It's Official: MS Office 10 Subscription Version 619
F.Prefect writes: "Microsoft is going to be releasing a 'subscription version' of Office 10. This version will actually stop allowing a user to create new documents after the subscription period ends. Read their press release. Although they will still offer a non-subscription version for more money, I can't help but think that Office 11 or some subsequent software package will do away with non-subscription versions entirely ..." Seeding of the .NET "cloud of services" has officially begun, it looks like. Press releases, of course, try to make you want to buy the products they're pushing, but this one is a head-scratcher. It boils down to "It works like the regular version, but you get to pay for it again this time next year, too, or it breaks!" Won't IT manager types get tired of this?
Re:And *that* is the business case (Score:2)
--
Because of the bundlers! (Score:2)
Ah, but you're assuming people choose to buy Office; it's something most PC buyers need and assume will come with a new computer system when they pay for it. The system bundlers are going to love this, because they can bring down the immediate cost of a new system, making it more attractive to potential buyers, but this initial saving is offset by the MS subscription fee. This is Microsoft shifting the traditional Wintel tax from the high initial purchase cost of a system to a more `spread out' model of payment.
So prices come down for computer buyers, system builders get to sell more systems, and MS assure themselves a revenue stream without having to stuff more bloaty features into their software to sell it. I'm not really sure what I think about it really
Microsoft (Shaking Head) (Score:2)
Oh wait that's right, that isn't possible. I forgot, Microsoft holds us by the balls. Why? Because in today's world and society, sales people are hired for their selling skills not their computer and technology skills. Administrative people would rather use a notepad and a calculator than learn how to use a computer properly. And it isn't like we IT guys are asking them to learn how to use Linux (yet) just windows.
They can't even 1) take the time to learn the second most brainless OS there is, #1 still being MacOS without the shell. 2)Have the want or desire to learn the OS, at least basics. Again I am not asking them to start scripting, editing the registry, or creating custom kernels.
I think where the problem starts is at the corporate level, there should be a requirement that sales people and administrative folks that work in the IT industry, ought to have an interest toward that industry, otherwise go work at a law office or a retail co.
Make way for the people that have a passion for this industry, the people that seek out learning and growth. If you are one of those people but are making an effort to learn and grow, kudos to you. Good to have you. If you are one of those people and are not making an effort and are instead helping to make our industry mediocre and ineffective, and are doing nothing to learn and grow and you don't think this pertains to you, read it again.
Sorry all, felt like ranting and raving like a madman!
Re:Short memories (Score:2)
Re:I hope not. (Score:2)
Now there are some people who don't like to hear the word virtue. They beleive that it associates the word "good" with "special" people and "ordinary" with everyone else. Is a begger a bad man because he does not give to others? No, then why should I be considered a bad man for not giving welfare? But these people go one step further. As far as they are concerned giving to the poor just removes the begger's motivation to improve his lot in life.
It won't work (at least I hope) (Score:2)
This won't stop so-called 'piracy', but will annoy regular customers, like protection on old software.
And given the great compliance of successive versions of Orifice, it will be fun, whern someone have to dig an old version of Office2K in 5 or 6 years to read a document, and find that it won't work anymore.
The last, and most frightening, problem is that at any time, M$ will be able to stop renewing the subscription and push customers onto a different product in a rigid time frame. And if your documents are not supported on the next version, then though luck: you won't have much time for the migration... Imagine if M$ was able to make all current installs of NT to stop working to force people on W2K...
Cheers,
--fred
Ownerships (Score:2)
One point is that Microsoft pretends to deliver a connection to a service. You wanna write a PowerPoint doc and the program is 15 hops away in a "application provider".
The other one is that you have a program running on your hardware that Microsoft delivers to you.
There is a big difference on what ownership means here. On the first point it is someone else who's doing the job you need. You send commands and get results. That's the same as the old Time-Sharing services, once popular with mainframes and terminals. Someone offers you resources and you pay for them. Either by the completness of the service or on a time fee basis. And that was practice until PC's came in. Here Microsoft has absolute right to charge you this way because you only use their property - hardware and software. this thing delivers you a service and you pay according to owner's offers.
Now on what concerns the second point. You own a piece of hardware. And someone delivers a program to be used on it. A program is mostly a set of commands that give your computer instructions to act in a specific way. Now you own this piece of hardware. And someone delivers you the instruction set in a time fee basis. Isn't here some nonsense? You are paying a rent so that your computer may perform a task? Why you can't buy it? Why you should be obliged to pay fees to have the right to use something you own? Why you should stick to their rental plans to use your own property? Here Microsft is tremendously wrong as it is sticking your right to use your own property to its conditions. It would look much like someone renting your the right to use toothpaste so that your toothbrush does the job it was meant to.
What Microsoft is doing is to kick us back 20 years ago when PC's came up. When the PC came into stage it was considered as the freedom of the user as finally people had the right to own computers. Now Microsoft is revoking you this right, as making the instruction sets a rent, it is forcing you to disown, somehow, your computer. Yo don't control it anymore. You either accept Microsoft's terms or you have it as furniture. A very smart move. I wonder if suddenly Microsoft would start to claim that you own no more the box on your desk...
Re:Are you joking?? (Score:2)
And you think that StarOffice is better in this regard how exactly?
Suns download process has always sucked (Score:2)
--
Re:"Stale" software can still open/view/print (Score:2)
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:3)
Good idea (Score:5)
Subscriptions (Score:3)
MS--the ASP guinea pig. (Score:3)
Let the experiment begin.
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:2)
The difference, of course, is that your RedHat system won't stop working if you refuse to pay up. It will stop updating itself automatically, but it won't give you the game over light when you try to save changes to your existing documents. You could even upgrade the box yourself, by hand, if you needed to.
People who stop sending money to Microsoft will find that they have turned their computer into an expensive boat anchor. They will also find out that their data is now locked into Microsoft's proprietary format, and the only thing that the can do is open it (for viewing) and print it.
Free Software doesn't give your software provider nearly the leverage that closed source commercial software does. RedHat can't do anything that would take away your right to run the software that you are currently running. Microsoft, on the other hand, will soon have that power. This is fine with me. As the copyright holders of the software they have the right to license it however they want. However, I can't imagine putting my data in Microsoft's hands, especially considering the fact that there are alternatives.
Re:HEY! Keep the Catholic Church out of this! (Score:2)
This typo may explain why some people responded to my post as if I had called them Godless heretics doomed to rot in Hell. Using MS software won't do that to you.
Yet, anyway.
Geoff
Re:Universities (Score:2)
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
From CNet [cnet.com]: Office 10 will offer five new document recovery tools that will strive to correct the instabilities found in previous versions of Office (and Windows) that resulted in wasted time and lost documents because of hung machines, spontaneous rebooting, mysterious error messages, and system crashes.
Rather than improve stability, they reduce the damage caused by instability. Why didn't they just direct those resources directly at improving stability?
Exactly that is the big deal here (Score:2)
Who it's gonna hurt are us poor schmucks that use it at home...
Oh wait... Isn't that an argument for StarOffice?
Re:Read the announcement (Score:2)
This amounts to forced upgrading, and presumably, clients should not be required to pay repeatedly for using data they generated themselves.
Re:"Stale" software can still open/view/print (Score:2)
Re:Exaclty. (Re:Jeez, didn't see that coming) (Score:2)
Re:Suns download process has always sucked (Score:2)
http://www.OpenOffice.org/dev_docs/source/downloa
These are the source and binaries for StarOffice 6 (devel version, but very stable).
Re:"Stale" software can still open/view/print (Score:2)
Designed to fail? (Score:2)
Re:where was your brain two years ago? (Score:2)
Bryan R.
gain karma by metamodding (Score:2)
i'm not sure that you ever get points for being metamodded by someone else, though.
Re:it's not the same at all (Score:2)
Sun could re-license OpenOffice all they want. However, they can't take away my right to distribute the version of OpenOffice I downloaded under the terms of the GPL.
In other words, they could theoretically release the next version under a closed source commercial license. However, they couldn't force all of the people that had the GPLed version to give back the source. So development would almost certainly continue on the GPLed branch, and it would compete against Sun's proprietary branch. In fact, Sun's branch would probably be ignored altogether.
That really is the beautty of the GPL. In essence the end user has nearly as many rights as the copyright holder. You are no longer at the mercy of your software vendor. If you don't like the service, you can switch to a different vendor, and your new vendor will still have access to the source code.
Re:Boy, what a choice. (Score:2)
Your ability to get license-free systems, though, depends on the size of the organization you work for. Larger companies generally have that option, but using the "small business" division of a major manufacturer (like Dell, Compaq, or Gateway) will force you to take OEM software.
Of course, virtually all white box systems are available stripped of license as well.
In the end, the best revenue maximization for Microsoft would come from a mix of retail and subscription-based licensing - it ensures steady revenue with the addition of revenue spikes clustered around new releases. A subscription-only model prevents the revenue lows (when all your new products are delayed and there's no new upgrade revenue in sight), but it also prevents the highs for the same reason.
- -Josh Turiel
Doomed From the Get Go (Score:2)
Who I see this working for is the giant Borgesque corporations who don't want to worry about rolling out upgrades. These type of corporations don't live and die by their IT budget like middle and small sized companies do, so they just add the 'subscription fee' to their budget and life goes on.
But seeing that steady income really won't amount to too much compared to the middle-sized company market, I see this as a service that gets tucked away somewhere and is barely used (sort of like leasing a phone from the phone company, you can do it, but why would you?)
I don't care one way or the other, as I am an avid wordpad user. If I need nifty features, I can pop into Kinko's with my .txt file and do the whiz-bang on it and print. Otherwise, it isn't a big deal.
I've used StarOffice for a bit, but I really didn't like it. Just a bit too cumbersome, but I like the concept.
Re:It is a good plan... business prefer to lease (Score:2)
Software is not like gasoline. Microsoft does not have to do more production to give me another year's use out of my software. With gasoline, standard oil has to produce every single bit of gas I use. With software, its totally different.
If you truly think this is a bad model of doing business, please don't pay that cable/dss bill this month. Yet again, this is totally different. A valid comparison would be "if you think this is a bad model, don't pay for watching videos you've previously recorded". I record T.V. shows. If I cancelled my subscription to cable, I would still have all of my existing T.V. shows, and be able to fully use them. Making faulty comparisons is at the heart of the current problem with software an "intellectual property" in general.
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:2)
Actually Microsoft has a free PowerPoint viewer (and Word viewer, and Excel viewer) for that kind of purpose.
Frankly, I don't see the need to upgrade from '97 to any future version, since they finally standardized on a file format. There's a push at my employer to upgrade everyone to Office 2K... despite the fact that maybe one or two people will use a new feature in Office 2K.
Sigh, damn lemmings...
Grrrr. (Score:2)
Some other software companies have done simillar in the past, with a form of activation key to make the software work. The ones I've worked with have been annoying, particularly when attempting to recover from a system failure. They always cause annoyance when some software you need to use doesn't want to work anymore, usually when not needed.
I once had my SMTP system stop runnning due to it expiring, and the supplier was in a timezone 8 hours behind, meaning I was effectivly out of action for a day. There was nowhere indicating when it expired, and the person who installed it hadn't made notes.
Timebombed software (except demonstration or pre-release) is pure evil, and must be destroyed.
How Microsoft plans to "sell" this: (Score:4)
The plan is not getting users to buy subscriptions. They'll sell this to computer makers, to be bundled with desktops and notebooks. This way, they force the users to either renew or buy Office after one year.
And this won't be a problem for the computer makers, because they won't _have_ any option. First, it will be cheaper, naturally. Second, Microsoft will railroad any opposing makers into accepting it. For instance, by simply not offering the unlimited version at lower prices.
It's brilliant.
/me pats pats his FreeBSD
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
No, I encourage everyone I know to write everyting to a plain text file first. Then, if they need further formatting, to copy the file, open the copy in Word and format it from there.
This advice after witnessing dozens of people lose hours of work when Word documents suddenly self-destruct.
Hint to Microsoft: try not to write unreadable data to the file.
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
Re:Are you joking?? (Score:2)
That's funny, I believe that is almost precisely what the old IBM Mainframe gurus used to say about PCs. For years the mantra was "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." And then suddenly the old mantra was 100% completely untrue. Even closer to home we probably all remember a time when WordPerfect was the undisputed king of word processors, and Lotus 1-2-3 was the spreadsheet.
If there is one thing that is a truism in the world of computers is that the least expensive option that is "good enough" eventually wins out. Linux probably isn't to the point where it is "good enough" for most people, but it is getting there fast, and it certainly is inexpensive. OSes and operating systems will eventually be a commodity, despite all of Microsoft's tricks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EDU versions do this already ... (Score:2)
Re:Crippling for schools (Score:2)
--
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:2)
And how long would you work for a company if you took that kind of attitude? I was referring to a business environment where being uncooperative is usually frowned upon. I'm not a consultant who can afford to piss off customers, nor the CEO of a company who can dictate the standards. So I use what I need.
For me personally at home, I use the Word viewer, etc, and that works just fine.
But my original point was that Microsoft was arrogant enough to make OFfice 97 documents break Office 95 documents... I wouldn't put it past them to do something like that again, especially when the subscription model becomes a lot more common.
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:2)
Again, they did this for no other reason than to force some people to upgrade.
Re:Crippling for schools (Score:2)
So why not use a cheaper, more open toolset in school? If business feels a need for Microsoft Office courses, they'll gladly provide them to their employees. Why standardize on Microsoft Office in school? I learned to read from simple books, books which I never read anymore. I learned to use a computer using a Commodore 64 and could easily adapt the gained insight to other systems.
Give your student a Microsoft Office course, and (s)he'll be able to use Microsoft Office. Teach them to use information processing equipment and they'll be able to use anything and everything...
Opportunity for StarOffice (Score:2)
It would be worth offering the word processor from StarOffice separately (as StarWord?) for people who don't want the rest of StarOffice or its attempt to be a desktop.
Re:This doesnt sound like a bad idea to me... (Score:2)
Once ActiveDirectory gets established in this role, it will be nearly impossible to shake it loose - even if they split MS 8 ways till Sunday.
HEY! Keep the Catholic Church out of this! (Score:2)
any company that stands squarely behind UCITA is ``venial''
Hmmm.... This is an interesting charge. I am not used to dealing with subtle theological issues on slashdot. Is the author concerned that a company does not estrange it's soul from the grace of God? (i.e. Bill Gates)
or perhaps the author meant
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:4)
I guess - if you pushed them - the posters in this thread would state their belief that they think MS has a big problem: why should users continue to pay to upgrade MS applications, when there is as near as damnit no difference between one Word version and the next. We guess that MS thinks, "a ha! if we can get the user to hire the application rather than buy it, we have revenue for life".
Even the press release - bless it - gives the game away. They speak of "at a lower initial cost" which begs the thought that the lifetime cost will be greater.
And the conspiracy theory? I think it is reasonable to speculate that MS would like to be a service company rather than a product company - especially in a marketplace in which the commoditisation of products is driving price.
We don't think MS is stupid. We know they are very clever indeed - especially at the business of business models. And the subscription business model is clearly more attractive than the "I'm happy with my Office 2000 and don't feel inclined ever again up pay to upgrade".
Subscription services? so what? (Score:2)
What is the big problem with subscription-based software like Office 10? I mean, it's kind of like the idea of leasing a computer, except you aren't just throwing money away through not being able to resell the software when you're done with it, because you wouldn't be able to (legally) resell the software anyway. New version comes out, your lease just happend to expire yesterday, go buy the cheap new version. Could someone explain what the problem with that is?
X-Box ... MSN ... it's a killer app! (Score:5)
o A reasonable price would deter people from pirating the software
o It's an immense value-add for MSN
o It's the perfect entry for a "desktop anywhere" feature, which would put your documents at your service via ANYPLACE you login.
Here's the best part: make this available for X-Box users. Suddenly, the kid's toy becomes a VERY inexpensive replacement for the computer. AND Microsoft will get a handy stream of revenue. If they sell 10 million X-boxes in a couple of years... and even 5% of those end up with a subscription to MSN and Office at $25/mo, we're talking about $150million/year. US alone. AND they'll dominate the browser, 'cause it's their platform.
There's more: How fast can HP or Epson write a app for the X-Box to use their digital cameras with it? Scanners? Will it have a firewire port? How about hooking up the camcorder? DVD player, right? I've heard it's going to support HDTV resolutions - so if it's done right, it'll be on every videophile's list too, especially if someone writes their own HD-DVD format - just upgrade the software DVD player!
The possibilities really are endless with this one... by Microsoft creating the hardware, and the OS, they're doing what IBM wish they had done back in 1980-81 with the IBM-PC. By providing the subscription to the software, they're giving themselves a constant revenue stream for years to come.
It gets more and more interesting EVERY DAY.
Problems looming (Score:2)
First, the headache for maintaining so many damned subscriptions, keeping them active, managing accounts and passwords will drive IT managers nuts
Second, it's the DivX dilemma--see how useful all those DivX pay-per-use DVDs are now? Great coasters. If MS ever stops supporting this model, everyone will be up a creek without a license key. Admittedly, probably not a terrible concern with MS, but it will limit the ASP model.
More importantly, this will last in each company until the exact time that some Exec is travelling and his license expires over the atlantic on the flight out while he's drafting the next business plan or whatnot. After some serious shouting and lawsuit-threatening, each company will give the subscription model a one-fingered salute.
Does the
This also brings up an interesting idea--I type up a work in Word 10/subscription, then my subscription runs out. Can I still even read my work? Will WordPad handle it, or has MS rescinded my access to my own work??
[1] and I can't think of another reliable way. I imagine a digital-sig based handshake that avoids the problem with local settings controlling access (easily crackable/patchable), and if it defaults to allow, well, duh.
Boy, what a choice. (Score:4)
So, either you can pay MS once, or you can pay them every year. Gosh golly Captain Wizzbang, what will they think of next??? Maybe they'll add a paperclip on crack as their next feature . . .
Being told ``you can pay us so much now, or you can pay us the same amount each year" is not a choice. Unless you are braindead & need more than 5 seconds to decide between the two options.
> And don't come out with the crazy conspiracy theory that "Office 11 will be subscription only". First of all, it attributes to MS a
> level of stupidity they simply lack. And there is simply not basis for that statement.
Interesting. Leaked memos have been available for a couple of years showing that Billg & Ballmer have seriously entertained this concept. After all, their End User Agreements state that you have NOT bought the software, just leased the right to use the binary. And if UCITA passes in your jurisdiction, be sure that they will change the terms of the contract.
And have you ignored the fact that MS requires companies with site licenses to pay for their software *twice*? Once for the concenience of having it pre-installed, & once for blowing it away so that the tested, & corporate-approved version can be installed. A quick search on Gogle turned up this URL: http://www.canada.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-242730
As for the charge of ``stupidity", I think the better word describe any company that stands squarely behind UCITA is ``venial".
MS is seeing the numbers of sales begin to slide; migration from NT to Win 2000 is far less than what Gartner & others predicted. So MS has to get the revenue from somewhere. Which means this braindead licensing choice. And if they DON'T force theri customer base to migrate to a subscription basis, then they ARE stupid.
Geoff
Services vs. Products (Score:3)
Microsoft has been doing a pretty good job of tweaking their products just enough to get people (and businesses) flocking to upgrade even with very little new development. Windows 98 SE and Me upgrades from Win98 cost the same as the Win98 upgrade from Win95, but there is much less development in them. Same price, less work, higher profits. Nothing new. Although in many cases the "less work" usually comes with higher productivity (so the end product is the same quality), but it doesn't seem like this will be the case.
Anywho, the advantage of services instead of products for the consumer is that (theoretically) setup, installation, upgrades, support, etc. are easier. However, (as mentioned above) services come at a significant loss of "rights" for the consumer. Ownership is very powerful, and in many ways very desireable. When you rent something you loose control over it and it's no longer yours entirely. In the next few years there will be a major "shakedown" of what people choose to be services and what people choose to own.
Personally, I think the service model (for some uses) is very valid, but I also worry about the transfer of rights and powers from the public to the big corporations. I think that ultimately most people won't want to give up their ownership of basic software, and (perhaps more importantly) there will be a large base of free or purchasable software out there keeping the big guys' services in check to keep things from getting out of hand. I suppose we will just have to wait and see, but it's bound to be interesting no matter how it plays out, let's just hope it's not too interesting.
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:2)
IT managers (Score:2)
You'll never have to pay for the upgrade fees to go from one to the other (which, seemingly, would cost more money).
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:3)
All righty then, Mr. Smarty Pants, why is it good? What extra service does the "rent" (vs. own) get you? What is it that would make me "buy" this rather than a version that doesn't auto-destruct? MS claims this is "an exciting new opportunity" -- for who? Their bankers?
There's exactly one reason this will be accespted in the market, if it is at all:
So, I get it cheaper, but I gotta pay next year. I suppose this is actually Microsoft trying to compete with the Warez market. They ship "works" with a lot of prefab PCs these days. So what happens then? I'll wager that, a lot of the time, people bring home Office CDs from work and/or get them from friends. For free. With no subscription fee. So, if they can go legal and get upgrades automatically for less than paying retail for the thing, then they might. Plus, I can see the MS playing out this way: "Computers are hard to keep working right! Upgrades, patches, work, work, work! Pay us and they'll always work right. Friendly MS agents will visit your computer through your spiffy DSL line and make sure you always have the latest, greatest, bug-free stuff." They'll turn "Windows Update" into a revenue stream.
I wonder what the per-seat issues will be for business and/or homes? Renewal is annual, not one number-of-documents, as far as I can tell. So, if I install in on my wife's laptop and my desktop, so I subscribe twice? I don't subscribe twice to cable, or the newspaper.
Open source advocates are always talking about the virtue of choice, but when MS offers choice, they cry foul.
Oh, puhlease. MS is offering the same software in either case, merely with two different payment options. One, the traditional "costs too much" payment option, and two, the "ransom" option. The whole idea of software as a service is sort of ludicrous.
________________________________________
Re:What I would like to see (Score:2)
So supposedly, if you create 100 empty documents (or containing just some bogus text) you can continue using/editing those?
Re:Subscriptions (Score:3)
________________________________________
Banking on user laziness? (Score:3)
- When are Microsoft going to ship Office 11?
- What's the cost of a years subscription, relative to a full license?
- Where's the break even point?
- If I choose to subscribe to Office 10, do I auto-subscribe to Office 11?
- Can I subscribe individual components (say Word and Excel, but not PowerPoint?
Microsoft seem to be hoping that people won't work out how long they'll resubscribe for, and may make additional funding on the difference. You know many people aren't going to do the long term thinking here - they'll just see a lower initial price.See Rob's comments in Geeks in Space as regards rental of his TiVo - he's coming up against a break-even point of rental vs purchase - he'd hoped that a better version would be available so he could change for less money....
Not quite... (Score:2)
If customers do not renew or install an upgrade product, they can still open, view and print their existing documents.
Open, view and print. Nothing said about editing.
Re:Yes, they actually do get tired of it! (Score:2)
Re:EDU versions do this already ... (Score:2)
not sure I could even get a single homework paper done before I have to pay again..
--
Been done for years, but not at retail (Score:2)
And, you know what? If I were running a startup, or a medium-sized business that wanted to do a massive roll-out all at once, I'd much rather use a subscription model than try to come up with all that cash at once.
The people who really risk getting another blow are the retailers and resellers who currently sell MS software. They've already been hit really hard by direct sales, direct downloads, and online merchants, but the subscription path builds much more direct ties between the vendor (MS) and the consumer, so that the buyer doesn't have to go to any store to renew or upgrade in the long run. For now, they're offering an option to buy another subscription license at retail outlets in an attempt to keep up some relationships with these folks. But the whole business plan, in the long run, really cuts the middleman out of the market.
Eliminating the middleman would, in general, be positive for consumers, but the lack of competition just gives Microsoft a chance to sop up those margins for itself. Right now, for instance, buying direct from MS is usually the most expensive option, since they sell almost everything at full MSRP.
Of course, it's too early to predict what exactly their pricing strategy will be in the long run. Corel and some other potential ASPs have been floating rumors about pricing on a feature-by-feature, use-by-use basis rather than a simple annual model.
--JRZ
Re:What I would like to see (Score:3)
*counts backwards in years
________________________________________
Re:Problems looming (Score:2)
For a single user with a Windows PC, the certificate would be stored locally, while for a multiuser workgroup, there would be a central license manager service which hands out floating licenses. To making duplicating licenses inconvenient, they could be "branded" with specific characteristics of the client machines, so that a license purchased for machine X cannot be copied to machine Y. Yes, this would be annoying, but it's already being done with OEM versions of Windows.
Of course, this scheme is vulnerable to various attacks, including removing the license checking code or replacing MS's public key with your own in the signature check. However, such schemes to circumvent the license agreement require more work than simply typing the same CD key for multiple installations. Moreover, most of these schemes are obvious "wilful violations" of the license agreeement rather than simple carlessness (think DMCA and triple damages). Most users, especially those big enough to fear an audit from the BSA, would probably comply.
Eeewwww... having pondered such things, I feel an urgent need for a shower with lots of soap.
And the answer is .... (Score:4)
So day 1 you make an empty document of each type and archive it ..... from then on you just duplicate empty documents on the desktop rather than using office to make them for you .... or better yet - download those warez empty documents from the net ..... can you just see M$ going to court trying to ban the giving away of empty documents .... :-) "but your Honor - they're a device designed to 'subvert an access mechanism'" - "in rebutal - 'we made them with Windows - it's time it was banned'"
Don't be so sure it'll last... (Score:5)
Microsoft operates as a series of individual business units. While that gives them the maximum flexibility to try new things, it also means they often have to learn the same lesson more than once.
Take subscriptions for instance. MS Visual C/C++ wanted to go that model, as many programmers here may recall. "Buy 4.0 and subscribe to MSDN, you'll get 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, every three months like clockwork." Well, the versions came out... 4.0, 4.1, slip, 4.2, slip, slip, slip, uh, 6.0!
By going to a subscription model, they give the user false impression that the product will continue to advance on a rigid schedule. There's no way to win:
if it doesn't come out on time, the customer will feel seriously jypped at the renewal dues;
if it DOES come out on time, the customer has to churn all those desktops' installations to keep step with the advances, or relegate the expensive updates to dusty shelfware.
If they use some sort of lockout like cheap nag shareware, a la "It's February, you can't use the Save feature until you renew your Office subscription dues..." some people will definitely find alternatives. They'll have to keep increasing the dues as the flock of docile sheep dwindles.
Universities (Score:4)
ARGH!
Leasing is not necessarily bad... (Score:2)
A number of companies I've had dealings with in recent years have gone to leasing of equipment rather than purchasing it. While there is some increase in overhead in maintaining inventory lists, it decreases the overhead in accounting.
Leasing costs can be written off immediately as a business expense, whereas capital costs have to be depreciated over a period of time(I think it's 3 years on computers?).
I don't know how tax writeoffs work with software, but I assume similar rules might apply.
Another thing to factor in is that this would be a guaranteed yearly charge, versus a variable charge every couple of years. Again accountants find it easier to budget around yearly charges.
This is also why Microsoft prefers this model, as it would provide a steady revenue stream for them. Which means that Wall Street will like the plan as well.
It's all going to depend on the price points. Most companies upgrade their office suites about once every 3 years. If the yearly lease cost is 1/3rd or less of the full purchase price, it may very well make sense. If it's only 1/2, there will be some questioning. If it's higher than 1/2, I don't think many people will accept it.
Another benefit to IT managers is that a yearly maintenance cost on software insures you get the latest version upgrades without having to debate it much. Meaning for example, our $300k/year maintenance contract to Oracle gives us access to the latest Oracle 9i. To the IT manager, that means not having to fight a budget battle any time there is a problem that needs to be addressed by a software upgrade.
I can't see very many small companies going this route, but to larger corporations there are many compelling reasons why they will be receptive to software leasing.
You call this a choice? (Score:5)
This, more than anything, only proves that Microsoft must be stopped. They're advocating the very monstrosity they basically created: a model where you don't even own the software you buy. In the end, this is going to result in one of two things. In the most optimistic outcome, people finally realize what Microsoft is doing, and they abandon it. More likely, however, is that more corporations -and not just in the software industry- will adopt this model, and in the end we all become little more than a sort of slave class, except that instead of being forced to give them endless labor, we're forced to give them endless cash for something we've already bought and paid for.
----------
no big deal (Score:2)
Re:What I would like to see (Score:2)
C:\>cp c:\mydocu~1\generic.doc ~/generic.doc
'cp' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
C:\>
Re:Remember AT&T (Score:2)
After the tenth Anal Exploration, the little speaker holes tend to get clogged up with shit. Even with a paper clip and some Kleenex, there's only so much you can do. The amount of shit that can be removed from the phone is calculated with this equation:
where n is number of ass-stuffings, l is the length of the phone cord, and c is the average consistency of the Stuffer's shit. Common values for c are 5 (for average, well packed poo), 10, (for rock-hard, constipation-compressed feces), or 1 (for syruppy diarrhea with the occasional chunky, greasy fart). The quotient g is the number of grams of fecal matter that can be expected to be salvaged from the phone's inner workings without damaging the microphone or speaker. For instance, if my phone cord is 4 feet long, I've stuffed the phone up my ass 6 times, and my average shit consistency is 3 (shapely and well-formed, but rather mushy turds), I would use the equation to determine that 2 grams of shit can be safely removed from the phone. For values of n above 12, the difficulty of shit removal overshadows the cost of a new phone, and therefore I would usually head out to Best Buy and purchase a new one after the tenth or eleventh ass-stuffing.Unfortnately, I doubt that ass-related damage was covered by Ma Bell's warranty, so the benefit of a subscription phone plan is negligible to the ass-stuffing phone owner. Perhaps if this phone system were still around today, Ma Bell would offer an ass-stuffer's insurance which would be more financially convenient to the ass-stuffing consumer than purchasing a new phone from Best Buy (long known to be the ass-stuffing phone enthusiast's superstore for ass-stuffing goods and services).
Thank you. I'll have another G&T, please.
All generalizations are false.
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:2)
All righty then, Mr. Smarty Pants, why is it good? What extra service does the "rent" (vs. own) get you? What is it that would make me "buy" this rather than a version that doesn't auto-destruct? MS claims this is "an exciting new opportunity" -- for who? Their bankers?
It's good for companies like the one I work at. As soon as a new version of MS Office is released they jump right out and buy it. It they can "lease" a copy for less than an upgrade, it makes great sense. It's the same concept as companies that lease computers instead of buying them. It's cheaper to pay a continual fee and always have a newer model than having to deal with the outdated stuff. Same concept.
the future (Score:2)
Why do I bring this up? Well, I do the majority of my non-trivial text processing in GNU Emacs, but there are situations when a copy of Microsoft Word would come in handy. When revising my résumé, for instance, although usually I write it in XHTML, many potential employers expect you to send a Word document. If I could access Microsoft Word through an applet-capable UNIX web browser, sure, I'd be willing to pay $5 for an hour's access. It's a lot cheaper than buying the $300 (or however much it costs!) full version, and even better, I don't have to worry about giving up Solaris or GNU/Linux to use it.
I believe that eventually the WWW will be the only application platform that matters for most business users. It's Sun's "WORA" philosophy taken to a whole new level.
I think that progress in this direction is held back by two problems. The first is bandwidth. Even if the WWW-based work processor described above were extremely modular, there's no way you could have 5000 employees using the application over a few T3's. Clearly the "buy the media and licenses" model will be around for a while, but if the bandwidth trickle-down continues at its current pace, I think this not an unreasonable goal for the next decade.
The second problem is many UNIX programmers' reliance on old-school server-side programming methodologies. Like it or not, Java and its lightweight object-oriented brethren are here to stay. We're in the middle of a period of evolution -- much like the jump from assembler to C -- when program abstraction is moving to a new level. (I can no longer say things like "business logic" and laugh.) Unfortunately, I see a bigotry in many UNIX users towards anything but the "C/Perl CGI" model of server-side programming. Even C++ is sometimes looked down upon. These attitudes will have to change; there will always be a place for those technologies, but as web programming more fully embraces OOP (1) (and database-driven OOP apps), I see more and more server-side programming being done in Java (generally), C# (for microsoft-freaks), and C++ (when neither of the first two is fast, powerful, or flexible enough). My experiences in the last year have convinced me that this approach is not only does increase programmer productivity (less time designing, AND less time coding), but allows us to create systems of a complexity that would be unthinkable in ANSI C or Perl 5.(2)
Perl has the foundations to make a place in this new world, but it needs better support for high-level programming, and better database support. I've spend a good portion of the past two months converting my employers old Perl scripts to Java servlets, simply because Java has better database support (gotta love JDBC connection pooling) and servlets scale much better on high-load sites than Perl CGI(3), at least with my employer's setup.
I have faith that Larry Wall and crew can pull this off. Listen to the webcast of Larry's "Camel Lot #6" speech (4)from mid-October. C++ and Java programmers who've dabbled with Perl should enjoy the latter half of the speech.
However you feel about Microsoft, it's interesting how long ago they saw this coming, and how well they've prepared for it. Windows 2000 will continue to kick our ass in this arena for a few years, because the operating system has capabilities that we UNIX goons need application servers (iPlanet Application server, BEA WebLogic, et cetera) for.
Amusing... in ten years, it might not be uncommon for every worker to have a diskless X terminal feeding of a central (UNIX, GNU/Linux, NT) server, running "productivity" applications (read: Office) over the Internet with Internet Explorer 27 or Netscape 6 (grin ;-). It's amusing because that's the same model that we were supposed to have escaped when PC's got cheap and every employee had his own. (A new era of workplace surveillance? Likely. A new era of employment for UNIX sysadmins. Definitely.)
Anyway, that's enough ranting from me.
Footnotes. ;-) "Haha! Just try and run four JVMs on that 600MHz Athlon, kiddies!"
;-)
1. Perl isn't a good OOP language. The basics are there, but it doesn't even support encapuslation properly. This will change, however.
2. It also allows us to create systems that can bring today's mighty servers to their knees. If I were a conspiracy theorist, and I am, I would postulate that one of Sun's motivations for spreading Java's use is that it creates a need for their monster hardware setups again.
3. The normal response to this is, "What about Slashdot? They use Perl and they're a high-load site!" The only reasons that Slash is able to run a site like this are mod_perl and the Arrowpoints. Mod_perl is awesome, but my employer runs iPlanet on RS/6000s, so it's not an option. True, Java is fucked above 100k HTTP connections, but that's what clustering is for, right?
4. http://www.technet cas t.com/tnc_play_stream.html?stream_id=375 [technetcast.com]
All generalizations are false.
Read the announcement (Score:2)
The announcement clearly states that the subscription fee will be lower. I don't see any difference between this and a lease. Presumably a customer that would upgrade every year anyway stands to benefit. There may be other concerns, but we'll have to see what they do.
Re:This is a common practice... (Score:2)
This is not the same thing. With a typical subscription model, you do get 'free' upgrades (not really free since they're all part of the subscription price). Under this model, if you choose to continue using the 'old' version of the software, you can - you've paid the licencing fees, the software does not self-destruct if you let the subscription run out.
The difference with Office 10 is that @ the end of the subscription period, the software becomes, IMO, crippled. From the press release:
As is so often true with MS (or anyone's, for that matter) press releases, it's not what is said, but what is not said that is of issue. Note that in the above quote nothing is said about updating/saving current documents. Which, by extension, reasonably means that Office 10 (Office 2002, or whatever they call it) will be crippleware unless you pay the ransom^H^H^H^H^H^H subscription fees to continue working with your documents.
It's probably too early to say with any certainty whether this model will actually work. I suspect not, given the dismal failure other pay-for-play models have suffered (Divx comes to mind). Paranoid or not, RMS's Right to Read [gnu.org] story serves as a cautionary tale. If you are unable to continue working with your documents because you haven't paid the fees, what other restrictions will they be willing to place on your use of your documents???
Me? I'll continue to use AbiWord/StarOffice, thanks.
Historic Preservation (Score:2)
Re:Why ? (Score:2)
--
Not a nightmare... (Score:2)
I suspect that the license would be managed by a network server. Install the key once, and it gets propagated out to all your installs.
I used to use Arc/Info back many years ago on Unix workstations and they used a licensing product called flexlm which managed this.
It was only a pain when the network went down and I couldn't reach the license manager server.
Re:What I would like to see (Score:4)
Could be bad, could be good... (Score:3)
Problems:
It will probably be a dumbed down version, no matter what. Expect even worse 'support' for other file formats. Probably some lame requirement that my subscription can't transfer to a new machine without some additional fee. I expect it to be as easy to cancel your subscription as an AOL subscription (now we know what those two are REALLY cooking up;).
What would be most useful for my company:
Have M$ Word substantially cheaper than Office. A whole lot cheaper. We don't use PowerPoint or Excel. It would be nice to not have to pay 50% for 20% of the functionality.
Let us buy based not on time, but on the number of documents created. We don't even do much stuff in Word. Why pay that much for something used so infrequently?
(Yes, yes, Star Office, Abi Word, etc. We don't have the time/money to do the training on them. And I don't have the will or desire to support them, (I'd do it alone, whereas others in the office would be willing to install/support more commercial based solutions.))
This isn't that wacky, actually. (Score:5)
I negotiate a price for the annual agreement, and the company, in turn, sends me discs (or gives me access to a download point) as long as the license is current. If we choose to extend the contract, we remain entitled to the product. If we don't renew it, we are legally obligated to get rid of it.
This is different from OEM licenses (which we don't get with our systems, since we have a Microsoft Enterprise agreement - so we don't have to pay twice) in that OEM software is licensed to the specific PC it enters the building with, and retail software which is generally allowed for a single PC, but you have the right to uninstall it and then reinstall it on a different system. Enterprise licensing is a flat fee per seat per year that covers Windows (any version), Office (any version Professional or below - not Premium), and BackOffice CALs to access the servers. If you subscribe to Enterprise and don't renew, you legally have to buy the software through other means (though the discs they send you aren't time-bombed) in order to keep using it.
It sounds restrictive, but it saves my company a lot of money, assuming I upgrade software every couple of years. It makes licensing a simple matter from a cost perspective, easy to track and predict, and the software we get already has product ID's burned into it so I don't have to use keys to install any of it.
In fact, my McAfee subscription works pretty much the same way (but for two-year terms), as do several of my other enterprise-wide products (and most of our mainframe applications). All this really does is extend the model down to smaller businesses and individuals who couldn't get on these type of plans before.
So I'd have to say I like it. So long as the traditional purchase option remains available, choice is a Good Thing.
- -Josh Turiel
Re:Good idea (Score:3)
Yes, but... (Score:5)
Sheesh. Do they really think we're THAT stupid?
What I would like to see (Score:5)
Why is this bad? (Score:5)
And don't come out with the crazy conspiracy theory that "Office 11 will be subscription only". First of all, it attributes to MS a level of stupidity they simply lack. And there is simply not basis for that statement.
Open source advocates are always talking about the virtue of choice, but when MS offers choice, they cry foul. How convenient.
Best thing to ever happen for StarOffice (Score:5)
Sun should be working on an Enterprise-scale migration utility... afterall, the cutover date has just been made official.
--
Here's another related Microsoft memo: (Score:5)
Revolutionary hardware device offers home users and small-business a new choice for payment options
LAS VEGAS -- Nov. 13, 2000 -- Today at COMDEX/Fall 2000, Microsoft Corp. announced a new hardware option to accompany subscription services for Office 10®, Millenium® and Win2000® operating systems, Outlook®, Microsoft Mouse®; which will provide customers with an exciting new opportunity to subscribe to the world's leading software products for a per-usage fee. This new device will enable home and small-business customers to acquire the latest microsoft products without the troublesome one-time up-front fee while receiving product upgrades released during their subscription at no additional expense (installation and upgrade fees not included). Customers will be able to obtain usage of Microsoft® products via a hardware device that accepts coins and bills and attaches to their computer via the serial port. Microsoft Coinbox® promises users peace of mind that their software and hardware are properly licenced and accounted for at all times. Such unheralded freedom will revolutionize the way you and your company do business.
Here are some examples of Microsoft Coinbox in operation: Upon starting your PC, users will insert $2 to cover the licensing of the start-up sequence and the first hour of using their operating system. Users also have the luxury of pre-paying for operating system usage, up to 4 hours at a time. Being renown for our user friendly interfaces, Microsoft® includes a "parking meter" digital gauge to keep users informed of their time.
To properly keep track of Microsoft Mouse® usage, users will insert 50 cents. Coinbox® automatically deducts 1 cent for every left-button click, 2 cents for right-button. Users will rejoice!
The following rules will apply for Microsoft Office® products:
Reading an Office® document: 25 cents per access
Writing an Office® document: 35 cents per access
Reading and writing an Office® document: 50 cents per access(note the huge saving!)
Finally, Coinbox® will take postage for Outlook items:
Regular e-mail: 33 cents
Reciepted e-mail: 76 cents. Coinbox will save you annoying trips to the post office!
Access fee for contacts®: 5 cents per usage
Rent for Calendar®: 17 cents for a quarter hour, $4.80 for daily events (more savings!)
Once Coinbox is installed, users need not worry about its maintenance. Through the wonders of ActiveX® technology, Coinbox® will automatically contact Microsoft Collection Services over the World Wide Web everytime it's full. A friendly Microsoft Technician will come into your office or home after-hours to empty Coinbox®. It's that simple! Coinbox is simple, user freindly, and it's a Microsoft product so you know it's secure!
Also coming soon from Microsoft: ChangeMachine® for Coinbox®, and Coinbox® for Laptops (weighs only 15 pounds!)
This is not .NET! (Score:5)
Alright, Microsoft has now joined the ranks... (Score:3)
EDU versions do this already ... (Score:5)
I think consumers will resist the software rental model strongly ... it has no advantadges and alot of disadvantadges ... and star office is always free
Subscription...Partnership (Score:4)
Individuals will be unlikely to see a subscription program as beneficial. However, we must remember that the average computer user isn't familiar with the concept of software licensing. Most people who purchase Microsoft Office believe that they are doing just that: purchasing Microsoft Office. Of course, these people aren't going to like the idea of subscriptions, because they will see it as 'renting' that which they can just as easily buy.
Corporations, however, understand the concept of licensing. They are quite familiar with exactly who owns Microsoft software, just as they are familiar with the fact that "bigger and better" is, in the software industry, rarely very far off.
If Microsoft really wants to push a subscription idea, they'll start at the corporate level, and consider what they want the model to be. If they're going to institute a subscription program, they have to think beyond the initial payment. They have to consider what will keep the subscriber paying. When Individual X rents an apartment, that individual's rent entitles him/her not simply to use of the apartment space for the allotted time, but also to certain duties on the part of the landlord. If Microsoft is prepared to provide subscribers with additional support -- if that subscription fee entitles the subscriber to more than simply use of the program -- then corporations may very well decide to participate in such a program.
Microsoft should, for instance, keep track of subscriptions and renewal deadlines itself. Leaving this burden in the lap of the customer does introduce an added difficulty, especially for companies purchasing multiple subscriptions. Microsoft should also not set a schedule for updates; instead, it should focus on maintaining operability for its subscribers, and simply provide updates and support when they become available. A magazine needs to interact little with its subscribers, who use its product once per month; a subscription for something which is used on a daily basis, however, requires regular attention. Microsoft cannot sit back and hope to collect fees once per year, but with a bit of effort they could present a subscription program that would look very attractive to some customers.
Executed prudently, a subscription model such as this can work.
crib
Re:You call this a choice? (Score:5)
uuh.. this already does happen elsewhere in the software community. Specifically, with major applications in the commercial unix world. I admin system with at least two apps with this type of license structure (HKS Abaqus [abaqus.com], MSC Patran [mscsoft.com]). Big apps in the unix world have been doing this for years. And we're talking major bucks for the licenses here.. ~$8k/seat for patran as an example. Unfortunately, it's the cost for us to get things done.
Does that mean I like it? No. Is Microsoft justified in their actions? Well.. if other companies are doing it and doing well, why not? I don't like it (and will probably look elsewhere for my wordprocessing needs). Let's just not turn a blind eye to other software houses who are already offering their product in this fashion simply as a new means to bash BillCo.
Yes, they actually do get tired of it! (Score:5)
Which is exactly why the company I'm working for is already getting ready to switch to Linux, first partly, if it works out they'll continue migrating to Linux (also for the Desktop!)
We have used NT servers for some years, they work fine (most of the time) but they cost a lot of money! Not to mention Win98+Office 2000 etc. etc.
Now we're already running Linux or FreeBSD on most servers, and documentation will be written in HTML instead of Word-documents. Add a word->HTML converter to be able to read Word documents sent by costumers via e-mail (in this case it usually does not really matter whether the layout exactly matches the original), and you're done.
The big reason why I'll be allowed to use Linux on my desktop? Licensing money!
Sounds like a good plan (Score:3)
What a lot of Slashdot readers who think that open source free software is the only way to go fail to realize is that many people are willing to pay for software and pay for its continued development. Is it morally wrong for corporations and others to fund the Apache Foundation? Hell no. These entities have a vested interest in the continued growth of the apache software. Likewise for many offices that type up documents and do spreadsheets they have a vested interest in the continued development of Office.
Stuart Eichert
"Stale" software can still open/view/print (Score:5)
--
My God! Did ANYONE read the article!?
-Pete
Heh, wait for the next trick (Score:3)
"Hey! How come I can't open the status report from two months ago?"
"Oh, apparently they went out of business and their license for Office was revoked. If we pay a $5 fee they'll let us transfer that document to our license."
Re:Universities (Score:3)
b) installs are not as simple as pushing the upgrade everbody button and having everybody change overnight. Most places are not running win2k and besides that, at any one time at least one to two people from each department are away from the university each semester. Take a university with 10,000 undergraduates, 10,000 graduates, 3 schools (business, engineering, arts and sciences), 1500 faculty (with computers at home and in offices) plus numerous associated organizations such as 3 hospitals, various research centers and the regular computer labs, and you have a huge logistic problem if people's office 2k starts randomly shutting down at various times across the university. Whoops... gotta upgrade hospital 1. Gotta get department x all set. Get the library computer labs all together. Dept y. Hostpital 2. Etc. Etc. Etc. and that is also including a good portion of them Macs as well. I'm not denying that it will be difficult for businesses, but at universities there are a lot more variables that have to be managed.
Re:This makes sense (Score:3)
Do you not realize that profit = net income - net expenses? If you lower net income BUT lower net expenses further, your net profit increases!! If MS distributes Office over the Web only (not far away), then that saves a bundle of money on shipping/CD stamping/etc. Also, since people are paying on a per-feature basis, MS will quickly learn what features are profitable and which ones aren't. They then can stop spending time on developing features that people don't find useful enough to pay for...
Not a bad option. (Score:3)
I use Office for a number of things that I just can't get done with Abiword or StarOffice right now. My publisher uses templates that only work in MS Word, even when I'm doing something on Linux which is a whole other discussion.
When a project comes up that requires MS Office something like this subscription model may work well. It may also help others that could use it, but don't want to drop $500 at one time on it. I'm not so sure how well this will be adopted to businesses. When our Internet connection goes down I hear enough complaining about no web and email, I don't want to have to worry about no Office apps for the marketing and sales department too.
Re:where is this StarOffice (Score:4)
Hundreds (perhaps thousands) are subscribed to the developer's lists.
www.openoffice.org
Yes.
With all due respect, it sounds like you don't know what the hell is going on, so I hardly think you're the best authority to claim "no-one is doing anything".
Sun coordinated with COLLAB.NET to make sure the launch of staroffice included mailing lists, CVS archives, bug trackers, build instructions, and working source. The 60 meg source downloads and builds with zero effort if you read the very clear instructions.
Of course, you didn't do any of that, and you didn't even bother looking at the source, but that didn't stop you voicing your damn ignorant opinion.