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."
Yup. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Gas pumps (Score:2)
Re:Gas pumps (Score:2, Informative)
They either put a different block in under the hood, or there's other things, too [stp.com].
Re:Yup. (Score:2)
This can also turn into a scheme to increase profits. e.g. you end up having to buy a hundred (or more) copies of the new software. Just because the supplier dosn't want to supply a few extra licences for the old version. (And insists that the new licences can't be used with the old version.)
The Balance of Power (Score:2, Interesting)
Most decent pieces of software should evolve and improve. Normally, if you are a serious user, you will want to have the latest version. The year's old source of GhostScript used to be free - but I was prepared to pay for this year's when I was doing something complex.
However, occasionally, the software does not evolve in the way you want. I know one image processing product that was lean and efficient, if a little dull. It was bought by another company, who bloated the code, stuck in all sorts of unwanted features, and slowed the thing to a crawl. The dedicated users are still using a version from about 5 years ago. Okay, shit happens, but they still had a working program. A 'sunset' clause would force these users to abandon their working product or fear litigation, but would not supply a workable alternative. Ten years or more ago, you used to get a lot of booby-trapped software, dongled code, and stuff like that, because it was sold by people who did not really understand software, what it cost, and why it was worth it.
We don't want to go back to those days. My gut feeling is that there ought to be a legal challenge to 'sunset' clauses. Whether you read them or not when you open the product packaging or click on the 'install' button, you ought to expect the one-machine use of the product in its supplied state, unless there are clearly explained exceptional reasons. Anything else would be a breach of the normal balance of trust between the user and the supplier. In the US, this sort of thing ought to attract federal anti-trust suits.
Re:Yup. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is it that so many people seem to believe that the only criteria that applies to anything is money? As if companies are complete independent of people, a force all unto themselves.
Remember that the basic dictionary definition of company is "a group of people". If a group of people want to screw you over because they can and it's profitable, they can choose to do that. Just because the group of people is acting as a "company" does not resolve them of moral and ethical responsibilities.
Because so many people understand the real world (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:5, Informative)
This is so sad. "Hey, so we do bad things, we have no choice, we're a business!"
You do have a choice. Employees have a choice. Shareholders have a choice. Company managers have a choice.
I am Managing Director (that's CEO to you) of an IT company. A lot of my clients are reasonably ignorant about IT. It would be fairly easy for me to lie to them and sell them products and services that they don't really need, or deliberately lock them into solutions that it will be difficult for them to get out of again. It would probably make my company more profitable, and I know of companies that do it. But you know what? I don't do it. Why? Because it's wrong. When I deal with my clients, I am dealing with people. I don't think to myself "Hey, I can fuck these ignorant guys over and make lots of money." To me, and I would hope to most people, my personal values are more important than getting rich.
I imagine that Bill Gates rocks himself to sleep at night thinking "I've got all those suckers locked in and now I can raise prices and they can do nothing about it! What a bunch of losers! I'm the king of the world!" I know people like Bill Gates are highly respected in America, but they aren't so much in my corner of the world - they're seen as greedy, selfish ego-maniacs.
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
Still, less and less people are going to keep upgrading. I remember the rush to 2000, it was on everyone's minds. We have no plan for moving to XP. I'm not saying we won't, but there isn't any frenzy, no meetings starting 6 months before the release to discuss strategy. While I'm sure this happened some places, I'd be surprised if it is happening as much. Maybe it's a down economy, or many people are happy with what they have.
I think an equitable solution to the antitrust case is to force microsoft to offer licenses for their old software. Not necessarily support, but licenses. Once 2K is not offered, how are we going to expand (we do have about 20 extra licenses right now, but we could go through those easily)?
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
Also small businesses, especially where they face competition, rely a lot on keeping on good terms with their customers and personal recommendations. Whilst attempting to rip off your custmers might get quite a bit of money short term long term it means you have no customers.
To a large company it's a case of "plenty more fish in the sea" to a monopoly it's a case of "so where else do they think they can go?"
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
This isn't just true of small businesses. It is also true of larger ones, at least in the UK. The most successful companies are very often the ones that "do the right thing." Virgin, The Body Shop, Easy Jet, The Co-op Bank, Marks & Spensers, John Lewis and many other large UK-based companies have been successful in part because they have strong ethical policies. In the UK (and even more so in other European countries) companies that do not "do the right thing" tend to be less successful and generally villified.
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
Sorry, I know this is going to be modded down as flamebait and troll or whatever, but I have to say this.
Americans have done a bit of soul searching recently. Many have been suprised to find strong negative reactions expressed towards them from people in other 'first world' countries. It is exactly the kind of opinions that are being expressed in this thread by Americans that cause some of those negative feelings.
No, capitalism does not excuse anyone from behaving in a moral and ethical way. No, greed does not motivate all people. No, capitalism isn't about "Getting other people to purchase something they don't need while paying more than it is worth". If you believe these things, then you have a value system that many people in the rest of the world would find very sad and hollow.
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
Hey, guess what, my employees actually agree with our company policies. And I hope our shareholders do too, because if they've got our shares then I hope have found out a bit about the company.
Customers come first. Employees second. Shareholders third. Why? What's good for customers is good for our employees, and happy employees are good for profits which is good for shareholders.
Now, my company is small, but there are quite a few companies, even very big ones, who think the same way here in the UK. In fact I borrowed some of the wording of the above philosopy from Stelios Haji-loannou, currently one of the UK's most successful businessmen.
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
We're kind of having a circular argument here, but anyway, it is possible to have happy shareholders and stay ethical! Especially if you're shareholders are ethical people too! That's the kind of world I live in!
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
Yep.
Of course, as a company director it would be ridiculous to say I'm not interested in maximising profits. I am. But maximising profits at the expense of all moral and ethical standards? Then no, I'm not interested in that. Nor are my employees. Nor my shareholders. And there are lots of other companies like mine, at least here in the UK.
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
Admittedly, one could argue that we're splitting hairs here...
Yep.
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
In other words, money is more important than ethics. This nicely sums up everything that's wrong with America.
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
Yes, it's really sad isn't it? The amazing thing is that so many Americans believe this.
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
Yes, in their best interests as defined by your company charter. Some companies choose to have ethical clauses in their charters. Some shareholders prefer these types of companies...
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
Customers have a choice too. At least here in Europe, unethical companies lose customers.
Re:Because so many people understand the real worl (Score:2)
I read once that only about 15% of Europe's population was very religious, whereas about 50% of America's population is. I wonder if there's a correlation there. (religion is just posturing to cover up a basic lack of morals and ethics.)
Re:Yup. (Score:2)
Missing the point? (Score:2)
While your statements are pretty accurate, they're slightly missing the point, I think. The subset clause isn't about support, it's about licensing. These things arbitrarily make it illegal for you to continue using your software after a certain time. There is no technical basis for this; it's purely a means to force you to upgrade.
As a hypothetical example, suppose I have an old 486 running Windows 95 and Office 95, and it works and does its job well enough for my purposes. Why should I be forced to throw it away and upgrade to the latest and greatest, at vast cost to me, for no particular benefit? (NB: As far as I'm aware, Microsoft don't actually have a policy like this on the products concerned. This is not a Redmond slam.)
Re:Yup. (Score:2)
With that said, I should say I understand not supporting older versions, but a 1 year or less life cycle for software? Some software is expensive, and companies should really consider keeping a few version alive to allow the customer to get some wear and tear on the product. I can understand killing older software if it's been more than 3 years and there have been _MAJOR_ changes to the software, but if it's only a couple of small minor things, the older software should stay alive.
If this trend keeps up, I think some of these companies will find that their customers will seek alternatives to their products. This could be good for the Open Source world if we get our act together. We'll need to be a little friendlier to nebies.
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?
Re:What to do with the obsolete versions? (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with you here. I love Borland [borland.com] for releasing their old Turbo C and Pascal environments.
But with some software, such as the anti-virus software mentioned in the article, the old versions aren't really useful. If they released the source maybe, but that's pretty unlikely.
Re:What to do with the obsolete versions? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sad but true.
There's no magic rule for this, though. I happily use an FTP client that's several years old. I also play C64 emulated games. I'm not going to get a new FTP client any time soon, but I still got Return 2 C Wolf because C64 games don't scratch the same itch (multiplayer eyecandy immersion).
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 :) ).
Re:What to do with the obsolete versions? (Score:3, Interesting)
when told it was unsupported, we made the salesman mad with the obligratory , "cince when has microsoft offered any useable support? we have had to support all microsoft products In house with people and firms that are not a part of the microsoft empire. Microsoft doesnt offer support."
with that I'm sure he marked us as trouble makers and scheduled an audit.... and my boss will not let them in without a warrant from a judge
Re:What to do with the obsolete versions? (Score:2)
Re:What to do with the obsolete versions? (Score:2)
Re:What to do with the obsolete versions? (Score:2)
Some times it saves cents rather than makes sense...
Windows 95 (Score:2)
Good or Bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, for the individual its not a good thing and don't get me started on the privacy issues of product activation but for a lot of things a continual rental model would be better and may stop quite the same level of boom & bust in the industry.
Well thats my $0.02 worth. Any opions from our corporate bretheran?
It's a question of ethics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a question of ethics... (Score:4, Informative)
So all we need is well worded legislation which protects the consumer at the cost of big business
Re:It's a question of ethics... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's a question of ethics... (Score:2)
Actually the principle is the same. Just that the details of the "law of the land". An EULA as a contract operates within the the law, as defined by statutes and court decisions. It cannot modify or supercede them.
A common technique you will find in all sorts of contractual agreements is to include a clause saying "if any part of this is void then the rest still stands" combined with clauses which are either of questionable legality sometimes directly against the law. On the basis that most people reading it will not know what their actual legal rights are.
Unfortunately, the US government, for whatever reasons, have decided to whore out the rights of its citizens in exchange for increased corporate revenues and, as a result, increased taxes (not to mention all those nice PAC campaign contributions). Hate to break it to you, but the folks in the US are phuqed.
Maybe, maybe not. The US is somewhat complication, since it is a federal republic, with a constitution limiting what the federal government can and can't do. Further each state has it's own constitution and binding laws can be made by entities such as cities.
Support costs (Score:2, Interesting)
If companies support (even at a cost) older products (take Ed's example of partition magic), it *does* cost the company money to train their support staff, and often the number of (paid) calls coming through asking help aren't enough to warrant the extra education for staff...
Is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Installation complete. (Score:4, Funny)
Please take a moment to re-register your software product now, to receive exciting benefits, like:
* Our new, 65535 colour splash screen
* The FBI Magic Lantern bonus pack autoinstall wizard
* The latest version of our popular readme.txt file
If you prefer, you can print a registration form to fax or mail later.
[buy now] [remind me later] [issue warrant]
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.
Re:It happens in hardware to... (Score:2)
Of course, that doesn't stop anybody from getting the machines to run 68K code they wrote to decrypt the ROMs and pass the decrypted data to a computer [retrogames.com]. It just means you have to be far, far more determined than most pirates were.
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?
Re:A really disturbing trend. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm. But if you buy a piece of software that depends on the internet, how long should a company support it? Let's say interest for battle.net fell off dramatically in four years, so that only a few hundred people were playing it. Should the company continue to support the service? Should they support it after twenty years? I'm not trying to nix your point, which is valid, it just got me thinking.
Autodesk have this down..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Try using Autocad for a while.....i don't care if they no longer support older versons...but deciding when the older versions can no longer be upgraded is damn close to blackmail....unless you pay the upgrade price then and there....you'll have to buy complete versions and full price.
for a $25 piece of software?....fair enough
for $1000s of dollars worth of software...they have a responsibility to thier customers to retain the value of the software _especially_ when the licenses are non transferrable _and_ hardware/software locked.
Re:Autodesk have this down..... (Score:2)
They didn't even bat an eyelid at the cost.
The thing with AutoCAD is it is GOOD software... not perfect, but my roommate, a drafter at the time, could do thousands of dollars of work a day with autocad. Take that times 10 (not every one who used it was a straight up drafter) and the AutoCAD licenses paid for themselves weekly. And the versions (i.e. R14 to 2000) had changes that made it worth while.
AutoCAD is worth it becuase it works, and the founders knew it.
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:It's just wrong (Score:2)
Don't you think that just the fact that basically the ONLY possible answer is "use Linux" (or any other free-software OS system) is a very good indicator of how bad the situation is?
I'm not talking about Microsoft monopoly, but of a general trend of the market (as it was already pointed out by someone else) to force updates, or, better, to convert sale into subscription. We see it more in the software market because the lifecycle is much shorter (both for technical - fast evolution - and economical - mantaining current profits - reasons), but it happens also in other markets.
I mean, it's NATURAL that with the advance of technology old things become obsolete, but it's a bad sign when, as you point out, the whole thing becomes just a strategy to "maximize profit".
If the software market is the one where it's most visible, it's somewhat counter-balanced by the free software community. The same approach does not work as well for "real" objects (even if e.g. in the case of old cars you have clubs of fans who exchange parts/experience to mantain them).
You'll forgive me then if the only answer I can provide is to start whining that you should use linux
Re:It's just wrong (Score:2)
I want to be treated like a paying customer by the companies I buy software from. I want to buy something and even if it is unsupported past a certain point, I don't want to be intentionally locked out. You put it very well that the entire thing is used as a way to maximize profit. That makes me feel like I'm viewed as a "consumer" rather than a "customer". My software is a tool to do what I want to do, not a vessel for me to put another million in the CEOs pocket. If he earns the money, great, but don't screw me and my past patronage to get it.
Companies and greed (Score:2)
Publicly traded corporations have Boards and CEO's who are responsible to the shareholders. The company has a charter which in most cases states that the Board is _required_ to run the company in a way which "maximizes profits" for the shareholders. If they do not do this they will be sued and/or replaced by the shareholders. This is why you see corps doing such patently unethical things as laying off all their enmployees and re-hiring them at reduced salaries, or "outsourcing" labour to third-world contractors, or polluting and then paying the fines when it's cheaper than not polluting would be! They have to not only _make a profit_, but in fact MAXIMIZE profits, no matter what. The shareholders, and in many cases the Board, care _nothing_ for what anybody thinks of them, unless it impacts those profits. Then it's time for a little creative marketing, not acting ethically.
That's why I'm a (democratic) socialist. Un- or under-regulated capitalism inevitably slides into depravity and unimaginable greed.
Re:Companies and greed (Score:2)
Whether they're required to operate this way or not doesn't make greed okay. I also want things, but I always provide fair return for what I get; it's only right that way. As a customer, I don't feel like I get that in return from most transactions, though.
Re:It's just wrong (Score:2)
No, it's for lack of alternative and the fact that I'm stupid and keep paying it. It's NOT worth it. I need the tool, but I resent paying so much for it. Three years ago updates were $29 and I could handle that. But now they're $50, and the software doesn't do a damn thing earlier versions didn't except support a new file system. As soon as another company releases something that does what DriveImage does but without the yearly upgrade cycle, then I'm done with PowerQuest. I am not a loyal customer, in spite of my upgrades. I am a trapped customer, and I have the feeling they don't care about the difference. I know about the current alternatives, but since Symantec took over Ghost, it's just as big a pain to deal with as DriveImage. Paragon Software has Drive Backup, but it fubars my W2K NTFS partitions on restore. I will absolutely bail on DriveImage the first chance I get.
Re:The Zen of IT (Score:2)
But, it's just an example.
Deep pockets + low competence == prime target (Score:2, Interesting)
The s/w vendors know we (and others like us):
Look at stuff like MS-Word/Exchange/Outlook/OE. Are there *really* many more features in each that warrant the massive recycling of s/w that most large institutions go through regularly?
It's getting just as bad with the app server markets as well. Vendors conveniently dropping support for older (their own) products (when the apps are running just fine for us) or for the OS level our stuff runs on just to have to buy new licenses (despite the fact that we do pay "maintenance" yearly).
When I compare those with personal programs like MusicMatch and Xmanager - both with lifetime licenses and very decent feature-rich updates - it's hard to let the others justify their practices.
Transparency? (Score:2, Interesting)
option a:
Pay more for the license NOW, support guarenteed for 10 years.
option b:
Pay less for the license NOW, support for 2 years, then subscrition support thereafter.
If they justify re-charging to cover support costs then this is a far more honest way of doing it.
If they wanna characge because their product license has expired, then tough.
After all nodoby buys a product 'software', just a license to use software. If the license has limited lifetime perhaps consumers in this market economy should shop elsewhere?
Not just software... (Score:3, Funny)
I wanted to replace it with a new car, but guess what? They don't make 1989 Honda Civics any more. If I want a new car, they tell me, I'll have to buy the latest model, which not only looks different and is more expensive, but would require me to learn an entirely new UI.
Somehow I don't buy (no pun intended) that the engine for building a car has changed again.
Re:Not just software... (Score:2, Funny)
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.
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.
analogy Re:Not just software... (Score:2)
If you compare it with antivirus software: you can still get repairs on you old Civic. (is this the same as paid software updates?)
If you want to replace it you will get a different car, but it has still the same user interface. There may be some new bells and whissles, but there is a very small learning time.
But then the anology goes wrong. You can still make perfect copies of your old software. Technically you can take your 1 software package and install it to 100's of PC on your site. Or rolout word'98 to the next 100 you buy. If they make it impossible to buy licences (pay them..) the technical possible becomes illigal. How would you compare that to your 12 year old civic? And a virus signature update is not exactly the same as repair, maybe it should be compared with a oil change.
And we are talking 1-2 year in software, not 12 year....
Re:Not just software... (get your analogies right) (Score:2, Funny)
Now Ford just called me the other day, and said that if I wanted to continue driving, I'd have to purchase a 2002 model Ford, because my current car would stop working at the end of the year.
Somehow I don't buy (no pun intended) that the environment has changed to such a degree that my current car is incapable of taking me from A to B nowadays.
Re:Not just software... (Score:2)
Not so with software.
If your car bursts into flames like the pinto, you can sue.
If your computer crashes, you can flame the company.
And when I buy a car, I don't have to sign a contract regarding whose house I can drive it to, whether or not I can drive it to work or whether honda owns the work that I produce when I get to work.
When I bought software from macromedia as a student, the shrinkwrap liscense said that I couldn't use the stuff for commercial purposes and the store said they wouldn't accept the product for a refund as the EULA said they would if I didn't agree with it.
Re:Software Doesn't Rust (Score:2)
Problem is that the only way you get anything equivalent to a service manual is to go the open source route...
The days old... (Score:3, Informative)
The days of buying a product for a fixed fee with which includes lifetime support and upgrades are over.
Even as cynical as I am it's obvious that particular business model wont work, even as much as I like it.
The purchase model is continually trying to be killed off and replaced with the subscription based model as this allows for much more consistent balance sheets - take the two cases:
you have X users each paying Y every year
you have X users who paid Y for our product and if they like it they might pay Z in the future, but only if they choose to upgrade.
Which one do you think sounds more palatable to the board - one off payments or regular payments?
Counter-arguements such as the model for products like WinZip spring to mind - they still provide a cheap registration with lifetime support and upgrades but I'd imagine their mission is to get at least some of that massive userbase to register.
Realistically I'd be happy to have a product that I buy then pay to upgrade every few years (cough cough windows) but i start to resent that upgrade cost when it is almost identical to the cost of buying a new copy (cough cough windows).
Also you have to bear in mind that whenever a new windows version comes along the UI changes and so there is a mad clamour to change your programs to make them feel like they too are part of this new UI. Products that look ugly don't sell well to the masses so it pays to keep your software looking neat, tidy and user-friendly.
If you will try to sell me a product and then a year or two along the line try to offer me a cheap upgrade (e.g. Paint Shop Pro) then fine, I'll buy if you've added new features - however if you haven't and it's the same product in a new bundle with a
What I really resent is this latest trend of having to buy a physical product AS WELL AS pay a subscription fee (most PVR's) - either choose one method or the other if you want me as a customer, as both simply leaves me to look at your competition.
Obselescence (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Obselescence (Score:2)
The idea of the annual model change was invented to help the US motor industry. Because cars didn't fall apart quickly enough.
The problem with that is that cars are mechanical, and do tend to wear out.
But not that quickly, there is no good reason why you shouldn't expect a car to last on average at least 15 years or so. People upgrade their cars every 2 years because of fashion, not because they have worn out. (People and companies who use vehicles commercially would be outraged if they only got 2 years use out of their cars, vans, trucks, ships, buses, trains, aircraft, etc.)
Software, on the other hand, is just electrons, that are good for as long as the medium that holds them isn't corrupted.
Or more likely the hardware need to run the software "rusts", which could be a long time
It is a new type of product, and the companies need to find a new way of making money off of it, but most of them aren't looking, they are just using the old models.
They are using old models because they work and because they can get laws bent to make them work better.
Pricing Modell Problem (Score:2, Interesting)
It is an problem of the business modell of selling software as a boxed product. This modell is only viable if you have a snowball market like MicroSoft enjoyed in previous years. But they are not typical for other vendors that have fixed market size. There are only so many people in the US that use Bookkeeping software. And it cannot be sold abroad.
While the support cost are something that acrues only after you have sold the software, there is also the next development cycle to pay for. The worst thing that could happen to a vendor of boxed software is that the old version is 'good enough' for the customer.
Why do I use a emacs, an editor that is 20 years old? Because with version 19 it was just good enough to support what I need. That was like 6-7 years ago. Yes I now have v21, because it came with my SuSE, but while I would have payed for the v19, I would never have upgraded.
Microsoft has realized this problem many years ago, and has been mellowing the customers with rumours about 'only-by-subscription' licenses, ever since it became apperent to them that their market is about to be saturated and that people will stop bying new licenses. And that even with the Redmond-Tax on new computers, which ensures that units are sold everytime somebody buys a new computer. But guess what. That market will soon be saturated as well. Apart from OC-Geeks and Hardcore Gamers today PCs are just 'fast enough' for most users.
Wellcome to the new world of subscription based Software. Did you realize that this will put OpenSource on a even more even footing with the proprietory kind, as the costs become easily comparable. Maybe that is why Microsoft fears OpenSource. Not because of the Windows-Linux comparison, but because of the ability to sell support for StarOffice cheaply.
my EUR 0.02
Re:Pricing Modell Problem (Score:2)
Effectivly what the advantages of being able to sell the product as "boxed goods", but not have the customer able to use any "consumer protection" laws or to be able to say "I bought it, it's mine, I'll do what I like with it". Combined with a "licence" more applicable to the software supplier being contracted to write the software. But without the customer being able to renegotiate such a contract.
You *do* have a choice (Score:2)
It would be a different matter if the product would stop working after a certain amount of months/years but this case is about updating a product to handle changed market/security condsiderations. Would you buy a hammer which was designed to break after having hit a nail 1000 times? Probably not. Would you buy a new and radically improved hammer if it offered compelling features that the old hammer didnt? Probably.
The irony is that there's an entire industry feeding of the security holes in Microsoft's product line. If everyone were running Linux/xxBSD/UNIX, there would be no Anti-Virus software industry, at least certainly not one as big as we have it today.
Re:You *do* have a choice (Score:2)
1000 times? Probably not. Would you buy a new and radically improved hammer if it offered compelling features that the old hammer didnt?
Depends if the new and improved hammer was actually an improvment in terms of actually doing the job in question. If it was simply painted a silly colour or made a different noise when it hit a nail then that probably isn't the best kind of reason to want the new one.
This is the issue with software "updates", the newer version isn't always the best tool for the job.
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
This is great! (Score:3, Informative)
things like this will make OSS more and more attractive to the users out there.
I just love it when you see an entire industry slitting their own throats and bleeding to death slowly.
Re:This is great! (Score:3, Insightful)
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....
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 has always been a very common practice: (Score:2)
I was thinking... You know, since companies drop support (and thus, money making opportunity) of old software, what if that software was made a public domain thing? That way, competent people could very well found a small company providing support for that software, which would be a win-win-win situation: business can either get support from Smallcompany or upgrade the software; Smallcompany lives an honnest business life, adding competition and diversity to the marketplace; Bigcorp can stop worrying about supporting the old software. Of course, there are always certain corps who see sunset clauses as a way to squeeze always more money from you, and
I know that is not going to happen, but eh, one can dream...
Re:This has always been a very common practice: (Score:2)
Because then the old software could end up in competition with the new stuff they are trying to sell. e.g. if the old stuff does everything people actually want it to do.
The only way of doing this would be by statute. i.e. ammend copyright law such that the maximum term is somewhere between 5 and 10 years and that if a copy is not deposited into one or more designated "libraries" at that time any profits from the software are treated as originating from an illegal source.
Currently old software can effectivly be hidden for nearly a century.
Re:This has always been a very common practice: (Score:2)
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.
OS Upgrade = Appl upgrades, back on the treadmill (Score:5, Informative)
I couldn't even start the intall program for Easy CD Creator 4 before Windows XP itself told me that my version was out of date and I'd need to upgrade. Even the shrink-wrapped copies of ECDC at BestBuy touted a download you could get to make it XP-compliant (ie, it doesn't even work out of the box).
Music Match Jukebox 4 loads, but hangs my system the minute I try to rip am MP3. I can download the latest version, but in order for it to rip at 160K I have to pay for an upgrade.
I don't even feel the need to get the latest versions of these programs; they're jam-packed with extraneous features I won't use. I need to upgrade for the sole reason that I upgraded my OS.
All other apps combined, I'm running about 50/50 - half of my stable of frequently-used programs run under XP; half don't.
Granted, I could create a system partition for my old copy of Win98SE, load the program there, and keep going. I could cobble together a script of command-line utilities to do some of the same things under Linux (or maybe find a decent screen-driven app, but most are lacking in completeness and/or integration). Or I can knuckle under and ante up to maintain status quo.
*Sigh.* If I ever needed a kick in the pants to migrate more of my day-to-day functionality to my Linux partition, it arrived on my doorstep yesterday.
Re:OS Upgrade = Appl upgrades, back on the treadmi (Score:2)
Re:OS Upgrade = Appl upgrades, back on the treadmi (Score:2)
It sounds like you didn't do your homework [microsoft.com]...
Re:OS Upgrade = Appl upgrades, back on the treadmi (Score:2)
CD writing (Score:2)
So I decided to give myself a little challenge by placing it in the Linux box.
Turned out to be fairly simple. It did require modifiying a couple config. files by hand ('lilo.conf' and 'fstab'), but the HOWTO explained this clearly. The only difficult task was choosing the best CD-burning GUI from about a dozen choices. My favorite was 'xcdroast', but there were many others that were capable of doing the job.
The basic problem (Score:2)
...is that people seem to think that "EULA" stands for "End User Licence Agreement," and that the user is being licenced to do something.
In fact, if companies would more clearly call them "ALUE", or "Agreement of License to the User's (back) End", then it would be clear what these things are really for, and what the customer was really agreeing to, without having to read many pages of lawyereese.
On the bright side: if commercial software publishers get very agressive about their sunset clauses and charging regular relicensing fees, that is going to be a bigger advertisement for Open Source and Free software than anything any of us could do!
-Rob
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.
And when the company screws up? (Score:4, Informative)
The company I work for follows the support-subscription-and-charge-a-premium-to- upgrade-to-the-new-version business model . Since it was in the company's interest to increase revenue, they came out with a new whiz bang gui version of an old character based tool. The customer base ooed and aahed over the pretty screens and didn't realize they were being forced marched off of an ugly, functional and stable platform onto a pretty and unstable platform. Never mind that the new tool didn't support all the requisite customer functions - it was Pretty.
Pretty was worthless. During the last major migration, Pretty went down in flames. Pretty has been killed and now the company is saying "But wait! We've got Beautiful over here! Use that instead!"
During all of this, the customers have had two choices - stay with an old tool that works and the company has announced is dead or migrate. Since the company is about maximizing profits, the company didn't ever consider that it was in the customer's best interest to just incrementally revise the old stalwart tool.
As a result, our customers are pissed and our competitors are having a field day. However, even if the customers migrate to our competitors, they're not fundamentally better off. Our competitors use the same business model. Company knows that and the customer knows that.
Given what's happened over the past year, if I were the customer, I'd insist that the source be opened up. If the company says no, then migrate to a vendor that says yes. That way, if the old tool does 95% of what I want, I can pay someone to add the other 5%.
My guess is it'll be twenty years before the customers start reading
Irony (Score:2)
Apparent confusion (Score:2)
The article, and several of the comments here, seem to be confusing the issue to an extreme.
Software companies, whether they're selling you a license or whether they're free software companies, will have continued operating expenses if they are supporting your software. There is, IMO, absolutely nothing wrong with requiring continued payments to keep up support, since there is an ongoing expense. But some people here seem to think that is evil, for reasons I cannot fathom.
What is unacceptable is software that just stops working (note that "oh, I upgraded to WinFUBAR-2005-SpecialEdition-2.11 and they want me to pay for an upgrade to support it, those greedy bastards!" is not software that stopped working.) Timebombs are bad, and probably shouldn't even be legal.
Bottom line: if you want someone to support and update something into the future, you should be prepared to pay for it into the future. If you just want it to continue to work as it always has, paying someone a subscription is ridiculous.
Offsetting costs vs. Gouging customers (Score:3, Interesting)
I have never, nor will I willingly place a time bomb in software I create that forces a customer to buy another version of said software needlessly.
Having said that though, there is one approach along these lines that I don't necessarily disagree with. When the customer buys the product, part of what they, the customer, is expecting is support. Employing support people (What, you don't expect me to do this myself do you? I'm a programmer.
After the predesignated length of time - which, by the way, the customer should be made aware of from the start - support should cost money. Keeping your tech support knowledge base going, keeping knowledgeable, experienced people on your tech support staff and supporting older versions of your software all cost money. The more versions of your software you support, the more it will wind up costing you. Since these old versions don't reflect new sales, the costs have to be made up with charging for support.
Of course, you could go to another extreme and offer either free or significantly reduced-cost upgrades for life for your customers. That's always nice.
Check that Expiration Date (Score:3, Interesting)
"This guy was very insistent that if we did not buy renewals we would be sued [because] our current licenses would be expiring after two years,"
This example isn't a case of getting charged for tech support, or a company ending its support. Its a having software "expire" right from under you. And a long as software is "licensed" the customer is at the mercy of the vendor and that license. There was a similar attempted 'expiration' when a certain freeware video conferencing program was finally bought out by a company that had been licensing the technology. Problem is not long before this the buyout, the freewarwe guys released an upgraded program that was on par in key ways with the what the new company was planning to release.
Heres the rub. The new company tried to declare the freeware software that had already been released, "expired". They then began to try to pressure folks to delete, and pull from their websites software that was packaged with a freeware license.
Who know's whats lurking down in the bottom of those EULA's - I figure the big boys have inserted a legal ace or two in there EULA's for just such an thing, "This license may be terminated when we say so, and you must quit using it and burn your hard drive" and are just figuring out to keep Joe Customer from blowing chunks when they try to push it down his throat.
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 Story about GoZilla (Score:2, Interesting)
Our discontinued software was free (as in beer) (Score:4, Interesting)
In most cases, when we finally discontinued all support for a product, especially a potentially mission-critical server product, we made a fully-functional perpetually-licensed version of the software available for free to anyone who wanted it, and who acknowledged that there was no warranty or support.
Our logic was simple: once there was no more money for us to make with a product, if people found it useful (in its completely unsupported state), then at least we were doing something good for our customer community, and hopefully generating a little goodwill.
I think for some kinds of software, making "retired" products available (unsupported) for free has the potential to be good for everyone involved.
-Mark Kriegsman
Norton Antivirus - real case scenario (Score:4, Interesting)
She has lost her trust in the Antivirus company who's most important issue is trust in their service.
Similar cases are seen with small business clients of mine who were promised the same from the marketing of Norton.
They have been left out in the open as well.
Fact is that eg. the marketing of Norton antivirus have not lived up to its promises = false marketing in my book, and in law in Europe/Denmark it means a crime.
So I'm now wondering if we will see class action suits in America sooner or later knowing this is going on.
And just to finish it off.. Where are the companies strategy? it definately do not seem to be in quality when quality is defined by:
what is delivered / what is expected = 1
if the result is not 1, quality is questionable.
Subscription Insanity (Score:2)
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.
Re:If you dont like it.. (Score:2)