New Microsoft Feature: Planned Obsolescence 356
Ryu2 writes: "According to this CNet story, Microsoft is thinking of from its current "perpetual" license scheme to a three-year contract for its enterprise customers, and most of its software. After the three years are up, customers have to pay up again or stop using the software. While the issue of subscriptions has come up before, this seems to imply that Microsoft is abandoning the traditional time-unlimited license altogether. With them setting the precendent, for good or for ill, for many things in the software industry, if this takes hold, how long will it be until every other business software firm jumps on this bandwagon?"
Bring in the Grammar-Nazi (Score:1)
Re:Greddy MS (Score:2)
Re:not yet... (Score:2)
I'm out of that cycle, since it's almost all Windows stuff getting swapped, but how the heck are Microsoft or Adobe going to keep people from being friendly, which is all the locals figure they're doing when they let a neighbor use their copy of whatever?
- Robin
Considering various adoption estimates... (Score:2)
M$ greed - Opportunities for Linux & OS X (Score:3)
If you've got a lot of legacy hardware, Linux is the way to go. If not OS X may be your best bet.
Good Idea! (Score:2)
It worked out well for CA as well.
At a former employer, we used to use a couple of products that originally came from Digital but the package was sold to CA (during the Palmer fire sale regime). One package had it license fees shoot up by nearly 500%. We stopped using that package and a homegrown replacement found its way into use (wasn't as ``pretty'' though.) Another went to an annual license fee. Well, Y2K hit and the version we were running wasn't Y2K compliant. That was the excuse I needed to stop using that package too. After doing a little investigation it seems I could emulate the features that we actually used using a Perl script that took all of about 20 minutes to write. When will these companies learn that we're not in business to send them money; make a better product and we'll buy it.
Where does Microsoft obtain all the guns it uses to shoot itself in the foot? And aren't their feet starting to look like Swiss cheese by now? Keep it up and you'll have the sort of customer loyalty that CA earned. (What did that old magazine review say about it? Oh yah: ``Dead last... with a bullet''.)
--
Re:It's Linux from now on (Score:2)
I take it that by ``corporate applications'' you mean those that you spend too much money on or those that come in glossy boxes. You've, obviously, never heard of the NASA's COSMIC software library that used to be administered by the University of Georgia. For the cost of distribution, like the FSF, you could obtain applications of the sort you listed... with source code. UofG doesn't do the distribution any more but it's been taken over by Open Channel Software and can be found at http://www.openchannelfoundation.org/cosmic/ [openchanne...dation.org]. You can even ``adopt'' an application and get involved in the development of enhancements. Another potential source is the DECUS software archive [decus.org] (now called `Encompass'); there's a slew of software available. A lot of it's systems management related utilities but the semi-annual symposium collections used to contain a bunch of gems that we found useful. And I sure hope you know about the FTP archives on ibiblio [ibiblio.org]. Of course, if what one's really looking for in a ``corporate application'' is someone to sue, I suppose these won't fit their needs.
I will agree with you that many commercial packages for UNIX cost more than they should. But to say imply that there aren't more cost effective solutions, and are open source to boot (no pun intended), is just naive.
--
New Feature? (Score:3)
I think MS has enough of a track record of breaking compatibility between versions of eg Office, to justify viewing this as just the next logical step.
Sure, at the moment we don't have to upgrade our version of Office - but new PCs come with the latest version, and our clients are using it, so we effectively do have to upgrade.
Saying "I'm sorry, could you resend that as Word 95 format please?" isn't an option with some clients.
Cheers,
Tim
This is Nothing New in the Mainframe World (Score:3)
When PCs came along, (a) you couldn't trust the date on the computer because anyone could change it and (b) the users wouldn't put up with it.
That didn't stop companies like SAS witha a big mainframe/Unix presence to have the same kind of licensing on PCs.
In the Unix world, it was high software license fees that drove people to write free software. But there were still packages that use/used flexlm (one of the most common license managers) to have an annual fee licensing structure.
Frankly, most people won't pay annual renewals. Maybe Office comes bundled with their PC. After a year, they get an email. Pay up or the software won't work. Most people don't use the Office that's bundled and they'll say "Screw this." and let it expire.
Corporations are already amortizing their software cost over 3 years, so they'll compare the annual cost to the annual amortization and they'll probably pay. But they will install controls to make sure they don't pay for a single copy more than is needed.
In the long run, annual licensing models help free software because people have an ongoing incentive to find a free package that meets their needs.
Re:How this isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Score:2)
Re:Think from a revenue standpoint... (Score:2)
Cars wear out. The gubbermint implements new emission and safety standards. Gas prices triple suddenly.
But having said that, I've got to agree with you.
Planned obsolescence is normal for businesses (Score:2)
Consider:
* Incandescent light globes/bulbs typically have a 1,000 hour lifetime. However, it is possible to make them last much longer. Most wear on incandescent globes happens when they are switched on and the current surges through it. If the initial current pulse was slowed, the globe would last much longer. This isn't done because the manufacturers would sell less globes and hence make less money.
* Modern cars are designed with "crumple zones". These crumple zones are areas like the panels and the like. Repairing modern cars after an accident can be very expensive. Modern cars have been known to be written off after a collision in a car park at speeds under 20 km/h.
* Most electronic equipment is built so that if it breaks down, the cost of repair is often greater than the cost of replacement. A lot of devices like VCR's have plastic gears and cogs. These limit the lifetime of the device and mandate regular replacement.
* Old car batteries used to last 15 years or more. Now they are designed so they have a limited lifetime, typically 3 to 5 years.
So why is M$ any different to any other corporation seeking to maximise profits by any legal means available?
--
FWIW (Score:2)
The general scheme was
price = product_base * machine_speed * number_of_users * how_long_do_you_want_it
The only news regarding MS adopting the plan is -
--
Re:M$ will do what it likes. (Score:2)
What's happening there, boiscout? Did you forget to pay the rent on your m key?
--
Re:This is really about lock-in and revenue (Score:2)
Microsoft was perfectly happy with their licensing scheme until this year. We pay site licensing (or whatever the MS speek is for it.) for our Windows and Office. We pay these yearly etc... This year, with no money in the budget for new PC's, employees, or anything else, we cut our site licensing agreement.
The MS rep said "You can't do this!" and I said yes I can son, I own them there copies of Win2k. I'm sure we are not the only people to think of this...
We are just now doing a site wide client migration to Win2k from Win95. You can laugh, but all of our vendors only support a Win95 client. (How will 3 year licensing affect this??)
The truth of this is that solution providers will look for more stable clients to work with. And this will hurt Microsoft. Most of our providers are none too happy with Windows connectivity, DB access, stability, etc... Now tell them they have to re-certify their Client OS every 3 years, and then get all of their clients to upgrade, verify the server still works with the latest version.... Egad, what a nightmare.
We have a 20 year old Sun OS 3.5 that made it past Y2K working with 6 year old clients. I also have a 5 year old Solaris system that we expect another 15 years of service from. A 12 year old AIX box, etc... Still running the OS they came with. Mircosoft might like to know that some of our machines still use DOS 6.2, BY DESIGN!
With the new MS plan, I would have to upgrade all of these machines to use new hardware, new drivers, etc... What about support for legacy cards, like the Core Logix A/D to D/A converters?? Will Bill gates write me a driver??
MR. Gates, that gun is pointing right at your foot...
~Hammy
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:3)
How come? Unless MS gives you guarantees about pricing for many years down the road (highly unlikely) you have exactly the same predicting power.
Buy: Pay a chunk now, amortize it over three years, do it again at unknown cost.
Rent: Pay monthly over three years, do it again at unknown cost.
they won't have to worry about deploying/managing updates and upgrades
They do. First of all, they'll have to deal with security patches. Second, once three years are over and a new version comes in, who do you think will have to deal with data migration and untangling these little clever hacks that users wrote using the suddenly-not-supported-any-more features?
Getting the latest (or any version) is going to cost $2500. Thats a big expenditure. Now, instead of paying for it all at once, maybe it'd be nice for them to pay $75/month for three years. That'd work out better for a huge majority of customers
In one way, yes. It's always better to pay later than to pay early. In your scheme MS is basically giving everybody a three-year interest-free loan.
On the other hand, the choice disappears: maybe after three years I am in a bad financial shape. Under the 'buy' model my operating costs for software are zero. Under the 'rent' model, my operating costs are determined by MS.
Even if its more than that, say $100/month, its a deal for most customers
It is? 100 x 36 = $3,600. You mean instead of paying $2,500 to use something forever I get to pay $3,600 to use exactly the same thing for 3 years and that's a good deal???!
Thank you, I'll pass.
Kaa
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
(Forget MCSE's. How about a Microsoft Certified License Expert?)
-George
Re:Think from a revenue standpoint... (Score:3)
But, in about 3 years, Microsoft will stop supporting W2k. Any bug or hole that is found thereafter won't be patched. Thus, by then, you'll have two choices: live with a vulnerable OS, or switch to another OS, a newer version of windows most likely.
Of course, all of these (expensive) migrations are an opportunity for open source products to move in. After all, if a (large) company decides not to support a product anymore, you can always do it yourself (being a large company). Might be cheaper than migrating to yet another version of software (be it an OS or an application)
----------------------------------------------
not yet... (Score:2)
Places like my company have spent WAY too much money to buy site licenses to not have to worry about doing "subscriptions". Besides, I don't think the public is ready for rentable software.
For the most part, if you ask any run of the mill Joe if he owns the software he bought, he's going to say "yes". The general computing public believes that they own the software they buy, just like other tangible items at the store. THey're not going to go for a fee that has to keep getting renewed. If Microsoft thinks that people are going to want to keep paying for the same software title over and over again, they're nuts.
Re:Think from a customer standpoint (Score:2)
Self-terminating software licenses (a category I'd argue is differetn than "software rental") are indeed a bad thing, but I don't think that ASP's necessarily are: ASPs have some different interests, but they also have a compelling interest in looking out for their clients' interests as well, if they plan to retain clients and be viable over the long haul.
I've chosen to use ASP's for several critical business systems. ASPs are an extremely powerful tool for levelling the playing field for small companies which otherwise couldn't afford the purchase, much less the care and feeding of best-of-breed enterprise support systems. Careful selection of ASPs will include makin sure that you can always suck all your data out in some sort of reusable format whenever you want to. (Not all ASPs allow this, the better ones do, so caveat emptor...)
Whether ASPs will take off for more ordinary uses is up for debate now, but for basic use, there are a few solutions out there that aren't too bad - I use thinkfree office as a virtual alternative where I don't have to worry about the config of any borrowed computer so long as it has an Internet connection and a Java-capable browser. (In fact, I think thinkfree is the best implementation I've seen of a Java-based office suite...)
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
A company that decides it wants off the upgrade treadmill can cut costs and be more competetive. There has been no significant increased value for most companies in upgrading something like Office for the last 5 years, and without any increased value there is no solid buisness reason for upgrading.
Re:How this isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Score:2)
Just to bring out an example, that story on Slashdot a while back where the university's serve was left inside a wall for 4 or so years... It obviously worked flawlessly for that time (since they never even bothered to look for it), so why should they have to buy something new?
Re:How this isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Score:2)
microsoft does this for education already (Score:2)
to get the cheap per-seat pricing for education, you have pay a 2 year tithe, at the end of which you have to renew. at about $43 per seat, including licenses to access any back office application as well as for office pro, it's relatively affordable.
Re:How this isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Score:2)
But therein lies the rub. If large companies are forced to use only the latest and greatest but smaller companies and home users can get away with using older versions, then how are the large software and hardware companies supposed to support their customers? If 40% of my customer base is using WinX but I'm only allowed to use WinX+1 then I'm pretty screwed.
Then again, I'm sure I have nothing to worry about since M$ will always licence every legacy version I could ever want in MSDN and won't ever audit [theregister.co.uk] me for "misusing" MSDN.
You know who you are (Score:2)
Something of this form would do:
That should get the right mix of reaction without setting off the loony alerts.
If your company doesn't have a better address to send this to, try:
Re:This isn't that new (Score:2)
Well, let's see. MS wants to charge you a fee to get a 3-year license on the software, after which time you are not allowed to use it (it will probably stop working).
Red Hat charges nothing for download of their OS, nothing for access to the updates and their OS keeps working as long as you don't use hardware that's newer than the OS, and even then many things will work.
What you are refering to is Red Hat's RHN service which offers a convinient way to update your software through a GUI, an/or automatically update the software. They charge for this service, but they do not restrict access to the software or the raw updates at all. They also are still distributing updates for Red Hat 5.x which is 3 years old at this point.
If MS stops supporting Win98, you're up the creek. No source, no updates, no nothin'.
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
Except that the cost of the licence can be the least important thing. It costs money to change the software, to fix all the things that it broke, etc.
But if you have to change you may as well well change to free software anyway.
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
More likely the costs of upgrading don't justify the expense. Which is considerably more than just the licences (for a payware product.)
How many of the new features of Office 2000 actually benefit the average corporate user?
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
Competition? It may not exist now, but if they just sit on their asses, you can be sure that it will exist. Right now, they just more or less compete with theirself (their old versions of their own software). It's harder for them to sell a new version by saying that it's more stable than the old one - that's why they create more features, which is why Word has a toolbar the size of Texas.
With subscription, they suddenly don't have to compete against their own old versions but only the competition. In my view, this means that feature work is no longer as high a priority as it was before. I could be wrong.
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:3)
A side effect could be that Microsoft actually starts putting more weight on improving quality rather than adding new features, since there's no need to "lure" old customers to buy the new version - they will still pay for the subscription regardless of what version they are using.
For home users that would rather just pay once and then be done with it, I think subscription will be a bad thing. Someone might have money today and buy MS Office, but in three years, if they are unemployed, they won't be able to continue the subscription. That's a very bad thing.
I think a one-time "unlimited" license should definitely still be an option, but as far as companies not liking subscriptions, I think you're wrong.
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
Yeah, until the NEXT time Microsoft changes the licensing scheme to suck more money out of its far-flung empire. Your assumption: "pay this non-stop forever and they dont have to ever worry..." in the context of Microsoft is a huge reach, IMO.
--
Tell me if I read this right (Score:3)
Re:It's like this already (Score:2)
> Who uses software that's three years old anyway? I mean - at my company, Office 97 is almost impossible to find anymore. Users want the latest and greatest.
Lemme get this straight - the secretary knocks on your door and says "I want Office 2000! Because Clippy is just soooo much cuter in 2000!"
Where I work, the secretary says "Oh shit, you mean I have to learn Office all over again?", often followed by with "...and it'll make my computer run slower, won't it?"
Wanna find out if your users really "want the latest and greatest?" Grab a nontechnical user who remembers working with Windows 3.1 in an office environment.
Install Windows 3.1 and Office 4.2 on a modern PC (i.e., P166 or greater). Reboot. Sit the user in front of the PC. Type "win" from the DOS prompt. Windows will be up and running in less than 3 seconds.
If the first word out of their mouth is anything other than "Wow!", I think I've made my point.
(OK, my example breaks down because they also want a web browser, most likely IE4 or higher, and network connectivity. So they'll probably want their Win9x or NT box back after a few minutes. But I'll still bet the first word out of their mouth is "wow".)
A side note (Score:2)
Now, as to Microsoft requiring business customers to pay again after 3 years seems kind of crappy. Decisions about what software to use should be in the customer's hands, not in the seller's. My guess is that this is a customer support based decision - i.e. they don't want to support legacy software products after 3-5 years. They've also probably based the 3 year rule on the fact that most businesses upgrade their software after 3 years anyway. It's just bull that they're not going to let the businesses decide for themselves when the best time for upgrading is. Can you imagine the uproar that's going to happen if everyone's 3-year contract happens to run out smack in the middle of a recession???
Microsoft just seems to be digging itself deeper into a hole, causing people to look at alternate solutions. Either Gates has lost his business savvy or someone else is running the ship, cause this is just stupid.
--
common cents/scents/sense (Score:5)
scent = stinks
cents = expensive
sense = Migration
Microsoft's moves are somewhat enigmatic these days, however they have a keen sense of how to make money off of fortune 500 companies who are willing to dish it out after "TRAPPING" themselves amidst an entire MS environment.
Whats sad though, is at this point it would be extremely expensive for companies to switch their entire company (think big companies like Ernst & Young, Citibank, etc.) to switch over to something else overnight. Even if they were to do so, they would also have to determine what other OS to use, and hope it would still have MS support, since many of their clients are likely to prefer *.doc, *.lxs, etc., files, so even if a company were planning a switch it could take years to "plow the road" from the bumps.
With newer companies starting up its a heck of a lot easier a task to do, and I'm sure many here see the recent changes with MS, so news like this is a plus for the Open Source community, who needs to lock down some standards for a change as well.
Define a standard for corporations like a corporate Linux or BSD distribution which doesn't contain 2-3 cd's full of Window Managers, MP3 players, useless and non business related packages. What does 10 Windows Manager have to do with fulfilling the daily tasks of someone like a secretary, or clerical worker? Absolutely none.
Make it a bit more GUI'er for unknowledgeable persons working with the OS.
Raise the documentation standards on the OS. Make a GUI based help system unskilled operators could use instead of `man something` .
Anyways enough swaying off topic many people (I hope) would understand the aura of where that was going. So will this affect sales of MS in the future? Probably minutely since many people like convenience, and are already trapped within an MS environment, and all this bickering amongst the BSD's/Linux users doesn't help, so for someone like a CEO looking in from the outside, they may see alternative OS' (Linux/BSD/other) as more of a problem than a solution.
Create a business like standard for crying out loud. If NASA can send rockets to west bubble fuck, surely someone can create a "Linux/BSD for Incompetent Workers too Lazy or Dumb to Learn"
Hmmm (Score:2)
I know, I know, you're thinking "of course the 3000 blue screens will come first!". But remember, many users often can't turn their computer on, let alone open Word. Those who can, of course, will get their blue screen on schedule. But those users need to pay more often.
hmmm... you are completely wrong! (Score:2)
As for sawfish, nothing you said about it was correct. All the behavior of the windows can easily be changed, you can easily set every action just how you want it.
Please go buy a clue from someone who has one before you go ranting about these things. It really only takes 5 minutes to figure out how to configure sawfish and do it, if you can't even do that...
Hardware will be obsolete faster... (Score:2)
Re:Think from a revenue standpoint... (Score:2)
Newer software and technologies come out, but these are not things that require you to upgrade. There are lots of people out there still using WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. If your needs don't change, why should your software?
--
Lord Nimon
This makes AFJs too easy (Score:2)
Boot your PHB's computer into BIOS, set the clock ahead three years, shut down... "This OS will self-destruct in 10 seconds"
This is really about lock-in and revenue (Score:3)
In general, people are reasonably happy with Windows 98, Word, and IE. And a reasonably happy consumer is not going to give you more money.
So enter reason one for subscriptipn service. A revenue stream. The Microsoft OS has matured, and regular upgrades are unnecessary. So Microsoft will force them on you, but making subscription services much less expensive than stand-alone software.
Reason number two is that they will get to have an install disk or program on your computer every few years. This install program will comb your computer, find your default settings, and change all computers to using IE as the browser, and Windows Media Player as the Media Player, and make life very difficult if you want to use anything but MSN for an ISP. The more often Microsoft can override default settings, the more network traffic they will control.
Why this is not a big deal (Score:3)
Re:Bluff Them! (Score:2)
Patent & Copyright vs Subscription (Score:3)
I'm not arguing for or against software patents or copyrights or subscription sales. I'm simply arguing that if software companies want to "force" customers into upgrades through "expired" licenses they should not be able to lock-up the technology and the software for decades.
If Micro$oft doesn't think it can make money on Windows 3.1 anymore what have they got to loose with it going into the public domain? People will still upgrade their systems to the latest OS for the exact same reason that they upgrade their OS now. Those reasons (application availability, cool factor, technical support, etc.) will continue to exist even if the old version written over 10 years ago is in the public domain.
Think from a revenue standpoint... (Score:5)
I think Win2k was the best and worst thing that ever happened to MS. Its a great OS and the end of their revenue stream. What happens when the market saturates with it? There only chance is to push XP as a subscription into the consumer markets where Win2K doesn't have a foothold yet.
Don't Overestimate (Score:2)
Fact is, Microsoft is so greedy that it's entirely noncommital to all ideas: both the good and bad. It's such a profit-driven business that negative press has a discernable effect. Microsoft has backed off on a lot of things recently: the web-integrated desktop (_web_ and _desktop_, not _browser_ and _OS_, which MS did push for), excessive use of analogues for UI (MS Bob), cute little animated agents that pop up when you're trying to work (good riddance, Clippy), the list goes on and on and on. Simply put: Microsoft is not a trend-setter and it never has been. It follows trends and through whatever cunning tactics necessary (even those bad for the industry or against the law), ends up in domination.
So don't overestimate Microsoft's ability to force users into anything. IMHO: Microsoft is an evil company. But the PR department still hasn't perfected mass hypnosis, so it keeps its ear tuned to the users. If Microsoft thinks users will reject this notion in favor of more traditional models, it won't make the move because then competitors can sneak into the cracks.
Re:M$ will do what it likes. (Score:2)
The other funny thing is that they want to switch to MS now that Apple has a fully robust Unix architecture going for it. Seems like they are saying "Uh oh! Looks like the Apples aren't going to be crashing every other minute now, better move to Windows so as to preserve our pitifully low uptimes."
Schools are weird places.
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
Think from a customer standpoint (Score:2)
So imagine this scenario: three years from now your license to Win2k expires. And Microsoft don't want to give you a key to unlock it for a further three years; they want you to move to Win2k+3 so they can reduce their support burdens, lock you into a new set of ABIs or whatever. So you're forced to upgrade. And now you're faced with a hard deadline to upgrade everything, convert data from formats they or other software vendors have decided are passe and find replacements for apps that Microsoft has put out of business either intentionally or accidentally.
Software rental is a bad idea for the same reason ASPs are a bad idea: you're giving up control of something fundamental to someone who has interests other than yours.
Re:Remember Divx? (Score:2)
Say "We're a standards based organization." (Score:2)
Saying "I'm sorry, could you resend that as Word 95 format please?" isn't an option with some clients.
But you can say "I'm sorry, could you send me the source code for that format's reader please?" or "I'm sorry, could you resend that as plain text, HTML, LaTeX, or gzipped PostScript format please?" if you have made it clear to your clients that your company embraces (not in the MS sense) standards and not proprietary formats whose maintainers have threatened to sue you (countersuits on grounds of legal harassment are not common in the States) should you reverse-engineer them.
Re:Think from a revenue standpoint... (Score:2)
The OS is coming to a maturity and MS is going through a middle-aged crisis. With Win2K, there really isn't a *need* to upgrade anymore. Its stable and simple refinement is all that it needs. So now we are bound to see useless things like 3D GUIs and 3 year licenses.
The automobile is coming to a maturity and GM is going through a mddle-aged crisis. With the '32 Chevy there really isn't a *need* to go any faster. It handles reasonably well and simple refinements are all that it needs. So we are bound to see useless things like tailfins and 3 year leases.
Re:The Auto Industry has been doing this for years (Score:2)
Answer? Start pushing three-to-four-year leases, where you end up turning over the car and keeping the dealer in dollars... Now MS can't talk people into upgrading (Good Enough Syndrome), people aren't replacing their PCs as often so the OEM cashflow is thinning, so what do they do? Move to a lease-based structure to keep the dollars flowing through.
Remember Divx? (Score:3)
Exactly. Does everyone remember Circuit City's Divx (not the codec, but the DVD competitor)? It failed miserably for this very reason. Many of the people who purchased Divx players were surprised to discover that they didn't actually own the discs that they had "bought." Circuit City claimed that they weren't able to secure adequate Hollywood support, but it was also quite clear that the consumers overwhelmingly rejected the business model.
This software scheme isn't any different. As anyone who has suffered through providing tech support knows, users will continue to use software forever, or at least long after its useful life cycle. I know people who are still using Office 95, and one guy who is still trying to install Office 4.3 (for Windows 3.1) on his Win2K Pro machine. MS is in for a world of hurt if they're serious about this scheme.
just run old software, then (Score:2)
if some vendor pulled crap like this on me, I'd just revert to using the last version before the license change and when that stopped being useful, I'd dump the vendor entirely.
how many people could NOT do their jobs if they had to use Word from the '95 era? sure, some of the file formats have changed, but if you ask the sender/author to save in '95 format, you're all set.
if the vendors push TOO hard, customers will either push back (stop supporting the vendor) or just go full renegate and stop paying license fees altogether. a little greed is ok; too much and you'll get the opposite of your intended effect.
--
You obviously didn't work in accounting (Score:5)
Purchasing software is an *expense* and is therefore deductable against income. However, it is a *capital* expense and must be depreciated over a period of years.
Leased items are an *operating* expense and may be deducted in their entirety in the year of the expendature.
What's more even if your view of taxation were correct software STILL wouldn't be an asset. The value of an asset is what it could be SOLD for.
What can you legally sell a used copy of MS Windows for? That's right boys and girls, you can't legally sell it at all, it has ZERO value!
Money spent on software is, to the value of the company, roughly the same as money spent on toilet paper. It is money flushed down the hole that *reduces* the overall value of the company. That's why purchasing is so loath to get you that copy of " Really spiffy shit 2001" that you want so badly.
Leasing software may increase profit in any given year by allowing the full deduction in that year.
Am I going to lease software for my company? Not on your fscking life. I can obtain all the software I need for free.
KFG
Re:Bluff Them! (Score:2)
Next: State clearly that this is your corporate desktop prototype that will be ready in three month and will be replacing all M$ shit! Make it very clear that you where just waiting for them to set totally unreasonable conditions until it's worthwile to scrap M$ entirely.
Wait for reasonable and cheaper offer from M$ to come in.
Ah, now just sit back and wait until M$ sends in the audit team to destroy your company through fines and fees. Then I think you'll be needing the ol' Free Operating System, plus a cardboard box to live in. Microsoft's kind of disgusting that way, huh.
Re:Greddy MS (Score:4)
From the quoted CNET article:
There is still at least one huge area in which the MS product range could be made better - usability. Instead of concentrating on new bells and whistles, MS would do well IMO to concentrate on fixing the multitude of I-wish-it-didn't-do-that "features".
Perhaps then they might in the process convert people - like me - who are fed up to the back teeth of an OS that only has to be used because (almost) everyone else uses it.
P.S. Typo in the subject line isn't mine ;)
This is what IBM did with mainframes (Score:2)
Once they saturated the market, it wasn't possible to make a real profit on mainframes becase the market was actually shrinking. So, they deftly turned things around by putting the emphasis on the service side of the business. It turned out that IBM is still making a tidy profit on their Big Iron even though the industry is shrinking every year.
Maybe Microsoft envisions the same thing happening to its Windows franchise, or at least the server aspect of it. They need to keep the revenue stream moving, so subscription-based licenses make sense for that. The real signs of trouble from Microsoft will be if they start going around saying that they want to stress "Customer Satisfaction" and start rolling out extensive service packages. I'd guess they would call them something weak like "Enterprise Premium Support" or some such managmenet-speak.
--
Timeline scenario (Score:2)
Two years later, Microsoft introduces "Office "2004".
And a year after that, your licenses expire.
Which will be in Microsoft's bests interests:
A. Renew your licenses for $100 per seat
B. Upgrade to the new product and get new licenses for $250 per seat
There are a couple of ways Microsoft could "encourage" consumers to upgrade to new products:
1. Make the renewal process slow, beaurocratic, and potentially painful.
"You can only renew subcriptions during the renewal period, which is 10 days before your licenses expire. There will be a 60 to 90 days processing period. You must send the full payment in advance. Microsoft reserves the right to do a full software audit during the processing period. If we find you are out of compliance, you forfeit the entire resubscription fee..."
2. Play games with the pricing structure.
"Why renew Office 2002 for $249.50 when you can upgrade to Office 2004 for an extra fifty cents!"
3. Change the rules in the middle of the game.
"Microsoft will no longer support resubscriptions for products that have been upgraded"
Whoa, cowboy! One step at a time! (Score:3)
Re:Once you go free you never go back (Score:2)
But the cost of an "upgrade" from Office 97 used in 97 to Office 97 used in 2001 is currently free.
It won't be under MS's new plan.
Cost, Not too concerned (Score:2)
Further, though, I'm not too concerned for a variety of reasons. I actually *do* upgrade most of my software every 3 years, and if you ask most Linux users, they probably will agree. I upgrade my Windows machine infrequently, but I upgrade my Linux distro perhaps every 1-1.5 years. And I'm certainly no longer running Windows 95 or even 98 if I can help it. Second, and more importantly, if you don't like the situation you can always continue to use your favorite, non time-expired OS. Get a copy of Windows 2000 when it reaches a rock-bottom price (it's actually suprisingly stable). Or, continue to get Linux distros that will never have this scheme.
There will always be "another option" when it comes to time-limited software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
Yeah, until the NEXT time Microsoft changes the licensing scheme to suck more money out of its far-flung empire. Your assumption: "pay this non-stop forever and they dont have to ever worry..." in the context of Microsoft is a huge reach, IMO.
This is a good point. If ISPs are any indication, MS's plan will probably let them change the EULA (and price) with little-to-no warning and (naturally) leave subscribers with no recourse.
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:4)
Companies would like to get the latest software,...
My experience has been that companies would rather standardize and leave it be. You mention 40% of businesses use Office 2k; that means that 60% don't want to upgrade.
Now, instead of paying for it all at once, maybe it'd be nice for them to pay $75/month for three years.
Nope. It's (to use your example) $75/month forever. Any company that decides it wants off the upgrade treadmill still has to continue paying.
I'm not convinced this will help MS (Score:4)
Just as much as their doing this encourages upgrading to current levels every 3 years, it gives me a chance to re-evaluate my needs and buy elsewhere.
If Office costs $500 and I'm only using 20% of the features, I could decide to not pay the 500 every three years, and look elsewhere.
Especially if Office isn't improving, only shifting the interface around, why should I sign up for the $1500 over three years plan?
Even if other suites go to this (Corel, Lotus (yes, I still count Corel)) they'll be cheaper overall and just as functional.
And if Star/OpenOffice improves in stability, speed, and compatibility, I'll be set anyways. (right now, star is unusable for me. too slow, and incompatible when saving to word with graphics in a document.)
AbiWord doesn't do badly either, but it has a ways to go- I'd like to see all of the menus activated, for one thing.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
Time Out? (Score:2)
The rental model is one thing, where you directly rent the software from MS.
But if I go into a sotore and buy something, is it going to time out on me in three years? it going to give me an error screen 3 years after activation? I can imagine all kinds of horror stories on this. Handled with hard ball tactics, this could for less rational folks into violence etc.
I for one, am glad I am getting up to speed on the *nix systems
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Already common practice (Score:2)
While I personally steer clear of software with this kind of license (I tend to save up all of my pennies for a large one-time purchase) this is certainly nothing new.
Bluff Them! (Score:4)
Bonus : If worst comes to worst you're even able to pull off your threat
Setup: When the very junior M$ sales droid comes in delivering his blackma^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsales pitch, get nasty, kick him out and make very, very clear that you won't negotiate with anybody less then the boss of his boss.
In the meantime: Set up a really nice Linux box, focus on the desktop (enlightenment is nice), make sure that you can demo the whole range of Open Office apps; specifically conversions from M$ Office documents. Install the Opera browser and a few other nifty add ons, preferrably stuff that looks better then under Windows.
Next: State clearly that this is your corporate desktop prototype that will be ready in three month and will be replacing all M$ shit! Make it very clear that you where just waiting for them to set totally unreasonable conditions until it's worthwile to scrap M$ entirely.
Wait for reasonable and cheaper offer from M$ to come in.
Re:Bluff Them! (Score:4)
This might not quite work out. I know it happened and partially I wonder how companies, communities and schools could allow it to get that far.
See, we do have contract laws here that require a certain amount of mutual fairness of the contract (Grundsatz von Treu und Glaube, in German). That is, if your license states something like M$ has the right to perform audits at it's discretion at any time and the licensee is obliged to have his full technical staff at their disposal for no charge this will never uphold in court. Probably most European countries will not accept EULAs at face value and click through licenses will be laughed out of court.
Further: In the US they can destroy you simply by suing your ass away. The legal costs will kill you. In most European countries this won't work since the loser pays it all: Your lawyers, your legal costs, your additional effort and the court costs. It makes it much harder to blackmail you through the legal system.
Of course it helps when you have your license paper work in order.
Re:How this isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Score:2)
Re:How this isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Score:4)
MS is leasing software so that companies don't have to claim it as an asset, hence they don't pay as many taxes. Leased assets are even a tax deduction in most places.
I'm sure somebody who knows more about this will step in and correct me if I'm wrong. I welcome that.
How this isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Score:5)
Well..
A quick run down of the software I'm using at the moment has shown me that all of it is under 3 years old, with the exception of a couple of NT servers. The idea that people will have to carry on paying for software years after they've bought it isn't new (Ask any Sun/SGI/Oracle user). This sort of thing pushes people into paying more money for software, true, but it also means they're considerably more likely to use more up-to-date versions, have less support/maintainance issues, and generally be happier.
Sure, it'll never work for the home user, but that's not what they're aiming at.
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:3)
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I am sure that removing the ability to pirate software will bring down Microsoft. Here in the UK I have often been to offices and tried to fix a network problem, asked the guys in the office if they have a Windows 98 machine to be told, "no, but I think we have a Windows 95 CD somewhere." You then realise they are illegally running 20-30 machines in their office. This is just so common.
If people can no longer pirate the software so easily then people will seek alternatives. Whats more, non-Western countries will be even harder hit. I have been to may countries in Asia and the Middle East where it is very difficult to buy orignals. I once went into a computer shop in Pakistan whilst on a contract there. I asked them for a Windows 98 CD and they came with a pirate. I asked them for an original and they said they don't sell the originals.
In short, people just can't afford to pay for original software. I am sure everyone out their has copied some software illegally at some point.
Re:not yet... (Score:2)
The general public believes in all kinds of fairy tales.
Nothing new under the sun (Score:2)
The reason for this is of course that with software it doesn't cost you more to build 1,000,000 instances than the first one. But you still want a steady and predictable revenue for years to come. SAP, Oracle, Siebel, everyone charges this way. Also, customer seem to prefer this way, since it makes their initial investment smaller.
When it comes to pulling the plug after 3 years, this also is the case with enterprise software. It is called "de-supporting", which means that the customer needs to upgrade to a newer version (for a fee) in order to receive the support he's paying for. Typically vendors support their product 3 versions back, and come with a major release every 2 years or so.
What MS is doing is just moving their price model to the one that the major players on the large systems market are using. They can probably get the companies to pay for this, since most companies write off and replace their PC every 3 years. When it comes to people using PCs at home, I guess it'll be tougher, but perhaps MS figures people switch their system about that often.
Re:not yet... (Score:2)
Granted with Windows 2000 everyone really should, unless you can go to Linux or some other Open Unix. Office is another story. Nothing really useful except a more usable Outlook came out Office development in the upgrade from 95 to 97 or 2000. (Unless you consider office assistant useful...)
So now, Office XP is here, and Windows XP is on the way. Three years down the road, Windows and Office 2000 will be a distant memory, and Windows LC (Lame Codename) will be on the way.
So this plan is only different in that it is forcing you to upgrade, which they do anyway by getting the latest and greatest in schools and large coperations. Then everyone has to upgrade to be 100% compatible...
Will it change much? (Score:2)
As for home users, who really reads their license agreements? Unless Microsoft makes this really vocal (and if they do, it'll be a 'feature') I doubt it'll change how the average user buys software, either.
Lack of imagination (Score:2)
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
It seems like M$ has been coming to terms with its inability to innovate for awhile. I can remember seeing some interview with Bill Gates where he says that M$ could go out of business in five years, this is how this industry works (shocking the talk show host). Maybe he was serious, I mean, what more can be done for office software? If they can't continue to sell upgrades because significant improvements have been made, they'll just have to lock customers into a pay me once, pay me twice, pay me three times model like this.
Microsoft is funny because they seem to think that if they are not outright dominating everything about the computer, they are failing. I can't imagine any "common sense" businessman is going to be interested in paying for something more than once.
But look at all the new bloat Microsoft can add! They can make Office actually save in universal documented free formats!They can stop the stupid system from crashing over obvious bugs which have been in place for years! They can make it more useful for the average user!
But since that will never happen, expect all sorts of crap to be added to "justify" every hick and his inbred cousin to use the product. Or most likely, "New from Microsoft Innovation Labs - The 3D DirectX Helpful Paperclip! Now with a more enthusiastic Gilbert Godfrey voice! In fact, you'll have to use the Talking Paperclip to input each and every letter and our helpful Paperclip will explain where each and every key on your keyboard is along with our delightful pop-up full-motion 1280 x 1024 animation windows!"
Can we start an EBAY bounty for the head of Bill Gates yet? It'd be like a raffle. Buy tickets, donate to the bounty hunter fund, and decapitate Bill Gates. The bounty hunter that brings back the head wins the money and the raffle winner gets the head of the most unethical computer billionaire next to Steve Jobs.
This is not a new idea (Score:2)
I work at a company doing IC design, and basically all of our tools use this model. Some sample tools/companies: HSpice (Avant!), Powermill (Synopsys), Calibre (Mentor Graphics), VSS (Synopsys), HSim (Nassda), Virtuoso (Cadence), etc, etc. Everyone uses this scheme. Most of our software has to be renewed every year (and for a much larger fee than MS charges for Windows/Office/etc, I might add).
For the average medium-to-large business, this really is not a big deal. Where this change might be more of a problem is the smaller, mom and pop businesses, who can barely afford the software once. But after three years, it's really time to upgrade anyway.
Anyway, the point is look beyond the PC market and you'll see that this concept has been in use for many years. PC users are just used to getting things cheap. Not that MS products are cheap (in fact, I'd say they're disgustingly overpriced), but in the business world, subscriptions aren't a big deal.
your software has been eliminated (Score:3)
during a computer crash your soundcard detected the words "Damn microsoft". This is not allowed by the contract you have signed with microsoft. This seems like a great violation of the license, and Microsoft is forced to take action.
Your agreement with microsoft has hereby been cancelled. You are allowed to use this software for another month, after that time it will self destruct.
We hope that you in the future will help us promoting the wonderful world of Microsoft programs, and not ever again curse windows for crashing.
You might apply for a new contract after 12 months
Re:fp - What about time limits? - fp (Score:2)
Home users won't have to worry -- Microsoft would never give another company an in via home use. Requiring home users to re-subscribe would invite competition for Office Suite products that weren't subscription, and they would win over MS and MS knows it. Win at home, and then win at work.
Therefore, we may conclude with mathematical certitude that Microsoft will not be applying this to home machines.
I.T managers aren't going to go for this (Score:2)
"well, just make a few copies of [Microsoft Product] and install it .... then do a software audit and we will license the products before the Business Software Allaince comes and raids us....but don't bother buying the licenses at first - just copy the software and install it..."
Yes, that's illegal, but in reality that's what happens at 9/10 companies...companies aren't organized and they need flexibility in this area...I think if Microsoft tries and forces this draconian licensing system on them, they will end up with customers that are taking a closer look at the alternatives...Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:3)
As someone who works in a small business, I must disagree with you - I think that subscriptions are more likely to appeal to large companies. The reason is, in a small company (ours at any rate), a lot of the software that gets used is only used fairly intermittently - sometimes a piece of software only needs to be "pulled off the shelf" maybe once or twice a year. For example, we developed a Windows CE application for a client. That requires the Windows CE toolkit. The project has long since been delivered, but needs the odd bit of maintenance maybe once or twice a year for a day or two. This may be even less frequent in the years to come. Subscription would be deadly. Do we keep subscribed and pay continually for software we essentially don't use, just because we once in a while need to fix some tiny bug? What if we don't need to use the software for the next five years, but then suddenly need to? Do we resubscribe if we've unsubscribed? Chances are the version we used won't even be compatible anymore. Right now its easy - I have a hard disk with the toolkit installed and when I need to do maintenance, I just plug it in and go. Under subscription, I would most likely have to download the new version, and spend days (possibly weeks) trying to just get my project to compile.
A lot of other software is also used far more sporadically than it would be in a large company. We have a legit copy of Adobe photoshop, for example, for doing the company web page. But we only update the company web page two or three times a year maybe. The rest of the time the software is not being used. Should we pay every month we don't use it? What if we stop our subscription for some reason, but need to open the .psd files six months later for some reason? At least with "owned" software, you just reinstall the software and open the documents, no problem.
What if I have some personal documents saved in some format, but don't actively use the software anymore? What if I want to open those documents ten years from now? Do I shell out for a new subscription? I'm sure most of us have documents backed up on CDs from years ago for software we don't really use anymore.
Lets face it, the only groups who will find the subscription model appealing are the application providers. They are the only ones who will greatly benefit from the model, and the only reason they'll be able to push it on people in the medium term is that currently the software industry is controlled by the vendors, not the clients, i.e. "what Microsoft says, goes".
Re:Guess this is the beginning... (Score:2)
Seems like everyone else is doing this too (Score:3)
holding your data hostage (Score:2)
I think sooner or later, people are going to figure out that this is a bad deal. And that's good for Linux.
This just formalizes the status quo (Score:2)
The big question is whether important customers will sign on to this (especially in the light of an expanding Linux base), go to the competition, or just keep on using the older versions that let them do what they will.
I remember way back when in the early 90's, when OEM liscences weren't tied to a particular machine... and we didn't even have these new-fangled 28.8 modems, either!
M$ will do what it likes. (Score:2)