Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Testing "Pay-As-You-Go" Software
seriouslywtf writes "Microsoft has quietly rolled out a pay-as-you-go software system in a few countries (South Africa, Mexico, and Romania) to test out how the public reacts to software rentals. Part of the current service includes a ~$15 fee per month to use Office 2003. If the service goes over well, Microsoft is considering extending the program to include other software or other countries. From the article: 'Are we moving towards a rental model for software? Despite the success of programs like Software Assurance, and the FlexGo program, it doesn't seem as if the traditional model of software sales is ever going to go away. Consumers still like the option of buying complete software packages. However, for places where the price of software keeps obtaining legitimate versions out of most people's reach, a rental program may be a useful alternative.'"
That was my thought too. $15/month is way too high for a single application, especially since a lot of people can get discounts (student, through work, etc...) on their copy of Office.
I read the internet for the articles.
As long as we're talking about an open standard there's no reason that
other (free) players like Ajax9 won't become the ultimate winners.
And neither Microsoft or Google has a webtop that's half as slick as
DesktopTwo (which uses a very slick browser-based Java version
of OpenOffice).
The pressure is now on MSFT to be compatible with other players. The
game is certainly on, but its not just between Google and MSFT.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
So now that Goog got the rental web application seed in your head, it's time for MS to hit you with another rental PC application press release. MS's model is to locate the data on your computer. Goog's model is to locate the data on their server. As much as everyone loves the Goog, let's do a test:
Enter "I'm a terrorist" in Google Apps 5000 times.
Enter "I'm a terrorist" in MS Office 5000 times.
See what happens.
Why must we force people of lower income to either pay what is beyond their reach for our tools or by forced to use inferior versions? In the financial situation of most of us, if we choose to pay Microsoft $400 for the usage of their software, we may complain, but it is really not that much relative to our other costs. For those that have lower income, because this is so much beyond what they could ever afford, M$ is rolling out programs like this. But is it being a "responsible global citizen"? http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenshi p/citizenship/default.mspx
Why not adjust the prices according to the relative financial burden on the average person in an area? With Microsoft's activation system, they could prevent having their products imported to other countries.
It is unfair and unkind to either force the less blessed on the earth to use stripped-down versions of software, such as Windows XP Starter Edition, or to gouge out their money through plans like this.
(I'm not trying to be a Microsoft-bashing troll.)
guaranteeing me free access at anytime I decide not to continue the subscription?
As an aside, several Office products have free viewers available:
Word
Excel
PowerPoint
A Publisher option
If you use Outlook or Access, you should be prepared to pay the "price" associated with proprietary formats. It's one of those "no duh" given things that people usually accept. If you use Adobe's products, then you deal with their proprietary formats. Companies use these formats for a number of reasons, partially for efficiency and partially for extendability (and of course partially to lock you in to using their software).
Open formats are an interesting idea, but it's not worth griping about if you choose to use software that you know doesn't support them. It's stupid to assume that everyone will support everyone else's formats. If you are so worried about 100% coverage and support, stick to plain text files (and none of that fancy Unicode. I want to read it in Notepad!)
This has nothing to do with "renting" software. Your tirade is about open document standards, and that's off-topic and for another discussion.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
It's all about the upgrades or lack thereof. We are happy on Office XP and Windows XP. We will certainly skip at least one or two version upgrades on both products. Microsoft must hate that. So the are looking for ways to make sure we pay even if we don't upgrade and/or for a way to force upgrades when they want. Subscription software works for both goals.
Right, but that's operating under the base assumption that you're the target marketplace.
/. readers would appreciate their attempt to get computers into unconnected households. I'm not sure about the $15/mo for Office (this is the first I've heard of it- I would assume Office is not even required to rent the PC in the first place), but the numbers I've seen have been pretty reasonable- The consumer rents the (vista capable) computer for 2-3 years, pays their broadband fee + a small extra monthly fee, and after the end of the period, they OWN the MACHINE. The FUD and blatant lies we see here are abhorrent. I'm running linux on half my machines, and switching to google apps shortly, and even I can appreciate this.
You're not.
I've actually had the chance to sit down with the FlexGo team and talk to them about their mission.
Though my words here don't reflect Microsoft's position, it seemed to me like the idea was to get computers into households that wouldn't buy them otherwise.
The test run (primarily in Brazil, contrary to TFA) was massively successful, and the team is working on v2.0 now (Vista compatibility).
The goal, from what I understood, was to get computers into households with a steady, low income- The kinds of families that don't qualify for OLPC, but couldn't afford $500 at one time for a new computer.
Microsoft's a business, and clearly making a profit is a big part of their mission, but I would have thought that
I would say that if the price was $0.50 per day I may consider it at home.
Many days I don't touch anything office related, but on a monthly granularity I do.
Thus if I could buy 30 days of office for $15, but those days were not forced to be sequential then sure I'd consider it.
Of course google is free for the "home" version right?
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Consider, the areas in the US that support the rent to never own stores are those far below national average income levels. In those same areas, you can find light bulbs sold by the each. Cigarettes are also sold in singles, though it's technically illegal. Why is this bad?
In every case, the person pays what they can afford right now, but ultimately ends up paying more over time. It's interesting that such a strategy is being test marketed in countries seen as needing a financial "break". This is a tactic that essentially takes advantage of those who can't afford up front costs.
And suddenly, hacked "fee-verification" servers, that can be run as local host, began to appear.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
And businesses? Do you really think they'd be stupid enough to pay an ongoing subscription fee when they can just pay it up front and amortize it over the same time period? Uh... no.
Ummm... that's exactly what they do. Many businesses (big and small) lease their computer hardware. It's easy on the accounting side and it helps with cash flow. Many businesses also lease their computer software in one way or another. They buy site licenses (or somesuch) for Office and Windows and Crystal Enterprise and Oracle, etc.
In fact, when an enterprise-class client of mine was looking into the price of moving from Crystal Enterprise 10 to XI, the price was quoted as zero. They were paying an annual support fee for the product over a certain number of procs. If the client wanted to move to XI, Crystal was just going to send them the disks, b/c they want the rolling support fees.
Now in this case, $15/month is simply too much (especially in Brazil), however, the concept of pay-as-you-go software is both sound and useful. Clients receive ever-improving software and software companies receive consistent revenue streams on the basis that they continue to improve the software. And really, it's a self-correcting system. If I don't like the product, I'll look for a competing product with a better price.
Sure there are monopoly problems, but competitors worried about drawing in new customers will be building data converters to help keep on top. In fact, that's what's happening right now, all of the new free online utilities have converters for Office docs. People are sick of the Office upgrade cycle and Google wants to capitalize (ironically, Office finally has a version worthy of calling an upgrade).
The reality is that for low-tech software like word processors and spreadsheets, the market is saturated and has been for a while. No silly schemes like software rental are going to change that.
I'll agree with your first statement, but not your conclusions. I believe that the rental model will in fact revolutionize the way software sales are done, especially in the low-tech markets. I mean, imagine that someone shows me a new spreadsheet app that I really like, but I can't afford it and I'm already paying the MS tax for Excel. Well under the rental model, this is no longer the case. I can rent the new software for a few months and try it out (most likely on a trial). If that software is more suited to me (cheaper, more functional, etc.), then I cancel one subscription, export my data and pick up the other subscription. Now I'm not out anything but a little time. I haven't killed my cash flow, I just get my new product.