Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Is it possible that next year more readers will be subscribing rather than purchasing standalone versions? Do you (Can you?) accept the idea that we are living in subscription-based software world?
And that I can install 5 copies, and, deactivate and reactivate from the web.
"This change by Microsoft is just a reflection of the times we live in - we are living in a networked, always on, cloud-based, software as a service world and we are going to have to come to terms with it - sooner or later."
Microsoft is not the be all and end all of software. There are other choices that for many will work equally well.
We don't have to get used to anything we don't like. We simply have to find a suitable alternative and these days, it's not that difficult and invariably, a lot cheaper.
The one thing you learn in this business if you are going to succeed, is to take the blinkers off and look around you.
The way Microsoft are going, what with Windows 8 and now this Office licensing issue, they won't have to worry about licensing in a decades time, as they won't have any business to speak of left.
Microsoft is not the be all and end all of software. There are other choices that for many will work equally well.
We don't have to get used to anything we don't like. We simply have to find a suitable alternative and these days, it's not that difficult and invariably, a lot cheaper.
The one thing you learn in this business if you are going to succeed, is to take the blinkers off and look around you.
The way Microsoft are going, what with Windows 8 and now this Office licensing issue, they won't have to worry about licensing in a decades time, as they won't have any business to speak of left.
I think you've misinterpreted the author. I didn't take that quote to mean "This is what Microsoft is doing so you have no choice but to suck it up and accept it because Microsoft are the only game in town". My reading of the comment is that the cloud and subscription based licensing are fast becoming the norm and that the old way of buying and thinking about software is slowly going to become the exception rather than the norm.
I for one completely agree with the author on this. To answer the authors questions - do I like the subscription-based model? My gut reaction is no. But I don't have a good reason for feeling that way. I do like having a CD with the software on it and knowing that if I want still run that software in 15 years time I can because I own it. Is that a practical view? Hell no. I think I'll be one of the people that are in the "prefer traditional licensing" camp now, but will be in the "prefer subscription licensing" camp in a couple of years time.
I for one completely agree with the author on this. To answer the authors questions - do I like the subscription-based model? My gut reaction is no. But I don't have a good reason for feeling that way. I do like having a CD with the software on it and knowing that if I want still run that software in 15 years time I can because I own it. Is that a practical view? Hell no. I think I'll be one of the people that are in the "prefer traditional licensing" camp now, but will be in the "prefer subscription licensing" camp in a couple of years time.
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.
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.
As someone with a poor internet connection and costly bandwidth the lack of media is a major concern. That also has implications for some like myself who often carry a software kit to fix others computers. (I have not looked into the full details, hopefully you can create a DVD once downloaded).
Personally I install my apps on a home built pc that has occasional hardware updates, new CPU's, new graphics controllers, occasionally a new motherboard. Which of those changes are going to break the MS Office licence?
The note above said that if your PC breaks down or is replaced "while in warranty" you can get a new key. What has warranty got to do with it?
Personally I install my apps on a home built pc that has occasional hardware updates, new CPU's, new graphics controllers, occasionally a new motherboard. Which of those changes are going to break the MS Office licence?
The note above said that if your PC breaks down or is replaced "while in warranty" you can get a new key. What has warranty got to do with it?
That's MS speak for saying that within the first 3 months, 6 months, or whatever arbitrary time limit MS choses to grant after buying your subcription, you will be 'in warranty'. After that, if you need to reinstall, you'll be forced pay for a new subcription. That's what I read between the lines anyway.
Nope, someone below has already posted more complete details. You get to install it on multiple computers and access is controlled through your Microsoft Live ID. I take this to mean product keys aren't needed.
In the dim and distant past, for mainframes software we paid for "Support" and as part of this we received updates and new releases and had stable software, as if it wasn't fixed we didn't pay.
In some ways subscription based software returns us to thoses days. You pay a subscription without an upfront charge, and you get updates to the software "for free".
This means that for companies like Microsoft they no longer need to keep producing new versions to sell upgrades. If they don't fix the ones in the software we are using then its easier to stop paying Microsoft and go elsewhere.
In some ways subscription based software returns us to thoses days. You pay a subscription without an upfront charge, and you get updates to the software "for free".
This means that for companies like Microsoft they no longer need to keep producing new versions to sell upgrades. If they don't fix the ones in the software we are using then its easier to stop paying Microsoft and go elsewhere.
Where is that 'elsewhere'? If there was an acceptable elsewhere to go to, don't you think most people would have already saved their money and gone there?
LibreOffice is an excellent office suite, and its free. Also, there's nothing to stop individuals from using Google Docs, Google Drive or Zoho Office.
People haven't "already saved their money and gone there" because they are creatures of habit, and they HATE change.
People haven't "already saved their money and gone there" because they are creatures of habit, and they HATE change.
But when the other professional software you use integrates only with Microsoft Office, you are going to buy Microsoft Office.
Our two most vital production software packages are designed to work with Microsoft Office. And not on the web, either.
Our two most vital production software packages are designed to work with Microsoft Office. And not on the web, either.
I remember a time a long while ago where Word Perfect was the Must Have Word Processor.
Everyone used Word Perfect and if you wanted to share your documents you had to have Word Perfect or at the very least something that would read Word perfect acceptably well.
Guess what Word was considered by all Business as Domestic and nothing more than Cheap Rubbish that simply didn't work all that well.
What changed was not Microsoft making Word better they combined it with Excel, Access, Power Point and so on so that you could EASILY move your data between different applications. previously this was not possible and you had to reenter your data that needed sharing into several applications individually. So you had a Mailing List in Word Perfect and a Customer List in Lotus 123 both of which most times where the same and when you produced something in Lotus 123 you couldn't simply Copy & Paste it to Word Perfect.
Allowing Data Sharing between different applications was what made Microsoft Office so useful to business as it reduced the need to employ and pay extra staff to do what was effectively the same thing by entering the same details into different programs. Suddenly you made the cost of doing business considerably cheaper and for that reason alone Microsoft Office was a success.
Right at the moment Microsoft Office is the Default Office Productivity Suite but that could change if someone else was to release something else which made the cost of doing business cheaper or Microsoft upset their customers enough for them to move to something different.
Word didn't open Word Perfect Documents properly unless they where basic and didn't have any major formatting included in them but it was still in Business Best Interests to move to word and rewrite the documents that simply failed to open properly in Word.
If you look at a lot of Legal Form Letters available to download from the Courts and the like many are still in WP Format because that was how they where originally written.
Some may have been changed and any new ones will be in the Original Word Format .doc but the vast majority are still in Word Perfect Format and will remain that way for the foreseeable future if not for ever.
So if there was something new released that made business costs cheaper Business would adopt it and eventually it would become the default that you must have to continue to do business effectively. Sure not everyone is going to Jump Ship Immediately just as not everyone moved from Word Perfect to Microsoft Office immediately when it was first released but just like Word Perfect eventually was left behind by the bulk of Business Microsoft Office can as well.
Col
Everyone used Word Perfect and if you wanted to share your documents you had to have Word Perfect or at the very least something that would read Word perfect acceptably well.
Guess what Word was considered by all Business as Domestic and nothing more than Cheap Rubbish that simply didn't work all that well.
What changed was not Microsoft making Word better they combined it with Excel, Access, Power Point and so on so that you could EASILY move your data between different applications. previously this was not possible and you had to reenter your data that needed sharing into several applications individually. So you had a Mailing List in Word Perfect and a Customer List in Lotus 123 both of which most times where the same and when you produced something in Lotus 123 you couldn't simply Copy & Paste it to Word Perfect.
Allowing Data Sharing between different applications was what made Microsoft Office so useful to business as it reduced the need to employ and pay extra staff to do what was effectively the same thing by entering the same details into different programs. Suddenly you made the cost of doing business considerably cheaper and for that reason alone Microsoft Office was a success.
Right at the moment Microsoft Office is the Default Office Productivity Suite but that could change if someone else was to release something else which made the cost of doing business cheaper or Microsoft upset their customers enough for them to move to something different.
Word didn't open Word Perfect Documents properly unless they where basic and didn't have any major formatting included in them but it was still in Business Best Interests to move to word and rewrite the documents that simply failed to open properly in Word.
If you look at a lot of Legal Form Letters available to download from the Courts and the like many are still in WP Format because that was how they where originally written.
Some may have been changed and any new ones will be in the Original Word Format .doc but the vast majority are still in Word Perfect Format and will remain that way for the foreseeable future if not for ever.
So if there was something new released that made business costs cheaper Business would adopt it and eventually it would become the default that you must have to continue to do business effectively. Sure not everyone is going to Jump Ship Immediately just as not everyone moved from Word Perfect to Microsoft Office immediately when it was first released but just like Word Perfect eventually was left behind by the bulk of Business Microsoft Office can as well.
Col
Spent years with alternatives and "dealing" with it. Then Office 2010, no more hassles.
I agree though that the majority of users are fine with the alternatives (including the free Office that comes on most PC's that's limited) as long as they don't have needs that require sharing and formatting issues.
I agree though that the majority of users are fine with the alternatives (including the free Office that comes on most PC's that's limited) as long as they don't have needs that require sharing and formatting issues.
but the device based licensing is dumb. But reality says most people would never know the difference, how often do you actually change?
With the storage and ease of 365 it is compelling, it's excellent for students . . . but then I paid $100 for a 3 seat license of Office 2010 and that was two years ago.
With the storage and ease of 365 it is compelling, it's excellent for students . . . but then I paid $100 for a 3 seat license of Office 2010 and that was two years ago.
it for at least three more years for the same cost. Instead OF $500 for the subscription. Most people skip versions rather than upgrade at every version. Your choice is the better one.
""This is what Microsoft is doing so you have no choice but to suck it up and accept it because Microsoft are the only game in town""
Funny, but that's how M$ thinks.
Funny, but that's how M$ thinks.
""This is what Microsoft is doing so you have no choice but to suck it up and accept it because Microsoft are the only game in town""
Funny, but that's how M$ thinks.
Yep, one thing for sure and that is that they stopped listening to their client base a long time ago. If not true then there would have been no ME, Vista, and now Windows 8. Yet, the keep cranking out all this substandard code and people keep buying it. Go figure. I can't.
Funny, but that's how M$ thinks.
Yep, one thing for sure and that is that they stopped listening to their client base a long time ago. If not true then there would have been no ME, Vista, and now Windows 8. Yet, the keep cranking out all this substandard code and people keep buying it. Go figure. I can't.
"This change by Microsoft is just a reflection of the times we live in - we are living in a networked, always on, cloud-based, software as a service world and we are going to have to come to terms with it - sooner or later."
Mark Kaelin's comment is rubbish! I have no intention of going where MS tells me to go - I am not a sheep. Most of the licensing deals on offer for Office 2013 do not appeal to me as options, especially the Cloud options. It's about time MS realised that Office is no longer the only seriously viable productivity suite out there.
Mark Kaelin's comment is rubbish! I have no intention of going where MS tells me to go - I am not a sheep. Most of the licensing deals on offer for Office 2013 do not appeal to me as options, especially the Cloud options. It's about time MS realised that Office is no longer the only seriously viable productivity suite out there.
C;mon Mark,
We're all turning to subscription, for a lot of good reasons. Mobile phones (smart and not), TV, music, cloud services, anti-virus, netflix, radio, on-line streaming, pay-per-view, water cooler, coffee service, maintenance plans and on and on. It seems like iTunes was the thin edge of the wedge, but now I;m sure I must license more products than I buy. And seriously, you WANT software delivered on DVD, when you can just click on a link? Who keeps DVDs, keeps them labeled and sorted, and why?
It makes perfect sense for businesses, because they don't have to commit scarce capital up front, and they never have to worry about different version or release levels. In fact, businesses have been working this way for years.
You've totally overlooked that O365 also throws in the equivalent of a Small Business Server, running on ultra-stable (guaranteed SLA with cash penalties} Microsoft cloud server, with all-out MS ForeFront security. You get:
- SharePoint Server (not on your charts) - with SkyDrive, a brilliant data-anywhere manager,
- Real, painless Remote access,
- Web Apps so that you can work on any document from anywhere, even if you don't have the desktop apps, or (more important} if your device (Android, iOS) is not secure. By leaving all of the documents on the server, your smart-phone, tablet, or public or home PC can be hacked, but never give up your data.
- You can collaborate on-line from anywhere to anywhere, with Lync (also not on your charts). In fact, Lync Server comes free with O365, but was never in SBS.
- Oh, and before I forget, Microsoft Exchange, so that you can move over to a proper and secure email system with full control.
For all the same reasons, we should rejoice that home users are moving to subscriptions. Not only can they work safely from home, but work the same collaborative, secure way within their family. And no one has to worry who's got what version, because everyone is always up to date. I got pretty tired of "what can I send to Jenny; does she have Office 2000, '03, '07, '10 or Mac? Can I down-convert? What function will be lost? What will print correctly and what will blow up?" Now, Jenny's on subscription so we're both the exact same (yes version upgrades are free). Why was Jenny on such an old version? Well she paid her $600 for Office Pro once, and was not going to pay it again every three years to get just a little more function. Even the upgrade price was prohibitive, but now it's zero.
So c,mon. It's 2013. Sign up, log in, and enjoy everything all the time.
We're all turning to subscription, for a lot of good reasons. Mobile phones (smart and not), TV, music, cloud services, anti-virus, netflix, radio, on-line streaming, pay-per-view, water cooler, coffee service, maintenance plans and on and on. It seems like iTunes was the thin edge of the wedge, but now I;m sure I must license more products than I buy. And seriously, you WANT software delivered on DVD, when you can just click on a link? Who keeps DVDs, keeps them labeled and sorted, and why?
It makes perfect sense for businesses, because they don't have to commit scarce capital up front, and they never have to worry about different version or release levels. In fact, businesses have been working this way for years.
You've totally overlooked that O365 also throws in the equivalent of a Small Business Server, running on ultra-stable (guaranteed SLA with cash penalties} Microsoft cloud server, with all-out MS ForeFront security. You get:
- SharePoint Server (not on your charts) - with SkyDrive, a brilliant data-anywhere manager,
- Real, painless Remote access,
- Web Apps so that you can work on any document from anywhere, even if you don't have the desktop apps, or (more important} if your device (Android, iOS) is not secure. By leaving all of the documents on the server, your smart-phone, tablet, or public or home PC can be hacked, but never give up your data.
- You can collaborate on-line from anywhere to anywhere, with Lync (also not on your charts). In fact, Lync Server comes free with O365, but was never in SBS.
- Oh, and before I forget, Microsoft Exchange, so that you can move over to a proper and secure email system with full control.
For all the same reasons, we should rejoice that home users are moving to subscriptions. Not only can they work safely from home, but work the same collaborative, secure way within their family. And no one has to worry who's got what version, because everyone is always up to date. I got pretty tired of "what can I send to Jenny; does she have Office 2000, '03, '07, '10 or Mac? Can I down-convert? What function will be lost? What will print correctly and what will blow up?" Now, Jenny's on subscription so we're both the exact same (yes version upgrades are free). Why was Jenny on such an old version? Well she paid her $600 for Office Pro once, and was not going to pay it again every three years to get just a little more function. Even the upgrade price was prohibitive, but now it's zero.
So c,mon. It's 2013. Sign up, log in, and enjoy everything all the time.
SHCA, you make a strong argument for complete central control by Microsoft. If we're all happy with "big brother" watching over us then you have a point. Oops....you mean someone might think independently? Yep, it can happen, SHCA. In my humble opinion, you and Microsoft have the attitude that is best expressed by saying, "You WILL go to the party and you WILL have fun because I say so". As was pointed out by "LastChip" and "LK" , there are viable and lower cost alternatives available which I am sure that a goodly number of users will embrace. Not everyone likes being blindly controlled by the "Microsoft puppeteer." However this all comes down to freedom of choice, which is what our way of life thankfully is all about. Thank you all for the varied opinions. Its really interesting and educational to be able to experience them. I appreciate it.
I hope you were being sarcastic.
BTW, is anyone else having problems replying to comments using FF (I had to use IE9 for this reply)?
I can make stand-alone comments, but the "Reply" function hasn't worked for a few weeks (my PC: W7 + FF)
BTW, is anyone else having problems replying to comments using FF (I had to use IE9 for this reply)?
I can make stand-alone comments, but the "Reply" function hasn't worked for a few weeks (my PC: W7 + FF)
and continues in FF 18.1 and .2 As a work around, don't click the 'Reply', 'Flag', etc. Instead, right-click and open in a new tab. If you're a serious TR user, you may want to downgrade to 17.
TR is aware of this and has reported the issue to Mozilla.
TR is aware of this and has reported the issue to Mozilla.
...and to this point, who responds quicker...MS or Mozilla? Just asking, don't know the answer, but perhaps it is relevant to the entire discussion?
Mozilla doesn't make an office suite, and Microsoft's licensing policies have nothing to do with the FF / TR incompatibility. Comparing their bug response time is no more relevant than comparing the buildings they work out of.
See Pally just because you don't agree with someone completely you get Down Voted.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me regardless of the fact that what you said was Perfectly Correct and that the argument made/implied or whatever against Monzilla/FF is totally spurious.
You should know by now that Microsoft is Perfect can do no wrong and if you are warped enough to even question them in the slightest the Microsoft Fan Boys/Sheepies will complain as bitterly as they can.
On TR Disgusting Threads that involves Down Voting any comments that they don't like and then quite often Stalking that poster and Down Voting every comment that they dare to make regardless of what it is about.
But just to Pi$$ off the poster who questioned the response time between Monzilla and Microsoft I'll add this bit of information.
If you use the Enterprise Versions of Red Hat or SUSE on IBM Blades part of the Service Guarantee is that if you experience any issues with the Coding of the Kernel the IBM/SUSE/Red Hat team will correct it within 48 hours. Not really relevant to the above but none the less is perfectly correct.
At this point in time Microsoft offers nothing similar despite IBM offering to be involved and put in a heap of money to achieve the same service for their business users.
As for the Bug Response Times from Monzilla I would expect them to be similar to what Microsoft provides. It all depends on How Serious the Issue that you have reported is as to how long it takes to fix it.
In early 2002 I reported a Bug to Microsoft involving a Kernel Issue and a potential Security Breach under certain conditions. That Bug Report is yet to be actioned. But it's only been 11 years so far.
Now watch the Negative Votes Rack Up and just maybe some Rancid little M$ Sheepie will actually post a complaint about my above comment but it's far more likely that they will report it as Spam/Offensive or whatever and Down Vote this post. 
[/maniacal laughter]
Col
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me regardless of the fact that what you said was Perfectly Correct and that the argument made/implied or whatever against Monzilla/FF is totally spurious.
You should know by now that Microsoft is Perfect can do no wrong and if you are warped enough to even question them in the slightest the Microsoft Fan Boys/Sheepies will complain as bitterly as they can.
On TR Disgusting Threads that involves Down Voting any comments that they don't like and then quite often Stalking that poster and Down Voting every comment that they dare to make regardless of what it is about.
But just to Pi$$ off the poster who questioned the response time between Monzilla and Microsoft I'll add this bit of information.
If you use the Enterprise Versions of Red Hat or SUSE on IBM Blades part of the Service Guarantee is that if you experience any issues with the Coding of the Kernel the IBM/SUSE/Red Hat team will correct it within 48 hours. Not really relevant to the above but none the less is perfectly correct.
At this point in time Microsoft offers nothing similar despite IBM offering to be involved and put in a heap of money to achieve the same service for their business users.
As for the Bug Response Times from Monzilla I would expect them to be similar to what Microsoft provides. It all depends on How Serious the Issue that you have reported is as to how long it takes to fix it.
In early 2002 I reported a Bug to Microsoft involving a Kernel Issue and a potential Security Breach under certain conditions. That Bug Report is yet to be actioned. But it's only been 11 years so far.
Now watch the Negative Votes Rack Up and just maybe some Rancid little M$ Sheepie will actually post a complaint about my above comment but it's far more likely that they will report it as Spam/Offensive or whatever and Down Vote this post.
[/maniacal laughter]
Col
Microsoft is, IMO, alienating its user base in a number of ways including but not limited to this latest issue of licensing for Microsoft Office. The simple truth of the matter is that we have LibreOffice, Open Office, Kingsoft, and Softmaker FreeOffice that are either opensource or low cost options to replace Microsoft Office. Any of these will do 95% or greater of what most users need to be completely productive in the retail, corporate, and educational communities. They are all also completely Microsoft compatible. The same thing proves true with operating systems. There are viable no-cost or low-cost alternatives available that function just as well if not better than Windows 8. When a company stops listening to the communities that put them where they are today then they begin the slow but sure descent down the slippery slope. That, of course, takes time but without a change of mindset and corporate philosophy it will eventually happen.
The only reason I still have Office 2007 on my machine is that my Wife has a hard time with software changes AND I need Outlook to manage my emails.
I have tried a couple of other programs but they (IMHO) quite frankly STINK!
If you have an alternative to Outlook out there, PLEASE tell me, I'm already using Chrome instead of IE9, (I only have IE8 still on my machine because Win 7 NEEDS it to exist).
Thanks
I have tried a couple of other programs but they (IMHO) quite frankly STINK!
If you have an alternative to Outlook out there, PLEASE tell me, I'm already using Chrome instead of IE9, (I only have IE8 still on my machine because Win 7 NEEDS it to exist).
Thanks
Thunderbird. - no it does not look like office, but it works damn well.
I am afraid that you will have to bite the bullet on change and new user interfaces at some stage, staying with Office 2007 is not a long term option.
Personally I hated the Office 2007/2010 interface but eventually got used to it. When I recently had to use Office 2003 I realised how much I had adapted.
I am afraid that you will have to bite the bullet on change and new user interfaces at some stage, staying with Office 2007 is not a long term option.
Personally I hated the Office 2007/2010 interface but eventually got used to it. When I recently had to use Office 2003 I realised how much I had adapted.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take a look @ it and if I think I can use it, I'll jump, I refuse to give MS any more money what with this new licensing system and not being able to x-fer it to another machine if my main machine should go belly-up on me in the future (KNOCK-WOOD)
It is very hard to move your emails out of Thunderbird if you decide to move to something else.
Well, thanks for all the information you folks have provided, and I have to say, I'm not enamored with the idea of this program from this.
Is there any other programs out there that work like Outlook (for a Windows environment) that anyone knows of?
Thanks to all for the comments (and advice both past and in advance).
Is there any other programs out there that work like Outlook (for a Windows environment) that anyone knows of?
Thanks to all for the comments (and advice both past and in advance).
I was playing with Zimbra Desktop. I do not have a feature by feature comparison though. I am currently using Thunderbird, but it has become as sluggish as Outlook, I am thinking of switching back. I also heard that Mozilla is not going to continue to develop Thunderbird?
At the risk of sounding like a 20 gripes with Thunderbird I must say its only just usable.
I use Thunderbird on GMAIL for most of my non-business computers and frankly its pathetic. If I sort the inbox by "Subject" I can't jump by pressing a key like I can in Outlook. I can't figure out how to get it to move to the next messsage, not the "next unread" message. Ok when going forwards but when going back? It keeps asking be if I want to read un-read e-mails in gmail's "all mail" folder when they just haven't yet synced.
I am so desperate for an Outlook replacment that I have thought about writing my own....
I use Thunderbird on GMAIL for most of my non-business computers and frankly its pathetic. If I sort the inbox by "Subject" I can't jump by pressing a key like I can in Outlook. I can't figure out how to get it to move to the next messsage, not the "next unread" message. Ok when going forwards but when going back? It keeps asking be if I want to read un-read e-mails in gmail's "all mail" folder when they just haven't yet synced.
I am so desperate for an Outlook replacment that I have thought about writing my own....
Thunderbird is an alternative to Live Mail, I dumped TB because it destroyed about 8 months of email. Live Mail is nearly as good and more stable. Plus I thought I read it was not going to be supported?
Another free MS Office replacement is Symphony from IBM. I have used it for years on machines that I didn't have MS Office on. I like the interface better than OpenOffice. It is the same code base as a previous release of OpenOffice, but I don't remember which one.
We were looking at an IBM email server solution and Symphony solution came up. I remember enjoying using the product, however I also remember long load times. I will have to give it another look as my Thunderbird is slowing down..
******IBM Lotus Notes (Domino?) email server******
******IBM Lotus Notes (Domino?) email server******
Is it Capex?
Is it Opex?
Well, no matter how we calculate it up to 4 years, we lose money any which way over the old scheme.
We might as well use paper. Goodbye trees, MS didn't save the environment by wiping out install cds.
Is it Opex?
Well, no matter how we calculate it up to 4 years, we lose money any which way over the old scheme.
We might as well use paper. Goodbye trees, MS didn't save the environment by wiping out install cds.
There are so many Opensource options that we do not need MS Office. Kingsoft Office and OpenOffice are just 2 of them. For mail you can use eM Client.
I think I'll give that a go. Getting my Calendar in one place would be a real boon.
then what do you say to your software vendors that require you to have MS office installed for there software to work?
And personally I believe that when the Software Companies who write that Type of Software see a number of Potential Customers say that what they are being offered is of no use to them and that they are not in the running for a sale of their Software they will rewrite it to suit what they are seeing in the
Current Market.
Some will be slower than others and some will not even bother but they are the ones who chose to limit their possible customers and as such that is their decision.
Col
Current Market.
Some will be slower than others and some will not even bother but they are the ones who chose to limit their possible customers and as such that is their decision.
Col
well in a perfect world that would be great a software vendor that listens to its customers.
here is the world i live in 400 desktop 250 ms office and a 2 million dollar software package (CPSI) that requires MS office for nurse documentation.
CPSI will not listen when we ask to make availible with other office suites.
and
Microsoft will not listen when we tell them that new licensing model does not work for us.
so when will the "Current Market" swing in the favor of our little world?
here is the world i live in 400 desktop 250 ms office and a 2 million dollar software package (CPSI) that requires MS office for nurse documentation.
CPSI will not listen when we ask to make availible with other office suites.
and
Microsoft will not listen when we tell them that new licensing model does not work for us.
so when will the "Current Market" swing in the favor of our little world?
You live in the Medical World with very little choice in what you use. Here the medical profession has the choice between 2 programs neither of which suit their needs all that well.
To make things worse they are not rewritten all that regularly either so they tend to require older software meaning OS's as they are not Certified to run on the newer software.
It was very recently that the Main Medical Package here was rewritten to run on Vista from XP, at the time I was testing a RTM Version of 8 so it's hardly the Latest and Greatest and a bit before that it was finally certified to be used on Server 2008.
The company who uses that is currently Testing the Free Nix Option where the Practice Owner is running on a Nix Box and Server to see if it's good enough for their needs or if it's worth the time & effort to change.
The reality however is that with any Specialized Software and all Medical Software falls into that group you are as far behind the Bleeding Edge as it is possible to get so you are always following the trend never leading it.
Col
To make things worse they are not rewritten all that regularly either so they tend to require older software meaning OS's as they are not Certified to run on the newer software.
It was very recently that the Main Medical Package here was rewritten to run on Vista from XP, at the time I was testing a RTM Version of 8 so it's hardly the Latest and Greatest and a bit before that it was finally certified to be used on Server 2008.
The company who uses that is currently Testing the Free Nix Option where the Practice Owner is running on a Nix Box and Server to see if it's good enough for their needs or if it's worth the time & effort to change.
The reality however is that with any Specialized Software and all Medical Software falls into that group you are as far behind the Bleeding Edge as it is possible to get so you are always following the trend never leading it.
Col
In 2007, VMS celebrated its 35th year.
I don't know how it's done since then.
I wouldn't be surprised if applications written for it in 1980 still run.
I don't know how it's done since then.
I wouldn't be surprised if applications written for it in 1980 still run.
You mention that you can see potential benefits for the individual and corporation, but don't tell us what they are. That seems to be the line from MS. It's better because we say it is, but we're not going to tell you how.
I'm looking for a clear and complete statement from MS that addresses specific design choices and the reason for them. Number one is why are the ribbon titles in all caps?
I'm looking for a clear and complete statement from MS that addresses specific design choices and the reason for them. Number one is why are the ribbon titles in all caps?
In Australia? Yeah,right. Living in Westmead, I can barely get a reception on the mobile, let alone wireless BB. If the program doesn't install, run & save locally - it's useless to us and those living close by.
Win 8, happily only on 1 PC, was a waste of money. I'd have been better off giving the same amount to Canonical (Ubuntu's producer) than MS - at least I'd have something easy to use.
I am NOT paying monthly or yearly for bug ridden software. Not for OS, Office type suite or financial. The only reason MS change the program save type each time is to force upgrades.
Starting to look more and more like freeware/open source is the way to go.
Win 8, happily only on 1 PC, was a waste of money. I'd have been better off giving the same amount to Canonical (Ubuntu's producer) than MS - at least I'd have something easy to use.
I am NOT paying monthly or yearly for bug ridden software. Not for OS, Office type suite or financial. The only reason MS change the program save type each time is to force upgrades.
Starting to look more and more like freeware/open source is the way to go.
On top of that abortion they have foisted on us called Windows 8, MS has just lost me as a fan, NO ONE tells me how I am to use my software. Yes it may be a license, and they OWN the code, BUT, IF I have a machine that goes down and I have to build another machine for myself (or a client) I AM NOT going to MS, hat in hand and say "Please Sir, can you move this license to another machine for me?"
BS!!!
Libre Office here I come, and Microsoft, you KNOW WHERE YOU CAN STICK IT!!!
BS!!!
Libre Office here I come, and Microsoft, you KNOW WHERE YOU CAN STICK IT!!!
How will this effect desktop imaging? What is actually linked to a license? The mobo? The serial number? If I were to re-image a desktop and put the same license back on it, would this be ok?
Licensing but with Windows OEM Licensing the Software is tied to the Original Hardware it is installed on.
Now depending on which Corporate Legal Person you speak to that could mean that a SATA Data Lead Failing means that you need to buy new Software Licenses or according to Microsoft when 7 was released that meant that it was tied to the CPU, M'Board and RAM but did not mean that if a Repair was done that it voided the License. At the other end according to the XP License Agreement it could be used on 2 CPU's so according to at least 1 QC here who specializes in Corporate Law that meant that you could use the 1 License of 2 distinct single CPU computers as it was licensed to allow that.
So what was done was that it was possible to increase RAM or change the CPU to a faster one that was supported by the M'Board and the product could be reactivated. As things stood at the time if you changed 3 items inside the case of the Computer Tower you got a Reactivation Notification and 30 days to do it. After the 30 Day Time Limit the OS simply didn't open and you where taken directly to a Activation Page to fill in the necessary details and then Reactivate.
However after saying that there where other things that where allowed. If the M'Board failed you could replace it along with the CPU and RAM if your old M'Board had been superseded BUT you had to move to the Next speed CPU so if you have a Pentium 200 MMX and you needed to rebuild the system today you could replace the M'Board with a Socket 1155 and a CPU from the low end of the Performance Range and it would be considered as a Repair and it was then legal to Activate the OS on the Repaired Computer. You could not chose to replace the 200 MMX M'Board with a Socket 2011 and the Top of the Range Intel i7-3970X Core i7 Extreme CPU as well as the rest of the Associated Components.
However if you chose to Upgrade your existing computer that was working perfectly well to the same specifications as above then Legally you had to buy new Licenses as you had a new Computer.
Also if your system was stolen or otherwise damaged and a Police Report and or Insurance Claim was made the Insurance Company would pay for replacement hardware but not any Microsoft Licensed Software so you had to reuse the Old Licenses that was on the Hardware Destroyed/Stolen or whatever.
Over the years I have done several Replacements of Stolen Systems and some that had been damaged in a Fire/Flood and according to the Head of M$ Legal here it was perfectly acceptable to reuse the Old Licenses Provided that I had the Product Keys. M$ would not issue new Product Keys but if you had them in any form it was perfectly acceptable to reuse that Software License.
I have done this to both computers from Domestic Users who had them stolen and business who have suffered Flood/Fire Damage and in one instance a Massive Voltage Overload which destroyed every electrical device connected to the mains when the event occurred.
Reactivation has not been an issue on any of these occasions but with the Insurance Companies I have always insisted that they get Written Permission from Microsoft before I proceed. As I have the Head of M$ Legals Phone Number I also speak to them whenever I have the slightest query as personally I don't see any value in upsetting them so I get direction direct from them and I have supporting Paperwork to cover me should any complaints be made.
I always speak to the Legals Head Person as you can ring them 5 minutes apart speak to different people and get Different Interpretations. So I find it better to speak to the person in charge so if there is a complaint the Head of Legal has the finial say.
I would suspect that the Office Licensing will be treated in the same manner.
Col
Now depending on which Corporate Legal Person you speak to that could mean that a SATA Data Lead Failing means that you need to buy new Software Licenses or according to Microsoft when 7 was released that meant that it was tied to the CPU, M'Board and RAM but did not mean that if a Repair was done that it voided the License. At the other end according to the XP License Agreement it could be used on 2 CPU's so according to at least 1 QC here who specializes in Corporate Law that meant that you could use the 1 License of 2 distinct single CPU computers as it was licensed to allow that.
So what was done was that it was possible to increase RAM or change the CPU to a faster one that was supported by the M'Board and the product could be reactivated. As things stood at the time if you changed 3 items inside the case of the Computer Tower you got a Reactivation Notification and 30 days to do it. After the 30 Day Time Limit the OS simply didn't open and you where taken directly to a Activation Page to fill in the necessary details and then Reactivate.
However after saying that there where other things that where allowed. If the M'Board failed you could replace it along with the CPU and RAM if your old M'Board had been superseded BUT you had to move to the Next speed CPU so if you have a Pentium 200 MMX and you needed to rebuild the system today you could replace the M'Board with a Socket 1155 and a CPU from the low end of the Performance Range and it would be considered as a Repair and it was then legal to Activate the OS on the Repaired Computer. You could not chose to replace the 200 MMX M'Board with a Socket 2011 and the Top of the Range Intel i7-3970X Core i7 Extreme CPU as well as the rest of the Associated Components.
However if you chose to Upgrade your existing computer that was working perfectly well to the same specifications as above then Legally you had to buy new Licenses as you had a new Computer.
Also if your system was stolen or otherwise damaged and a Police Report and or Insurance Claim was made the Insurance Company would pay for replacement hardware but not any Microsoft Licensed Software so you had to reuse the Old Licenses that was on the Hardware Destroyed/Stolen or whatever.
Over the years I have done several Replacements of Stolen Systems and some that had been damaged in a Fire/Flood and according to the Head of M$ Legal here it was perfectly acceptable to reuse the Old Licenses Provided that I had the Product Keys. M$ would not issue new Product Keys but if you had them in any form it was perfectly acceptable to reuse that Software License.
I have done this to both computers from Domestic Users who had them stolen and business who have suffered Flood/Fire Damage and in one instance a Massive Voltage Overload which destroyed every electrical device connected to the mains when the event occurred.
Reactivation has not been an issue on any of these occasions but with the Insurance Companies I have always insisted that they get Written Permission from Microsoft before I proceed. As I have the Head of M$ Legals Phone Number I also speak to them whenever I have the slightest query as personally I don't see any value in upsetting them so I get direction direct from them and I have supporting Paperwork to cover me should any complaints be made.
I always speak to the Legals Head Person as you can ring them 5 minutes apart speak to different people and get Different Interpretations. So I find it better to speak to the person in charge so if there is a complaint the Head of Legal has the finial say.
I would suspect that the Office Licensing will be treated in the same manner.
Col
It is amazing to me that Microsoft and others believe that the ENTIRE country is wired with high speed. You do not need to live in Po-Dunk Egypt to realize that you can live 5 miles away from a large metropolitan area and still not have access to anything better than dialup. Subscriptions are not practical for small businesses either. They SEEM very attractive on the surface with a low price tag. But small businesses tend to have their software outlive the machines they run them on. (Heck some businesses are still running XP with Office 2003. Volume Licenses allow you to just switch to a newer machine without worrying about buying new licenses.
Then there is the little discussed conversation of security. Not so much as the (hopefully) secure connection between the end user and the Office servers, as it is that as an IT Manager I will never host companied proprietary information on a machine controlled by a company that could.. would.. and probably IS stealing information stored. Cloud based computing was all the rage with google until they changed their privacy statement. Googles Postini is a prime example of cloud services run amok. And cloud e-mail STILL does not support encryption or digital signing.
Nope .. Sorry Microsoft.. You may get the business of the techno appliance geek crowd but they are not the people that actually get things done.
Microsoft is on a roll.
Browser stinks (ie9 & 10)
Search Engine is terrible (Who came up with the name Bing?)
Windows 8 is a total hack job
MS Licensing is convoluted and purposely confusing as ever.
Micosoft...What happened to you?
You were expensive yes.... but your quality was second to none.
What Happened?
Then there is the little discussed conversation of security. Not so much as the (hopefully) secure connection between the end user and the Office servers, as it is that as an IT Manager I will never host companied proprietary information on a machine controlled by a company that could.. would.. and probably IS stealing information stored. Cloud based computing was all the rage with google until they changed their privacy statement. Googles Postini is a prime example of cloud services run amok. And cloud e-mail STILL does not support encryption or digital signing.
Nope .. Sorry Microsoft.. You may get the business of the techno appliance geek crowd but they are not the people that actually get things done.
Microsoft is on a roll.
Browser stinks (ie9 & 10)
Search Engine is terrible (Who came up with the name Bing?)
Windows 8 is a total hack job
MS Licensing is convoluted and purposely confusing as ever.
Micosoft...What happened to you?
You were expensive yes.... but your quality was second to none.
What Happened?
No, I think Microsoft thinks the entire *world* is wired with high-speed internet access. Not only that, but everyone is wealthy .. after all, the expectation is that in order to function, you need to purchase:
Win8 phone
Surface tablet (Pro, of course, so you can break dance on the conference table in your suit - that's what makes it 'pro')
Laptop
Desktop
IT support - servers n' such
And I'm very glad you mentioned security - I rarely see that mentioned as the media blitz that the cloud is the answer to everything is a bit much. There is no way I'd store anything I do on the cloud.
Add to your browser comment - in addition to where they got 'Bing' - is why do they now consider Facebook comments as valid search results? That totally diminishes the value.
(No, I'm not a MS-hater! I've been using MS products since '82)
Win8 phone
Surface tablet (Pro, of course, so you can break dance on the conference table in your suit - that's what makes it 'pro')
Laptop
Desktop
IT support - servers n' such
And I'm very glad you mentioned security - I rarely see that mentioned as the media blitz that the cloud is the answer to everything is a bit much. There is no way I'd store anything I do on the cloud.
Add to your browser comment - in addition to where they got 'Bing' - is why do they now consider Facebook comments as valid search results? That totally diminishes the value.
(No, I'm not a MS-hater! I've been using MS products since '82)
On pricing:
I want a CD - even if I do get s/w online, I pay for the CD in addition. I will not use a subscription.
Office Home/Student: very limited, does not serve my needs
Office Home/Business: does NOT include Publisher. If you're looking at a home, or small business, what program is going to be extremely helpful?? Publisher. Is it on that version? No.
Office Professional: has Publisher, but costs just about $200 more than Home/Business. And $400?? That's quite a penalty to be charged for wanting something useable.
And tying these to a one-machine concept is a failure.
There's the old adage, 'my way or the highway.' Microsoft should be a bit more aware that the 'highway' is becoming a much better route. And the scenery is better!
Subscription service is out.
I want a CD - even if I do get s/w online, I pay for the CD in addition. I will not use a subscription.
Office Home/Student: very limited, does not serve my needs
Office Home/Business: does NOT include Publisher. If you're looking at a home, or small business, what program is going to be extremely helpful?? Publisher. Is it on that version? No.
Office Professional: has Publisher, but costs just about $200 more than Home/Business. And $400?? That's quite a penalty to be charged for wanting something useable.
And tying these to a one-machine concept is a failure.
There's the old adage, 'my way or the highway.' Microsoft should be a bit more aware that the 'highway' is becoming a much better route. And the scenery is better!
Subscription service is out.
Nicely put. I'm amazed they can be so arrogant and thick that they think they can try and ram this down our throats and we are just going to let them? With all the alternatives out there? They are dielusional! Perhaps they will understand when their revenue numbers start to really plummet...
The pie chart says it all. If Microsoft loses 34% of its Office sales, its drop in income should tell it in no uncertain terms that it's messed up big time. I wonder whether anyone in authority at Microsoft reads articles such as this one and the many many others which report the widespread unpopularity of the new Office licencing or Windows 8. Is it time that Bill Gates came back?
A successful company knows that "the customer is always right" (even when they're wrong). Microsoft seems to subscribe to the philosophy "Microsoft is always right" (even when it's wrong!), and that, ultimately, is the road to failure.
A successful company knows that "the customer is always right" (even when they're wrong). Microsoft seems to subscribe to the philosophy "Microsoft is always right" (even when it's wrong!), and that, ultimately, is the road to failure.
"we are living in a networked, always on, cloud-based, software as a service world"
Perhaps you are but don't think the rest of the world is. Personally I have a "reasonable" internet connection (7 Mbps or so) but I have plenty of neighbours who can barely manage 1 or even 0.5Mbps.
Where do I live? Outer Mongolia, Mali, Antarctica? No, just a non-urban part of Scotland.
Perhaps you are but don't think the rest of the world is. Personally I have a "reasonable" internet connection (7 Mbps or so) but I have plenty of neighbours who can barely manage 1 or even 0.5Mbps.
Where do I live? Outer Mongolia, Mali, Antarctica? No, just a non-urban part of Scotland.
Also in Scotland - the capital city - 2Mbps if I'm lucky!
However, that's not the main issue for me. Everyone seems to be missing the point that there is an enormous price hike from the non-commercial-use Office 365 Home Premium (for 5 users) and the cost/user for commercial Office 365 plans that provide desktop office.
I suspect many have not noticed that Office 365 Home Premium is for non-commercial use. If they have, they may choose to pretend otherwise. I predict a significant increase in the use of Open Office etc, and perhaps also an increase in the unlicensed use of Microsoft Office!
If the poll had taken that into account, and addressed the question to small businesses (say 5 to 20 employees), I suspect the result would have been even more concerning for Microsoft (assuming they care).
Microsoft also attempt to persuade small businesses that they should move to Volume Licensing, and implies there are cost advantages. However, it was until now significantly cheaper to buy the retail version of Office, leaving aside the issue that (as far as I can see) you have to sign up with a Microsoft Partner and pay them for their services before you can buy the licenses.
However, that's not the main issue for me. Everyone seems to be missing the point that there is an enormous price hike from the non-commercial-use Office 365 Home Premium (for 5 users) and the cost/user for commercial Office 365 plans that provide desktop office.
I suspect many have not noticed that Office 365 Home Premium is for non-commercial use. If they have, they may choose to pretend otherwise. I predict a significant increase in the use of Open Office etc, and perhaps also an increase in the unlicensed use of Microsoft Office!
If the poll had taken that into account, and addressed the question to small businesses (say 5 to 20 employees), I suspect the result would have been even more concerning for Microsoft (assuming they care).
Microsoft also attempt to persuade small businesses that they should move to Volume Licensing, and implies there are cost advantages. However, it was until now significantly cheaper to buy the retail version of Office, leaving aside the issue that (as far as I can see) you have to sign up with a Microsoft Partner and pay them for their services before you can buy the licenses.
Bandwidth
I'm in rural Minnesota, just an hour from the Twin Cities. Fortunately for me, I have a 100 MB connection at my Office. Two miles west of me is currently dial-up. Wireless alternatives are coming, but with them are associated costs.
Cloud Security
The current administration has filed legal briefs explaining that any data stored "In the Cloud" (who knows exactly what they mean by that) is subject to search and seizure without warrant. This has yet to be adjudicated but is darn scary to say the least.
Other issues with 2013
I am a Microsoft Partner and have been for years. In a recent peer group meeting with dozens of other Microsoft Partners (and a few other people), the number of us currently recommending that our clients move to Office 2013 was... let me check my notes... ZERO! It's slow. It's BUGLY. Lots of problems interfacing with third party LOB apps. Functions which end users actually use to do their work take extra steps or extra mouse clicks. In short, it costs more and does less while setting the client up for work comp issues due to eye strain and ADA lawsuits because certain people can't even SEE let alone use the application. What's not to love? Way to go Microsoft!
To Top It Off
Apparently they are having problems convincing the rest of the world how marvelous it is. They are making it very difficult to acquire Office 2010. OEM is forbidden from selling or installing it. No longer available at the Microsoft Store. You can excercise downgrade rights provided you have enough licenses for an Open License Agreement.
Summary
I have been a long time Microsoft advocate and outspoken in defending them. I'm currently on the fence.
I'm in rural Minnesota, just an hour from the Twin Cities. Fortunately for me, I have a 100 MB connection at my Office. Two miles west of me is currently dial-up. Wireless alternatives are coming, but with them are associated costs.
Cloud Security
The current administration has filed legal briefs explaining that any data stored "In the Cloud" (who knows exactly what they mean by that) is subject to search and seizure without warrant. This has yet to be adjudicated but is darn scary to say the least.
Other issues with 2013
I am a Microsoft Partner and have been for years. In a recent peer group meeting with dozens of other Microsoft Partners (and a few other people), the number of us currently recommending that our clients move to Office 2013 was... let me check my notes... ZERO! It's slow. It's BUGLY. Lots of problems interfacing with third party LOB apps. Functions which end users actually use to do their work take extra steps or extra mouse clicks. In short, it costs more and does less while setting the client up for work comp issues due to eye strain and ADA lawsuits because certain people can't even SEE let alone use the application. What's not to love? Way to go Microsoft!
To Top It Off
Apparently they are having problems convincing the rest of the world how marvelous it is. They are making it very difficult to acquire Office 2010. OEM is forbidden from selling or installing it. No longer available at the Microsoft Store. You can excercise downgrade rights provided you have enough licenses for an Open License Agreement.
Summary
I have been a long time Microsoft advocate and outspoken in defending them. I'm currently on the fence.
While I am not a fan of subscriptions for primary software, there seems to be some misconceptions about this system. From what I have read and seen, Office 365's biggest hit is the installation download. It is a virtual app that is a full version of Office that runs local on your computer. Apparently the file that is Office will be automatically updated as an image when patches are introduced. It will run when not connected to the internet. When you run it, you sign in with your Microsoft account. I do not know the frequency it needs to check in but the software periodically checks in with Microsoft to confirm the continued subscription. Your subscription allows for up to 5 of these copies to be installed on machines and can be managed by your account to move the license from machine to machine if you replace one. You can also run the web based versions of the programs from any where.
The more restrictive is the standalone versions which cost more up front and are tied to the machine it is installed on. According to Microsoft they will have physical media available in various parts of the world where needed.
This is their initial structure but Microsoft licensing is complex and there are a lot of unadvertised variations on their licensing to businesses. I am in a wait and see mode to see exactly what they are offerring to my clients, not the broad brush structures they are advertising at the release.
The more restrictive is the standalone versions which cost more up front and are tied to the machine it is installed on. According to Microsoft they will have physical media available in various parts of the world where needed.
This is their initial structure but Microsoft licensing is complex and there are a lot of unadvertised variations on their licensing to businesses. I am in a wait and see mode to see exactly what they are offerring to my clients, not the broad brush structures they are advertising at the release.
Thank you for your post. That covers a lot of the questions I have about the subscription model.
The article starts with the fact that Microsoft now ties a license to a machine instead of the user.
I was surprised that it was not mentioned that Office 365 offers portable licenses. You can simply deactivate one of your five licenses and use it on a new machine. (It still leaves 2013 installed on your original machine but with limited capabilities.)
I was surprised that it was not mentioned that Office 365 offers portable licenses. You can simply deactivate one of your five licenses and use it on a new machine. (It still leaves 2013 installed on your original machine but with limited capabilities.)
They obviously don't live in my area of the country. We have a singular means to the internet. In a world of redundancy that does not exist here. We avoid SAAS software as In disaster, or severe weather this singular connection could fail. I work in a small hospital. How would you like to have your medical records hosted somewhere else where in severe weather, or disaster your doctors are unable to get critical information about a person. I understand the "Always On" aspect, but how well did that work during hurricane Sandy, or other recent events.
You say, "... switching to a subscription model requires a major shift in perspective when it comes to how we purchase and use our software, but that does not automatically make it wrong or a bad..."
I beg to differ. For the end user "the cloud", networking and convenience is wonderful. For the software manufacturer it's about sustainable, dependable income. Once the end user buys into a monthly or yearly fee, the company pretty much has them hooked. It's a difficult (but not impossible) to withdraw from. Before you know it $99 per year for the full suite becomes $75 per year for a stripped down version and $129 for the full suite. Then the yearly increases become "the norm". The end user can easily become anesthetized.
Licensing is little different than the old "service contract". A reliable source reported 30 years ago that a company executive referred to service contracts as "a license to steal".
Companies beware! People (and business) can eventually grow weary of the monthly "drain" on their finances. There will always be an alternative. I have one client who hasn't purchased an upgrade for their CAD software since 2006 and is now moving to an equally compatible product. It meets their needs and costs far less.
An accountant friend used to recommend a person extrapolate their monthly expenses over a 5 or 10 years to give better perspective to the financial drain.
Just food for thought.
I beg to differ. For the end user "the cloud", networking and convenience is wonderful. For the software manufacturer it's about sustainable, dependable income. Once the end user buys into a monthly or yearly fee, the company pretty much has them hooked. It's a difficult (but not impossible) to withdraw from. Before you know it $99 per year for the full suite becomes $75 per year for a stripped down version and $129 for the full suite. Then the yearly increases become "the norm". The end user can easily become anesthetized.
Licensing is little different than the old "service contract". A reliable source reported 30 years ago that a company executive referred to service contracts as "a license to steal".
Companies beware! People (and business) can eventually grow weary of the monthly "drain" on their finances. There will always be an alternative. I have one client who hasn't purchased an upgrade for their CAD software since 2006 and is now moving to an equally compatible product. It meets their needs and costs far less.
An accountant friend used to recommend a person extrapolate their monthly expenses over a 5 or 10 years to give better perspective to the financial drain.
Just food for thought.
If I'm going online, I'm not going to pay $100 / year to do it. Google Docs works fine and is free.
But being online doesn't always work - either at my cabin at the lake or on a plane (or in an airport where 200 people are sharing 1 access point). For those I'll keep my Office 2000 handy or maybe even try the Corel Suite I saw in the store recently (and read about on TR) for cheap money.
But being online doesn't always work - either at my cabin at the lake or on a plane (or in an airport where 200 people are sharing 1 access point). For those I'll keep my Office 2000 handy or maybe even try the Corel Suite I saw in the store recently (and read about on TR) for cheap money.
It's most places it's called extortion and monopoly! It will be interesting to see how the EU reacts.
Honestly people... do you think we're all over-reacting just a tad? Since when has "offering a subscription-based model, as well as the traditional outright purchase option" been extortion??
Though I remember Microsoft's CEO of the time a guy by the name of Bill Gates who said many years ago that he was envisioning all Microsoft's Products only being available on a Subscription Basis.
He used words like Cheaper for the user and better for us meaning Microsoft.
I didn't understand him then as I couldn't understand how a End User could pay less but the company get more money but I did very well understand that Microsoft expected to move to a Subscription Model of Business and was proceeding there as fast as they could.
May still be a bit early yet as ISP Connections and Data Use can be still quite high in places but if things continue the way that they are I can see the day when it will be the only option.
Personally I don't see it as Extortion but I'm sure that some Authorities will see it as Anticompetitive and act according to their current laws.
Col
He used words like Cheaper for the user and better for us meaning Microsoft.
I didn't understand him then as I couldn't understand how a End User could pay less but the company get more money but I did very well understand that Microsoft expected to move to a Subscription Model of Business and was proceeding there as fast as they could.
May still be a bit early yet as ISP Connections and Data Use can be still quite high in places but if things continue the way that they are I can see the day when it will be the only option.
Personally I don't see it as Extortion but I'm sure that some Authorities will see it as Anticompetitive and act according to their current laws.
Col
Since when has "offering a subscription-based model, as well as the traditional outright purchase option" been anti-competitive?
Just that some of the Authorities may.
Col
Col
My focus is on the home user and the pricing. I learned to do without Office several years ago. I feel like I've entered a hospital and am forced to pay several hundred dollars for a generic aspirin or band-aid. So far I've been able to work just fine with the freeware that's available. Why would I want to pay for a software suit that costs as much as a low end computer and operating system combined?
This idea that all of america has high speed internet connections is so far from reality it isnt funny. Get an hour away from most metro areas to the prairie or the mountains and good luck with that.
At my home i have poor internet. What happens to MS word when im down for 5 hours. Will Microsoft be paying for my time to do nothing?
You don't have to look far, check the always online DRM schemes for games. Each forum is filled with people complaining that they don't work when offline.
I know personally my connection isn't that stable, so Steam goes offline often. Thankfully it doesn't shut you down if you go offline, but if it thinks there is an update, or if a game needs and update, it won't let you launch until you go online.
I swear it's a race to the bottom with these big companies.
I know personally my connection isn't that stable, so Steam goes offline often. Thankfully it doesn't shut you down if you go offline, but if it thinks there is an update, or if a game needs and update, it won't let you launch until you go online.
I swear it's a race to the bottom with these big companies.
The DRM Sony and Xbox are rumored to implement is already causing an uproar, and it's no different, being applied here with Office. So if I'm playing a game (console or PC) and my connection goes down (maybe some drunk hit a pole in my neighborhood) and I can't continue to play the Campaign? Forcing you to play the single player campaign with an Internet connection is a major FAIL in my book.
except for Outlook of course. Your computer only needs to connect to the Internet once every 30 days to "refresh" your subscription.
Yes, thank you for the information SgtPappy. Sadly the person who did no research and assumed Microsoft hadn't thought of 'what if the Internet is down?' has four votes, and you have zero for actually providing accurate information. You got a +1 from me.
The reaction from so many people in here is surprising. I thought this was a place for business professionals... it feels more like Slashdot than TR at the moment. It just goes to show Microsoft have a lot of work to do if they want to convince people that subscription is the way to go.
The reaction from so many people in here is surprising. I thought this was a place for business professionals... it feels more like Slashdot than TR at the moment. It just goes to show Microsoft have a lot of work to do if they want to convince people that subscription is the way to go.
This may lead to a new licencing model for sure but not by buying from Microsoft - people may start to realize that there are options - LibreOffice being an excellent free alternative and I am sure that there are or will be others.
If I can't have software with a Local Install, it's a waste of time. Even in the Best setups, no place has a 100% up time. I like items like the software that can power units separately to the network, and use my home Server. What happens to Windows 8 when the icons have no feed to pull from ? With Battery sources that can have up to 36 hours and more, you need a local office version when the Network Backbone is horribly unstable. Even a fibre optic service that Australian Mainland has , if you tried to be "always on" , see how much you pay. With US East coast Outages being so common, the Political will to rebuild the infrastructure is not there. And more ...
People have been saying this stuff about Microsoft for years and yet the vast majority of users are still using Microsoft products......I'm just saying.
From there 99.9% monopoly, they have lost a lot.
They completely lost the mobile market [phones, tablets]. (got a little back in recent months, but not much)
They have lost a good chunk of the server market.
They have almost completely lost the small device (windows CE) market.
And they are losing home desktop market, primarily to Apple, and a small bit to Linux.
They still have business work stations, but licensing changes can drive them away as well.
MS is slowly falling apart.
They can't innovate without pissing off their old customers, and they can't stay still without losing potential new customers. This isn't completely a result of management decisions, all old companies tend to have this problem. They have to survive the slump and innovate for the future, even if they lose their current customers.
They completely lost the mobile market [phones, tablets]. (got a little back in recent months, but not much)
They have lost a good chunk of the server market.
They have almost completely lost the small device (windows CE) market.
And they are losing home desktop market, primarily to Apple, and a small bit to Linux.
They still have business work stations, but licensing changes can drive them away as well.
MS is slowly falling apart.
They can't innovate without pissing off their old customers, and they can't stay still without losing potential new customers. This isn't completely a result of management decisions, all old companies tend to have this problem. They have to survive the slump and innovate for the future, even if they lose their current customers.
I'm showing my age (70 annums), but I fail to be snowed by the Cloud. I'm not going to let a pile of transistors in some dingaling's datacenter store my precious stuff; I want the transistors to be inside my house. Cloud is cool, and nothing else.
I run Office 2003 and Access 2007 on Windows 7. Microsoft tells me O2003 is "not compatible" with Windows 8, and I can pay money to make A2007 work on W8. My $14.99 Windows 8 installation sits idle in its own disk partition, aging silently.
I run Office 2003 and Access 2007 on Windows 7. Microsoft tells me O2003 is "not compatible" with Windows 8, and I can pay money to make A2007 work on W8. My $14.99 Windows 8 installation sits idle in its own disk partition, aging silently.
With the 'new' Outlook.com replacement for Hotmail that has been forced on the populace, if you have an older version of IE, they don't support using Outlook.com with it. What do you get for your desktop? The mobile version. And what comes up on your screen is:
"Please upgrade your web browser
To get the most out of Outlook, we recommend that you upgrade your web browser. Upgrading should only take a few minutes.
Download the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer (no, thank you)
Or upgrade your current version of Mozilla Firefox (it is, already)
If you don't want to upgrade right now you can continue to Mobile experience instead.
Please Note: Continuing to Mobile will mean fewer features and a downgrade in performance."
I'm sure the Mobile will be quite an 'experience' on my old desktop!
"Please upgrade your web browser
To get the most out of Outlook, we recommend that you upgrade your web browser. Upgrading should only take a few minutes.
Download the latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer (no, thank you)
Or upgrade your current version of Mozilla Firefox (it is, already)
If you don't want to upgrade right now you can continue to Mobile experience instead.
Please Note: Continuing to Mobile will mean fewer features and a downgrade in performance."
I'm sure the Mobile will be quite an 'experience' on my old desktop!
It is not necessary to keep Microsoft for a subscription for what features? Let's face it, you are just using Word Processing. It's been around since the DisplayWriter and WordStar. I would bet most people could live with Office 2002 or 2003 and maybe even Office 97 and not lose any features they need (yes, there are exceptions and if they need it, then pay for it). Personally, I will use LibreOffice or StarOffice/Open Office. They are free and about 100% compatible with Excel and Word. I am not made out of money but I do need to use spreadsheets and do word processing. The choice is obvious, Microsoft. I bought Office97 and XP(2002) and 2003, and 2007 and 2010. So I have spent around $1000 in the last 15 years just to do Office stuff (most of which I don't use). I am a power user but I am guessing I am typical for a user of features. If the Office file is not riddled with VB macros, LibreOffice will open it just fine.
And I agree that Internet availability is not 100%. I use Vonage for phone at home, too. Last weekend, the cable was out for a few hours. No email, no phone, no Netflix, and guess what...NO OFFICE 365 (if I had it)! Get real Microsoft! You're not the only kid in town.
Further, I have been a Microsoft fan (you can tell that) but after getting an iPad mini last month, I have found that almost all of my apps (including my precious Bible software like WordSearch and Logos) have counterparts for the iOS system. In fact, I found free or 99 cent apps to do everything I do on my PC for work or home (photos, network, programming, reading, word processing, spreadsheets, etc.) I even did my complete tax return on the iPad with a native app rather than use a browser. The app was free. The only thing I still use on my Windows PC is PowerPoint. As soon as I find a good iOS alternative, I can turn my Windows PC off and Office with it!
And I agree that Internet availability is not 100%. I use Vonage for phone at home, too. Last weekend, the cable was out for a few hours. No email, no phone, no Netflix, and guess what...NO OFFICE 365 (if I had it)! Get real Microsoft! You're not the only kid in town.
Further, I have been a Microsoft fan (you can tell that) but after getting an iPad mini last month, I have found that almost all of my apps (including my precious Bible software like WordSearch and Logos) have counterparts for the iOS system. In fact, I found free or 99 cent apps to do everything I do on my PC for work or home (photos, network, programming, reading, word processing, spreadsheets, etc.) I even did my complete tax return on the iPad with a native app rather than use a browser. The app was free. The only thing I still use on my Windows PC is PowerPoint. As soon as I find a good iOS alternative, I can turn my Windows PC off and Office with it!
with out an Internet connection for 30 days. Granted Outlook will not work because it uses the Internet. O365 uses a little program that runs in the background to verify your subscription. If it can't verify your subscription it will continue to use it for 30 days after 30 days it will run in reduced functionality mode. Connect back to the Internet and if your subscription is still good it will "refresh" your license. What's the problem? Oh yea uninformed end user. Probably a low information voter too.
The basic problem is that people don't like subscription-based models for software, generally speaking. The current economic conditions are a perfect example - you hit hard times, you try and cut overheads. You can't cut your software costs if it is a subscription-based model. Which is frankly why Microsoft is trying to force it, to keep up their revenue stream. This is a battle between Microsoft and businesses that use their software, Microsoft is trying to leverage their near monopoly of Exchange/Outlook to get us to use a subscription-based model.
What makes me laugh is when they try the same thing with say, Windows 7/8 Phone, which doesn't have a USB sync function with Outlook, it all has to be done OTA. Guess what? Everyone goes to iPhones, etc. Microsoft is not the only game in town. At the end of the day they're trying to make money, not be our friends so I don't think they care if they lose part of their base as a result of this decision.
What makes me laugh is when they try the same thing with say, Windows 7/8 Phone, which doesn't have a USB sync function with Outlook, it all has to be done OTA. Guess what? Everyone goes to iPhones, etc. Microsoft is not the only game in town. At the end of the day they're trying to make money, not be our friends so I don't think they care if they lose part of their base as a result of this decision.
Microsoft's Enterprise based agreements are basically subscription based models, and businesses have been using them for years. Back when I was responsible for Microsoft licensing for a large, international corporation, we sort of rolled in and out of Enterprise agreements, based on what it was we felt we needed to do. When a major upgrade was due (example - move to Windows XP from a mish-mash of earlier versions), it made sense to sign up for an Enterprise agreement, because it actually was a lot cheaper. However, we certainly did not feel it important to roll out every new major version that Microsoft rolled out. Enterprise agreements are typically three years, and there certainly was no guarantee that we'd renew when the three years was up.
However, it was basically a business decision. From a technical and support perspective, I have argued that we could have reduced support costs by keeping everything the same, and that usually meant up to date, on the desktop. Otherwise, there are costs associated with purchasing new PCs and imaging them with old versions of the O/S and Office, and also costs associated with having to support multiple versions. But, we were a chemical manufacturing company, not an Information or Financial company, and the bottom line was that the technical cost savings of an Enterprise agreement did not offset the cost of the licensing, compared to just going with the flow of a mixed environment where we'd keep a purchased system with it's licenses for five or more years. I have no idea how many companies keep a perpetual Enterprise licensing agreement with Microsoft, but it would be an interesting statistic to know...
Still, there are many examples of what I'd call subscription based licensing in the private sector. For all intents and purposes, cell phone, cable/satellite TV, and Internet services are subscription based, and/or heavily incentivized towards subscription-based "unlimited" service. I still do IT support as a hobby, but for all practical purposes I am retired and on a fixed income. Yet, much to my amazement each of my monthly bills for each of the aforementioned three services are near or over $100 apiece (my Internet is bundled with IP Telephone service). So, as a consumer, anyway, I've clearly "bought into" the subscription model, even when it ends up costing me more than I was paying pre-retirement. (Okay - I'm a Tech addict.)
When it comes to technology, it really does seem today we like having the latest and greatest, and are willing to pay for it even when the old one will still do the job it was intended for. I'm not so sure the same doesn't apply for software. It certainly does for anti-virus software. And budgeting is a funny thing - once you eke out a budget for something, it's so easy to just keep doing the same and "not have to worry about it".
However, it was basically a business decision. From a technical and support perspective, I have argued that we could have reduced support costs by keeping everything the same, and that usually meant up to date, on the desktop. Otherwise, there are costs associated with purchasing new PCs and imaging them with old versions of the O/S and Office, and also costs associated with having to support multiple versions. But, we were a chemical manufacturing company, not an Information or Financial company, and the bottom line was that the technical cost savings of an Enterprise agreement did not offset the cost of the licensing, compared to just going with the flow of a mixed environment where we'd keep a purchased system with it's licenses for five or more years. I have no idea how many companies keep a perpetual Enterprise licensing agreement with Microsoft, but it would be an interesting statistic to know...
Still, there are many examples of what I'd call subscription based licensing in the private sector. For all intents and purposes, cell phone, cable/satellite TV, and Internet services are subscription based, and/or heavily incentivized towards subscription-based "unlimited" service. I still do IT support as a hobby, but for all practical purposes I am retired and on a fixed income. Yet, much to my amazement each of my monthly bills for each of the aforementioned three services are near or over $100 apiece (my Internet is bundled with IP Telephone service). So, as a consumer, anyway, I've clearly "bought into" the subscription model, even when it ends up costing me more than I was paying pre-retirement. (Okay - I'm a Tech addict.)
When it comes to technology, it really does seem today we like having the latest and greatest, and are willing to pay for it even when the old one will still do the job it was intended for. I'm not so sure the same doesn't apply for software. It certainly does for anti-virus software. And budgeting is a funny thing - once you eke out a budget for something, it's so easy to just keep doing the same and "not have to worry about it".
"Even though the standalone version costs more for less features..."
That depends on how often a company replaces its MS Office software, doesnt it? My company is just now switching to Office 2010. We have been using 2003 for my entire tenure (2005) at this company (good or bad) thats 8 years (minimum). If a company uses the software for that length of time it is difficult to see where the subscription based system would be cheaper for any company other than perhaps one that switched versions every time theres a change??? the minute it came out. I am not convinced that that would be necessary or a good use of resources. In addition, we are offered the Home Use version of Office as the new versions are released. I ordered Office 2013 and then heard that I could only install it one time on one PC (without begging MS to let me install it on a new computer should that become necessary). Why would I pay $100.00 per year for software I can buy for $219.00 that will meet my needs for 5 years or more? I have received the Home Use software but will not be installing it unless Microsoft changes the license back to allow me to have a computer crash and update to a new one without their permission.
That depends on how often a company replaces its MS Office software, doesnt it? My company is just now switching to Office 2010. We have been using 2003 for my entire tenure (2005) at this company (good or bad) thats 8 years (minimum). If a company uses the software for that length of time it is difficult to see where the subscription based system would be cheaper for any company other than perhaps one that switched versions every time theres a change??? the minute it came out. I am not convinced that that would be necessary or a good use of resources. In addition, we are offered the Home Use version of Office as the new versions are released. I ordered Office 2013 and then heard that I could only install it one time on one PC (without begging MS to let me install it on a new computer should that become necessary). Why would I pay $100.00 per year for software I can buy for $219.00 that will meet my needs for 5 years or more? I have received the Home Use software but will not be installing it unless Microsoft changes the license back to allow me to have a computer crash and update to a new one without their permission.
Ditto. I usually run a home system for five or six years, and I'm one of those dinosaurs that has only a single system at a time. The inability to re-install is the only issue for me, but with the break-even point being 26 months, even that isn't a factor for long.
... I don't understand how this is going unchallenged from a legal perspective. If you purchase a chain saw, the manufacturer of that saw cannot limit where or how you use that saw. They can't say that you can only use it at location X. The same principal applies here: if you want to use the software on one machine and then replace that machine, there is no legitimate reason why you should not be able to transfer any/all of the software, including OS or application licenses from the old machine to the new. We, the consumers, are in desperate need of legislation to protect us from such restrictive licensing practices and to defend our rights of purchase, use, and fair use under copyright. If Microsoft chooses to market a subscription based package and people are willing to pay it, then fine. At that same time, that subscription should be tied to a user, not a device. If they *SELL* a license then a purchaser should be able to use that license however and where ever they so choose and they should be able to take that license with them where ever they want to go.
If this was an OEM license I could understand the install to a single workstation restriction, but if this new standard applies to box product, or to Open License then Microsoft will have mis-read the marketplace.
Many of my clients use Office because of its integration to other apps via VB. That integration means that they will not willy nilly upgrade and possibly break a working solution. To migrate to a new version requires considerable regression testing to ensure the migration will be fail safe. Hence migrating whenever MS place a new version into the cloud is a no go zone.
That said, it is the VB integration that keeps my clients loyal to MS. Unless there are other alternates that integrate the same we are stuck dangling on the hook waiting for a more sympathetic offer.
Many of my clients use Office because of its integration to other apps via VB. That integration means that they will not willy nilly upgrade and possibly break a working solution. To migrate to a new version requires considerable regression testing to ensure the migration will be fail safe. Hence migrating whenever MS place a new version into the cloud is a no go zone.
That said, it is the VB integration that keeps my clients loyal to MS. Unless there are other alternates that integrate the same we are stuck dangling on the hook waiting for a more sympathetic offer.
I can impose any terms of sale I choose when I sell you something. You get to agree and hence be bound by them, or not, and don't buy the product.
> I don't understand how this is going unchallenged from a legal perspective
You have to remember that when you "buy" the software you are not in fact buying anything at all. You are entering into a licence where in return for the money, the vendor allows you to use their software under whatever terms they choose to licence it under. In this case, they are now saying that you are only getting a licence to run that software on a specific computer and you may not transfer the licence.
Don't like those terms ? Then don't enter into the agreement. That's the choice you have.
However, it would be interesting to see if anyone decides to push this in the UK (or EU). I strongly suspect that some of the terms might be considered "unfair" - and we have laws which essentially says that if a contract terms in a business-consumer contract is unfair to the consumer then it is legally void. I strongly suspect that an awful lot of EULAs (End User Licence Agreements) would have big chunks ripped out of them if ti ever got to court - but I can't recall any cases of such cases ever reaching court.
You have to remember that when you "buy" the software you are not in fact buying anything at all. You are entering into a licence where in return for the money, the vendor allows you to use their software under whatever terms they choose to licence it under. In this case, they are now saying that you are only getting a licence to run that software on a specific computer and you may not transfer the licence.
Don't like those terms ? Then don't enter into the agreement. That's the choice you have.
However, it would be interesting to see if anyone decides to push this in the UK (or EU). I strongly suspect that some of the terms might be considered "unfair" - and we have laws which essentially says that if a contract terms in a business-consumer contract is unfair to the consumer then it is legally void. I strongly suspect that an awful lot of EULAs (End User Licence Agreements) would have big chunks ripped out of them if ti ever got to court - but I can't recall any cases of such cases ever reaching court.
I essentially share your view in regards to OEM software. I don't think it's fair that you lose it if your PC dies. (I also think you should have the right to on-sell anything you buy). I'm not 100% firm on this view though. Software is not a physical item like a chainsaw, and the costs involved are not the same. To make a chainsaw a fair chunk of the purchase price will go into buying the parts for the actual chainsaw you bought, and into labour to assemble it. Software is all backwards; virtually 100% of the cost to make it are upfront and it costs virtually nothing to sell one more copy. A better analogy is a special interest vehicle license (that's what they're called here in Aus anyway). This is a motor vehicle license, but instead of being a full-price/unrestricted license, it restricts you to only being allowed to drive that vehicle on Sundays. And in return it is cheaper than a full license. I'm interested if what your thoughts are on this. Do you also think special interest licenses are legally questionable? If so, would you prefer to make people buy a full license for their special interest cars?
Anyway, the above is for OEM. You have misunderstood the subscription version - you can take that with you where ever you go; it is not restricted to a device.
Anyway, the above is for OEM. You have misunderstood the subscription version - you can take that with you where ever you go; it is not restricted to a device.
...if it was priced competitively. houseofman's 'License To Steal' model applies here. Normally, when one buys in bulk, one gets a discount. If one agrees to a subscription, you pay a lower price, although over time it'll work out to be a little higher. Either way, there's value there, so it's an incentive for the customer to go that route. I don't know what's been going on the last decade or so in the business world, but the last time I asked for 'Value' License pricing for Office 2007, I think it worked out to ~$195 a seat, ~$245 or more with the 'complimentary upgrade' package. No, thanks. The standard single seat version was ~$185, and we're lucky if we even do work up to Office 2000's standards, so that should be fine for us for the next 5-7 years. Do they lower their subscription or value licensing fees to entice me (I would) to buy more licences? Or to get the upgrade service so my people will have the latest versions, even despite our not being able to use them? It makes sense for them to do so, as they'll get revenue they otherwise wouldn't get, and will get MORE over the long run...
Nope. They decide to stoop to extortion and jack their costs UP, but adopt a licensing stance that 'forces' you to pay those costs. Office365 'Business' at $8-$10 per user per month? Pretty reasonable. What do you mean they only let you 'view' documents at that price point? $15 a month? That's not 'bad', but I don't need all of those extras you get, and total investment over 3 years is $540 as opposed to $200! What if I need to still have access if I'm off-line? $25 a month?!? No thanks! On top of THAT, how much is Google charging? $5 per user per month, or 1/3 of what MS wants for an equivalent plan?
I don't know what they're smoking over at Redmond, but I WANT some. MS Office is a runaway success because it works well, and is an established business 'standard'. So long as prices are reasonable, it'll stay that way. If you get overly large heads and start charging to suit... well, despite my user base being addicted, I'm pretty sure it won't take THAT much re-training and baby-sitting to get them to use Google Docs or an Open Office package...
It must be a US thing, that the businesses figure they can start charging 'per head' prices. Is Bob over there worth 'only' $25 a month? Sure he is! But in Canada we can do simple math! If your competitor is offering a similar package or service for $1,000, and we expect to get 5 years out of it... Well, do the math to figure out which one's the better deal...
Nope. They decide to stoop to extortion and jack their costs UP, but adopt a licensing stance that 'forces' you to pay those costs. Office365 'Business' at $8-$10 per user per month? Pretty reasonable. What do you mean they only let you 'view' documents at that price point? $15 a month? That's not 'bad', but I don't need all of those extras you get, and total investment over 3 years is $540 as opposed to $200! What if I need to still have access if I'm off-line? $25 a month?!? No thanks! On top of THAT, how much is Google charging? $5 per user per month, or 1/3 of what MS wants for an equivalent plan?
I don't know what they're smoking over at Redmond, but I WANT some. MS Office is a runaway success because it works well, and is an established business 'standard'. So long as prices are reasonable, it'll stay that way. If you get overly large heads and start charging to suit... well, despite my user base being addicted, I'm pretty sure it won't take THAT much re-training and baby-sitting to get them to use Google Docs or an Open Office package...
It must be a US thing, that the businesses figure they can start charging 'per head' prices. Is Bob over there worth 'only' $25 a month? Sure he is! But in Canada we can do simple math! If your competitor is offering a similar package or service for $1,000, and we expect to get 5 years out of it... Well, do the math to figure out which one's the better deal...
I have several objections to this new scheme:
1.) It's clearly designed to shove people in the direction of renting; yes product activation and other perpetual beta releases were baby steps.
2.) Requiring a constant internet connection is useless in a mobile world. Every laptop then must be equipped with the standalone. What's the point of the 365 release covering five (5) PC's if I can't use it on laptops.
3.) It's another of MS's useless intermediate releases (Win ME, Vista, Office 2007) that offers almost nothing to the consumer but a push to bad or diminished choices that favor MS and give them a revenue boost.
1.) It's clearly designed to shove people in the direction of renting; yes product activation and other perpetual beta releases were baby steps.
2.) Requiring a constant internet connection is useless in a mobile world. Every laptop then must be equipped with the standalone. What's the point of the 365 release covering five (5) PC's if I can't use it on laptops.
3.) It's another of MS's useless intermediate releases (Win ME, Vista, Office 2007) that offers almost nothing to the consumer but a push to bad or diminished choices that favor MS and give them a revenue boost.
Correction:
Assuming a constant internet connection is useless, even in the mobile world.
Assuming a constant internet connection is useless, even in the mobile world.
1. You've always been "renting" software. They are just trying to control your ability to "share" your hard copy of the rented license with friends. What's wrong with that?
2. You DO NOT need a constant Internet connection to use O365 products except of course Outlook. You can put O365 on 5 different devices that "you" own that includes laptops. The thinking here is that you will only be using one of those devices at a time. You can still use all 5 of them at the same time. At least I've been able too nothing has prevented me yet.
3. Keep using Office 2000 or Office 97 if you want to. Sooner or later you won't be able to open a document and you WILL get infected with malware because those versions are not supported with updates anymore. You pay for the new version for new features (even if there are few), and you pay for the new version to maintain support.
2. You DO NOT need a constant Internet connection to use O365 products except of course Outlook. You can put O365 on 5 different devices that "you" own that includes laptops. The thinking here is that you will only be using one of those devices at a time. You can still use all 5 of them at the same time. At least I've been able too nothing has prevented me yet.
3. Keep using Office 2000 or Office 97 if you want to. Sooner or later you won't be able to open a document and you WILL get infected with malware because those versions are not supported with updates anymore. You pay for the new version for new features (even if there are few), and you pay for the new version to maintain support.
What it worries me most is the broadband connection at home. I have a 20GB monthly quota for a family of 5. How much traffic will the Office 365 Home Premium generates, and will it still work if the broadband connection fail? OK, my connection is quite stable now, but I did experience a very bad time for 2-3 months when the connection dropped 10 times in 20 mins, and could not maintain the connectivities for a few hours. I am totally against services that run only with the broadband connection.
You only need to connect to the Internet at least once every 30 days so Office "refreshes" it's subscription license. The amount of data that is sent across the Internet during the refresh is about one page of porn.
ms have been trying to intergrate the web into their os since windows 98. and now since so many people are on the net then they have had the idea of "pay per use" on their minds. i guess once you have made a good typewriter that will do the job for most people it's hard to make more money out of them because they are happy with what they have got.
if microsoft didn't make office so expensive in the first place then (most) people would not pirate it and they would buy a legitimate copy with no hassle, easy licensing terms etc. but then if everybody actually bought it at a reasonable price then everyone would be legit and ms would be happy (i would hope, depends on how greedy they want to be). it's a hard balancing act. also, i think people are sick and tired of having to upgrade their systems just to be compatible, not to mention the costs of that in time and money.
most people just want to buy something and get on with life. they would still like to buy something that they feel they can own and control and then not have the hassles of big companies standing over them watching what they are doing or when they are doing it.
giving up some freedom and flexibility and having controls and regulations can work. but it will be interesting to see what happens in the long run. funny how the free market controls us so much, lol.
well, in the end it is a market economy. let the buyer decide. if open or libre office actually advertised their product it would kill office within2 years i reckon.
if microsoft didn't make office so expensive in the first place then (most) people would not pirate it and they would buy a legitimate copy with no hassle, easy licensing terms etc. but then if everybody actually bought it at a reasonable price then everyone would be legit and ms would be happy (i would hope, depends on how greedy they want to be). it's a hard balancing act. also, i think people are sick and tired of having to upgrade their systems just to be compatible, not to mention the costs of that in time and money.
most people just want to buy something and get on with life. they would still like to buy something that they feel they can own and control and then not have the hassles of big companies standing over them watching what they are doing or when they are doing it.
giving up some freedom and flexibility and having controls and regulations can work. but it will be interesting to see what happens in the long run. funny how the free market controls us so much, lol.
well, in the end it is a market economy. let the buyer decide. if open or libre office actually advertised their product it would kill office within2 years i reckon.
I used to be vigorously against the cloud and software as a service, until my CEO decided to take the plunge. We have been using Office 365 for over a year now and have had 1 outage that affected the entire office for about an hour. That is better then the ISP service we receive.
During that outage everyone was still able to use all of the Microsoft products except for Outlook. Outlook would not connect to MS servers (again that is better than the ISP service). Let me repeat - during the outage people could still use all of their Office products except for Outlook. The fact that we could not connect to MS Exchange servers using the full desktop version of Outlook could happen for many other reasons, like an in-house server failing, ISP issues, etc. Microsoft had it all working again in about an hour. I didn't have to do anything but wait. If the ISP service fails people could still access their email from their smart phones.
Once you install the subscription version of Office you only need to connect to the Internet at least once every 30 days to verify your subscription (happens in the background). If you go longer than 30 days without verification you will still be able to use Office but with reduced capabilities.
Because we are using the Enterprise subscription version of Office we can install it on up to 5 devices per user. So everyone in the office gets a copy of it for home use on their desktop or laptop. If you try to install it on a 6th device you will be prompted to deactivate one of the other 5 devices before you can continue. Once deactivated on the other computer you will still be able to use it for 30 days. The end users are very happy with the ability to use the newest version of Office on their home PC's.
We get to upgrade to Office 2013 when we are ready. The subscription service isn't anymore expensive than purchasing Volume Licenses with Software Assurance so you get to upgrade when the new releases are available. Granted the sticker shock of a monthly bill is a little hard to swallow at first but we are able to pass that on to clients as a value added service technology charge. They get access to their own project workspace using SharePoint, have unlimited online meetings using Lync (they don't need a copy of Lync to have an online meeting).
Sometimes you have to look at the whole picture instead of whining about not having a stupid CD.
During that outage everyone was still able to use all of the Microsoft products except for Outlook. Outlook would not connect to MS servers (again that is better than the ISP service). Let me repeat - during the outage people could still use all of their Office products except for Outlook. The fact that we could not connect to MS Exchange servers using the full desktop version of Outlook could happen for many other reasons, like an in-house server failing, ISP issues, etc. Microsoft had it all working again in about an hour. I didn't have to do anything but wait. If the ISP service fails people could still access their email from their smart phones.
Once you install the subscription version of Office you only need to connect to the Internet at least once every 30 days to verify your subscription (happens in the background). If you go longer than 30 days without verification you will still be able to use Office but with reduced capabilities.
Because we are using the Enterprise subscription version of Office we can install it on up to 5 devices per user. So everyone in the office gets a copy of it for home use on their desktop or laptop. If you try to install it on a 6th device you will be prompted to deactivate one of the other 5 devices before you can continue. Once deactivated on the other computer you will still be able to use it for 30 days. The end users are very happy with the ability to use the newest version of Office on their home PC's.
We get to upgrade to Office 2013 when we are ready. The subscription service isn't anymore expensive than purchasing Volume Licenses with Software Assurance so you get to upgrade when the new releases are available. Granted the sticker shock of a monthly bill is a little hard to swallow at first but we are able to pass that on to clients as a value added service technology charge. They get access to their own project workspace using SharePoint, have unlimited online meetings using Lync (they don't need a copy of Lync to have an online meeting).
Sometimes you have to look at the whole picture instead of whining about not having a stupid CD.
Passing off the burden of your extra expenditure by hitting up your clients for more money to cover it, eh? That makes you part of the problem. Value add? Hardly...
Hey DJ name me one company that doesn't pass on new expenses to their clients....just one and I'll show you a company that is doomed to failure. The use of SharePoint is a value added service to our clients. Everyone of them have given it high marks.
M$ just doesn't seem to get it. People are getting less and less interested in their crappy software, sub-par customer service and now misleading pricing schemes. Office 2010 is most likely the last Office suite I will ever buy. Many companies will follow this lead as well, as they are mostly fed up with their buggy software that just seems to get more and more complex, less friendly to use and more expensive every version. I don't see this licensing "per device" as viable for big companies that change hardware on a regular basis. Too much of a time suck trying to transfer the license to the new machine. It will be tough parting from a suite that I have used seemingly forever, but they are basically forcing my hand, so after Office 2010 goes EOL I shall say bye bye M$. Unless they change their ways. Which apparently they won't. Oh well. Their loss.
I see the incentives that Microsoft is pushing for Office 365; however, what is someone going to do when they're working with PowerPoint or other large files that are 200 MB+ in size across the internet and want to share them or quickly present them?
What do you now when the file size is 200MB+? You don't have to store your files in the cloud. You can keep on storing them right in your "My Documents" folder on your PC. And actually using Microsoft Lync (which comes with O365) you can have an online meeting with anyone (even if they don't have Lync) and share the presentation right through the cloud, or from your desktop. It's really simple and works great.
online-specific features aside, Office 365 Home Premium could be compared directly with Office 2013 Professional, but after 4 years of subscribing to 365, I'd have spent the one-off cost of the 2013 Pro install - what guarantee do I have that in that 4 years there'll be another version worth upgrading to (for reference, look at the time between XP and Vista, and the reputation of Vista)?
I can't see any benefits going to the average user with these deals.
With all the changes to MS Office products, most people still only use 10% of the functionality built in to these programs.
Office 2010 will be staying with me for a number of years if MS maintains this form of licensing for Microsoft Office.
With all the changes to MS Office products, most people still only use 10% of the functionality built in to these programs.
Office 2010 will be staying with me for a number of years if MS maintains this form of licensing for Microsoft Office.
we live in an always networked and always online world
Why don't you guys who live in the west all come to Africa for a few years. you have no idea how flaky internet access and electricity is here. so so assume everyone is online 24/7/365 is a BIG overstatment, considering that there could be a potential user base from here, if software were decently priced and it were possible to egt software......
Why don't you guys who live in the west all come to Africa for a few years. you have no idea how flaky internet access and electricity is here. so so assume everyone is online 24/7/365 is a BIG overstatment, considering that there could be a potential user base from here, if software were decently priced and it were possible to egt software......
"This change by Microsoft is just a reflection of the times we live in - we are living in a networked, always on, cloud-based, software as a service world."
And I live in a world where I can always open, edit, print, repurpose and recycle any document that I've ever created... and in which, as long as Office 2010 continues to load on a Win 7 machine that continues to boot, I'll have full and complete access to exploit every document that I've ever created.
On the other hand, you know (but failed to mention) what happens to the fruit of your labors in MS' new world, should you be forced to let your subscription lapse... say, due to a change in your financial situation. You are apparently allowed to open and print your old docs in a "read-only reduced functionality mode," but you can't edit them or turn them into something new. A lifetime of work product, neutered and frozen in time until you start paying up again.
This business model--killing functionality of your entire work product history the minute you stop paying to keep your subscription alive--is sick. That you would suggest that this "does not automatically make it wrong or a bad thing that we must rail against" means that--at a polite minimum--you haven't really thought this through...
And I live in a world where I can always open, edit, print, repurpose and recycle any document that I've ever created... and in which, as long as Office 2010 continues to load on a Win 7 machine that continues to boot, I'll have full and complete access to exploit every document that I've ever created.
On the other hand, you know (but failed to mention) what happens to the fruit of your labors in MS' new world, should you be forced to let your subscription lapse... say, due to a change in your financial situation. You are apparently allowed to open and print your old docs in a "read-only reduced functionality mode," but you can't edit them or turn them into something new. A lifetime of work product, neutered and frozen in time until you start paying up again.
This business model--killing functionality of your entire work product history the minute you stop paying to keep your subscription alive--is sick. That you would suggest that this "does not automatically make it wrong or a bad thing that we must rail against" means that--at a polite minimum--you haven't really thought this through...
Open Office!!! Yea! When you purchase a Subscription you are paying for features, upgrade rights, security or functionality updates, ease of installation and use and known compatibility with most of the business world. If you don't want to pay for the subscription then don't. But I'm tired of hearing how people keep saying that they will never use Microsoft products again or how Microsoft screwed up this time or that time. This has been going on for years.
If you have it installed on 5 machines and one dies which you replace, just exactly how do you go about activating it on the replacement system?
I realize you can deactivate it but if the system isn't working how do you deactivate it so you can use it on a replacement computer?
Col
I realize you can deactivate it but if the system isn't working how do you deactivate it so you can use it on a replacement computer?
Col
lk_bellsouth.net notes that Libre Office and others do nearly the same job as MS Office but are cheaper. My experience is that Libre Office does the job slightly slower but better. Having refused to be ransomed by MS I still use Office 2003 which does all I would ever want. Recently I downloaded a .docx file which of course MS Office would not handle but Libre office handled it correctly. So from my viewpoint Libre office is superior to all MS offerings.
I am afraid I will not "upgrade" from office 2007. I simply cannot recommend to my board to pay for a new licence every time we upgrade/fix a machine. Microsoft has lost a customer here (only about 50 licences - so very small). We will stay with Office 2007 until we can find an alternative or MS relents and goes back to licencing by user.
AND no we are not going to use the cloud.
AND no we are not going to use the cloud.
Since we happily pay our Norton 360 subscriptions, we'd probably find the subscription model fine..... if we had decent broadband. However my experience of the huge Microsoft downloads is that our local (Telecom NZ) service won't cope and the Microsoft server times out. So I have to drive 30 km to use a fast service. Then the upgrades (coming over my slow service) seem to introduce functional errrors. My latest copy of Office Home and Business still isn't working properly after about eight months. Microsoft Word, for reasons known only to itself,,suddenly starts opening new files. Other times new pages in the middle of a document. Last night it opened 119 new files before I realised. Then you have to get rid of them. Microsoft has sorted this for me a couple of times but two or three upgrades down the track it starts all over again. So for me, the issue is getting downloaded Office to work at all.
Save it to your server and start the installation on all of your machines locally. No problem.
I manage a number of vessels that have very irregular wireless coverage. having to be online can cause serious issues for licensing and failure of computers on vessels is unfortunately depressingly regular. Having to have a microsoft live login for each one is going to be very difficult to manage as well.
The accountants might like this as it spreads the licensing costs over a monthly cost but from an IT perspective it looks like a nightmare to manage.
The accountants might like this as it spreads the licensing costs over a monthly cost but from an IT perspective it looks like a nightmare to manage.
This is the opportunity of a century for Open Office and all of the developers out there that despise a monopoly!
If there are other "free" alternatives such as Open Office? Oh wait people have choice.
I realize that everyone is buying into the "cloud" marketing of the major players; I have been asking a very simple question that nobody is capable of effectively answering "what if I am not connected to the Internet..." for whatever reason! I have done IT Projects all over the world, and in some of those places I have to "sneaker net" my stuff around because the network connectivity is down, slow, or unavailable.
I know the DoD is playing with the idea, and the policy makers are being way to influenced by the marketing arm of Microsoft (IMHO) and are not factoring in all the variables.
Please do not get me wrong, I have tried Office 365 and rejected it simply because it did not meet my needs, and there is the issue. I think Microsoft forcing everyone into a model they want is going to be a bitter pill for some, and time will tell, but as for me and my computing household I will pay the bitter fruit of higher software prices to ensure I have the software I need, and the privacy I demand.
I know the DoD is playing with the idea, and the policy makers are being way to influenced by the marketing arm of Microsoft (IMHO) and are not factoring in all the variables.
Please do not get me wrong, I have tried Office 365 and rejected it simply because it did not meet my needs, and there is the issue. I think Microsoft forcing everyone into a model they want is going to be a bitter pill for some, and time will tell, but as for me and my computing household I will pay the bitter fruit of higher software prices to ensure I have the software I need, and the privacy I demand.
I prefer Linux
When typesetting with libre office isn't enough, I use LaTeX.
When typesetting with libre office isn't enough, I use LaTeX.
This notion that we all must follow like zombies after a particular brand of hardware or software has simply got to go. As others have very rightly pointed out, there ARE lots of alternatives to Office, and I use several. Where it's economically feasible, I use MS Office for my work, as it has the power I need and someone else pays for it. Where it isn't, I use Google Docs, LibreOffice or Open Office. They have the power I need for my personal applications and they're free.
I think too many folks have tried to avoid the small effort of understanding their options by following brands too closely without thinking the decisions through. Buyer and user beware ... blind brand loyalty rarely leads to the best choice.
I think too many folks have tried to avoid the small effort of understanding their options by following brands too closely without thinking the decisions through. Buyer and user beware ... blind brand loyalty rarely leads to the best choice.
With so many excellent alternatives, why would anyone (or business) put themselves through this? I see no benefits at all. Please help me understand.
There are many different add-ins, plug-ins, and after-market LOB applications that are compatible with Office, and that don't have equivalents for the other packages. While some are other MS applications, many are not.
In our case, our customers often dictate not just the format of the files we create for them, not just the application, but the version too. If the contract says Word 2010, then that's what we use.
In our case, our customers often dictate not just the format of the files we create for them, not just the application, but the version too. If the contract says Word 2010, then that's what we use.
I've been with Microsoft since Windows 3 (and put up with the disastrous Windows ME and Vista) but Windows 7 and Office 2003 (yes - works fine - who needs 2007 and beyond) are my last purchases of Microsoft software. I hate Windows 8 GUI and am not paying through the nose for Office 2013 restricted licence, so GNU/Linux (such as Linux Mint or some other good distro) and LibreOffice will be my preferred PC OS/applications in future. Also, I will not buy a PC/laptop if UEFI is enabled by default and cannot be completely disabled (meaning I will not pay a Microsoft "tax" for my hardware).
Sorry Microsoft but these are three steps too far!
Sorry Microsoft but these are three steps too far!
It would be quite interesting to see an update to the Office 365 offerings in this article, based on the new $15 Office 365 plan for small businesses. This could really be a great answer for such businesses, both in cost and functionality.
What am I supposed to do now? I have to buy Microsoft Office 2013 Professional because you can't get 2010 anymore unless you go to e-bay. My company hasn't tested the 2013 version and tell me I need to load Office 2010. The 2013 licenses don't work obviously for the 2010 version. We don't buy off of e-bay for software. Thank you Microsoft - you are truly amazing.
It is no wonder that open source is gaining ground. All they have to do is sit back and watch Microsoft shoot themselves in the foot.
It is no wonder that open source is gaining ground. All they have to do is sit back and watch Microsoft shoot themselves in the foot.
What am I supposed to do now? I have to buy Microsoft Office 2013 Professional because you can't get 2010 anymore unless you go to e-bay.
I don't know where your company buys software from but they need to find a new supplier who sells them what they require.
Also I'm assuming that there is some sort of agreement with Microsoft involved here so your company should have a Microsoft Representative who understands what it is that they require and then get Microsoft to supply it.
Currently I can buy Licenses for all Microsoft Products ever made directly from Microsoft so I'm at a loss where you are trying to go with this post.
Col
I don't know where your company buys software from but they need to find a new supplier who sells them what they require.
Also I'm assuming that there is some sort of agreement with Microsoft involved here so your company should have a Microsoft Representative who understands what it is that they require and then get Microsoft to supply it.
Currently I can buy Licenses for all Microsoft Products ever made directly from Microsoft so I'm at a loss where you are trying to go with this post.
Col
The main problem with OOO or LibreOffice is the incompatibility of some documents. If everybody switched, that would be a non-issue. Thanks MS for Office 2013 and 365, and Windows 8 for bringing us one step closer to dumping you for Open Source Software.
Besides the Licensing Fiasco is that it's not all that great at opening Word Documents made in Microsoft Word 2003 or older.
The more complex the Formating and Macros involved the less likely Word is to open the Document that it was written in by a different version.
So we have a position where different versions of Word are not fully compatible with the others. Not really much difference between going to a different Office Suite really.
Col
The more complex the Formating and Macros involved the less likely Word is to open the Document that it was written in by a different version.
So we have a position where different versions of Word are not fully compatible with the others. Not really much difference between going to a different Office Suite really.
Col
The part of this i don't understand is that if the Home Version is $99 and you get 5 computers. Why not use it in the office. I have 24 desks so that is only 5 copies @ 99 = $19 per desk. Sounds like a deal to me
....You know that little document with the fine print that nobody reads cause it's too long to read and too hard understand? The Home version of office is Licensed for Home use (not for commercial use). Buying one Home license and putting it on 5 Business computers for 5 different users is in direct violation of the EULA. You can do it and you might even get away with it but if you get caught or some disgruntled employee reports you to MS your business will be screwed.
What happens is that Microsoft Legal issues Court Papers indicating that they are suing you threatens and your business for a couple of years and then you come to an agreement Out of Court with them where you pay them a fine for breach of contract for violating the EULA and then they add you and the company directly to the Enforcement Alert Notifications where the Company Owner, their Business Name and their Personal Address gets listed for all to read and these Enforcement Alerts get sent out to all Microsoft Partners regularly as well as posted on the Microsoft Web Site in your country.
So you not only get to pay Microsoft considerably more than what the correct licenses would have cost but you get the Stress of a Legal Fight which your Legal Representatives will insist you Can Not win for at the very least 2 years most times longer and then everyone gets to know what a Cheapskate you actually are and you are held up for the Ridicule you deserve. OH you also get to pay your own Legal Costs and any incurred by Microsoft as well. This is part of the Out of Court Settlement. Of course if you can not come to an agreement with Microsoft Legal you can always go to the Court and fight them but that's going to cost you and your company considerably more.
That is exactly what happens when a business gets caught breaching the License Agreement with Microsoft. They do that to places where they really didn't do that much wrong like Bulk Loading second hand systems and not changing the Windows Product Key to what is on the COA just to teach them a lesson.
I'm sure that Microsoft Legal would love to get their hands on something as blatant as using Home Product to make money off. Personally I think the consequences would be far worse than what most of the reports I read in the Enforcement Alerts are but maybe that's just me.
Col
So you not only get to pay Microsoft considerably more than what the correct licenses would have cost but you get the Stress of a Legal Fight which your Legal Representatives will insist you Can Not win for at the very least 2 years most times longer and then everyone gets to know what a Cheapskate you actually are and you are held up for the Ridicule you deserve. OH you also get to pay your own Legal Costs and any incurred by Microsoft as well. This is part of the Out of Court Settlement. Of course if you can not come to an agreement with Microsoft Legal you can always go to the Court and fight them but that's going to cost you and your company considerably more.
That is exactly what happens when a business gets caught breaching the License Agreement with Microsoft. They do that to places where they really didn't do that much wrong like Bulk Loading second hand systems and not changing the Windows Product Key to what is on the COA just to teach them a lesson.
I'm sure that Microsoft Legal would love to get their hands on something as blatant as using Home Product to make money off. Personally I think the consequences would be far worse than what most of the reports I read in the Enforcement Alerts are but maybe that's just me.
Col
We are a non profit and count on organizations like tech soup and other entities to help us find discounted licenses which makes our ability to serve our patrons more pallatable. Typically we purchase licenses in our organization and I'd imagine elsewhere at a volume cost discounted rate. Any word from MS about that for Office 2013?
Thank you
Mike
Thank you
Mike
Well, Microsoft will just have to wait a very long time for me to upgrade. Between Windows 8 and this new scheme I see no reason to upgrade any time soon. If Windows wasn't so all pervasive with my clients I would definitely switch to some UNIX variant. Maybe by the time I retire everything will run on my iPad.
I completely agree with the previous comments. Assuming that connectivity is ubiquitous leads to bad behavior. Then when the internet or a Microsoft server is down (YES, it happens! 
everything falls apart. The other problem is the heavy-handed licensing terms. Having a license for 1 user is not bad (but too expensive), but linking it to a single piece of hardware is silly and archaic. People are more flexible and agile now. If I purchase a license to use Office, I expect to use it on any machines I want (even Macs!) as long as it is one at a time. See the Adobe CS licensing model for a much better example of something that works.
everything falls apart. The other problem is the heavy-handed licensing terms. Having a license for 1 user is not bad (but too expensive), but linking it to a single piece of hardware is silly and archaic. People are more flexible and agile now. If I purchase a license to use Office, I expect to use it on any machines I want (even Macs!) as long as it is one at a time. See the Adobe CS licensing model for a much better example of something that works. 
My first thought after reading this article was "Why would they do that?". And the first thing that came to my mind was, that MS could still not get rid of having licenzed most of the copies of their software that are out there.
For me it seems just like a new approach of getting rid of the problem of people using their software without a proper license. Maybe that simple...
For me it seems just like a new approach of getting rid of the problem of people using their software without a proper license. Maybe that simple...
... with a Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement which permits them unlimited access to the standalone version. In that scenario, and IT Professional will always go that route. However, if your employer does not have an MS-ELA, I don't think it will take long for this subscriber model to look much more attractive.
After all, the average household now owns two or more computers - bought on a staggered schedule - one bought every three to five years - which means that you will spend $140 to $400 every two to three years if you do not keep your multiple PCs in sync with their respective version of Office. If keeping them in sync is important, then you are talking about $280 to $800 ever two to three years.
If, instead, you subscribe to Office 365 Home Premium, for $99 per year ($300 over three years), you will have the latest version of office on up to five PCs/notebooks at all times. You will be able to transfer those subscriptions to new PCs, and you will have access to all over the components of Office Professional - not just the four core apps (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote.
Unless you are a one PC family, or you have access to your employers ELA, it makes no sense to do this any other way.
After all, the average household now owns two or more computers - bought on a staggered schedule - one bought every three to five years - which means that you will spend $140 to $400 every two to three years if you do not keep your multiple PCs in sync with their respective version of Office. If keeping them in sync is important, then you are talking about $280 to $800 ever two to three years.
If, instead, you subscribe to Office 365 Home Premium, for $99 per year ($300 over three years), you will have the latest version of office on up to five PCs/notebooks at all times. You will be able to transfer those subscriptions to new PCs, and you will have access to all over the components of Office Professional - not just the four core apps (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote.
Unless you are a one PC family, or you have access to your employers ELA, it makes no sense to do this any other way.
I can't understand where M.Wagner is coming from about Home Premium. Surely one of the biggest attractions of Office is Outlook so why would you use Home Premium? Or am I missing something? Outlook is the single most important reason that we run Office on our three home laptops but buying two new ones with Windows 7 and installing 2010 has been a nightmare which is still plaguing me after eight months.
In fact I'm writing this on my OLD laptop which I still use most of the time in preference to my new one because it has XP, 2007 and no problems. For those of us with slooooooooow connections, and that's a hefty chunk of the world, 2010 is a very expensive nightmare and the thought of the subscription model, with its inevitable constant updates, is crazy. Interestingly, we use Dropbox extensively on all of our PCs and that functions perfectly, so my guess is that Microsoft has so much clunk incorporated in 7 or 2010 that's the reason.
In fact I'm writing this on my OLD laptop which I still use most of the time in preference to my new one because it has XP, 2007 and no problems. For those of us with slooooooooow connections, and that's a hefty chunk of the world, 2010 is a very expensive nightmare and the thought of the subscription model, with its inevitable constant updates, is crazy. Interestingly, we use Dropbox extensively on all of our PCs and that functions perfectly, so my guess is that Microsoft has so much clunk incorporated in 7 or 2010 that's the reason.
I think the most disturbing thing is Office 2013 being tied to a single computer instead of a single user. Seeing many laptops with hard disk failures, and disk identification is factored into many software products activation schemes. Wonder how MS identifies the "installed PC"?
This product wouldn't be so bad but the reporting is atrocious! Other vendors have portals that you can use to see all of your hosted licenses. That's what MS needs to figure out how to do! Then it might actually be an attractive product for VAR's to sell.
We are, but where does machine-locked software play in a network-is-the-machine world? How about you lock it to a virtual machine?
There are government entities and critical infrastructure units that have desktop clients which run on Office. The Public Cloud is NOT technically an option... try convincing government entities into saving and modifying critical, sensitive and confidential data using the Office 365, knowing that this data is not going to be temporarily/permanently stored on local soil espescially with contract clauses always subject to change. Lets say there may be a clause in there that indicates that data would be cleared immediately, but how does one audit that. Somehow this shift does not seem to bode well... there is trouble in 'em waters.
Another point of note is the value of the data stored by entities on MS 365. What is to stop intelligent parsers which could be used for things like analytics... target marketing... similar to what most of the mail providers and social networking sites do today. The aim is to first get people on board and when out at sea thats when things turn...
Is there a slight chance that Microsoft may have plans for the Office 365 server? Like most of its other offerings... the Standard/Enterprise Office 365 Server for Private (sigh) "Cloud" infrastructures... need to stay tuned for a while before the decision to switch channels.
Another point of note is the value of the data stored by entities on MS 365. What is to stop intelligent parsers which could be used for things like analytics... target marketing... similar to what most of the mail providers and social networking sites do today. The aim is to first get people on board and when out at sea thats when things turn...
Is there a slight chance that Microsoft may have plans for the Office 365 server? Like most of its other offerings... the Standard/Enterprise Office 365 Server for Private (sigh) "Cloud" infrastructures... need to stay tuned for a while before the decision to switch channels.
your comment of this is "...a reflection of the times we live in - we are living in a networked, always on, cloud-based, software as a service world and we are going to have to come to terms with it" is a simple-minded, one sided view of the issue. As a business there is no way in hell I would purchase office 365, I would have to double, or more, my internet connection to deal with all the additional traffic. And going from a 20MB Synchronous fiber (already over $1000 a month) to 40MB or more would kill my IT budget. Also take into account that Office 365 saves files to Microsoft Sky-Drive, not to local servers like we currently do, so how do I control it? What if my Internet link goes down, ALL business would stop dead, period.
I know SaaS models are the sexy thing to talk about in the IT media, it's all whiz bang, but I am sorry, it just isn't there yet. As a business there are too many gotcha's. Going all online is fine for individuals and small/startup companies with always-on links who live near major cities, but for medium to large companies, or companies that aren't located near solid always-on Internet access, SaaS is not a viable alternative yet. Once I have 100Mb or better links anywhere in the world, I will consider it. But even then there will be security concerns about having an outside company handle all my data for me.
I know SaaS models are the sexy thing to talk about in the IT media, it's all whiz bang, but I am sorry, it just isn't there yet. As a business there are too many gotcha's. Going all online is fine for individuals and small/startup companies with always-on links who live near major cities, but for medium to large companies, or companies that aren't located near solid always-on Internet access, SaaS is not a viable alternative yet. Once I have 100Mb or better links anywhere in the world, I will consider it. But even then there will be security concerns about having an outside company handle all my data for me.
With open source alternatives such as Libre Office, it amazes me that so many people fork over hundreds of dollars for MS Office. There no doubt are times when it is better to go that way, but not very often.
"The only reason for installing M$ Office is to practice uninstalling software. If you don't need to practice, it's not even good for that." -- {DvT}Hex (1999)
Nothing has changed in the past 14+ years.
Nothing has changed in the past 14+ years.
Does Microsoft figure that home users who rarely pay for software upgrades will cop this? I think not. I know hundreds of home users we support will stay with what they have until it no longer works, most of these still run Office 2003 and reuse it when they upgrade machines.
To license to a specific device is stupid. We pay for the software to use ourselves, we should be able to install it onto what ever machine we want, and move it when we want without having to inform MS.
Another convert to Open Source i'm afraid. Our clients love OS
To license to a specific device is stupid. We pay for the software to use ourselves, we should be able to install it onto what ever machine we want, and move it when we want without having to inform MS.
Another convert to Open Source i'm afraid. Our clients love OS
I have been reading time and time again that Microsoft is introducing their new subscription deal as customers are not bothering to upgrade from office 2003 and earlier, and they are desperate to find a way to re-capture these revenue streams. This is partly due to the huge selling price of with little new in the way of functionality.
The new subscription model makes the package "look" more affordable, but of course if you do the maths it soon becomes clear that you end up paying the same or more, just in installments. Very smart from their perspective.
However, the main reason I never moved on from Office 2003 (other than the fact they castrated the Access database profram) was the ghastly new interface. I dislike the ribbons with a passion and have not met a single person who has had anything positive to say about them. Of course the forums are full of people who push them for professional reasons ("I'll train you for cash") or simply for fun. In reality most people say that they "survive" the ribbons but certainly do not "like" them.
So when you decide if you should take the leap into the subscription model make sure you have done your sums and ask if you really need to do it.. Or if you are only tempted as it appears at first glance to be good value.
I have now switched to LibreOffice and a more than happy with the later releases. I open and save in traditional office file formats and I have not found any functionality missing.
For email I use The Bat as it can handle my massive email traffic better than Outlook. Google calander provides the best way to share my agenda with multiple devices and users.
Sorry Microsoft, but you are telling users that they need to get used to a more modern way of working, but the way I see it you are simply desperate not to loose more paying customers.
The new subscription model makes the package "look" more affordable, but of course if you do the maths it soon becomes clear that you end up paying the same or more, just in installments. Very smart from their perspective.
However, the main reason I never moved on from Office 2003 (other than the fact they castrated the Access database profram) was the ghastly new interface. I dislike the ribbons with a passion and have not met a single person who has had anything positive to say about them. Of course the forums are full of people who push them for professional reasons ("I'll train you for cash") or simply for fun. In reality most people say that they "survive" the ribbons but certainly do not "like" them.
So when you decide if you should take the leap into the subscription model make sure you have done your sums and ask if you really need to do it.. Or if you are only tempted as it appears at first glance to be good value.
I have now switched to LibreOffice and a more than happy with the later releases. I open and save in traditional office file formats and I have not found any functionality missing.
For email I use The Bat as it can handle my massive email traffic better than Outlook. Google calander provides the best way to share my agenda with multiple devices and users.
Sorry Microsoft, but you are telling users that they need to get used to a more modern way of working, but the way I see it you are simply desperate not to loose more paying customers.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
