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!!!
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
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 If the M'Board failed you could replace it along with the CPU and RAM if your old M'Board had been superseded BUT you had to move to the Next speed CPU so if you have a Pentium 200 MMX and you needed to rebuild the system today you could replace the M'Board with a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.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
