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 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.
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?
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
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 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.