Slashdot Mirror
Can Microsoft Really Convince People To Subscribe To Software?
curtwoodward writes "For most consumers, monthly subscriptions are still something for magazines and cable TV. With Office 365, Microsoft is about to embark on a huge social experiment to see if they'll also pay that way for basic software. But in doing so, Microsoft has jacked up prices on its old fee structure to make subscriptions seem like a better deal. And that could really leave a bad impression with financially struggling consumers."
Going back to the time-sharing days is not something most of us would like. The PC revolution was all about empowering the user, the subscription/cloud model is all about giving control back to big companies.
I hope it won't happen, but after seeing the queues to buy a overrated, expensive toy this Friday and assuming there are that many ready to part with their money in exchange for a locked system, I really don't expect it to fail. There are many that will trade freedom for (assumed) convenience too easily.
So, my Office suite was purchased back in the latter half of 2000 (maybe first half of 2001, don't exactly remember). It still works fine, and I haven't spent a dime on it since then.
Back in the bad old days, when we were forever reaching for that next release of the OS or that next release of Word in the hopes that it would crash less often and we could actually get some work done, Microsoft built a business model based on expensive incremental releases (a similar game to what Apple is playing now with hardware) and we all went along with it because we needed something that worked.
To a certain extent, Microsoft is now a prisoner of their own success. For the great majority of users, Office stopped progressing over a decade ago, and Windows stopped progressing in 2002 (xp sp1). There is no longer any need to go out and buy every new version. Hasn't been for awhile.
The problem is, Microsoft relies on that new release income to function, and I'm sure they're worried. Now comes a new paradigm -- software rental -- that guarantees it. I'm sure that seemed like a great idea, and I'm sure the person who came up with the idea of jacking up the prices of their non-subscription products got a big ol' raise.
The thing is, there are fewer and fewer reasons to stick with Microsoft products, and more and more ways to migrate off them while maintaining backwards compatibility. If you stick with the mindset that "we are microsoft, and people will buy from us for that reason only", the strategy makes sense. But I wonder if the premise is true anymore. Personally, if and when I can't use my old crufty copy of Office anymore, I will actively seek one of the free solutions before allowing myself to be locked into a Microsoft solution. It's just self-preservation.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
What Microsoft really appears to fear is the fact that MS Office versions N-1,N-2, and often even N-3 also take care of everything most people need to do.
They aren't simply adding a subscription option, they are nontrivially bumping the price of the perpetual license options...
You can use it until they 'upgrade' the format. At some point few enough people will be using the older formats that they become effectively unusable.
And considering how terms and conditions change on the fly, to lock myself into a subscription that can be turned off at anytime because I refused to go along with the new terms is just asinine.
As it is, my Office XP license is perfect for me, but already MS is playing games with that. I have a license that I bought in '02 and it worked fine for YEARS, then one day, MS sneaked in the Genuine something or another (that's what I get for being zealous about keeping my system up to date and continuously checking that my selection or unselection for the Genuine whatever STAYED uncbecked) and it still said it was OK. then one day for some reason, the Genuine fucker decided that NOW my license is illegitimate? WTF, MS?! - I get the pop-up and whatnot but I ignore it - fuck'em.
My point? I don't trust them - or ANY software vendor with a subscription. I think some of those people are working there because they were fired for ethics issues with the cable companies.
Only dirty open source hippies expect things to be free.
Consumers expect free. Not because of open source, because of the internet. Facebook is free, news is free, Google docs are free, everything is free.
Of course, businesses are willing to pay if it gives them a competitive advantage or improves the bottom line, and Microsoft makes most of their money from b2b sales. So the question is whether Microsoft can get them on a subscription basis.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But it's hard to believe that people, and especially businesses, will actually fall for this scam.
Actually the subscription thing is primarily driven by businesses, not consumers.
If you need to install 5000 computers you could be looking at 5 million dollars in cash outlays just for software licences. And as other people point out, when you need to upgrade you need to upgrade a lot of your IT, that can be 5 million dollars all at once. With a subscription cost it makes your expenses less bursty.
The other thing with businesses is that a subscription plan defers some of your IT responsibility away from in house, that's actually good for small shops. Trying to navigate the various upgrade paths, support options, and trying to stay compliant with volume licencing arrangements costs money.
It also means, when you layoff staff, that you aren't stuck holding investments in software that you don't need anymore.
You're right, most consumers don't care, but that's where you want to find a value added service to tack on that you're charging for. Cloud storage and synchronization sort of stuff usually.
Probably less than 5% know they use open source.
I have a personal technet subscription, which is effectively renting MS products (annual fee, access to latest software, and other goodies)
Work has enterprise licencing, which is not much different.
so... some of us have been renting MS software for years.
You might be surprised. Many people do more with their home computers than just Farmville and porn.
People volunteer for non-profit organizations, join the board of the PTA or their homeowners' assocation, start a small business, help with their kid's little league, work on a master's degree, and more.
Google Apps, Libre Office, and the other suites out there... like you said, are mediocre. Yes, you can write a letter and track your DVD collection. And it's also true that a ton of people barely use 5% of what Word, Excel, and the rest of Office can do.
But then you have this whole subset of "home users" who are professionals using Office at the home for more than just their shopping lists. They need the features (and ease of use, and support, and templates, and clip art, and and and) that Office offers. The features that they use when they're at work -- creating complex budgets, slideshows, long documents -- all get used at the home as well.
And so I don't buy the argument that Office doesn't have anything that a home user needs. Because for a lot of people, home users are doing a lot more than you're giving them credit for.
This is why businesses should push very hard to use nothing but open formats. Tying yourself to a single vendor for hardware or software is just asking for trouble. A company can abuse their customers much more if it's difficult to switch products.
Uhhh...how EXACTLY is this flamebait? Gates hasn't been the guy in the big chair in a decade, hasn't even been showing up for much of anything in half a decade. Sure he still has a title but he has made it clear he's too busy with his charity and he's NEVER coming back...which is a damned shame since his hand picked little buddy is a PHB right out of Dilbert but there you go.
I've said several times its time to update the icon, I'll even happily give you a more appropriate image. Picture Ballmer with his tongue sticking out and a MSFT Beanie on, now THAT would pretty much nail what MSFT under Ballmer is like, a "we don't give a shit" attitude with kiddie designs. If you wanted to add delicious icing to that moist cake simply add his bust instead of just his head so you can see his T-Shirt reads "I Heart tablets and phones" which shows all they really seem to give a crap about now.
But Gates is long gone, having the Gates borg makes about as much sense as bitching about Jobs and Apple when he was running NeXT and Scully was at the helm, he just ain't there anymore. Hell anybody who saw Gates coy remarks about Vista before release knows the man ain't in charge anymore or else he wouldn't have let that stinker out the door.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
We need something faster and has more functionality than Office
"More functionality"? Office is a bloated pile of crap because of the excessive and redundant features. What used to be a pretty useful wordprocessor back about 1992, Word 5, is now so feature laden that hardly anyone uses or even knows a tenth of its features.
I edit books and authors send me files in Word. I have yet to see one -- whether a businessman, doctor, or university professor -- that knows what a Word "style" is. They one and all treat it like a typewriter. Few of them seem to be able to spellcheck.
The only reason anyone upgrades is because they have no choice when they buy, or they have to be able to read the file format. My daughter demanded I get it for that reason, as her teachers distribute files in various MS Office formats. I installed Ubuntu on her laptop and she now uses Libre Office. It works, it's free.