|
 |
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] anonymous org> 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
|
|
