference in cost, however as it increases the difference becomes painfully obvious and you are either forced to by more (and obtain a possible volume discount while spending more than you normally would) or find something else (thankgod for OSS).
From a organisations point of view i can understand this move since it would give you much greater control over your software licencing and reduce the effects of the upgrade profit shocks. However lets be realistic, you are still going to pay the same amount for that software if you bought it outright or payed it off over time (they arent stupid), the only difference is that in the subscription method you will lose control over the software you are distributing (XP SP2 anyone?). And as is suggested, you will probably lose the use of that software once the subscription runs out - a used asset that cost the same as a lifelong asset.
The point is that in a pure form the subscription service is a great idea, however in an open market without regulatory controls it doesnt take a genious to find a way of abusing the system for profits. And it is not as simple as moving from one piece of software to another, companies like Microsoft are built on this (yes i use both linux and windows as well as OOo and Office).
My thought on this is that it is an attempt by companies to PREVENT users from relying on older software, forcing them to upgrade and pay for the new software. Just think of Windows NT, how many companies out there are STILL using this OS, and how much trouble has Microsoft had trying to convince people to upgrade from NT->2000 or NT->2003 (notice how neith MS or myself compared 2000->2003
We are used to paying for an item and owning it rather than paying for the function and service performed.
Given the degree with which people depend on the availability (and overuse) of consumer credit, they are quite acclimated to paying for stuff over long periods of time. I'm not sure the issue of "ownership" would really make that much difference, since Joe Average Computeruser isn't attached to the device the way that the tech crowd is. As long as they can surf, read e-mail, chat, and pirate music/software, they're good to go.
Just think though - if everything is centralized, Microsoft can execute absolute control over what you can and cannot do while running the software. Microsoft Pwnage 1.0.
I'm surprised this isn't an Ask Slashdot question, because that's normally the category questions with bleeding obvious answers like this one are asked. The only right answer? Zero.
Help us build a better map!
With a few exceptions -- OS X and MSO -- I don't buy my software. I write it myself or go to sourceforge.net. As a larger number of easier to use OSS packages make their way to the mainsteam -- Firefox, I'm looking at you -- I suspect more people will move into my camp than vice-versa.
What is this "pay for our movies or music" you speak of? Never heard of it.
yay! for the ms/riaa/etc takeover!
*hugs tcpa and drm*
[/sarcasm]
.
For what it's worth, subscription-based software was temporariliy tried back in the old NeXT days ('93, '94). It wasn't a successful experiment - people like to own things when they pay money for them. Cable TV and cell phones are a bit of an anomaly because they were introduced with the "pay as you go" plan, but certainly for things where in past you owned them after forking over cash, even a reduced cash outlay for "pay to use" just doesn't sit well with people.
-MrO
to the game companies to use this scheme because people who would pay 10$ per month to play a game in the first place are obviously gullible / dumb enough to pay full price for the client too -- makin' money on both ends baby! welcome tyh the EA world of gaming.
Can't this be seen as a form of racketeering?
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but it used to be expected that if you paid for a software product that the vendor would maintain it and fix bugs for a reasonable amount of time (usually several years) as part of the original purchase price.
That morphed into a "forced march" of periodic new version releases for features that many users didn't want or need and requiring additional fees.
And NOW, they want to morph again into "you don't actually own anything, but we'll allow you to use the software you need to create and later use/access your business data for an annual fee."
This is great news for OpenOffice and other open source applications that are poised to serve customers that balk at this new "pricing model."
the subscription thing is just a bad idea due to human nature. boil it down to essential basic facts. humans like to own stuff. given the option, most people would rather own a house than rent; own a car rather than lease. that's why itunes works and is favored more so than the subscription models of online music delivery. software for the most part breaks down into entertainment (games) and tools (things you use to make a living). i work as a designer, and i know lots of people who use old machines because they work for them and they don't care to spend the money to upgrade them; so perhaps they are still using OS 9 and an outdated version of photoshop, but they don't need to buy the new one, it does the job. now if people are forced into some sort of subscription restraint, what happens to those not able to, or not wanting to buy new hardware and operating systems etc ... do they get hosed? does the writer who is using a 10 year computer and Word need to start paying monthly or annual fees to use the program to do his job?
I think if anything, this will add fire to Linux and things like Open Office, GIMP, etc ... as well as increase support for companies that sell the tool at a set cost.
If I buy a skill saw, I want to be able to use that skill saw whenever I want to without having to pay for it again or for the honor of using it, it's mine ... now if they come out with a newer fancier one - it's my choice if i want ot buy it or not, but i still have the one i bought to build my stuff. and i think that's how most people feel.
Not that long ago most gas stations were all full service, they'd check your oil, water, air; air and wter were free, they'd clean your windshield, and kids got free little toys now and then. huge companies these days charge for every little thing now; and it sucks for the rest of us. the service and support in general is much worse than it was 10-20 years ago.
i don't think it's as much about piracy as it is about creating additional/new revenue streams.
i run a small business and i have not upgraded all my software in a few years, because the new versions were either buggy, i can't afford to, or i dont' need to. i don't need my monthly overhead going up to rent software, it would make it much harder for me to get by.
zero
I get Mathematica under an annual subscription system (called Premium Service), which allows you to always download the newest version and it works great. Of course, Wolfram also lets you buy a specific version of Mathematica and keep it, so one is not forced into the subscription model. For pieces of software that are in the vein of Mathematica (or Matlab, or any other specialized technical application), I think that this model works well, because you're going to want the updates. I personally prefer paying an annual fee and getting a new license code every year (and yes, the subscription Mathematica stops working after a certain date unless you put in the new license code, but it doesn't have to phone home) than having to shell out a new version every year or two to stay up to date.
However, for something like my operating system, or any other program that I rarely need to upgrade versions, I think this is a horrible idea, because I'm more concerned that the damn thing work, and continue to work with minimal expense and/or effort on my part. The possibility of the software not working because I don't have internet access on some day (or everyday, with some phone-home verification system) would be intolerable.
I think the consensus is a resounding "Never, use FOSS!"
But seriously, I don't think this will draw any significant number of users away from the proprietary software world. As long as we keep paying for virus scanner updates and game subscriptions, which we happily do now, vendors will keep charging for them.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
Here's the argument:
Piracy is the single greatest obstacle to improving the quality of software. In life, you don't get what you don't pay for.
Slashdot entertains. Windows pays the mortgage.
Look up these three words.
Software Appliance.
Server Appliance.
Application Service Provider (aka for the old timers, service bureau).
As for software leasing. The business world has been doing this for decades. It's the consumer market that's never encountered that.
Phinneas T. Barnum, Circus Ringmaster, had a point: There really is a sucker born every minute. So long as there are idiots willing to pay whatever is asked for the same software over and over again (warts and all), they will patiently stand in line, and will even beg the seller for a used, scratched demo copy (at full price of course). Since (in the world of computers) there are so many people with a 'wheeeeee lets go down and get the new computer kit!!!' mentality, their money is soon parted. Even when confronted with alternatives that offer all or more of the functionality at wildly lower prices, and without the bugs, they will rant and snort about 'well it can't be any good if I don't pay a million dollars a copy for it'. They equate quality with artificially inflated prices. At some point, you have to quit blaming monopolistic companies who artifically inflate their prices, and start blaming the clueless-idiot repeat-buyers. I wish it weren't so, but some people really need to be smacked upside the head with a clue-by-4 before they will listen (and even then, some will stay in denial, not willing to accept the shocking news that they have willingly allowed themselves to be taken for thousands of dollars over the years).
What could be more appealing to a company that can't ship anything on time? If MS got paid every year by the same customers for the same old shit, then their failures wouldn't have any effect on their bottom line.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
There must be something wrong here - Yes I should pay for the new medium, but as we all know that forms a small part of the cost of producing an album.
I suppose it just shows that I am a mug who is willing to be ripped off by the music pirates^h^h^h^h^h^h^hdistributors.
What if you miss a payment?
Digital Citizen
Some high end software does magically stop working if you dont pony up the monthly/yearly maintenance fee.
Ultimately that is where 'subscription' services will head.
No payola, no workie..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I run nothing but free software, but now me and everyone else at LSU gets to pay the Microsoft Tax like everyone else. The $500,000 / year deal is so bad that the per copy distribution cost will be close to or exceed CompUSA customer rape prices. Far from pushing everyone into the Microsoft camp, it's being billed as "free software" and it will delay student use of real free software. With a site license, you too can subsidize other people's bad choices.
Talk to your student government representatives NOW. here is no escape without knowledge.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
the article uses zdnet blogs as its main information source?
In any case, i think the author lost the connection. It's not like Microsoft got suddenly lobotomized (they know that if they charge too much, their customers will flee elsewhere).
Microsoft's "hosted everything" (if real) is probably nothing but a response to the Google Office initiative.
The article author is just putting words in Microsoft's mouth.
ASP (aka service bureaus) is alive and well).
I work with a piece of software that charges everywhere they can. First, you buy the software. Then you pay annual "maintenance". That does include upgrades, but it adds up to the original purchase price in five years, so it is essentially forced upgrades at full price. If you don't subscribe to maintenance, no fixes, no tech support, and no upgrades. If you have a lapse in maintenance, you have to pay back to the lapse point if you want to re-subscribe.
If you want to write a program that accesses the data through the objects they provide, that costs extra. They even claim ownership of the data in your database server (the DB server license is not included in the product cost) and want a license fee if you access that data directly.
For resellers and support professionals, you MUST be certified in order to install or configure the software. This is enforced through security hardware installed on servers and configuration workstations and with challenge numbers that make you call support in order to get the product to work. In order to be certified, not only do you need to pass a test, be you MUST attend their $2000 a week training (for two weeks). If you want support on custom programming, you MUST have attended their class or they won't even answer your question.
Any time anyone finds a workaround that provides alternative access to data without costing extra money (above the normal license fee, I'm not talking about getting anything for free), but is against the "spirit" of the license, the next version has some kind of feature to breaks that workaround. Yes, this company spends licensing money adding features that break customer extensions to the product, just so they can sell it back to them.
BTW, this software is not sold as "subscription based software", but with a traditional license. Gouging customers is not new, and is not limited to Microsoft.
This kind of model works because it lowers the initial cost of the software and makes it look good to decision-making committees. But, it's really bait-and-switch marketing.
That's an interesting coincidence, because the Finnish Air Force has been recently criticized on its use of swastikas, which of course has nothing to do with the Nazis.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I think that by making a subscription service thing would encourage MORE piracy, because people will think "I didnt used to have to pay again and again for windows, oh and i found this cracked version that doesnt make me go through all this bullshit, so ill just download that for free"
For this bit alone -
Suckers come in both varieties, some zealots will gladly use open-source free crap, and others will use cost-effective closed-source proprietary software. Once ideology gets in way of your better judgement, you're likely to make poor business decisions.
You don't own anything anyway! If you read the EULA on any shrink-wrapped software, it basically says they own your soul (and the software) and they don't have any liability whatsoever for faults in it.
Just because common sense and fair use, would suggest that we can keep using the software we bought, doesn't mean the law will guarantee that for us.
Nice to hear from you directly not through a strawman
Help fight continental drift.
If there is a per-use option, maybe it will be a viable option for some. Especially if you can select old versions.
Do you really want to keep one copy of every application you have ever used, just so that you can be sure of getting at old content? I see a per-use market here. How much would you pay, to open ONE 12-year-old "orphaned" document (really old vesions - not just Word, think PageMaker, FrameMaker, etc)?
Will the on-line application provider guarantee that you will ALWAYS be able to "go back" and open "obsolete" docs? Are they going to update your entire library each time they upgrade?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
-I want to play whatever I purchace on any device that is able to play it without any artificial restrictions
-I want to be able to customise my system to the furthest extents that
is possible. I don't want anyone, especialy money-men to deny me that ability.
-I don't want to be forced to put my "trust" into a 3rdparty, nor do I want that 3rd party to act as middle man. The only person I really trust is myself. GET IT? Because you have more money than I, dosen't make you anymore trustworthy than myself. GET IT?
-Stop trying to make me pay for the same exact content over and over again. I DON'T LIKE THAT!
-Stop selling artificaly crippled devices that prevent 3rd party content for being written and used on it.
-I am not a fucking criminal, and you will NOT treat me as a criminal.
-Yes, some of us still use the command line.
Then, for maintenance updates, charge a nominal fee that covers their development. Users who want to have the latest security or feature updates subscribe to a service to get them, or perhaps buy them ala carte. The end user has the choice -- do it, or not.
One requirement that I see, at least before I would ever consider participating in this kind of software market, is that there is no such thing as a subscription where the software quits working if the customer terminates it. Make it the customers choice if they want to keep paying for updates or not, but once the software is theirs ... it's theirs.
In soviet Russia, software pays for you.
Isn't this Google's long term plan as well? All those cool Google features have to be paid for in soem way. It's going to be ad driven or subscription eventually. So, does that mean that Google is now part of the "bad guys" team?
Nobody will see this because of the power-happy modders. But I like shouting into canyons too.
There is a difference between subscriptions and upgrades. Subscriptions imply regularity. There is no regularity in upgrades.
Subscriptions should be for packages such as antivirus software. (I'm totally against that though. The software isn't getting better over time, with updates... just new definitions are added. And it's not like much effort is required to deal with AV updates. People willingly submit virus samples to SW vendors for analysis. AV companies work together on new viruses, sharing info. Yet Sy****** wants $20/year for subscriptions. Pfft.)
I have a problem with companies who add trivial or minor updates and want huge upgrade fees. That is why I dumped E***** for Thunderbird. The last upgrade would have caused me $39 for 4 minor feature updates- to a mail program I originally paid $30 for. Fsck that.
So why is piracy an issue? Greed. Companies following the RIAA model. I'm moving to OSS and Linux. Better software, less bugs, and I feel GOOD about shelling out money and donations for development!
Honestly, any self respecting company should provide you support for longer than that.
In software that has been comoditized (like Office suites, data bases, operating systems, etc) people are not upgrading every couple of years.
Most people are using Win200 and older, Solaris 8 (how old is that!), MacOS or Linux in earlier incarnatins of the different distros.
If you are serious about your computing, the last thing you need is to replace a working configuration every couple of years (no, if you are a PC gamer you are not serious about your computing, you are a rich elitist posseur).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I pay $30 a month to my internet provider for all the software i want...
One or zero.
What makes you think people have a choice? Do you really think people have voluntarily "standardized" on the worst commercial software available? I don't. It has much more to do with anti-competitive practices proved in court again and again. People use Windoze due to manufacturer and dealer manipulation the results of which is difficult even for armies of kernel hackers to keep up with. It's only getting worse.
Device drivers are one of the biggest obstacles to alternate software use. GUI auto configuration in free software is now better than it is in commercial software, but there's more than that to deal with. I've got five laptops, spanning 10 years. Power management only works on three of them, pcmcia on four. The newer the hardware is, the more likely it is not to work, but some stuff never gets fixed or is broken again by a bios "upgrade". I use free software anyway, because I'm determined and because I've used it enough to know how much more is available to actually do things I want to do with my pictures, text, music, movies and other files. Many people never get passed the quirks and the crappy winmodem or sound card is a show stopper.
As Treacherous Computing is pushed and Bill Gates works his OS into your BIOS, things will only get harder. A computer with a fritz chip that won't boot anything other than a Microsoft approved kernel is game over for free software.
What are you going to do then? You are going to run free software on older hardware or you are going to take Bill's subscription deal. There you will stay stuck until someone makes free hardware - but that might be illegal by then.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Napster is convincing generations to "own nothing, have everything".
--
make install -not war
$10 a month may not be bad, if you got the latest version and it was truly per person. Right now, I have 3 machines: my home desktop, my laptop, and my work machine and each had a full licensed version of MS Office. When incoming new documents in the new version forced me to upgrade, the cost was so high that I switched to Open Office and with the money saved bought a new home machine (and still had money left over).
"If you can state that subsription software will improve the quality of software with a straight face, you must be a lawyer".
Customer: But I can't make any money with OSS.
OSS advocate: Sure you can. By selling services like customization, documentation, support."
In other words, pay up, and OSS quality will certainly improve. Else you're stuck with the "when we feel like it" that everyone else gets.
Switch to Linux. Lets force all these companies to go opensource.
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
Dear Bill:
Thanks! It's really nice of you to pound the final ashen stake into the heart of your business model. Lord knows we open-source users have been trying to do it for years to no avail. Now that you're willing to do it FOR us, we anticipate a bright future for all involved.
Deciding to screw your customers not once, not twice, but ANNUALLY in PERPETUITY is a master stroke. We couldn't have thought of something that evil ourselves (OUR general way of doing things is to NOT charge the customer annually, in perpetuity) and if we had, most of the FOSS community would have told us we were conspiracy theorists.
So thank you, Bill, you have done the world a great service. I wish you the best of all possible retirements, spending your tractor-trailer trucks full of cash around the world as you see fit.
Cordially,
The collective users of F/OSS software.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I work for a company, GroundWork (http://www.itgroundwork.com/ ), that offers subscriptions. Sure, we offer updates + a certain amount of support for a year, but because all of our offerings have a strong open source base, including Nagios and a few others, it's not like the software stops working after a year if you decide not to pay. You just don't have the automated updates and support avenues at your disposal, but you're perfectly free to continue using the software, including whatever proprietary bits we add on. Perhaps we should use a different term, because "subscription" seems to have a bad connotation, but I just wanted to note this for the record.
Hyperic Community Manager
When you install Linux and everything else that you need to run a Linux based desktop PC, how long does it last until you make software upgrades? When a new stable version of Xorg comes out? When ever a new version of the kernel comes out? People do not realize that software DOES NOT stay the same, it evolves by means of new versions of the same software. Therefore if you LEASE a version of some software, you could you it until a new version comes out. Then you could make the selection of upgrading automatically your software. Stop whining. No one is forcing you to buy your precious GNU/Linux systems. I bet most people complaining here are those freeloaders that think ALL software should be free of charge, yet they themselves either can't or won't contribute anything to Open Source community.
Updates I can accept, but why should I give you more money for making errors? If you can't write it correctly the first time, you should pay the cost of fixing the bugs. If you build me a table and it falls over the first time I try putting something on it, are you going to charge me again to fix the table?
It's not just M$ that's interested in "Hosted Everything". Our friends @ Google want to do that too in a sense.
For now it's free...what happens if we're all using these lovely AJAX apps, they become indespensible, and someone at Google says, okay, if you want to continue using your gmail, your GoogleOffice, your GoogleScheduler... Same thing with Yahoo...what happens when that is no-longer-free?
For Microsoft, (if you believe them) one of the biggest problems concerning all the factors of software distribution these days is that their CD distributed apps are subject to piracy, especially to the corporate marketplace. If it's hosted, it isn't nearly as subject to piracy (hacking yes, piracy no.) and of course that's only one of the reasons. The other reasons, marketing, targeting, all the goodies...they're all so much easier to control when the app is hosted. Microsoft isn't alone in this. In some respects it's probably only a matter of time when nearly everything is hosted if it's of any serious quality. I'm suprised the Open Source movement hasn't tried to set up servers somewhere that host AJAX apps at the OpenOffice level of application and encourage companies to use it all the time just to encourage use in the apps. Either way it's the next big thing in that respect, at least if you want to keep your work open and free and not be subject to targeted ads and content.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
one day I bought this MP3 player, so I could have tunes. It came with a couple preloaded
... Then 'ventually the batteries run ou in my MP3 player
... an then they Want Me TO PAY!! WTF is THAT??? ... so they all up an figured they can
on it, but I wanted more. So now I gotta find out how to get more tunes onto it.
I go to thuh music store and I find some tunes I like, then they tell me
I gotta pay for 'em; WTF is that? So I go online to find this napster place
I heard about where you can get music... I think I got some for free there, Or
one of my friends did before... but then they want me to pay -- WTF is that?
[[ these musicians got gobs of money whadda they need
any more for...?...... ]]
It's like they all keep wanting me to pay these "fees" so that I can continue
to have/get fresh tunes on my player... WTF.
Yeah, come to think of it, I might have had to pay for that internet too ( If it
wa'nt for my parents payin' it ) and I even heard of an extra "Set up" fee
for that too... Yeah, it's a "Set up" alright, they out to set you up to
take all yo mOneh. WTF. If I gotta be payin' to get th' internet here,
WHY I GotTa have to pay AGAIN to get some tunes downoladed off it? WFT is that?
It's like, how many times they gonna charge me to do every single littel
thing I wanna do?
so now I gottah bUY more. WTF!*
Yeah one day I went out an' I bought this car see.
Cause I was tierd of walkin.
Then I find out I only get sofar an then there's no more gas. WTF. Now they tell me
I gotta put more gas in there. so I go to the gas station to get some more, and they tell
me I gotta pay for it. WTF is that? now I gotta pay this refill fee
just to keep using mah car? WTF is that?? I'ts like, I already payyd them an
assload of moNay for this dam cah now It's like this extra installment fee on
to p of that. Ain't like thos gas clerks need mah monEh, they sell all that other stuff,
you know, the soda 'n chips 'n hot dogs n' bird seeds 'n magzines 'n sheet-- that's how
they can make their monye. They don't need no moneY for
puttin the gas in mah dam cah. Y'noe, most times I pump it
mIself, s'not like I'm payin em the favor of comin out n
pumpin it for mEh.
'S'like some dam conspeerAhsee. They's in wi'the car
deelers. I jus noe it -- Fillin some stupit tank
like they couldn't usesomthin else tuh make the car go?
Come to think of it EverYday I get up I get this sensation
like where I really need to Eat somethin. Happens a bunchA
times durin the day. So I go down to the store tah get
somethin t'Eat
I'ts like, I was BORN, ya Know, An' I CanT just make mah own
food outta thin air. They all want me to pay thees "Fees"
everytime I wanna Eat!; Supermaket, Subway, Dominoes,...
Don' matter where I go. It's like dam they all just knew
I can't go without it
charge me for the stuff. Like whata they have to do? Ya
grow food in the ground right? 's like, them cashires aint
gotta grow thuh food for me do they? Why I gotta be payin them
food just grows on itsown ya know like whattaya gotta do
stand there over it all day just to watchit and so you make it
grow? No. I heard it just sprowts up n' grows by itsself.
So I got this Idea
I can make a garden.
If i Wanna eat, I can have my food and I aint gotta pay no
grocery clerk so they can sit behind thir little register an
tell me to pay 'em for it When all's happend was some guy
brot
ps;
;)
yoou can call me FreshVeggieSubs,
cause thats what I used to like eatin' before... but dam if
Subway don't wanna charge me for 'em still!
[plus I aint got thuh time or motivation to set up some dam account here right now!]
--fvs.
Zero. Software is just a bunch of 1s and 0s, it shouldn't cost anything.
http://pixelcort.com/
I'm a developer of CMS. We are going to sell our CMS as the part of average-expensive hosting on pay-per-year basis. We hope that it will be better to pay, say, 180 euro per year for hosted CMS then 1200+ euro one time + hosting (that is needed anyway + installation and tech support... ;-). If customer dislikes our service then he can break after one year without loosing significant amount of money.
... then you are unable to access your On-line Office. In case of CMS if you cannot access your CMS then hopefully others probably can... The result of WCM is directed for internet users so it is good idea to have it as hosted-service, don't you think? :-)
I see it as advantage. I see it better for our customers because we are going to fight every day to keep the customers stick with us (not force them by demanding one-time big investment...).
The question is if On-line Office is such as good solution... CMS is different in that way. If something goes wrong - you are out of WiFi signal or your modem broke or
The question should be: Is hosted-application concept well suited for all kinds of software? Probably not. Then which applications are good for it and which are not?
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
Your assertion that "pay once, get bugfixes free" is not acceptable is flawed. I payed to have a working product. If they didn't do a good enough job to keep it working in the future, then they need to fix that FOR FREE. No need for bug fixes or anti-virus if there aren't any flaws in the first place.
So don't buy software unless it comes with "bugfexes for free".
If that truly is "right", then enough people will decide such, and that will become the predominant business model.
Software can be sold as a product, which is what you assume. Under these terms, there's a strong, implicit promise of "merchantability", which basically means that it does what the vendor said it would do, no questions asked.
But, software can be (and in my company's case, is) sold as part of a suite of services, of which the actual software is only part. For many organizations, the cost of hosting an application can be quite high, and for these cases, externally hosted applications can be very reasonable.
So, while you have a legitimate case to be made, I feel that the forever-changing landscape of computers, technology, and legal requirements (my company's software is designed to enforce legal compliance to California law) can be enough to compel somebody to want to just write a check periodically and "forget about it". Our customers worry much less about backups, hosting, viruses, worms, server crashes, software conflicts, O/S upgrades, etc. (We don't offer to support their client systems, but we may do that too, soon)
Buy what you think is reasonable. The marketplace will decide.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Everybody is slamming the music industry because they repackage the same old crap and expect us to pay for it, over and over. This is IMHO no different, software companies and developers want to write an application and then sit back and watch the money roll in, while the consumer pays for it over and over. This will seriously damage development of new software. The current evolutionary system seems to work quite well, unless you are one of the people trying to receive money for nothing. Writing an app once and getting rich off it forever is like the 18 year olds on MTV, they sing one crappy hit song and are made for life, is this fair ? Go ahead, troll me...
Release the code of the old version to all your ex customers and let the market find the result. Copyright is a monopoly - you should either respect the responsibility for being the only one able to fix your product or drop the monopoly.
Every time a company competes against them, they curl up, whine, throw chairs... and then slowly... slowly they look and say, hey, so what are they doing to compete against us?
oooh I see... hrm... well that ain't so bad, and if we add our own evil touch, we could make even more money from this! why didn't we think of this before? !!!!
Microsoft have had a "don't rock teh b0at" attitude for a while, a few simple techniques of removing existing functionality (search in windows XP) to slel it again in a later version (you know) and doing the same with office products has kept them going.
Should Microsoft get sued for removing search functionality from windows XP? I refuse to even acknowledge the 'search' tool they have as functional, they beat it up so bad.
Anyway, I said it before - every time microsoft see a competitor, and it is clear in retrospect, they hold onto their existing ways of doing things, until, like google's hosted software approach coming out (their rumored weboffice... ) they have to revaluate, and slowy realise they are being given a new way of doing business for moremoney ON A PLATE.
Damn they are stupid bastards. Anyway, it is not about how many times should we pay for our software, anything as a service is charged as a service, this is about how much does software cost us.
And right now, I am using open office, and I am starting to not save in the doc format when I send out formatted documents, and people are starting to not say 'what is this'. So looks to me like microsoft are just too slow now to survive. When you look at how they are diversifying, and their current breakdown of profits from sectors, you will see why, and when people jump to XP or to Vista via an OEM upgrade, maybe in this price competative market, the OEM will stick OOo on it and not office, and maybe people will already be learning google office at work because the boss wants to save some dollars on this microsoft office thingy, that only causes about 35 man hours of support calls a day from people asking where their documents are.
please type the word in this image: survive
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
the model of selling boxed software at a fixed price is fundamentally flawed
:)
as a guaranteed and continuous revenue stream.
you only have to look at the dilberts to know that this is true:
namely that because software is never perfect and that its deployment
requires updates, for security or simply to keep up with user
expectations, you can never ever have a company that survives purely
on the sale of software for a fixed, one-off price.
pretty soon, the company will have its money come in; pretty soon, that
money will be spent. what then?
well, here's the possible solutions:
* support - you pay money for a support contract. but if the software
works, why should you bother?
* expansion of capabilities. but if there are competitor products
out there, again: why bother? just buy the competitor product.
* deliberate introduction of flaws or deliberately shipping before
product is really ready for production use: this is the most commonly
taken tack, because it guarantees that people will "upgrade" - pay
more money for _yet another_ boxed product, or for the "upgrade"
license.
* software as a service. this is the more "honest" approach. you
pay a little per month, and that goes directly towards the developers
pockets and the sales/marketing and the directors, and everyone's
happy.
trouble is, the "software as a service" model is drastically undercut
by the "software as a boxed product", except for the largest software
development projects.
and of all but the really _really_ large software development projects
for desktop usage (such as those which as MSRPC-based applications which
are based on approx 100-man-years of coding such as Exchange) you can
get free software alternatives - OpenOffice, Apache, Samba.
so things are a little odd, right now...
NONE.
Why the fuck should I pay for software? Once it's been written, it costs nothing to make another copy. And the person who wrote it was going to write it anyway, irrespective of whether or not anybody gets a copy of it. If programmers want to offer a service for money, they should offer the service of auditing other people's source code.
Then came Peter to him, and said, Bill how oft shall my computer BSOD against me, and I pay next month's subscription? till seven times? Bill saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. Therefore is the kingdom of operating systems is likened unto a certain CEO, which would take account of his programmers. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand lines of code. But forasmuch as he had not to compile, the CEO instructed his line manager for him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and the code be written. The programmer therefore fell down, and pleaded with him, saying, Bill, have patience with me, and I will give you all the vulnerabilities you require. Then the CEO was moved with compassion, and instructed he be loosed, and gave him his schedule variation. But the same programmer went out, and found one of his fellowprogrammers, which owed him an hundred lines of code: and he laid hands on him, and threw a chair at him saying, Write me the code that thou owest. And his fellowprogrammer fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will code it all, including documentation. And he would not: but went and cast him out to the OSS community, till he should learn to get buggy code into the marketplace quickly.
it will be yet another way to rip off the honest folks. first, they will set the monthly fee at such an amount that on a yearly basis it will be higher then paying for an upgrade each year (but it will _look_ cheaper because it is cut up into little amounts). in the meantime the people who use the software in an illegal/unofficial way, still won't be paying.
result; the honest man pays for the cheaters among us once again.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
the idea that everything you have is better-off leased, some conveniently forget that when you stop being able to pay, you are done.
If everything you have is leased, just like health insurance, within 30 days of no payment you no longer are eligble.
And, assuming you will always be viable, with no ups or downs, is naive. Go ask your dad and mom.
You pay the leaseor's rate for maintenance and depreciation - its not free.
When you retire, can you afford monthly bills from cable, phone, iTunes, Netflix, now Microsoft? You will have enough hard times getting the drugs you need or paying the inflated tax rates and rent that the upcoming generation of youth will pay thoughtlessly.
"Youth is wasted on the young". (unknown, but so profound)
I think there is some hysteria here. Hosted solutions are popular because syncing your data between your cell phone, pda, ipod, laptop, home desktop, and work destop is a pain. Not because of a corporate conspiracy. Prices and solutions will work themselves out if there is competition in the marketplace (which there is -- especially when you consider that Microsoft's OS advantage is not there on the internet).
That's another symptom of "Everything that the Nazis liked or used is now evil". E.g Swastikas (used by Buddhists, and many other cultures for thousands of years before the Third Reich came along), composer Wagner ("Ride of the Valkyries" guy), and to a lesser extent Nietzsche's works.
"It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice