Discussion on:

Microsoft capitulates and some angst over Office 2013 is relieved

We have a total of three desktops, two laptops, and a tablet in the house, and they have ALL been switched to eith Open Office or Libre Office years ago. The OS varies from WIN XP to WIN 7 from one machine to another.

I see some 'wobble' in the defactco standard with surprisingly more people and companies in different facets but agree - it has been tough trying to use alternatives. I use Office at work and the kids are encouraged to use it at school - but at home including homework - only OpenOffice. I think MS should expand and license/charge Office down to the folders or drives where you save documents. Like this approach - including the rewording will drive more users to alternatives.

I'm still left wondering if I can install it on virtual machines installed on the same host. I use them to test various different configurations and there is no remote access. The license terms only seem to address remote access of a virtual machine.

Open Office seems more viable for a typical user, but I'm more interested in system automation for customers.

But I would rather be able to buy one copy of a product and put it on all the computers I use on a regular basis.

And I'd like to pay the cost of one new car yet be given one new car per member of my family. It doesn't work that way though.

A better analogy would be purchasing a new complete furnished boxes of tools for each car you had to work on.

I was very happy with the 3 User License in Microsoft Office 2010, but now I have no choice, but to allocate 3 times the amount I used to spend on this product. Way to go Microsoft. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see this option in the 2013 Suite.

April Fools Day is still several weeks away and this is not at all funny.

Microsoft has done some draconian things lately, but this is just pouring gasoline on a bonfire.

I spend countless hours and lot of Gas looking for Office 2010, but Everywhere I went, retailers had removed all 2010 Versions of Office and Windows 7 from their Shelves. I asked, and they said that it was Microsoft latest attempt to sell Office 2013, It Figures, they have to force customers to buy a product that most are not ready to embrace, but I have news for Microsoft. Unless they introduce noticeable changes, and/or Enchantments to the 2013 Windows and Office Family of products, they will not sell it. Consumers will not buy something they Hate. For example, give customers the option to disable the start menu that takes over the whole screen, and let then decide if they want to keep it Windows 7 like. Some productivity issues arise with this new way that windows8 uses to display the desktop.
Oh, and the new nickname I heard some people calling Windows 8 = Windows Hate, but Windows is a whole different topic itself.

We can no longer have 1 copy for desktop, and 1 copy for mobile? Really... and everyone is OK with this? Everytime (literally) Microsoft comes out with a new license they screw the user base a little more. They take away one thing at a time till your left with a shadow of what you had 5 years ago. They won't win my friendship with this license.

Good thing Vista pushed me to Linux. Now if someone could just develop a good office suite and knock MS Office off their hill the switch could be complete. Honestly the only thing at all that keeps me with a dual boot is MS office.

Office didn't have 3 user licenses until 2007 or 2010 so not every licensing decision they make is bad.

Bill

In Canada, the terms have always been 2 installations, expected to be one user with a desktop and laptop. I note that sonicsteve is also in Canada, so have the terms been different in the US?

And yes, the Microsoft registration system does not prevent multiple installations (up to now). But that will not help if you're charged with illegal use of Licenses.

Microsoft have been exploiting a near monopoly every where they can for 25 years. Unless you are a the frightened CIO of some big corporation wanting to trade the same way as MS you would be foolish to buy Office under any circumstances. Libre/Open Office is as compatible as 99% of users will ever need. And free, no pathetic money grubbing restrictions.

MS just cannot resist any opportunity to exploit their customers. I just bought a laptop in France with Windows 7 - all the UK suppliers have no choice but to offer W8, and I will not touch that, so to speak. The machine comes with French language Windows, and the English language files are on the hard disk. But you cannot change the language: MS require an upgrade to Windows 7 professional at about $100. The language is set at factory install time. Thieves, as always. MS have never done an honest thing in their existence.

How about 1 license per person or user and that user can put it on as many devices as he wants so long as he owns them. I have desktops and tablets and I am not buy a license for each.

If I was the owner of a company that had 500 employees, and I own the company then all the computers are mine too. So, since I own 500 computers I only want to pay for one license - I know this sounds stupid, but people will try to do anything to rationalize not spending money on licensing. I have actually heard a business owner use this rationale before.

From one Dave the IT guy to another, good luck with that. What CEO would put his entire business at risk by deliberately breaking the law over a small amount of cash? Not if he has a Board of Directors or shareholders to answer to.

And would you put your own certifications and Microsoft privileges at risk over a few bucks of someone elses money? I hope not.

Sure, vote with your feet, or your money. Start a movement, mobilize the masses, even sue Microsoft if you like. But as soon as you break the law, you're just another criminal trying to justify his crimes. Not where you want to be.

Many small and medium sized companies are forever hedging on purchasing the appropriate licenses. If they could they would buy one and slap it on hundreds and thousands of computers. If it were up to me (and I know its not) I would mandate that client software (such as office) have 2 types of licensing. Personal & Business.

Personal: allows for you to install it on as many "personal" devices that you own (this includes your childrens devices & virtual machines)

Business: all would follow the volume license model.. One license per company owned device or virtual device or connected device (such as in the case of BYOD)

I generally get the feeling that companies that have complex licensing models are trying to get away with something. KISS method is best.

You'd think with all of the resources Microsoft has at their disposal, they would have done the market research to begin with and instead of throwing "it" up against the wall to see if it sticks, they would have done it right (this new way) to begin with. Sometimes these large firms all seem to have the "we're to big to fail" attitude and we have all to recently seen how that has gone. Personally, Office 2010 is my "XP". It works great for me, does everything I need it to do and 2013 with it's few extra features and glossed up interface still doesn't justify the un-discounted upgrade price even if they now bless me with the permission to put the software I own on the machine of my choosing. Too little - too late. I'm of the mindset to not upgrade just on the principle of things and do my part - little as it may be - to send a message to the Giant. I don't "need" 2013 or 365 for that matter and am now - even more than before - going to be going out of my way to introduce as many as I can to Open/Libre Office. Microsoft has dished out one too many straws for this camel's back.

If I own a copy, I should be able to do what I want with my machine(s); except sell copies of the software. This will all be moot soon enough as computing goes the way to the cloud of a virtual library checkout version of time sharing. Think telephones.

Not quite, Microsoft. Why in the world should I pay exorbitant license fees for my desktop AND my laptop? It's not going to happen. They're going to lose more people - including BUSINESSES - to other options. My I.T. Manager is pushing towards Open Office and the like.

M$ licensing practices is the exact reason 'cloud apps' have become so popular. 1 application that you can use from anywhere (as long as you have an internet connection). Your settings are always the same, and no extra license fees to use it on multiple machines.

When you buy software on CD you are allowed, presumably, to install it on multiple machines. Why should Office 2013 be any different? Like stasys.lukaitis proposed above, if you have multiple machines you need a license for each?! Makes no sense at all and really disenfranchises the M$ userbase. I guess they've never heard of OpenOffice. No wonder the M$ stock price is so low. Their tactics are even lower.

You are allowed to do what ever the EULA you agree to says. Very few "CD's" allow you to install the software on multiple machines. Certain versions of MS Office 2007 or 2010 (not sure where this started) allow this and is one of the few that I am aware of.

Bill

How can the 2013 edition be so different? My 2007 is just fine.

I think MS is still being unreasonable here. They need a provision for multiple machines. Office is an expensive package to purchase to begin with. How many times are they expecting to make money off the same person?

The "licensed to a device" model is absolutely archaic. In a world where probably many people, and most of the us in the tech community, have multiple devices a "device" license is a moneymaker for the vendor and reason to find less expensive alternatives for us.

How about this model:
Every copy of Windows comes with MS Office Installed. To launch the application you need to prove you are licensed to use it. You can do this any number of ways: biometric, USB dongle, one-time-password, etc. Once authenticated you can use the features you're licensed for. Since you can't be on two places at once, the vendor is assured you are the only one running what you're licensed for. And since the license is to the user, you are no longer device bound.

This model can work for any software. You wouldn't need to install every piece of software ever written on every machine. Just as now, you download it to the machine you're working on. Maybe by a link, maybe by an app store (so you get pre-authorized even before downloading). Or you bring it with you on a USB drive.

As for fearing this will cut into profits for the megalith MS, the single price for single piece of software model is also archaic. And again it's an easy fix: Price it in stages: 1 price for the main product, plus add-on feature pricing, then percentage increments based on the TYPEs (not number of) devices you want to run it on. Better pricing is good for the consumer, good to battle piracy, and gets more people buying the product because they see good value for a good price.

in order to validate the license? This may not always be practical. I agree that another licensing strategy really needs to come into play here, but if I understand this model correctly, I'm just not sure it could work for everyone.

I agree with radleym. Why bother with Microsoft anymore. There are good office programs for free! These office programs allow you to save as a .doc or .xls document so you can open them up in office if need be. I successfully work on libre office at home and am still able to open a document at work if need be or visa versa. I don't know why any home user would bother with purchasing office anymore. Especially if the new license has to "contact home" like the O/S. Forget that mess, I will look for alternatives.
The business world is a different animal though and I can still see the need for office at work. Mostly for sharing with others outside the office as well as students in universities. However, if everyone got on the bandwagon it wouldn't be hard to have a new standard in another software vendor. The almighty dollar speaks loudly.

There are those of us who have 2 computers - one computer (off net) for production and a notebook (on net) for travel - modifying this configuration is not an option. Previously, I had the ability purchase one copy office professional and legally install it on both as long as I used only one at a time. Just like ice cream - half the product same price.

Unless my computer has suddenly developed the capability to obtain its own income and the wherewithal to use that income to download and install and use it's own software... all by itself (I have a nice machine, but it's not THAT good yet).
No. It is a ridiculous attitude to say that the machine owns the software.
I bought the software. I should be free to use it on any machine I choose, as long as I am only using it on one machine at a time, for my own purposes.
I use very high-end CAD software that permits me to install on any of my machines. Just so long as I only operate the software on one machine at a time. Even Adobe lets you transfer activation to the machine you are using. That is how it should be!
Your license to use a software that YOU purchased (unless it is an OS, which then makes some sense to be machine-specific) should follow you where ever YOU are. Whether it is machine-based or cloud-based.
This "new" licensing TOS is an obvious money-grubbing scheme by an increasingly out-of-touch corporation that will soon obfuscate itself into oblivion at this rate.

I'm going with OpenOffice.

With both OpenOffice and Libre Office available for free download and they can be installed on as many machines as one may like, who cares about microsoft's licence policy?

After being a user of Microsoft products since Windows 95 / 98, I have seen it all when it comes to the apparently insatiable greed of that company. And I only jumped ship after I lost THREE years worth of data, (long story...but it involved an exploit in Excel spreadsheets, it got past them and hit me...by the time there was a patch for it, it was too late!) After going through that I started looking for alternatives, I ended up at the door of Linux and I haven't looked back.
I'm sure that there are a lot of people who will have experimented with other office suites, and since leaving Windows World, I found and have used OpenOffice, which to me is incredible!...as it is easy to use and straightforward, no "fanciness" needed. After using that for quite a while I switched over to LibreOffice, and I can say without a doubt that it is one of the most amazing office suites I have ever used. I wouldn't go back to ANY version of Office from Microsoft if THEY paid ME! I see this move by MS as just a way to say to the masses.."We might not have been able to get you all THIS way....but we have OTHER ways & means to do it!". Which is a shame, because there are a LOT of people who use Microsoft products,...from the desktop OS...to the office suite...(not to mention the server software!) I cannot say who's decision it was to offer that crazy licensing scheme, but I'm guessing they either aren't running the project anymore because of being demoted...or else they're now on the unemployment line...

I am a network administrator and with the original policy, I was extremely hesitant to upgrade our company to Office 2013. We had to have the ability to transfer licenses when workstations fail or we upgrade workstations. The change of policy opens up the possibility of upgrading to Office 2013 now.

Absolutely ridiculous.
If I own more than a single machine I need a license for each? NOT!
If I own the software I should be able to use it on ANY machine I own as long as it is in use on only one machine at any given time!
If I were King, THAT would be the LAW - buy the software, use it ANYWHERE!!!

Microsoft did make a very small baby step in that direction. Regrettably, the rest of the "baggage" with Office 2013 and Windows-8 over the earlier versions just doesn't really justify upgrading. As for the "very favorable" licensing in the education environment...academia IS in its own world.

In previous editions, one could install the Retail version on their desktop and also on his or her's laptop. Did that option end with Office 2010?

I usually buy an Office License for a 3 install if I can get it, and then there is no problem. I have Office 2010 on 2 computers and will not likley update anything for the next several years. It is their software and they can set whatever rules they want, and as long as we undersand what they are, we can decide to buy or not. If push comes to shove for some users, they can go to a free Office Program. I have tried them before, but since I had been using MS Office for years decided to stick with that. If they make it too onorous, then I imagine that a lot of people might desert MS and go to the free programs especially if they are a home user.

When I first began using Microsoft Office components, such as Word, the license was for one desktop and one portable computer; now it's just for one computer, so it's not just the same as it once was. Then again, the price has dropped precipitously; my first copy of Word was priced at $450. That was Word 5.0 for DOS, and the dollar has lost about half of its value since then. Who, today, would buy office software for over a kilobuck a pop? Office XP was licensed to a user for one desktop and one notebook computer, and so were several subsequent versions, but they cost more than today's product. At today's price, I've no complaint about Microsoft's latest revised license.

If you just create the occasional document, you can use an open Office suite, but if you are developing you need MS Office and the users of what you have developed will also need Ms Office. Your old version of XP may work fine, but 2013 has lots of things that many people need (often hidden out of sight).
You don't need to purchase Office on a disc. Subscribe to 365; it installs on 5 machines and if you remove a copy from one computer, you can install it on another and you can login on someone else's computer that doesn't have 2013 installed and use it in the cloud. For individual users, Office 365 is much cheaper than buying a disc copy and my guess is that you won't have to wait three years for a new version: MS will push you the new features as they become ready. As for the users that won't adapt to the ribbon or some other change in the menus, I think your 30 year old selves would be embarrassed by your 50 y.o. selves. I've been using Office 2013 for the last eight months and it's fast, clean, and has lots of features that I need.

If a buy a copy of a program like this that can be used in a browser, I should be able to use it on any computer at any time; especially if only one copy at a time is running. I use MS office at work but will likely never buy it for home use, it's Libre Office for me.

This licensing change is more acceptable...

And win8 will never take the place of win7.....