 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://winsupersite.com/article/office-2013-beta2/office-2013-pricing-packaging-144267
Apparently the subscription-based Office product has such a fantastic
price that "it's a no-brainer".
Is it just me? Personally, I'm appalled at Microsoft's latest attempt to
suck money out of my wallet. And I'm baffled as to why this reviewer is
so excited about the prospect...
So let's see now. I can purchase a copy of Office, and then use it.
Forever. (Lest you doubt this, my mother is still running Office 95.)
Alternatively, I can pay $100, every single year, for the rest of my
life, to get... exactly the same thing?
In WHICH UNIVERSE is that better??
Oh, but apparently that makes me a "luddite". Ho hum...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/01/14 22:09, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
http://winsupersite.com/article/office-2013-beta2/office-2013-pricing-packaging-144267
>
>
> Apparently the subscription-based Office product has such a fantastic
> price that "it's a no-brainer".
>
> Is it just me? Personally, I'm appalled at Microsoft's latest attempt to
> suck money out of my wallet. And I'm baffled as to why this reviewer is
> so excited about the prospect...
>
> So let's see now. I can purchase a copy of Office, and then use it.
> Forever. (Lest you doubt this, my mother is still running Office 95.)
>
Would your mum like to borrow my Office 2003 Pro disc and upgrade?
> Alternatively, I can pay $100, every single year, for the rest of my
> life, to get... exactly the same thing?
>
> In WHICH UNIVERSE is that better??
>
Welcome to Bill Gates' vision.
John (using LibreOffice, Thunderbird, Firefox etc etc)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:15:45 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>> Alternatively, I can pay $100, every single year, for the rest of my
>> life, to get... exactly the same thing?
>>
>> In WHICH UNIVERSE is that better??
>>
>>
> Welcome to Bill Gates' vision.
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.
"Better for whom" is the appropriate question, though - because clearly,
subscriptions that are automatically renewed are better for the software
companies.
I know of one company that tried to justify a big maintenance and support
program by saying "everyone is doing it - even Microsoft" - when clearly
Microsoft *weren't* doing it, because the premise was that you could only
download patches and fixes if you had a current maintenance agreement,
and Microsoft doesn't (or didn't, at the time) have such a program,
evidenced by yours truly downloading the current SP for MS SQL Server
without so much as a "please login" prompt.
But as usual, Microsoft is bringing up the rear on this, in actuality.
Services like Google Apps (for business), Salesforce.com, and even AWS
and other cloud "computing platform" providers have been doing this for
at least a couple of years.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 13.01.2014 23:09, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>
http://winsupersite.com/article/office-2013-beta2/office-2013-pricing-packaging-144267
>
>
> Apparently the subscription-based Office product has such a fantastic
> price that "it's a no-brainer".
>
> Is it just me? Personally, I'm appalled at Microsoft's latest attempt to
> suck money out of my wallet. And I'm baffled as to why this reviewer is
> so excited about the prospect...
Well, there's some truth in it being a "no-brainer": System requirements
apparently include the absence of a fully operative cerebrum.
- Most people don't need 5 copies.
- Most people don't need to upgrade every year (let alone "multiple
times per year").
- Most people don't need Outlook, Publisher or Access.
Yes, there are probably people who benefit from the subscription. But
most people probably don't. Which is probably exactly why Microsoft is
doing this: Their intent is - not surprisingly - to make more money than
with the traditional licensing model.
> So let's see now. I can purchase a copy of Office, and then use it.
> Forever. (Lest you doubt this, my mother is still running Office 95.)
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'm currently low on money, and Office XP is still sufficiently ok, so
I'll just postpone the upgrade for some more time and save the bucks.
I'd like to see Paul pull off that stunt with a subscription license :-P
> Alternatively, I can pay $100, every single year, for the rest of my
> life, to get... exactly the same thing?
>
> In WHICH UNIVERSE is that better??
>
> Oh, but apparently that makes me a "luddite". Ho hum...
Given that the original Luddites were skilled people protesting against
an erosion of their living conditions, I've just decided to take some
pride in that label.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/01/14 03:05, clipka wrote:
>
> Given that the original Luddites were skilled people protesting against
> an erosion of their living conditions, I've just decided to take some
> pride in that label.
>
John joins the movement.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
http://winsupersite.com/article/office-2013-beta2/office-2013-pricing-packaging-144267
>
>
> Apparently the subscription-based Office product has such a fantastic
> price that "it's a no-brainer".
>
> Is it just me? Personally, I'm appalled at Microsoft's latest attempt to
> suck money out of my wallet. And I'm baffled as to why this reviewer is
> so excited about the prospect...
>
> So let's see now. I can purchase a copy of Office, and then use it.
> Forever. (Lest you doubt this, my mother is still running Office 95.)
>
> Alternatively, I can pay $100, every single year, for the rest of my
> life, to get... exactly the same thing?
>
> In WHICH UNIVERSE is that better??
>
> Oh, but apparently that makes me a "luddite". Ho hum...
Unlike cars or washing machines, which eventually break, software
doesn't, so in theory, unless your mom needs additional functionality
from her word-processor, she will never need to upgrade. Therefore, at
one point, everyone in the world will have a copy of Office and
Microsoft's business would have to operate on the replacement model
(like cars and washing machine suppliers already do), which can't
sustain them, so they need to artifically generate demand for new versions.
At first they did it by putting more and more features in the software,
but by now most people realise they don't need 90% of what Office can do
(it was already true back in the days of WordPerfect 5.1, but people
hadn't caught up to that yet), so they keep the version they already have.
To keep pleasing its shareholders, Micrsosoft needs to keep the money
flowing in and their only recourse is to move to the next level, which
is the protection racket.
They've been trying to "float" the subscription model for years, but the
industry was very reluctant to jump on board. Now with Office365, they
have a foot in the door with large corporate customers, so they think
they can do the same with the retail customers.
--
/*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 Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:09:41 +0200, Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
http://winsupersite.com/article/office-2013-beta2/office-2013-pricing-packaging-144267
>
> Apparently the subscription-based Office product has such a fantastic
> price that "it's a no-brainer".
>
> Is it just me? Personally, I'm appalled at Microsoft's latest attempt to
> suck money out of my wallet. And I'm baffled as to why this reviewer is
> so excited about the prospect...
>
> So let's see now. I can purchase a copy of Office, and then use it.
> Forever. (Lest you doubt this, my mother is still running Office 95.)
>
> Alternatively, I can pay $100, every single year, for the rest of my
> life, to get... exactly the same thing?
>
> In WHICH UNIVERSE is that better??
>
> Oh, but apparently that makes me a "luddite". Ho hum...
And then there's Adobe CC at $50 per month...
--
-Nekar Xenos-
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Unlike cars or washing machines, which eventually break, software
> doesn't, so in theory, unless your mom needs additional functionality
> from her word-processor, she will never need to upgrade.
Indeed. For =A1-B1 years, she hasn't needed to upgrade. 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.
Also, the spell-checker is ****ed. What can I say? Windows 95 had a
radically different security model. (I.e., none.)
> so they need to artifically generate demand for new versions.
>
> At first they did it by putting more and more features in the software,
> but by now most people realise they don't need 90% of what Office can do
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.
> They've been trying to "float" the subscription model for years, but the
> industry was very reluctant to jump on board. Now with Office365, they
> have a foot in the door with large corporate customers, so they think
> they can do the same with the retail customers.
Heh, well, good luck.
I can understand MS wanting to push this idea. I'm still puzzled that a
seemingly independent website is excited about this...
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.
My employer does this. But then again, in the 14 months or so that I've
worked there, I've released several updates with game-changing
functionality improvements. And we have several more imminently in
development.
MS Office, by contrast, hasn't changed noticeably since the 1990s. I'm
sure if you search hard enough you can find some new features, but
they're fairly small.
> But as usual, Microsoft is bringing up the rear on this, in actuality.
> Services like Google Apps (for business), Salesforce.com, and even AWS
> and other cloud "computing platform" providers have been doing this for
> at least a couple of years.
I thought the idea behind Google Apps was more that you can access it
from anywhere. It's not like you're paying a subscription just to run
the software on your local machine.
Similarly, AWS is renting server power, not software.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
