I was very specific in the quote I chose from the author, though I accept my comments could be taken in the way you refer.
The point is, as you can see from many of our contemporaries, there are still many for whom a reasonable Internet connection is unavailable. There are still many places in the world, where any Internet connection is very expensive and only available to the most wealthy. Clearly also for those, the cloud option is a non-starter.
If it's going to cost you an arm and a leg to download the software, in addition to the licensing costs, then one has to question whether it's still a viable option. Further, if you're terrified if your computer fails, you're going to have to buy the software again, is that a successful business strategy that instils confidence? Tying the software to a machine, instead of the licensee, is a very objectionable move on Microsoft's part to me. Others may view it differently.
Couple that with good quality alternatives with far fewer licensing issues, then is Microsoft treading the slow painful path to oblivion?
It is my belief they are heading in that general direction. Stop listening to your customer base at your peril.
Now, you could argue (justifiably) that you would have to download the alternatives. Yes, but it's a one off cost and providing you take reasonable measures to backup the software, you can use it on as many machines as you like with zero licensing issues. Hence my comment, you do not have to accept anything you don't like.
I hope that clarifies my post a little for you and my reasoning for suggesting Microsoft has got it very wrong.
Keep Up with TechRepublic