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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!