The problem with this model is that not everyone needs constant upgrades. At our office, we still you Office '97 because it does everything we need. If we are forced to pay every year for unnecessary upgrades, I believe that Open Office will be in our future.
Maybe you should have read the story, because nowhere does it say that everyone is going to be on this rental program. If anything, it just gives consumers and business one more way to purchase their products and will likely increase the appeal of office to some users.
Besides, as another poster noted, offices frequently rent things that they could have easily bought. Furniture is a great example, so I don't think this is a bad model to implement at all.
Technically, if you are in that situation, you already have to get a business package. But then again, if you are in that situation, chances are you can get your employer to pay for you connection or at least help pay for it.
Come on, do you not think Microsoft has already begun planning for the possibility of defeat? I am sure they already have coders working on ODF integration into Office. Sure, Microsoft might hate the ODF, but they are not dumb. They cannot risk what you rightly state as a possible turn of events. If things don't go as planned for Microsoft, I foresee a ODF patch within a short time of that decision.
It seemes everyone here is way too willing to embrace Net Nutrality. While I agree that without it we could run into some potential problems, I think the answer to the problem is more in between Total Net Nutrality and No Net Nutrality. The reason is this: Ttere are two types of internet networks, private and public. Most ISPs operate private networks, which many plan to use to deliver IPTV, VOIP, ect, along with user traffic. Running separately from these networks is the Public Internet infrastructure. This Public network is the one that we should be concerned with, because no ISP owns that network and they do not have the right to shape traffic on the network; however on their private networks, they should be able to do whatever they want with the traffic since they own it. QoS is almost essential to the delivery of IPTV and VOIP. While, yes, it would be better just to roll out faster networks, the fact is that that wound not only be more expensive, it would also seriously delay the arrival of IPTV in some parts of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this model is that not everyone needs constant upgrades. At our office, we still you Office '97 because it does everything we need. If we are forced to pay every year for unnecessary upgrades, I believe that Open Office will be in our future.
Maybe you should have read the story, because nowhere does it say that everyone is going to be on this rental program. If anything, it just gives consumers and business one more way to purchase their products and will likely increase the appeal of office to some users. Besides, as another poster noted, offices frequently rent things that they could have easily bought. Furniture is a great example, so I don't think this is a bad model to implement at all.
Technically, if you are in that situation, you already have to get a business package. But then again, if you are in that situation, chances are you can get your employer to pay for you connection or at least help pay for it.
Come on, do you not think Microsoft has already begun planning for the possibility of defeat? I am sure they already have coders working on ODF integration into Office. Sure, Microsoft might hate the ODF, but they are not dumb. They cannot risk what you rightly state as a possible turn of events. If things don't go as planned for Microsoft, I foresee a ODF patch within a short time of that decision.
It seemes everyone here is way too willing to embrace Net Nutrality. While I agree that without it we could run into some potential problems, I think the answer to the problem is more in between Total Net Nutrality and No Net Nutrality. The reason is this: Ttere are two types of internet networks, private and public. Most ISPs operate private networks, which many plan to use to deliver IPTV, VOIP, ect, along with user traffic. Running separately from these networks is the Public Internet infrastructure. This Public network is the one that we should be concerned with, because no ISP owns that network and they do not have the right to shape traffic on the network; however on their private networks, they should be able to do whatever they want with the traffic since they own it. QoS is almost essential to the delivery of IPTV and VOIP. While, yes, it would be better just to roll out faster networks, the fact is that that wound not only be more expensive, it would also seriously delay the arrival of IPTV in some parts of the country.