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)."
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!
I think you've hit on the real issue here. In my mind, for example, I should be able to purchase Microsoft Office, since that is a piece of software that I can take a given snapshot of it, and it doesn't necessarily decrease in usefulness as time goes on. For example, there are people that are still running Office 97 and who wouldn't really benefit from the upgrade to 2003.
On the other hand, you have software like antivirus software, where it's usefulness is predicated on constant updates. Why would a company offer constant updates for free? How would they make money to support the staff that produces these updates? A subscription model makes sense here.
There may be some middle-ground as well. Maybe it'd be worth paying for some sort of maintenance for some software. For example, if I could pay a small fee ($10 a year?) to make sure my version of office was continually supported with bug-fixes, that'd be worth it. No new features, but support for the newest versions of the Word .doc format, security holes plugged, etc.?
Or, for example, if Microsoft wanted to offer, in addition to the option of purchasing Office, the option to subscribe to the "latest and greatest" version, whatever that was, that might be worth considering. Pay $100 a year, and when Office 2006 (or whatever) comes out, you get the upgrade and support? Like I said, worth considering.
The problem comes when some greedy company applies one business model to a product that should have another. Switching all Microsoft Office products to a subscription model, for example, would be inappropriate. What if Word 97 is good enough for me? Why should I keep having to pay Microsoft for their work, even when I, as the customer, am not benefiting? Further, what's the incentive, then, for Microsoft (or whoever) to make meaningful updates to their software? You'll be paying them anyhow, just to keep running the old software. Why should they bother trying to innovate if it won't earn them extra money?
The real key here is to provide consumers with choice, and subscriptions should always be for updates and fixes, not for just continued use.
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.
Well, technically, if someone else put up a server that worked with that client, you could use it without paying a monthly fee to the makers of WoW. That might sound ridiculous, but it has happened. Look up info on the UO Sphere server, which allows for independently hosted Ultima Online servers. Since the server was made independently of the Origin-run servers, they won the court-case about the issue and can legally offer free hosting for the UO client. A similar thing happened with Ragnarok Online, as I understand it, and they also won the court-case to allow for free servers.
Although it may seem unlikely that this would happen with WoW, it is possible and legal (although they might lose the case if it went to court, same as the reverse-engineered battlenet server did, being as Blizzard has won this sort of thing before).
Subscription based licensing will encourage the release of products that don't suck.
Because if the product sucks, nobody will renew the subscription.
The EDA software that I rely on to electrically simulate memory modules is sold on a subcription basis - and it's thousands of dollars a year for a single license! It has bugs. It has a poor user interface. I receive patches and upgrades at least once a month. I could switch to the competitor's product, but then I'd be forced to convert all of my libraries and databases to their format - and that product is no more reliable than the one that I'm using.
The two different software packages are used by nearly every PCB and IC manufacturer in the world. Everybody pays their yearly "maintenance" fee for a software package that constantly needs upgrading - and is constantly a year or two behind the industry standards, forcing users to create shortcuts and workarounds to get the job done.
The products suck, but everybody renews because there's no other choice. Now, if the buy-in price was low and the yearly license fees made up the difference, then perhaps there would be a case for that sort of licensing. But in the case of the tools that I use, the buy-in is many tens of thousands of dollars and the yearly fees are several thousand. And a major version upgrade is nearly as expensive as an original license. So, I'm suspicious of the idea that subscription-based licensing will improve software quality.
-h-
Presuming you got your PC for free (also presuming you are unable to sell it) it only makes sense if your annual maintenance costs are less then two thousand dollars. It's pretty easy to rack that up just with backups!.
evil is as evil does
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.