Am 14.01.2014 20:23, schrieb Nekar Xenos:

> And then there's Adobe CC at $50 per month...

Yeah. My arse.

There are only few things that beat the luxury of being able to skip an 
upgrade or two (or three, or four) when I happen to be low on money.

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/14 02:18, clipka wrote:
> 
> Yeah. My arse.
> 

By God, you're beginning to sound like an Englishman. ;-)

> There are only few things that beat the luxury of being able to skip an
> upgrade or two (or three, or four) when I happen to be low on money.
>

...and we don't want to hear about them. Might make the natives restless :-)

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

> I don't think that's Gates' vision.  It's the wet dream of the entire
> software industry.  Rather than selling a license that may never be
> upgraded, they want you to continue to pay "maintenance" fees so you're a
> source of continuous revenue.

FWIW annual maintenance fees for engineering CAD/simulation software 
have been the norm for at least 10 years.

Post a reply to this message

> In fact, the
> only reason I'm looking at prices now is because she gets terribly
> confused when the version she uses at work isn't the same as the one at
> home.

I suspect it's similar for a lot of people.

> Indeed, about the only thing I can think of that has recently improved
> in Office is that they finally made Excel's charts not look like arse
> anymore.

Two big ones I can think of (that actually make a difference to everyday 
usage) is the pictures / general layout handling of Word vastly 
improving, and the table functions in Excel improving (sorting/filtering 
data ranges etc).

> I can understand MS wanting to push this idea. I'm still puzzled that a
> seemingly independent website is excited about this...

$99/year for 5 license is not bad value if you actually need 5 licenses. 
If they did a $20/year version for 1 license I'd buy it.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2014 10:13, schrieb scott:
>> I don't think that's Gates' vision.  It's the wet dream of the entire
>> software industry.  Rather than selling a license that may never be
>> upgraded, they want you to continue to pay "maintenance" fees so you're a
>> source of continuous revenue.
>
> FWIW annual maintenance fees for engineering CAD/simulation software
> have been the norm for at least 10 years.

Yeah, but they're plaing in an entirely different league anyway.

Post a reply to this message

> On 14/01/2014 07:23 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>
>> And then there's Adobe CC at $50 per month...
>
> What is it?

Cloud-based version of Adobe Creative Suite (Photoshop, Illustratoe, etc...)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:18:53 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> Am 14.01.2014 20:23, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>
>> And then there's Adobe CC at $50 per month...
>
> Yeah. My arse.
>
> There are only few things that beat the luxury of being able to skip an  
> upgrade or two (or three, or four) when I happen to be low on money.
>
That could never work, especially with newer features that may not be  
backward compatible.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 1/13/2014 10:05 PM, clipka wrote:
> I'm using Office XP here, and I'm sure I'm using much more of its
> functionality than no-brained John Doe. Although I must confess that
> recently I've seriously contemplated upgrading. But - enter another
> reason why the new license model is anything but a wise choice:


I found a copy of Office 2003 mixed in with a bunch of CDs at a thrift 
store for less than $5.


-- 
http://isometricland.net

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is
active.
http://www.avast.com

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.01.2014 01:36, schrieb posfan12:
> On 1/13/2014 10:05 PM, clipka wrote:
>> I'm using Office XP here, and I'm sure I'm using much more of its
>> functionality than no-brained John Doe. Although I must confess that
>> recently I've seriously contemplated upgrading. But - enter another
>> reason why the new license model is anything but a wise choice:
>
> I found a copy of Office 2003 mixed in with a bunch of CDs at a thrift
> store for less than $5.

Yah, that's one more thing MS probably hates about the traditional "buy 
once, use as long as you like" licensing model: Such a license can be 
sold (at least in Europe there's no legal way this may be prevented, 
neither by clever license terms & conditions, nor by technical hurdles), 
so even people or companies frequently upgrading their MS Office 
versions partially sap Microsoft's market, by re-selling their old 
versions for cheap.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2014 21:51, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:18:53 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>> Am 14.01.2014 20:23, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>>
>>> And then there's Adobe CC at $50 per month...
>>
>> Yeah. My arse.
>>
>> There are only few things that beat the luxury of being able to skip
>> an upgrade or two (or three, or four) when I happen to be low on money.
>>
> That could never work, especially with newer features that may not be
> backward compatible.

Indeed, the subscription model would probably force me to make do 
without the software if I can't pay (even if it would technically be 
possible).

With the classic "pay once, use as long as you like" licensing model I'm 
perfectly fine with my dozen-year-old Adobe Photoshop version possibly 
being incompatible with newer ones, as I'm not sharing .psd files with 
other people anyway.

To think that with a subscription licensing model at $50 per month I'd 
have paid over $7000 for the software by now... uh - no, thanks!

Post a reply to this message