Sunset Clauses in Software 293
DaveAtFraud writes: "Ed Foster over at InfoWorld
has an interesting column on "sunset" clauses in commercial software. I don't have a problem with people who write, say, anti-virus software charging for a "subscription" to their virus signature update service. I am paying for something of value to me and it costs them something to maintain this data. I do have a problem with the same people extracting a little extra "squeeze" every couple of years and forcing me to learn yet another user interface just because they have decided that the old one looks little dated. Somehow, I don't buy (no pun intended) that their engine for scanning a byte stream has changed again."
What to do with the obsolete versions? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what I'd also like to see is older versions being made free (as in beer) after a specfied time. DOS 6.0 and Win 3.11, old Amiga games, whatever. Since there's no real potential for those to ever make a profit again, why not help the handful of people who may still be able to make some use of them?
It's a question of ethics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
It happens in hardware to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Why? Why? If I buy something I expect it to work and I certainly don't expect the manufacturer to put a time bomb in it! Same goes for software. The problem boils down to the fact that you don't own the software - you just get a licence to use it under whatever restrictive clauses the vendor can dream up. There's certainly something to be said for genuinely free software - once you've got it it is your's to do with as you please.
A really disturbing trend. (Score:3, Insightful)
Diablo II automatically updated software when you logged onto Battle.net. Imagine if one day, everyone who logged on recieved with their "update" a notice that from now on, all character classes but barbarian would be available on a subscription-based service only.
Ridiculous, yes... but the analogy is apt. People who bought something 4 years ago with a certain promise of functionality deserve to be able to keep that functionality.
What if car manufacturers randomly repo'ed our cars because they figured the engines were out of date?
It's just wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
I probably sound pollyannish saying that when I pay for something, I want to use it how I see fit. I know all the college kids are going to start whining that I should use Linux instead, but I don't like Linux, as much as I've tried, so I guess I just have to take whatever crap the corps feed me. I've been a victim of the PowerQuest upgrade cycle myself, and it pisses me off as much as it pisses the next guy off. The software isn't worth $50 per year, but that's what they manage to drag out of me because of their harsh policies.
But more than the sunset clauses, more than crappy software, the greed makes me shake my head. When is enough money enough? What is gained by adding another couple million to your own bank account when there are so many there already? In the end, you're going to die anyway, so at least make the world a better place rather than just stuffing your money chest fuller. Do these people care that no one likes them? Do they care that they're despised and all their plebs would ditch them at the first opportunity? Has greed outweighed every other thing in life? It looks to me like it has.
Re:What to do with the obsolete versions? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure the old version of the product may not give the company any profit, but having the older version deprives the company from potential sales of the current version.
For example if Microsoft were to give away SQL Server 6.5 because they no longer support it (this is a hypothetical, they may well still support it) then someone might use that instead of buying SQL Server XP (or whatever it's called now).
Sure maybe MS is a bad example, but it's all about making money not doing what's potentially good for the community (actually, maybe MS _is_ a good example :) ).
Backward compatibility (Score:1, Insightful)
Would you rather have backward compatibility through countless versions? This has been tried, you know - the x86 CPU architecture has it's roots in ancient CPU designs, and has generally been backward compatible for ages. It's been lifted up to x386 compatibility, sure, but that's still way old and a huge constraint on the available choices. Or what about the Windows APIs? I've coded a lot of 16- and 32-bit apps in Windows (yeah, I know - but it's my job), and you still see lots of outdated crap in the Win32 API, just to keep backward compatibility.
The point is - the cost to upgrade the system once in a while is (usually) money well spent on getting a system that's not getting way too old. It may cost you now, but you'll probably end up saving countless hours of frustration later. At least that's what my experience tells me...
Re:It's a question of ethics... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not just software... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me guess - you run DOS and Win 3.11 apps too? Can't seem to find that MS Word 2000 thing for Win 3.11...
Seriously, does replacing an '89 Civic require you to learn an entirely new UI? Did the pedals move? Have they been replaced by a joystick? No speedometer or fuel-gauge anymore? Point is, of course it doesn't require you to learn any new UI - it's still a car. There are no fundamentally new things you can do with a '01 model that you couldn't do with a '89 model. Or vice versa.
Little changes yes - entirely new UI, no.
Re:Yup. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I don't think that software licenses should expire. It's reasonable for a company to politely inform customers that they will no longer support versions older than xx.x after some date though. But if customers are willing to provide the support internally (if they're business customers) or forego support, that should be okay. The gas pump doesn't stop supporting your old car!
I still have Word 97 at work. I will have a current version in a couple days since they're replacing my PC and no longer installing that version, but I have no technical need for it. Of course my development tools are kept up to date.
This gets a little more complicated with programs that connect to online services. At some point, providing backwards compatibility becomes very difficult, especially if it includes working around bugs in the old software. In the case of the TurboTax web version (which I use for preparing my taxes), there is no software installed on the client. So for at least some types of software, having them be browser-based solves the problem of customers that don't want to upgrade.
-Kevin
Two sides to the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a simple matter of focus. We cannot provide the high level of support we want to if we spread our support staff too thinly. Neither can we create new and better product if our engineering cycles are stuck frobbing and tweaking the old stuff.
Granted, by the time EoF is reached, the product pretty much just works. And no one is stopping anyone from using it forever. But a company can only keep its left foot so far behind its right foot before it falls on its ass. Ok, strained metaphore, but the point is still valid, IMHO.
On the other hand, sw or hw that just stops working (or starts extorting) after a period of time is just wrong . Again, dropping support (including things like anti-virus updates) after a while is just fine. Many products really do need to evolve. Using sw to hold your customer hostage, on the other hand ...
Imagine a word processor that, at the designated EoL, would only come up and say "I'm sorry, Dave. I don't think I can do that. Please see your software retailer for the latest version of WordFrob, which may well allow you to open your old files, if you hurry!". Or a mail server that, when EoL is reached, sends a message to the BSA when you try to send mail with it, resulting in jack-booted thugs at your door shortly later.
Anyway, though I think some of what was mentioned in the artical was iffy, most of it was perfectly understandable. Much of the whining, bitching and moaning here is just uninformed tripe. Though I concede that there are companies out there that really do their best to keep users on an upgrade treadmill, most companies just want to put out new and better product. I wish that at some point Intel would have grown a pair and pulled the plug on many of the crap in their processor design that's only there for backwards compatability. Not all at once, of course, but a sliding window of support makes perfect sense, both economically and technically.
#include // my opinions are my own, not my employer's and all that
Re:Not just software... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you know how much equipment you need to make a perfect copy of a Civic ? do you know how much this said equipment cost ?
Ford has the equipment, knowledge and $$$ to do this, but if they do Honda WILL fill a law suit aleging lots of patents and copyright infringment. As a result Ford rathers design theyr own models.
Know, what kind of equipment do you need to make a perfect copy of a software ? how much does it cost ?
You just need a computer with a CD burner. anyone can buy one for less tha US$ 2.000,00 and doing the copy is a nobrainer. THAT'S why software makers DO mind if you start to tweak with their products.
You want to tweak your software ? fix that litle anoyance you found ? Use free (as in freedom) software. Linux, Hurd, GNU, whatever... The guys who develop the code does't mind if you take a look or change what they did.
This has always been a very common practice: (Score:5, Insightful)
Call it what you want, a "sunset clause", a "bomb", etc. Basically the software expires and you must pay up for another.
The main cause of this isn't closed source software, but lack of competition.
It's the lack of competition that allows the companies to do this. Obviously if there was another software service you could buy from, you would, wouldn't you?
Even today there are a lot of small industries that buy software with these "expiration dates" in them because they have no where else to go, and can not afford to pay someone to write their own code.
To all you up and coming developers.... find these markets and make software for them. It won't make you rich, but it's a start....
Fundamentally, software is BROKEN as a "product". (Score:4, Insightful)
Even though the concepts embodied in a book are eternal, the book itself is ephemeral, so in the public mind it became a *thing*, just like any other *thing*.
Enter the electronic age, and the liberation of the idea from the containing physical medium.
Aside from all the copyright brou-ha-ha, look at the implications on a software industry. Simply put, bits don't wear out. They may become obsolete; their physical expression may wear out; but the bits themselves don't.
So how do you build a "Software Industry". Either you force obsolescence, so that what you just sold will 'wear out' after a while, and you can once again treat it like a *thing*, or you strive for a newer, more appropriate model.
From what I can tell, software actually began on a 'non-*thing*' model, with revenue largely derived through service. But once the dollar potential got big enough, the *thing* model came in and took over.
OTOH, now we're nearing the end of the exponential growth curve in many areas, and maybe there's a chance for a newer, more sane model to re-emerge. People are getting tired of the upgrade churn of forced obsolescence.
Re:This has always been a very common practice: (Score:2, Insightful)
My company puts expiration dates in the licensing. It's more of a way to make sure that company is current with the newest versions for support and maintenence purposes, and that they have access to the newest feature set. We don't have the resources support something that's 3 years old, and most of the bug reports and feature requests we get about older products have already been addressed. We charge a maintenence fee each year after purchase, which covers support as well as automatic updates to the newest versions when they come out. If the company doesn't want to continue to pay maintenence (which is much cheaper than initial investment costs for buying our software, or a competitor's), we'll issue them a permanent license for the old version, but we won't support it.
Re:This is great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This has always been a very common practice: (Score:4, Insightful)
But anyhow... how many people buy software with an eye to its longevity? Probably, the main thing people think about in this respect is whether the company manking the software is established. Intuit has been around eons (in computer years) so it's fairly safe to say they will be there down the line, so you will still be able to run Quicken whatever IS will be around in 5 or 10 years.
At least with current software, you have it on your system, and the company can't do much about that beyond no longer giving you support. Just wait until more and more software uses the "passport" model where you need to connect to a license database when you install, or even worse, every time you use the product.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait until more software is sold as "services." "Oh, hey, your license ran out. If you want your payroll data, you'll have to pony up more cash. Oh, and we raised our rates last month, so you'll be paying us triple what you paid initially. Have a nice day."
In this model, however, at least there should be more disclosure about the end date. It'll be more obvious that you have "subscribed" to Quicken for a year or two, rather than having bought a shrink-wrapped box and having to guess about when the "time bomb" will go off.
A Fairness Model (Score:3, Insightful)
Change the model all you want, but if you stop supporting/updating/selling a given SW product, release the old, functionally limited (by the developer's own definition, unless all the improvements are just window dressing) product as a free d/l.
Even Apple will let you d/l OS7.6 for free. No, it's not supported, but it is a perfectly decent OS. Users of old, probably free computers (read "the poor") can get into the game for nearly nothing. Apple reaps goodwill and potential customers.
It has got to be a big red flag if a developer won't release old, unsupported SW for fear that nobody will buy the new stuff. What's the good of your latest and greatest?
SW is different than a car or a TV. Users must invest time and greymatter to learn it's ins-and-outs; you compel them to invest time and money in your wares. It is economical to keep using your stuff; the money is just half the investment.
*customer- the guy who PAID you for a product, uses that product and is predisposed to support your future products with his MONEY. Alienate him at your peril.
The free market can take care of this, too (Score:4, Insightful)
Then software "matured". Fewer bugs, more features than most people needed, not much of an incentive to keep upgrading. Y2K and excessive hardware/software costs put alot of mainframe systems into "legacy/do not upgrade" status. The few vendors who had mission-critical mainframe products really "milked" the customer base with whopper fees. Ask some of the IBM big-iron customers about CA (or IBM for that matter). It didn't take long for customers to revolt.
Today, we see this in the PC world. Many people are jumping off the upgrade bandwagon because they see insufficient benefits to justify the cost. Microsoft is a perfect example: they have a diminishing upgrade rate with each new release of Office. Why? Because the product is mature -- each new release is only a little better than the one before, and the customers are not really clamoring for new features.
Companies that have mission-critical PC products will no doubt use restrictive licensing to assure a revenue stream even if there isn't much of a demand for upgrades and bugfixes -- hence "Software Assurance (tm)" from Microsoft.
It always was and still is the responsiblity of the customer to figure out how to avoid getting painted into a corner and "milked". Look for competitive vendors, be willing to migrate to new products, consider open source alternatives. Plan an escape path for everything you do. The alternative is to get "milked" as a cash cow.