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."
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.
And the buddhists shouldn't use swastikas. Right.
"It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
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!
Wow, now that's a strawman argument.
Why do you have to stop using the software? Does it magically stop working or something? Just because you stop receiving bugfixes doesn't make the software unusable; it just means that, should a crucial bug be uncovered, that you will be vulnerable.
I've got no problem paying for a subscription, such that I receive a guaranteed stream of updates and patches. Basically, I think of software as being like any other capital good that requires maintenance -- there's an upkeep cost, because no software is ever Bug-Free(tm)
What I have a problem with are forced upgrades; if I'm happy with version X of a software, I should not be forced into upgrading to version Y for things like security fixes. If a software vendor is going to charge a subscription for maintenance, that's fine, but they are going to have to understand that, like any other capital good, maintenance means keeping the current software running -- not swapping it out every year.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
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?
these are B2B services. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. But this is never going to work for home users. Nobody is going to pay a monthly fee. For one reason, everyone is used to either getting the program on their computer when they buy it, or borrowing someone's CD. People aren't used to the idea of going into a store and actually paying for software. They still see it as, "hey, can you set that up for me" when they really mean can you give them the CD and violate copyright laws.
This also won't work because it gives absolutely no incentive for Microsoft to ever improve the products they sell to home users. They might cave for a corporate or government client who demands a feature or something fixed, but not for mom and pop.
I certainly dont' know if this was the original intention of the poster, but I don't play WoW because they charge for it in the stores (as much as a standalone game), and THEN you have to pay montly to keep playing it. To me, that's paying twice, which is ridiculous. If they want to charge monthly, then fine, but make the client available for free (either as a download or like those ISP cd's that are in game stores), or at least include a single player mode. It makes no sense to pay regular cost to start with and then keep paying for it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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
"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.
If you want free info on bugs subscribe to bugtraq. I don't know about Redhat or SuSe, but if there's a security bug in mysql is will be reported on bugtraq with work arounds if any or recommendation to upgrade to more recent version. Since moving from Mandriva to Fedora, I don't have any subscriptions or 'club memberships', and don't feel as though I'm missing anything.
Loose lips lose spit.
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.
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
But the question to be asked is: if you consider software a capital good, which therefore requires maintenance, what if it's not ordinary maintinence? What if it's a genuine fault? Should you be charged for a security fix if it was a fault in the original? If you buy a car and the locks on the door could be opened with a toothpick because the engineer screwed up, should you pay for it, or should the manufacturer eat the cost?
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
If you only have 20 employees, couldn't you just use a wall calendar ?-)
Anyway, I'd propably setup Debian into some old Pentium machine I have floating around - it's more than capable of handling e-mail and shared file storage, and backups with a CD burner, dunno about the rest of the stuff - and take the two grands as extra profit per year :). It's funny how one starts thinking of ways to cut costs and boost efficiency when the saved money goes to one's own pocket ;).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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."
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
"What I have a problem with are forced upgrades; if I'm happy with version X of a software, I should not be forced into upgrading to version Y for things like security fixes."
Begin Rant/flaimbait:
I agree with that statement completely. When you move to Sun/AJAX or some other purely Web driven application or OS, you are asking me to surrender control over My Computer (no pun intended). I have no problem with web based enhancements to my software, such as FAQs, supplemental materials, forums, newsgroups, patches, etc.
However, my feelings about maintining control over MY software/media/computer are probably what most people would consider to be a bit extreme. That's right, *MY* software (media/computer), I bought it, I *own* it, regardless of what "they" may say in their EULA. As far as I am concerned, the only thing I shouldn't do with their software is sell it to others for a profit or mass distribute it to others for free (e.g BitTorrent). Virtually anything else is fair game. I pay no attention to others who deem to tell me what I may or may not do with my software, as detailed below:
I refuse to surrender any control whatsoever over my computer/media/software -
* You want to make it so I have to watch your stupid ads/piracy warnings on the DVDs I bought/rented/borrowed: I will find the appropriate software, decrypt them and then do as I see fit (including loaning them for free to my friends, just as I would do with my old VHS/audio tapes from television/LPs)
* You want to make it so I can't rip the CD I bought or borrowed from my friend or the Library: I will do the same as above
* You want me to pay for "per seat" licenses on software I bought from a legally authorized source: I will obtain/acquire the appropriate corporate version and/or crack and install it as I see fit on as many machines as I want at home (I stay completely legit at work for safety/legal reasons).
* You want to cripple my motherboard to only work with "trusted applications" (e.g. palladium type applications and "closing the analog hole"): I will look *every* day until I find some group/organization that will (reverse) engineer a patch or other solution at whatever level to workaround/defeat this attempt at controlling my computer/software/media.
You can take control of my computer/media/locally hosted (i.e. C:\) software when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
end rant. God Bless the EFF - are you a member yet?
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
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!
Yes, I am going to charge you for a new table, but this will be Less Likely To Fall Down at no extra charge! You're getting a bargain on this!