Slashdot Mirror
Get Ready for Rent-An-App
Baraka writes "Apparently MS is proposing a centralized, top-heavy system for delivering software applications in the future." It's kinda interesting: Web Applications in a way are kinda rent to own, and software licensing is so screwy that you don't
really own it anyway. As irritating as it may sound, it would appear
that application rental is coming... although not to my computer.
Didn't sun and oracle propose this around 95 and 96 with the NC? Ballmer is an idiot though if he thinks that the majority of the people in this country will pay more than $5 a month for something even like office. I hope AbiSuite will be ready in time to challenge office by then.
---Got Coffee?---
There are already many companies that just don't
sell their software, they only rent it. For
example, the SAS
institute sells licenses which always terminate...I don't know that you can buy a license that doesn't terminate.
Among commercial software, this isn't always SUCH a bad idea, (if you're of the opinion that commercial software is a good idea in the first place) because some products are "cutting edge" and you really wouldn't want to buy the thing because in two years you'd have to buy it again to get some vital functionality.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
These speech-enabled PDA's will be bought in volume by workers (and companies) in the mid-upper range, as a work-related expense. Such people don't need the kind of multitasking you speak of. Nonetheless, the server could multitask your queries, etc and deliver MP3 music of your choice while you wait.
Queens of the Stone Age - they rule
Everyone can use and benefit from Free Software. Once there is enough of it, there will not be a need (or desire?) for proprietary software. I believe that this premise is false on its face. Yes, everyone who runs a computer can and should benefit from Free Software, but not everyone wants all the hassles of running a computer. If you make certain changes to Microsoft's plan you get programs that can run on quite limited "information appliances" that are a lot easier to set up and use than computers can be. While that may not be what you want, it's what they want, so someone can make money from it. That appeals to people who don't understand what the big deal behind free software is. I'm not talking about leaving some people out of the equation, I'm talking about offering them something that they need and want and can't currently get, even from free software.
I also find your assertion that there is no need for proprietary software to be very close to a true statement, but not quite there. While the most popular applications will likely be produced as free software, it is unlikely that all applications that anyone could want would be released as free software. Speaking as someone who writes applications for embedded systems, I doubt that you'll find, say, a freeware microwave oven controller. What would be the point?
Businesses and home users will jump on it, because of the illusion of saving money (instead of one big transaction, there are many smaller transactions, hiding the actual cost).
Kinda brings to mind "Only five payments of $33!
The best thing about the free software upgrade processes like Debian is that the user is in control of when it happens, but gets the rest of the benefits that software rental would provide, at no charge. We win again :).
--BitDancer
I think the real reason why MS is pushing this is because they just don't want to admit that their bloatware is getting to the point where Joe Sixpack can't really administer it anymore. Even if all you have is Office, sooner or later you're going to install something that will blow away some DLL in c:\programs\office\system32\junk\foo\bar\runtime.
Then, the next time you try to run Word, it'll bluescreen on you. Now, if the stupid thing actually told you that c:\programs\office\system32\junk\foo\bar\runtime\s crewit.dll has been replaced with an incompatible version, then you'd probably be able to fix it, but noooo, we all know what the chances of that are. Instead, you'll call Microsoft's technical support line, pay $90 dollars for the privilege of asking them a question why their software barfs. Then, they'll tell you because you installed an alternative operating system on another partition, Office won't work, and that you'll have to repartition it back as one Windows partition, then reinstall everything. Then, they'll charge your credit card.
So, instead of fixing their OS, MS way of fixing the mess is to pawn off the responsibility for maintainance of their OS to third parties with extensive technical experience. Of course, they have to subscribe to Microsoft Developers Network, so that they can receive the secret decoder ring which translates the BSOD mess into something that you can work with.
--
I think Ballmer is right in his prediction... Right now, commercial software companies are losing a fortune due to software piracy. In some parts of the world the majority of commercial software is stolen. Rented applications that (partially?) run on a remote site would probably put an end to that situation.
---
Like they'll have a chance to do it, in 10 years at the growth rate of linux they won't be here.
And I wouldn't bank on everyone having high speed by then either.
are all you need for that. You could charge for the Telnet account if you wanted to rent the software. Bill is behind the times.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
-- $SIGNATURE
Most windows users pay more for software than UNIX users.
That is like saying black people save money at the store, it's racism on a technical level, which imo is wrong.
Without computer security, there would be no hackers.
I have another reason why MS is not thinking straight on this whole Rent-An-App idea. MS Office is, for better or worse, my primary office application suite. On my home system, I've used Word a fair amount. But in the last 3 years, I can count on two hands the number of times I've used Excel, Access, and PowerPoint combined. I NEVER use PowerPoint. Yet MS got money from me for it.
If they tried Pay-Per-View on me, they'd be WAY, WAY behind. Even further, because if I had to pay as I went, I'd use it even less. And most people use their apps even less than I do. Lots of people insist upon MS Office because that's the suite they have at work, but they hardly use it.
Sure, MS'd clean up on some power users out there. But MS doesn't make money off power users-- they make their money off Joe User-- and Joe User doesn't even use these apps when they're sitting on his computer. MS would be killing it's cash cow.
I just don't see it.
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
Sarcasm starts here
didn't you know that office is one, integrated, package - you can't just rent word, you have to rent office, wether you use excel, access, IE, outlook, or whatever.
Sarcasm ends here
Commodore 64, Loading up the dance floor!
Some of its per time, some is per use, some per month. Im not sure of what paticular packages are aviable: even though Im running 'blows on one machine, I dont even as much as have the novell client installed. And Im a fucking CNA :)
I wonder how microsoft plans on pusing the software down? The would have to get themselves a copy of ZENWorks....
From that perspective, we have to give Ballmer some credit: it is unusual for people who hold such incredibly irrationally negative opinions about things to go so far in realizing their usefulness. So I will say again, we should not assassinate the idea just because Ballmer said it. Sure, he's not the first to come up with the idea of on-demand programs. Us geeky-types would certainly be able to point to a few innovations that predate Steve's by quite a wide margin (Java being the clearest example I can think of). We also justifiably mistrust Microsoft's motivations in pushing on-demand software, as we probably should. But so what? That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, which is what most people around here seem to be saying.
-jacob
I think they must be trying to appeal to folks who find software expensive. Do any of us have that problem? ...Thought not
Besides - I don't want Big Brother, or Uncle Bill, snooping in on my data... (or selling for that matter)
This is the kind of stunt that may have been beneficial 5+ years ago, but today we can afford the computer power, the software (for sure), and the support for the apps we need.
--
Marques Johansson
displague@linuxfan.com
Marques Johansson
Your premises are technically sound (FPGA research has been getting very interesting rescently) but implementing it would be very difficult given the current state of things.
Windows did not come out of thin air - It was based on many previous ideas - one of the reasons it cannot seem to shake it's DOS roots. Linux is based on UNIX roots.
Computer technology is an evolutionary field. You can't just say, "okay today we are going to drop everything we have learned and start anew." I agree that KDE and the others are just baby steps, but they are steps that need to be taken.
What _I_ would like to see is Microsoft's current technologies released into the public domain. The DOJ could force that. Then we could ensure that we can stay caught up (if not pass) with whatever they could throw out there in the future.
I think the rental approach goes against peoples very nature of possesion. Sharing is one thing, but charging is another.
I would love to be able to: "The future of the Internet is not computer-based," said Jay Udani, vice president and founder of the company. "I can access the Net from a Palm Pilot on the road, or a kiosk in the airport, or at a friend's home, and that data is always available. I can move around and have a service that follows me wherever I go in the world." This is way better than the current way of software distribution. And "All upgrades and new features are added automatically, without having to download and install updates," he said. "You never have an out-of-date product." is also much better than downloading upgrades to free software and doing rpm -Uvh package.rpm
3. Even though I continue to rent it, an "automatic upgrade" of the application renders my data unreadable. Since I never owned it in the first place, there's no way to back out to the working version.
Changes aren't permanent, but change is.
i hate prognosticators. ballmer thinks high speed broadband will be everywhere in a couple of years ... sure, especially with how well the cable co. are dealing with being ISPs. Sounds like a stupid prediction to be basing software distribution chains on. Let's all trot happily off to utopia, where everybody has a 1.5 meg pipe to the internet and, magically, the current network infrastructure supports all that traffic, isps and telcos drop their rates to reasonable levels, and peace reigns on earth. Jesus.
Uhh Could you say that again? This time make your sentence structure sound meaningful.
Umm large OEMs pay absolutly next to nothing for software. Why do you think so much junk software comes packaged with your computer, it allows them to charge more, while the price stays relativly the same. But in general good hardware is more expensive, and good hardware is really the only thing that runs on linux as crap hardware often won't. But if you buy a computer and you think your getting a real good deal when its a cyrix 233 with a winmodem for only $400 bucks, your being taken for a ride.
It just won't work. Why not? Does this remind some of us about what we remember of DIVX? You just basically rent it. Don't go telling me that MS won't keep tabs on what we have, what we copy to our hd, etc. I beleve that they're going to watch us. Look where DIVX is now. I beleve rent-an-app is going to lead that same fate soon enough, thank god. Go freeware!
Computers should be used as tools nothing more, nothing less
Fortunately, most free software developers do not believe in that narrow-minded cliche: computers are certainly more than just tools -- they can change the world for the better in ways that supercede the notion of just "tools". Otherwise, we would have little to be happy about in the software world.
Obviously a more controlled revenue stream, one which is predictable, and one which continues the advance of the Microsoft monopoly. You don't think you'll be running Windows and MS/Office off an X-Terminal, do you? No, it will be some proprietary protocol, encrypted, and damn difficult to reverse engineer (maybe even illegal to reverse engineer!). But the most important to Microsoft must be the controlled and even revenue stream such a system would foster.
Microsoft is truly a house of cards right now. Here's a fascinating quote from last weeks Economist article on Share Options, Pg. 18, Aug 7th-13th, which illustrates this point:
Their stock is badly overvalued. They pay their employees poorly, over-work them, illegally hire so many temps that it's turned into a Seattle political scandal, and make up the difference with stock options for their core staff. This suggests that a sell off could be disastrous for the firm and it's employees.... hence it makes sense for Balmer and Gates to both sell off now (which they've been doing) and to look for a new revenue model which can assure higher profits in what will most certainly be a saturated market within ten to fifteen years.
How should Free software and Open Source proponents fight this? We know how Microsoft is going to fight open protocols on the Net... by "de-commoditizing" (what an aberration of a word, clearly Vinod didn't have a dictionary by his side when he wrote Halloween I and II). And we know that they've already set the desktop standard with Win32/Windows. As long as they maintain control of the Office document standard through adding regular incompatibilities to thwart reverse engineers, they keep Windows installed on enough machines to make interopability with other systems a non-issue for the vast majority of users, and they succeed in keeping Win32 closed enough such that it can never be reverse engineered and re-implemented, they will continue to maintain their monopoly.
The Justice Department may will the antitrust case, but by the time it's worked its way through the court systems, I'd argue that Win32 will have long since been rendered obsolete.
This is why I think KDE, GNOME, GNUStep, and the like are a waste of time as far as attempting to take desktop sales away from Microsoft. Free developers may create a good MS-Office replacement like KOffice, or SIAG Office, but it won't ever read MS-Office documents properly just like Corel Office (Even under Windows!), ApplixWare, and StarOffice can't. Nor will a Freenix based desktop ever run exactly the same software (Wine may work well as a porting library, but I'm doubting its long term viability as a Win32 program loader -- MS will just change the underlying core OS enough to make they're new applications incompatible with Wine... it's a never ending game with no winners on the Wine side for this part of their project). Keyboard shortcuts are different, applications are different, they're all incompatible, and the current winner has a stake in maintaining this situation.
So how do Freenix proponents win in this situation? In my opinion we can't win just be re-inventing the desktop wheel around X (or Berlin, for that matter). I think the Open Source community NEEDS a completely new approach, one which gives it the "killer app" advantage over Windows which will draw users not because of political issues over freedom, but because users will plain want said functionality.
The next big revolution in user interface design is speech recognition incorporated directly into the systems interface with the computer. Something like what the Oxygen Project at the MIT media Laboratory is doing, with private funding I may add. (See this months Scientific American for a spread on the Oxygen project, the RAW CPU (a programable FPGA system), and their work with handhelds) I don't see any open source stuff from Oxygen... (does anyone know what their stance on Open Source is, and if they're currently accepting funds from Microsoft? If they are, who do you think will keep that codebase???) If you ask me, this is where Balmer wants to go. Everyone gets a handheld which is connected to the net via a radio/infrared networking, the system accepts speech input which is then passed to a server to interpret and resolve the problem, then passed back to the user in speech/video from the handheld. Such a system could be charged per minute, per query, or any of a number of other methods.
This is what the free software community should be planning to implement. And most of the tools are already available... IBM's Viavoice is a good enough continuous speech recognition system -- though it's not free. It could be used as a module within GNU common lisp, which could then serve as a foundation for a new natural language systems interface based on an "expert system" which understands a simple enough grammer and converts this to UNIX commands, manipulating files, directories, and launching applications. If IBM never releases ViaVoice under an "Open Source" license, the fact that it's a module instead of being tightly integrated into the system means that Freeware developers could rewrite the recognition engine -- maybe with funding from the FSF, a university, or some other organization.
Such a system would have to be tightly integrated with the desktop interface though, like common KDE and GNOME shortcuts, so that applications could know when to take speech input through their STDIN stream (like dictation) and know when you're attempting to give a command to either the application or the general operating system. Given GNOME's reliance on GUILE as it's "glue scripting language" it seems to me a bit closer toward integrating in a functional language with all its desktop applications, and thus being able to integrate natural language processing across the entire API suite. Just a guess though.
I think this is where Freenix ought to go, and if it gets there before Microsoft, they will lose marketshare quickly. They may die a horrible death just because their financial situation is so precarious, but that won't do the Freenix community much good; they'll just file Chapter 11 and restructure -- with their monopoly intact. For the Freenix community to take the desktop we must provide an alternative which is easier to use, not just free.
Of course, I may just be oversimplifying a very complex problem... Please feel free to resolve any problems of ignorance you may have noticed!
But they do create a necessary free foundation which was lacking previously -- I never much cared for CDE.PC hardware needs an update, I agree. Though I think that many of our hardware complaints are really expressions of frustration over what limited functionality current computers present. They're big, clunky, consume large amounts of electricity and thus expel noticeable heat, use moving/spinning parts at high speed, and they're still just single execution unit per cycle "Turing machines." Oh well. UltraSparc desktops really aren't physically that much different from Mac's and PC's. Nor are any other Workstation vendor's good much different beyond CPU, software, and name. The reason we still use clunky desktops now isn't because of dumb hardware manufacturers, but reasonable design given current hardware constraints.
I think we're going to have to continue to work with desktop based solutions for at least another ten years. By then maybe a general radio IP network infrastructure could be in place, along with those smaller and faster CPU advances Moore's law predicts, justifying a general purpose speech enabled PDA in the open market. This won't happen overnight.
So, while developing this technology may take a good decade, we should expect Microsoft to produce some kind broken speech enabled version of desktop Windows as soon as they can; maybe within one or two release cycles. They would be idiots to let Dragon Systems, IBM ViaVoice, and all those other third party speech toolkits to take over the market... when have you ever seen Microsoft do that??? It's already a viable business, Microsoft is there.
The Freenix community has a few advantages: IBM is currently giving out ViaVoice -- for now anyway, we have explosive growth going on with the desktop API -- meaning that change is more readily accepted by the current userbase, and we have several good Common LISP and Scheme interpreters -- with many skilled programmers. Given that GNOME already supports GUILE, updating a Common LISP variant to support the GNOME and GTK API's, along with integrating ViaVoice support, isn't impossible! And it's an important step towards making a usable "expert system" which understands enough to convert simple statements like "Move file1 to directory2" and "find all files containing the word 'foo'" into UNIX commands dynamically.
I think Open Source desktop systems like GNOME and KDE ought to be thinking along these lines now, because if speech is left unnoticed by the Freenix desktop developers, the UNIX community might miss a critical computer science juncture which will leave it behind Windows!
Anti-MS people who are jealous of Bill and his millions.
And pro-MS people who think Bill deserves all the money they've given him.
Heres a intresting scenario, MS makes ALL Apps, OS's and the rest availble to rent, buying is no longer a option, no those that refuse to ever upgrade (and I'm sure MS will find a way to make rented s/ware that only works over the net or something dogdy)like those that use win 3.1 still
:(
well MS loses money here, but if they pay rent for the future stuff but don't upgrade they stilll need to pay the rent.
I seem to remember a law in the US being paraded I don't now if it was passed but it was for the remote disableing of software...not a nice combo really
Error #302: Reality.sys corrupt! Reboot universe? (Y/N)
- It better matches the cost of making and supporting software. Buying a shrink-wrapped app lets you pay for the (relatively cheap) creation of the software, while renting software smears out your money over the (relatively expensive) maintenance period. It will keep your software supplier honest, otherwise you go shop somewhere else.
- It better matches existing business models, like with cars - you don't need to maintain your own car, you pay someone else to do this. The same should go for the computer in your house. However, a PC configuration is too complex so we off-load the complexity to another site. You buy a PC and rent the functionality as services (really, who cares about software?).
- Not needing Gigs of RAM and drivespace to store stupid binaries also makes your computer cheaper or lets you spend your money on things that count, like 3D accellerators, surround sound cards, and that 18" TFT screen.
- Coupled with data vaulting (storing your data securily at, say, your bank) it provides for full location independence. I'd love to sit behind a screen anywhere on the world and be able to log on to the very same environment I use at home, or at the office.
- Be fair: playing sysadmin (installing software, making backups) sucks. I'd be happy if a trusted party could take this off my hands.
It could also kill Microsoft's current policy of creating junkware: it becomes extremely easy to test alternative applications (just click somewhere and it starts up)...Well, to be fair, you had Andresson and others running around saying that Netscape 3 and Java 1.0 makes the OS iiirrrrrelevant, when if reality what they had was a POS and we still are years away from a distributed, secure environment. It's only natural for a nailhead like Ballmer to look at the 1998 state of Java and dismiss it because it had little business use for Microsoft.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
This is nothing new. Everyone should remember that big software players like Microsoft, and Oracle have been pushing in this direction for years. Oracle now has the distribution system in place to allow online retailers to push Oracle software down to online purchasers. MS's upcoming OS is supposed to push full clients (OS, apps, user files...).
i see so many problems with the proposed idea to charge rent for software, that i have no worry about its failure. but there may be a solution with a complete model change.
1. infrequently used programs: i install a word processor and spreadsheet for once a year usage: when a friend needs something typed, or when i calculate my Foolish 4 portfolio. essentially they serve as security to handle any emergency situations where i really need those apps. and so i use the free StarOffice. any type of rental plan would have to charge per use to be fair. but pschologically, a per usage charge would feel horrible, especially if you frequently use the program. similar to the effect of high gas prices on driving. not to mention that it is hard to estimate usage of software.
2. frequently used programs: the operating system, web browser, mp3 player, email client, compression program. most of our frequently used apps use open standards, permitting easy entry into the market. it would be hard to charge for usage of those apps, especially with the poor quality that permeates the commercial software industry. too many free clients would pop-up if someone tried to charge rent. and imagine all the apps competing for rights to the file extension. the war would make the Netscape/IExplorer battle look friendly, because now money is involved. companies would actually have an incentive to modify the registry, install bad dll's, and such not to render your computer unusable for the competitor's software. and i can see a company like Microsoft charging a one-time fee for the first usage of your software. so you install IExplorer, and it installs a bunch of secondary programs behind your back, like an mp3 player. the next time you play an mp3, rather than loading Winamp, the file extension invokes MS's player and hammers you with the one-time low installation fee of only $25.
3. a popular argument for software rental is that the rental includes free upgrades. but that argument only works for buggy software, vaporware, and the US market where materialism demands that you have the latest and greatest. after Windows removed the printer drivers from the word processor, Word Perfect saw that it had no reason for upgrades to its word processor. a high quality app will serve its purpose for many years. how many times have you upgraded vi? before Linux, i always used Qedit, and never upgraded. xterm upgrades? maybe an occasional security patch.
how it could work: applications are offered for free, but they display advertising on the screen, similar to this very webpage, requiring a live I-net connection. and to increase revenue, charge an install fee. otherwise i don't see it generating more revenue than software sales.
j
sorry for double submissions, i received an error while submitting
There was a booming software rental trade here in Canada (mostly games, natch) before NAFTA (Not A Free Trade Agreement) was signed.
IIRC, software rental under NAFTA is illegal.
Maybe this applies only to third parties, since MS could claim that Windoze user are really only renting their OS now.
Grr...
Ballmer and his ilk are only interested in one thing: growing Microsoft income to offset their own predictions of declining revenue.
Look at the time line: 10 years??!!
Do you honestly believe anybody in the computer industry that makes 10 year predictions?
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
While that may sound horrible to us technical folks, actually for many applications it could be quite nice: you don't have to install or maintain the software, and it becomes accessible from anywhere. For mail, text editing, spreadsheets, printing and snailmail, FAX, etc., that sounds like a real winner. With a suitable platform (UNIX, Java), you might even be able to rent compute cycles for general purpose computing, again, without the headaches of maintaining your own system.
It will be interesting to see how Microsoft believes this will work with their software and what kind of business advantage they have in that area. Right now, the only credible client plaform for delivering such services would seem to be Java, since ActiveX is too machine dependent and not secure or safe enough.
I think this will catch on for some applications because it offeres significant advantages:
One example would be small studios that produce video effects. Under this rental system, they won't need the money up front to set up a 64 machine SGI render farm. They simply pay for the render time they use, yet get speedy results as though they had tremendous computing power on site. They won't need to manage installing, upgrading, etc... And users will watch the software slowly evolve, rather than having to wait for 2.0 for the one feature they need, only to find out the interface has changed.
Plus, its easier for software developers to debug and test. Not to mention the fact that it cuts down on piracy, which could bring the costs down for paying customers.
Finally, it ups the competition level since it makes it much easier for companies to try out and switch to other software packages. They no longer need to make a large, upfront investment in a certain package.
So, for buisness oriented software, I think its a great idea. For home users, however, free software will become an even better option. Of the software I actually pay for, I wouldn't hesitate to erase it all if I had to pay a monthly charge.
Linux-Mandrake has this also, click the Update icon and it checks a list of mirrors for Mandrake updates that you dont have. Downloads the rpm files and then auto installs them in the background for you.
:)
No hassle, no mess, no having to remember cli commands for the newbies
I also wonder if this will be the means Microsoft will use to receive annual licensing fees. It was brought up in the trial and even though MS denies they decided to use it, this prognostication combined with UCTIA and MS's investment in broadband certainly lends an air of paranoia to the possibility.
It's Mr. B's references to up-to-date software that really pushes it home for me. Maybe its the differences in the latest Win98 updates and MS's recent refusal to allow updates/fixes in other media that makes me think they want to do this rental approach to their apps. It certainly allows for better market study.
And America is tops in this kind of approach. Do you know what credit card debt is in the US?
Regardless of whether or not it's a Free-Software system, or a leased system from Microsoft, there is the big issue of automatic upgrades.
Example:
I need to get the Monthly status report out, I log in, and go to update the report. Oops, it decided to upgrade itself last night, and there seems to be a major bug in a feature I use, or they changed how the feature worked. Now I have a stressful time figuring out how to get the report done.
Given the horrible reliability of MS apps, I really wouldn't want auto-upgrades. I had Win98, and the SmartUpdate was a disaster on several occasions. (As a warning, never try to update more than one piece of software at a time with SmartUpdate).
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
Lotus & Wordperfect? IIRC, the backlash started on the Mac side of things. It had been brewing a while, and then Macworld urged its readers to flatly boycott any copy protected software, and "key disk" software. It spread rapidly, and the manufacturors backed down in a matter of months.
I wonder. I was thinking about the implications of speech recognition quite a while ago and my personal conclusion was that it's way overrated. In many of nowaday's office situations, I'd deem it highly impractical. Imagine your typical, large office with let's say some 40 or 50 cubicles. Now imagine all of these people trying to get their respective computers to do what they want by voice. Can you imagine the noise level in that office? The amount of chattering? Horrifying!
Background noise in a large office is bad enough as is without everybody talking to their computers as well, thank you very much...
Argathin
Not that I'm advocating piracy, but this concept of renting software for a limited time period is begging for more of it: There is already a utility to get around the timebomb in some Win3.1 apps without the bother of changing your system date, and there's probably one I don't know about for Win9*/NT* as well. If not, you can bet there soon will be. So then what? Dongles, or software like one of my clients HAD, that would only install and uninstall TWICE before it declared itself dead? (Oh, we bought an upgrade. From another company.)
:/
And what's next? Hardware getting into the act? Imagine video cards that stop working if you don't pay the monthly fee. Not out of the question by any means.
If this were coming in at the beginning of the boom in home computers, it likely would go thru without a blink from the market, since most people didn't know any better than to accept whatever computer and software the dealer handed them, at whatever price and policy the dealer offered. By now the home market is sufficiently saturated that most people are used to simply buying the stuff and being done with it, at least until they need an upgrade. They aren't going to take kindly to "renting". Corporations who thought NT was a good deal may feel otherwise, tho..
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
As I've said before on slashdot, intel put the cpu ID opcode into the Pentium III at the request of micro~1.oft. The ID function built into each CPU will be one of the main components of the software rental business.
.02 euros
Software rental will require a scheme where a user can contact a rental server, enter their CPU and credit card details, then store this information locally so the software can check for current rental authorization before running.
The software can be pre-installed on the machine (the current micro~1.oft model of bundling all its software with the OS), or delivered as a try-before-buy demo CD, or DLable from the internet or ASP, use your imagination.
The user then has to enter into an agreement with the owner of the software to rent/license the software for a certain amount of time. The ASP then returns a certificate (strong encryption is their friend here!) which unlocks the software for a certain amount of time/usage (1 year or 3000 saves, whichever comes first).
The software then uses a cryptographically secure hash to compare the CPU ID, authenticated timecode (from an internet source), a local cert accompanying the software image, and the licensing cert sent by the ASP.
As others have pointed out here, the UCITA is another key component to protect software rental schemes like timebombing and limited usage, and to prevent reverse engineering with criminal penalties. Where the Sun/Oracle network computer model didn't make sense 2 years ago, now with the UCITA it starts to make a lot more sense.
I have to deal with timebombed rental/demo software all the time, it is a real pain in the ass. I've got clients who accidently base some key part of their NOC on some timebombed code, which blew up earlier this year. The outages were bad enough some of them made the news, but PR people were able to blame glitches or lightning storms. This rental model is going to fail in the long term, and the medium term peak will not be the trillion $$$ revenue stream some are predicting, but it might reach 10%-20% of the total software market before collapsing.
my
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
l less.
Computers as tools?
Try telling an enthusiast that public transportation obsoletes biking or that Bally's obsoletes hiking or that the local genetically altered (just different not better) obsoletes hunting...
If you get shot on account of the last one, I'll take full responsibility gladly and proudly. Fucking Luddite.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Sun's confidential files are postscript and SGML NOT doc's. In fact only people who need to do presentations or compatibility with networking are allowed to use MS products in the work place at Sun, even then they are severly restricted to what they can use.
I would guess that Sun will be moving over to StarOffice soon though.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
A far more likely scenario will be advertisements embedded in a web based app. You will access some server providing the application you will, manipulate some data and the the results will probably be sent to a storage server. ( This is the method that my group is currently using for applications.) This allows users to access their data ( probably with ssl or ssh ) from anywhere the might be located. Currently we are collaborating with users from around the US with interest show up from around the world.
This will mean that anyone will be capable of reading a document no matter what platform it was produced on.
There's a very large difference...
Whereas you probably won't be finding, say, any need to keep around the latest drek on VHS, you *will* quite possibly need to keep around application software in the long-term.
Think data files. Think proprietary data file formats. Think about the existing investment in training, and how ugly it'd be to retrain employees to use a different package, or what happens if you communicate with somebody with an older version that can't read the current file format of the day.
There's a lot of required continuity. Even nominally compatible upgrades can break that, if behavioral quirks change or support is dropped (which happens...).
Which is more important: guaranteeing that you can obtain the latest "Zelda" release, or knowing that you won't be held hostage with unreadable data if the application subscription/rental rate climbs up, or if features you need get obsoleted (think: changing APIs, ala Java's deprecation, etc)? App software is VERY different.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
you forget the most simple way. per month. No hassles with figuring who used it when or where.
Yes, but what about running a program on your local box, possibly multiple times, and displaying it remotely for other users. Do you still only get charged once per month a fixed fee? I know this capability is severely lacking in Windows now (BASE Windows, no add-on crap), but I think it will catch on in the future.
Before that, there actually were some retailers trying to make a go of renting software, but it didn't appear to be working too well. Scared the heck out of the software companies, though.
Well isn't this just a componentless version? Tim
-- Steal Me --
How about per CPU usage for the program? You then would get a certain "usage" charge when you start up a program just to load it and basically no charge unless you are actively using the program. Plus, you could act as a host to multiple users of a program and only get one "bill." Even though I think the idea is stupid and no one in their right mind would go for this that's the best possibility I can think of. (O.K., maybe if the fee was like $5 per month for the OS, Office suite, games, etc. But I doubt that model would work for Microsoft's need for revenue).
There's a problem with Microsoft's theory of a rent-to-own software world: security. The only reason that companies can continue to keep software on the shelves of stores today is that people don't have to bandwidth for mass Warez, like we do with mp3z. An SDMI-like software-based solution for Windows, or even Office, could not work and would eventually be cracked, as all software protection mechanisms have been in the past.
Check out a little company called Wave Systems (Nasdaq: WAVX). Note, I have no affiliation with Wave, but I used to work for a company that was acquired by them. The idea is to start by endowing computers with a secure computing environment on the motherboard, giving the computers an easy way to distrubute "rent-to-own" software. That is, you could get a CD with 500 games on it, but you only pay for the ones that you play. If you play it for 5 minutes and decide that it sucks, you pay twenty cents. However, if you play it for 4 hours a day for the next month, you pay the regular $29.95.
Obviously, this paradigm could be extended to a lot of different areas. For example, if it were easy to have a customer pay through the secure local environment via SET with a smart card, a content provider such as ZDNet could conceivably charge a nominal fee for each viewed article (a penny, or the like). Since Web companies are still losing a lot of money, Wave thinks that this will be an attractive solution to financial woes.
However, I think that this model is inherently flawed. As information becomes easier to disseminate and the cost of distribution approaches zero, control is virtually impossible. SDMI will fail. Software protection has failed, since Warez sites are plentiful. Paying for content seems absurd, when it's as easy as copying and pasting the text. A good business model does not reside on charging consumers for something which they once got for free.
The problems herein -- of universal accessibility and unlimited bandwidth -- could be harbingers of the Open Source movement. Linux and other open source project may survive, in part, because Microsoft won't be able to make money as their power to control the distribution of their OS becomes nill. The existence of free publications on the Web has basically destroyed the idea of charging to read atricles online.
In any case, software metering and / or secure computing environments on a host are interesting and worthy topics which could spawn many applications. I think, in the end, SET and secure logins -- applications which facilitate security and the exchange of information -- will win out over functionality that impedes the consumer, such as operating systems that don't work very well and cost a lot of money.
Invidia fortunum ovit.
I'm always amazed at the number of people that back into a corner, like a scared pup with its tail between its legs, chanting the, "it's going to happen sooner or later" mantra. Such has been the case with the issue of privacy, and now I see evidence that it's happening with this new software rental scheme. The truth is that it will only happen if we (consumers) let it happen. The whole snafu with DIVX is a great indication that consumers still have some sense when it comes to adopting new technology. Let's hope it sticks arount long enough to see MS (and others) write this off as a costly, yet failed, experiment.
This is not going to really happen. Look at how the NC pretty much failed and how Oracle's predictions of a world of NCs have not turned out at all, even though they have been predicting for the last five years. Remember that people like to own things, not rent things. Corporations won't like such things because of security reasons, higher costs, lack of control, etc. If Micro$oft takes this approach, they'll just lose a *lot* of money and end up helping Open Source Software. Where are people going to get C/C++ compilers for FPGA machines? They won't. Even if Micro$oft can provide office and M$IE for such a machine, where will people get software that Micro$oft doesn't produce if Micro$oft makes all the software? People won't like it when they can't play Quake n (whatever roman numeral you feel is high enough) on their new machine. People won't like it when you can't listen to MP3s while working in 3 documents at once. A little handheld device with an FPGA chip won't be able to do multitasking very well, unless the FPGA chip has some built in mechanism for network swapping. Where will people put the porn that they look at while wanking? This little handheld machine approach won't work in the real world.
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
Remote control and disabling of software won't work in the real world because people will just put up programs that will block such remote control or disabling packets, or will simulate their existance if necessary. You'd probably see ISPs start selling blocking services to disable such remote control and/or disabling.
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
"All upgrades and new features are added automatically, without having to download and install updates," he said. Could you possibly imagine anything more annoying then software that updates itself with out telling you? And, with Microsoft doing it, can you imagine the security holes? In side a month trojans would download and install themselves on every MS OS connected to the net.
Dionysus vs, Socrates! The greatest battle of all time!
The move is interesting. But it is late. Let's see one thing. OpenSource came into the high arena 1,5 year ago not because it is right. It is needed. No one, even a corporation like M$, is able to afford the exponential spending that software development is going into. Yes, most still are making profit under the old proprietary schemes. But this profit is quickly becoming nil. In some cases it had passed the red line long ago. But it is hard to forget old traditions... The idea of renting software is not new. At least M$ has been showing will to implement such schemes since 97. And in Internet one can see "canned software" schemes laying around. However "canned software" possesses two failures. First it considers that everyone will use a restricted environment of applications. Second that creating a financial scheme that constantly "feeds" the developer, one will overcome the shortcomings of present proprietary schemes. The first point may look controversial. However it is a must for such schemes. No matter how many resources the developer possesses, he can't afford to answer to everyone's demands. So users necessities will just be hijacked in an "Office-like" world. "Wanna have a 3D interface? Maybe two-three versions from now." The second point is the main failure of this scheme. It is based on the idea that "money solves everything". If there is a key example that contradicts this assumption then look at M$ itself. They have lots of money. However they are unable to hold the current. "Canned software" is doomed to failure. It may give a new breath to the proprietary extremistes. However it will be a temporary measure. Much like Internet gave a hand to many, by allowing a cheap and effective distribution of upgrades and bugfixes in its early times. Besides it can be simply an illusion of security. In fact the idea of renting software came too late. Some years ago it may have found a place in this world. Now it will have to fight the OpenSource ruler.
Excellent point Dude!
--- Join my team at www.dcypher.net $10,000 to the winning computer #147 "Homebuilt Computer Users"
And now we get an announcement that they're considering application rentals. This does not come as a suprise to me. In December, I started to put together the pieces, based on some comments made by Ballmer and Gates, and determined that MS was planning to move towards a subscription model. That is, you get Office2002, but it expires in 2003, and you are forced to buy the new one. This would also help drive sales of the OS and of new boxes, due to the aforementioned document issue.
The other really interesting thing I noticed though, was that they were working on a system by which Office would not be a set of applications at all. Instead, they would be subscription-model web sites. Login to www.word.com, write a document, and it's saved as a web page somewhere on the site. You can email it to people through a connection to hotmail. Access it from any place. And pay through the nose, since there won't be any other choice.
Now, that's the next step. First they need to get people to become used to the subscription model and wait a bit for bandwidth to improve.
There is a great side effect too. Since everyone already uses Windows & Office, and they'll have prevented anyone from keeping old copies of the software around (by expiring it & by preventing them from reading new files), everyone, even MS's competetors will be stuck with the web version of Office. Now who here believes that confidential files by Oracle, Sun, Apple, AOL, or whomever, will stay that way while on MS's web site?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
So, micros~1's proposal is different how? You pay them for X amount of CPU time to run your app on their server (the only viable way to keep us from pirating the rented copy, otherwise crackers will steal the downloaded code from RAM or HD and deactivate or spoof the self-destruct/reporting system), and probably for X megs of data storage space. Companies start selling systems with only the minimum power needed to contact the server, and we're back to the centralized-server-and-dumb-terminal era (except this time around you can't trust the people who run that centralized server ;)
And what happens when NT 6.66 (or whatever the micros~1 server runs) crashes, or there's a "router problem" or "bad weather"? All of a sudden, all productivity halts...
For further information, man bofh
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
It's not only Microsoft, IBM has been looking into this as well. Sun is already starting to implement this, Jini. It seems that this is the future, although this news is old, they have been planning on using distributed computing for at least a year.
As for renting software, there is a great little store in College Station, TX, called Floppy Joe's.
They allow you to "lease" software, kind of like try before you buy. And that store has been there for over 5 years. Before most applications were released on CDs, you got a handful of floppies, and if you liked the program, keep it, they'll bill your credit card.
I can see stores like that popping up all across the country, that's a great idea.
But as for server side apps, blame it on the net. But the net is also a reason against this. Any one that is still using a standard phone line modem is going to be screwed. That is the majority of people. If Microsoft, or any other company is going to do this in full swing, they should take their billions of dollars and invest in dropping an oc3 line to everyone's house. They foot the bill for that, then maybe they can pull it off.
If you couldn't see Microsoft heading this way, you must be blind. IE, further integration each release. Windows Update.
Remember, the computer industry is not a consumer driven market. People make software, if you don't like their products, tough. They don't let you choose which features of which applications you want on "your" PC. It's all or nothing. You could buy a competing application, but you have to have the "Industry Standard".
The really sad part, most of this "Cutting-Edge" technology is still based off of stuff that is older than I am.
Even hardware is still lacking it's true potential, all for backwards compatibility. Look at SCSI. Sure hardware updates come around, but only once in a blue moon.
With today's technology, it's a shame to see hard drives that have spinning platters of metal, or plastic.
Intel, 3-Com, Adaptec, Nvidia, Sun, Microsoft, RedHat, Apple, SGI, and every other "major" player should all get together and re-design the computer from scratch. Including programming languages. That is where the millions of research dollars they spend should go. Forget backwards compatibility.
These companies can still make their products, and divide the research in to their areas of expertise.
Just my opinion on companies that could be smarter if they forgot about money for 3 hours.
Without computer security, there would be no hackers.
Disclaimer: This comment is written in such a way as to repeat it'sself and to require the point of the comment to be decyphered... sorry.
And so are computers. Computers and Space Ships share a whole bunch of common properties, most importantly for the point I'm trying to make is that they're both completely different from any other tool we've ever had, and require different treatment than any other tool we've ever had.
NASA's Space Shuttle is closer to a bicycle than my Laptop is to a toaster. The laptop requires more effort to learn how to use than the toaster, and that's how it should be.
Remember, the catigory "Tools" covers everything from a pointy stick that you dig vegitable roots out of the ground with to a SGI O2. The O2 requires different treatment from the stick, yes?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
For the full section, use the search page of the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Law Revision Council, enter "17" for title, and "software rent" for the search term. The first hit will be 17 USC Sec. 109.
It's obvious that what the software industry wanted (and got) was a different pricing model from the motion picture industry. The studios sell tapes to video rental stores, and usually do not receive a cut of the rental price. Software companies didn't want there to be any rental unless they were the renter and received the entire rental fee.
Microsoft always bashes ideas a year or so before they decide they were really good. It's a tradition.
Ever donate to a well known charity, like United Way, Red Cross, or Big Brothers/Big Sisters?
They, in effect, rent the software that tracks donations and names. Not explicitly, of course, but the software the use is so complicated it can only be used with the annual support contract.
Hey, all you wannabee hotshots, want to scoop up some of the bucks? Look for publishers like Blackbaud (Oracle), Results/Plus (Access), DonorPerfect, Donor II, and Campagne Associates.
Replace the database with PostgreSQL, Adabas, or Solid (forget toys like msql or MySql), make up the interface with PHP, and open source it. You'll kill the rental industry in charitable organizations, and your donation dollar will go a lot farther.
I could tell you how much these products cost, but you'd never believe me.
A good part of the mindshare of M$ software is due to people having illegitamate copies. Rent-a-soft gets rid of that -- probably causing the said people to go the way of the demo scene (into either nothingness, or the 'Way of the Penguin'(tm) :-))
John
John_Chalisque
The MCI story today points out a BIG reason not to 'rent' applets. Just imagine a frame relay meltdown on Apr 14th in a world where people rent home accounting applets.
his vision the only program running locally would
be netscape with java. Sun's
idea was simular
but based purely around java.
Basically the whole thing was deisgned to
make the OS unimportant on the client.
Well
Sun still makes the JavaOS machines and Oracle's
offspring company NCA is still kicking around
but they neither really took off. Strangely
enough MS's entry truely fopped.
This all leads me to wondering why Microsoft
is trying to push this forward again. What
exactly do they think they'll gain?
It seems to me that Micro$oft is forgeting a couple of important items.
:-)
#1 Open source -- the more M$ tries to squeeze dollars out of the home user the more attractive open source products like Linux become. Linux and open source has made good progress against M$, and this trend will accelerate the greedier M$ becomes. Currently Linux isnt threating M$ on home systems of the general public. If M$'s scheme becomes reality I see a rapid change in Linux's potential on the home desktop. Currently most people who buy software, buy an application and use it, without upgrading for the sake of ungrading. I use Excel and M$Word versions going back pre-Win95 because they still fit my needs, and my wallet. John Q. Public wont stand for having to pay a monthly software bill. Just look at how you grumble at Uncle Sam's share of your paycheck. If there's an option... people will seek it out...especially when THEIR money is involved.
#2 Broadband thru-put -- I dont know what kind of thru-put broad band is supposed to provide but I can say this, it isnt going to be enough. I currently have an ISP who understands cable modem technology. I have 10 Mbit up/down thru-put on my internet connection, and it still isnt enough. I am constantly waiting for blockages in the internet itself. And we are only talking about web pages, e-mail, and file downloads as being the activity on the net now. And I am sure there is more going on. But now add to that current traffic, millions of programs being downloaded, software that used to reside on the individual PC. I dont see how it can work. Even if the software was stored on the ISP's servers... thats still alot of traffic...more than what even Gbit LANs can handle. Downloading the rental-software will suck up a large precentage of the bandwidth no matter where they try to place the "rental" servers. We'll be back to bitching about how slow the web is.
All in all...this is a nice way to convert broadband connections into 9600 baud modems
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Rent an ap. In most instances I'd say hell no, as I've noticed many of the posters say.
For me, the OS, my HTML editor, image manipulation, word processor, spreadsheet and my various utils are essential. I need the media at least until xDSL comes through my area. Finally, with as much as i use these apps daily, i want the unlimited use license.
Sounds familiar right. But here's where i see the benefit of *some* rent an app offerings. Take WebTurboTax this past year. My taxes, thus far, are not complex. I don't pay capital gains, I don't itemize. As such, my use for tax software is roughly once a year. I want to use it once, get the refund money from the feds and the state, etc.
After that, MY usefulness for that software ends until April 13, 2000 comes around.
In cases like this and similar cases I'm sure exist for many if not most users, rent an app makes sense.
--
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
How about once per month, or per year? I think that makes a bit more sense. :)
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
Salesperson: "You can get W2K only by renting it."
Customer: "But I'd much rather just buy it."
Salesperson: "You can get W2K only by renting it."
Customer: "You stupid moron, I DON'T WANT TO RENT IT!".
Salesperson: "You can get W2K only by renting it."
Customer:"Jesus.. One please."
Hear, hear!
If Microsoft were to implement a plan like this on a large scale while providing no other (reasonably priced) options, the resentment that it'd cause would be incredible.
Fortunately, OSS'll be providing an alternative at an exceedingly reasonable price.
A move like this by any large proprietary company would only be good for free software.
As an idea, it's over six years old
Sort of a vague article , no? I suppose this is an interesting idea, but it would be unusual for microsoft to actually try to something innovative and succeed. Most likely, some one else will come up with the successful business model and then they can steal it.
Juln
Yeah, great.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
like this. Generally, pay a yearly fee for
X users of a program at any time. So this
might work industrially... but it's nothing new.
Ballmer however proposed this for home use.
Let's look at the average software that will
be installed on a home computer:
WinXX
MS Office
MS IE
MS Outlook Express
Netscape
HomeSite
Shareware Apps
Games
Which of the parties involved is going to profit
most from this deal? The idea of software
rentals is basically trying to squeeze as much
$$$ from the home market as it can, as the
software itself is generally a fixed purchase..
buy once, that's it.
Unfortunately, this will catch on by other software companies because, yes, it is a way
to continue to get revenue for a piece of software
already bought.
The Free Software Movement is poised to undermine
the large corporations if this move does go though within the next few years, of course.
Consider the number of people that are buying
those close-to-free PCs with the requirement
to buy 3yrs of ISP service. The rebates at most
$400, but in the end, you'll be paying $720 for
the service. Why do people like this? They
only have to pay once for everyone, and it never
crosses their mind again. If Free Software
can offer home users one less bill they have
to pay, that's a big bonus for it.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
This is just sad. I seem to recall Microsoft bashing Sun for the same basic idea less than a year ago..Now they want in on it.
Hmmm.. If I rent a car, and crash it..I have to pay for it. I wonder if it works the same for renting Microsoft applications. Ahha! Now I get it -- You have to pay for it if you crash it! So that's why theyre doing it!
It just astounds me to what degrees people put up with this company. Whats next? "Microsoft Office 2000 -- $500 Down, And zero-point-nine percent financing!"
Bowie J. Poag
PROPAGANDA
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
hmmm....
looks like more planning by M$ to release buggy shit and charge us for upgrades. it seems that M$ is forgetting that many GOOD software developers don't need to release patches and updates on to the same degree that M$ does, and most updates from other people are just bug fixes until a new version is released, not M$ "feature packs"(or whatever they decide to call them) which would just be more bug fixes hidden behind "new features" in a way to blackmail people into paying for "updates."
And as for paying to get other sorts of software, bullshit. The industry will be dumping out product in boxes for a long time, far longer than 5-10 years from now. Sure at some point this will all happen, but it's going to be a long way off.
But M$ knows all this. No matter how far off it is, M$ can't hurt themselves too much by being prepared well in advance. Not to mention being able to take credit for the whole thing when 2099 rolls around and the last software store finally goes out of business.
I guess I always thought this would become reality. When Sun was saying "network" and MS was saying "desktop", I thought MS was on the wrong track. As for pricing ... keep in mind the "sales model" is not likely change. Linux and it's apps are most likely going to be available for free. I see a few servers hosting Linux apps for use by anyone. Just keep core programs on your box....borrow the rest.
If I remember my history correctly, Visicalc was popular because it was the first spreadsheet application to offer the ability to perform ``fast'' recalculations on data. And I thought that it was only available on the Apples for a while. So maybe it was more of a desire to use a powerful (useful even) piece of software than a revolution toward ``Personal Power''. I tend to imagine that many users would have been just as happy using it on their terminal if it was available.
I'm glad Microsoft and friends are making headway into the future! Who would have guessed something as amazing as remote display technology would be available to real users in this year, 1999? Wow!
./thisprogram)
(export DISPLAY=remotehost:0 ;
I remember hearing a theory that the centralization / decentralization trends were completely cyclical. IE: each has its advantages, and every few years, somebody gets fed up with the disadvantages of whichever they're using and starts pushing the other one again.
In the centralized camp, we have the mainframe / terminal pair, the minicomputer / terminal pair, enterprise software updates via "push apps" (circa 1996), "network computers" (circa 1997), Web apps (Hotmail is an application by traditional definitions), and now this Microsoft thingie.
In the decentralized camp, we have workstations, PC's, and personal servers (ie: a single user Linux box) in their various generations.
Corporations always tend to prefer the centralized model, because it makes for automatic standardization (which is cheaper and easier to support), and easy censorship. "The computer is merely a tool" users also like it because it takes the responsibility of computer maintenance and administration out of their hands.
Power users usually prefer the decentralized model because they value privacy and freedom of choice. It's no surprise, then, what viewpoint most Slashdotters will take!
-- Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Was Firefrorefiddle, the Fiend of the Fell.
Doesn't Micro$oft realize that this will only help open source software because it will make people not want to use Micro$oft software if they have to constantly pay for it. Most people prefer to just pay for a software product once, or even better, not pay for it at all (free software!)! Companies would be much more likely to use open source software or at least non-Micro$oft software because of all the costs incurred by heavy use of the software. Even if the rates were very cheap, the amount of usage would be so high that large costs would add up really fast. That would probably be enough to make the people who run businesses get a clue and only use open source software.
DES Khaddafi KGB genetic jihad Uzi Rule Psix Qaddafi cryptographic Peking Mossad Legion of Doom Albanian Serbian Saddam
> I say good for him. He knows how to make money and he knows how to invest money.
And this is all that is important? Money? Who cares if the service sucks, the software sucks, and the costs are too high? As long as Bill makes his buck you will applaud him?
Bill owns a chunk of a couple of local Comms companies. Their services suck BTW. This does not portend well.
The Road Ahead is a Toll Road.
The Road Ahead is full of pot holes and safety hazards.
The tolls on the Road Ahead don't pay for repairs to the pot holes and safety hazards. They just make the Road Owner richer so he can buy more roads.
The owner of the Road Ahead is a rich man who knows how to make and invest money. Soon he will own all the roads ahead.
Good for him? Egad! How can you applaud this? Are you that dim?
-M
Surely Microsoft is annoyed that all those Windows 3.1/Word 6.0 users are no longer a source of revenue for them? Well, under this new system, they would be! They'd have to keep paying for their outdated software! (Or upgrade to newer versions which would probably require them to update their hardware). This is obviously not a good idea for home computers. I'm hoping its targetted towards business users... Here's an article at PC World NZ that mentions it: http://www.pcworld.co. nz/magazine/pcworld/aug99/consumer.htm
"All upgrades and new features are added automatically, without having to download and install updates," he said.
Also automatically downloaded: Buggy and insecure software.
"You never have an out-of-date product."
Nor will you ever be safe.
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
A general response to most of the posts on this topic: everyone seems to missing the point. While we are focusing on evil domination or tyrannical pricing schemes or lots of inconvenience, we are missing the point that it is becoming increasingly important for computers to be able to load software on demand. That is really all the article was saying, plus a little indirection because of Ballmer's utter Microsoftism. And it is true and pretty important for those of us who pay a lot of attention to software and/or hardware to notice that the hot things to have are portable devices and wireless networks to connect them. It makes perfect sense, therefore, to have a huge library of software sitting on a server somewhere where storage is cheap, but available on demand to all of the network devices, where storage is expensive.
That doesn't mean that devices shouldn't be allowed to store programs or data permanently on their own storage. It just means that for programs of occasional use, it is more expedient to load them occasionally and use them right away than it is to have them sit around unused but taking up important storage space. One can imagine a person's personal computer-watch thingy having OS software always loaded, and then just enough space to store one user program. When the user wants to run a program, the watch downloads it off the app server and executes it. When he quits or switches programs, it unloads the program so it can put something else in.
Now, the logical extension of that is for companies to run their own app servers and charge users for accounts. Probably a flat per-month fee would be workable- wouldn't you pay $15/month or some other reasonable fee to have on-demand access to, for instance, a huge library of database tools that you could transparently install and run on your super-portable computer watch without ever having to worry about making sure that everything was upgraded properly, that everything was set up right (installation is transparent, remember?), or that you would run out of space? Not to mention the fact that you'd be paying far less than the purchase price of the apps you get access to...
It seems pretty clear that on-demand software loading is going to be big, and that it will be a good thing. With that said, though, Microsoft is still being stupid: in order to write good on-demand software, it will need to be a) small, b) efficient, c) standards-compliant, and d) installable/uninstallable immediately and without a trace. Microsoft gets about a 60% on part D, and about 0% on parts A, B, and C. =)
-jacob
I think you missed the biggest concerns of all: privacy and availability.
There is no way you can trust any organization or person running the
server to keep your data private. Signing up for such a rental, your biggest
payment may be in the form of personal data. In case you did not realize
this, it is more valuable than your monthly utility bill payment. So factoring
this in, it'll probably make sense to buy most software outright, especially
things like tax software. Of course so much of the software is available for free,
that buying may be a thing of the past anyway.
In general, this idea is based on the assumption that a new sales model will
preserve old brand loyalty, which is not at all obvious to me. For example,
I regularly check CNN site for news, but I do not have a CNN channel on my local
cable. I think a shift in software sales will nudge people to rethink their software
usage. This may be very dangerous for MS.
Also, as people above have pointed out, there are times when you need software
NOW, so you cannot have a PhD thesis sitting somewhere on a server, your
defense scheduled for tomorrow and your network experiencing a brownout
or an outright failure.
I see software rental as viable only for one-time use things, like children apps,
e.g. schools would rent educational software needed for this week for this grade.
Lastly, could someone clue me in on how you rent an operating system? Does
your bios have a tcp/ip stack and downloads stuff on startup? Why is windows
being mentioned?
Okay. So lets say it does come into existance. Whoopee. Barring that it crashes and burns like DIVX, it's success will be limited, and nowhere near as blanketing as M$ says it would be. THink about what would have to happen: Internet access would have to be ALL cable and xDSL worldwide. That's laughable right there. Especially when you consider areas in the USA like where I live, in which xDSL is impossible untill the entire phone system is overhauled (which wont happen) and cable service is slower and less reliable than in other locations. So lets say that, by some miracle, the entire world gets highspeed internet access. It's still not going to replace retail stores. Case in point: video rental stores. Sure, you can go out and buy a VCR and just rent movies and never actually own one, but most people have their own copy of at least one of their favorite movies, and video stores are all over the place. Software rental will no more replace Software retail than video rental replaces video retail. Same thing with console games. You can rent them all over the place but everyone still buys them.
Besides.. the outlined vision of the future from one of Billy-boy's lackeys said nothing of Linux and Open Source software.. and how they're slowly but surely stealing people away from M$'s clutches.. and now that games are starting to be made compatible with Linux, there's less and less reasons for folx like me to have any M$ products cluttering their hard drive at all..
IronGorilla
Teledesic can only succeed if they get approval from NSA and FBI. And they will only get that approval once they make sure all communications can be intercepted by `the authorities' to facilitate criminal investigation and whatnot. I wonder, will Teledesic need groundstations in any other countries besides the United States of America? If so, it will be very hard for them to guarantee 100% interceptability, since communcations interception requests on foreign soil are handled by local authorities, which may handle such things in a different (more or less restrictive) manner.
They may use a central communications hub situated somewhere in the US to facilitate eavesdropping, but that would introduce a bottleneck in the network as well as introduce extra points of failure. Anyone got any info on how they plan to solve this problem?
Cheers//Frank
--frank[at]unternet.org
hehehehhe other people posted in the time it took me to type first post heheheheheh
While the idea is kind of neat, I'm not sure the model is going to exist either as soon, or as widespread, as its proponents like to think.
;0
After broadband is ready, the software services will slowly filter down, replacing commercial software packages.
I'm not sure. The utility of the interent apps really comes into play for products that you don't use often enough to justify the (current) full commercial price. For small businesses, or for home users who wish to sample a product, it may be worthwile. But for most corporate users, or developers, where an app is being used constantly, the it soon becomes worthwile to buy the product outright (even with things like yearly licensing and upgrades factored in).
For the home user, it may be a case of try before you buy, rather than the limited-trial demos of today. For some things, like using a Tax program once yearly, I can see the utility. Other power-use programs may not be so easily transfered.
The other concern is use. How would a charge be implemented?
Per-use, each time you open an app? Then we will have a situation much like AOL had when they went to their unlimited use plan. People dial-in once, and never leave (until Windoze crashes...so they'd still be loging in 2-3 times a day)
Or per-minute, as I know I have a tendencey to open up 5-7 apps when I get into work and leave them there all day. Again, it would be better to own it.
Howabout a per-file app, as each time you create a new file you get dinged. Again. I can see people opening one big spreadsheet, and just zooming to different parts as needed.
This is a neat idea, but there are still some issues that need to be worked out. That, coupled with the people that are pushing this, make me very wary of this model every taking over as the distibution channel de riguer.
--sugarman--
This can only be good for us in the long run. With every attempt on Microsoft's part to stretch their tendrils in to people's lives, the case for Free and Open Source software becomes stronger.
Consider this: you're an average consumer, maybe a little better informed. You are looking at two computers. One comes with Windows 2000, MS Office, MS Internet Explorer, and an MS Entertainment Pack. The other comes with Red Hat Linux 7.0, StarOffice 6.0, Mozilla 5.0; and is a bit more expensive, since it uses higher quality hardware.
You compare the prices, and you think maybe the Windows computer is a better bargain -- until you take a look at this little thing at the end of the price on the Windows box. $1299, plus $25.00 a month for software rental??? Compare this to $1400 for a Linux box, with $0 a month in software rental charges.
The sad fact is, I can easily see Microsoft making a killing off of software rental, which IMO is immoral and appalling; and I can see Software Rental Fraud laws appearing on the books of every state, making it a felony to defraud Microsoft out of their monthly checks. The major question in my mind is what role Linux will play in this new way of doing business.
Finding God in a Dog
> The bill is for the service of having the spftware...
;)
"spftware?" I love it!
This is even better than the "sotware" proposed on the MCI/Worldcom story.
I love happy typos. Especially since the "spftware" is a good description of MS products
Pope...need...coffee...
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
This can already be done easily with MS Terminal Server and Citrix Metaframe. I can use Word over the internet (see Ctrix's Demo site) and if you DON'T use the Java or ActiveX client it is quite fast. Just about as fast as being local, and bonus, you never have to install anything but a small two disk client. Imagine - never install Word 2000 on your computer, but if you need to use it to open a Doc from your lawyer just rent it briefly.
I used to use matlab at Cornell, because Cornell had a site licence. But to have it on a workstation outside school running Linux? Thousands of dollars, depending on the toolboxes. And this every year!
I discovered Octave, the GNU workalike, and that makes me happy. It can't do all that the matlab toolboxes can (not by a long shot), but to be honest I never used them unless it was during a course that specifically required some special toolbox.
One less customer for Matlab.
Doesn't that strike you as just a little extreme? Anyone who makes a living writing software wants there to be some kind of pricetag for software, or else they're working for free. That doesn't necessarily mean today's pay-per-copy model of software, but the argument that one should never pay any money for software is about as reasonable as saying that no one should pay for a book, or the food a chef cooks, or any other product of intellectual labor.
In other words: saying "People shouldn't rent programs, they should get them for free" is saying "programmers shouldn't get money every time someone uses their program, because they should do it for free." Speaking as a programmer: I would certainly write some programs for free. The database system I'm working on now is NOT one of them. That doesn't mean that I'm endorsing rental as the way to go (but see my earlier post), just that a radically free software paradigm (ie no money anywhere) only works if the whole society is radically free.
(A bit far afield from the topic of discussion, I'm afraid. I promise to do better next time.)
-jacob
If you want to see a successful online software product, look at GIFWorks!.. they use the old business model, make your page great, get heaps of hits and sell advertising, and it's part of the Andover network! Microsoft, way ahead of ya.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Doesn't M$ already have a policy of
making new releases incompatable with
old releases? even if your company is lazy
and sticks with a version, eventually you are
forced to pay the tax, because bozo's everywhere
will email you huge powerpoint00 documents
and expect you to be able to read them.
The alternative to limited government is unlimited government.
Joe Blow will get the shaft again. I live in
... ...
a mobile home park where we have middle class
people and some poor people. We see the rent
to own truck going regularly in the homes of
the poors. Those of us of the middle class
can't afford the prices of rent to own, you
actually own the product when it's unusable after
paying several times the price.
Microsoft has found out that most winblows users
are of the type who never pay for software so
in order to cash in on that market they have to
make it such that you will not be able to buy
but will have to rent. People will not complain
because they will think that they get a good
deal. It's only $5 a week for the latest window
version. Another $5 for Office. If you can't
afford that then you pay $0.01 a minute for
the use of Office 2000, another cent or two
for IE5, etc
At the end of the month you get $17.95 for your
internet connection plus $30-$50 for your winblows.
Microsoft didn't get your last month check
or your credit card bounced the payment so
you don't have the computer for the next month
or so
next time try to click on the right link to reply to???
It takes a lot for me to volentarily put my hands in my wallet and support Bill, but Teledesic - satellite internet access at 2mb speeds for the entire globe - just might do it. At the rate telcos and cablecos are sabotaging their chances through exceptionally poor service and availability, I see Bill cleaning up. Much as I despise Bill and his current product line, I have to cheer him on here.
I just hope he won't require Windows to access it. Argh!
D
----
Let's assume you are going to rent your software from Microsoft. You pay per CPU cycle or second or whatever.
Now, everytime the software crashes or otherwise screws up, Microsoft is not getting paid! Obviously they are not going to like this. So that's why I think Microsoft is not to rent you the software theirselves.
My guess is that Microsoft will licence the software to an ISP (ASP). Business as usual. However, the ISP/ASP is allowed to rent out the software to its customers. So the ISP/ASP carries the risk and Microsoft doesn't.
Now you tell me, is this scheme going to work? Don't forget that the ISP/ASP will have to pay substantially more for this special licence because normally you aren't allowed to rent out software. This is similar to NT Terminalserver being much more expensive than "normal" NT.
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
For the first, I see no reason why Open Source software, homegrown software, COTS software using a buy-once purchase model, and COTS software using a 'rental' model, can't all coexist in the marketplace. I'm expecting Open Source will outcompete COTS to the point where it dissapears, but even if it doesn't, no big deal.
But that doesn't mean that we won't be renting things over the Net when we have the bandwidth. But what we might be renting is very unlikely to look like a traditional application program. I'm expecting it to look much more like a service. I believe we are transitioning from a manufacture based economy to a service based economy. Open Source is part of the transition, and I think it's pretty well accepted that the service-based income model is integral to the expected success of the Open Source model. More than likely, the best services we'll be buying from will be based on Open Source software and fierce but mostly friendly competition between service providers.
So I think Balmer's right that traditional COTS software is going to eventually dissapear. But I'm also pretty sure he's wrong if he thinks that Microsoft renting access to application programs is going to replace it!
--BitDancer