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.'"
And it begins...
What about my data? If I agree to a "pay as you go" software model, will you allow me to create documents, data, etc., in an open format guaranteeing me free access at anytime I decide not to continue the subscription?
Will you guarantee data and documents I create can be looked at and used in other applications? What if my friends aren't subscribers?
Will you offer different levels of subscription, e.g., allow me to opt in for subscription at a lower rate for reduced features?
From the article:
I don't happen to agree with the articles inference that "paying monthly fees..., has become less abhorrent." I find it still mostly abhorrent, but rampant. The fact that it is everywhere indicates control of the market more than it indicates consumer-oriented services. When a population of users unshackled from monopoly-offered "pricing packages" and schemes freely endorse a paradigm, fine. Until then, I'm not convinced pay-as-you-go is desirable, or even makes sense.
I've not talked with many people who are happy with pay-as-you-go. This seems mostly because pay-as-you-go is usually more synonymous with "commit-to-a-locked-in-contract" for time frames longer than the current technology obsolesence cycles. That's not fair, and as the phone companies edge ever closer to becoming one company again (a la AT&T circa 1983), it's likely to not even be legal.
Microsoft stands to gain huge financials in the same way if they can pull it off, but better still for them they, much as the phone companies do, will have a better customer lock-in. Hopefully, the market will choose not to pay-as-they-go.
So, we take $15*12=$180. Office 2003 Small Business can be had for as little as $145. If you use Office at least once a month, then 'pay as you go' is simply not cheaper. Yet another example of 'cheaper is not always cheaper.'
My blog
I saw a demo of this. It went something like: "I see you're trying to enter your credit card information so you can edit this word document. Would you like some help?"
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"I remember saying [...] that people would spend more money on software than on hardware. We certainly haven't passed that milestone by quite a margin. But particularly as software as a service becomes a reality [that might change]." - Bill Gates, Newsweek, September 18th 2000
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Google makes a *lot* more sense for pay-as-you go with respect to productivity apps than MS' approach.
MS just wants a continual revenue stream for no additional effort. The problems they face as business is that their product very much fits with a purchase-once and use model. Once you have the software, i.e. when microsoft's development and delivery have succeded, MS is doing nothing by default. Sure, you get better support, but honestly how many times does the average person who *is* entitled ever bother to call for help? MS wants to have customers pay even if the customer is causing no work on MS's part, even if the upgrades they would provide mean nothing.
Google is very different. The most blatant thing is client independence, no need to maintain local software. But what really is interesting in terms of cost is you offload a lot of your data reliablity costs (backup) to the third party. By providing every remotely interesting thing from top to bottom, it's easy and an average person would never realize the implications of their data being backed up, how many disks a week are dying, etc etc. It's a logical extension of the server hosting model, and very much lends itself to a subscription model that all companies would like to follow in selling product.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
What's their obsession with this?
Their fundamental obsession is with establishing continuous revenue streams.
You WHORE!
<sob!>
What?