Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The Componetware Route?

0 helpful
3 replies

by guruofdos

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Following on from the discussion on VBA and it's worth or otherwise, this got me thinking about Office Suites and software apps generally.

Most of our Office users aren't even aware of VBA. As a 'Power User', I have perhaps used it once or twice...no more.

It seems to be bundled with Office and yet it is a little used feature in many instances...especially by home users who simply use Word to type the occasional letter.

Personally, I think that Office should be sold as 'Componentware'. Go to an M$ dealer and buy a copy of Office....and when you install it, all the options are there, whether you choose to install them or not. Personally, I would like to see a 'Minimal' distribution of Office, with just the basic features, at a vastly reduced price. Users who then need VBA, scripting, macros or whatever should then be able to purchase (via a store, on-line or whatever) an 'add-on' pack for additional features.

If you only use 10% of a product, why should you have to pay 100% of the price and then ignore 90% of the features? You wouldn't go into a restaurant and order steak and chips with a salad garnish if all you want is the lettuce and tomato out of the garnish...you'd order a small side salad at a fraction of the cost. Of course, if you WANTED a full-blown dinner....you COULD order it and pay the full-blown price.

I'd love to see a pick'n'mix Office, where you go to Microsoft and fill in a 'menu' for Office Apps...then just pay for the parts you order.

Many people DON'T want that damn paperclip! People who only ever use a laser printer to bang out standard letters DON'T need coloured fonts or WordArt. People who only ever produce their own documents and never need to 'translate' a Lotus or Wordstar doc SHOULDN'T have to pay for converters that they don't use.

Could we maybe in the future see a 'basic letter writing' version of 'Word 2004 Component Edition', that only costs $10 but can have components 'added' as necessary for a few $$$ a time. If you then downloaded an entire range of plug-ins or add-ons you would perhaps pay 5 or 10% more than buying a full version in the first place? The incentive is automatically there to buy a full version from the get go, saving 5 or 10% if necessary.

The user who just wants to type the odd letter is more likely to make do with WordPad than spend $200+ on a full copy of a program. However, 'real' Word, in a cut down form for a few tens of dollars that can subsequently be added to if required surely has to make sense?

Our simulator systems are supplied on a componentware basis. Obviously we supply the OS and User front end, but the software is modular and the user only purchases the modules they require. Additional functionality can be added by 'bolting on' modules at a later date. The full blown 'complete' system may have a software suite installed with a cost of ,say, ?3500. The basic system and 'minimal' package without the add-ons, bells and whistles starts at around ?450. If a user wishes to add a feature, each 'module' can be purchased separately for between ?300 and ?1000 depending on the package. The total cost buying the software 'piece by piece' works out at about ?3700...and extra ?200 over the cost of the full package. Many of our users (mostly police and military) do not have huge capital budgets, but have SOME budget for capital expenditure, then an on-going annual, bi-annual or quarterly budget for upgrades, expansion and enhancement. Some purchase a 'basic' system and don't need the extra bolt-ons for perhaps a year or 18 months. They can still buy components without having to scrap the software and buy a whole new package.

Microsoft however, add a new feature to e.g. Word 2000, and then release it as a whole new product, say, Word 2002. You cannot just purchase the new feature you require. Instead you have to pay the full price for a whole suite. The same applies to other products from suppliers like Symantec. Once you could buy antivirus and firewall software as a separate entity. Now it's an all in one 'integrated' package and to upgrade one component, you have to buy the latest version of 'Norton Internet Security 200x' or whatever.

Linux and its associated apps are the ultimate form of componentware...even the OS itself can be built from 'components'. With Windows based software, it's straightforward enough to add to a product using VBA or other software and scripting tools, but even the most 'minimal' install takes up a vast chunk of space and includes features that are not likely to be used by a good proportion of basic users. If you buy a computer for a 'stand-alone' task and don't intend networking or connecting to the internet, why pay for this as part of the MS bundle? This was one of the key issues of the anti-trust cases in the US that Microsoft are still battling over.

3 replies

by oldefar

I happen to agree with most of your points - the Microsoft approach to OS and applications results in significant overkill in terms of capability and much higher costs. Since it makes money for Microsoft, I don't see them wanting to change to a modular approach.

Open source solutions would seem to be the better match to your requirements. The same would apply to a large number of IT users - from home to large corporations. That Linux has not stolen market dominance from Microsoft demonstrates in part the power of brands.

I think the stronger issue might be risk aversion, however. The same modular concept could be applied to so many different verticals. Consider personal transportation - a power plant module, a frame module, and a body module. Instead of buying a new car for that improved styling, what if you could simply upgrade your current car to the latest body? Need more power to tow that boat? How about a power plant upgrade. Military aircraft have used this approach for years - the B52 came out the same year as I did.

Housing is another vertical that seems ideal for the modular design. Bolt on rooms for adding kids or taking on care of elderly parents. Let the kids take their space with them when they leave the nest. The concepts and issues for this were developed in the late 1940's, applying building concepts developed for the military, but never really caught on.

In theory, competition will drive the best solutions to the top. In practice, marketing and culture seem to be key.

by onbliss

Granted that many verticals could imbibe the modular concepts. I don't know if the delivery mechanism are well suited. Sometimes the labour or other costs would certainly resist the development of modular components.
In the example of car, it is far more complex to change the body of the car than add a new software feature to an existing product.

But definitely in software the modular concepts can be implemented far more easily than others. When customers start demanding such flexibilities, I am sure the providers would start dishing out those for us.

by qed_uk

Most people pirate their work copies of MS applications for home use. Nobody in their right mind spends their own money when they can borrow the company's copy. If Word was available for a tenner, home users would probably buy it in their droves.

Mr Gates should tackle piracy by making more software available at a lower cost and then charging for extras on a per download basis. You would need to enter a valid key to enable the add on.

By making software cheaper and more accessible to low end users without all the trimmings, Mr Gates stands more chance of achieving world domination and a bigger customer base. Perhaps it's better to have two million 'legally registered' users than it is to have a hundred thousand full price legal sales and 1.9 million pirated copies.

This discussion is closed to new replies.