General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2277894

    Why do we buy software the way we do

    Locked

    by venky ·

    I just wanted to get some feed back on a new line of thinking I am trying to spread about software licensing. I am talking to Gartner and others but since we have lot of technical execs in this forum I thought I will try and get feedback from here also. So here goes….

    Currently they way we buy software is nothing like how we buy anything else in life. If you buy a 30 dollar toaster you can let anyone use it. Same goes true for Computer, a projector, printer or any other thing you buy (even your toys, books etc., etc.,) however when you buy a $5000 software you were told only the person who bought it can use it and no one else can use it. The result of this is that billions of dollars worth of software assets are lying around unused at any given point in time creating the worst possible productivity scenario for software assets.

    It is a common scenario in enterprises where a software is idle on a computer but the person in the next cube cannot use it and if he/she wants it even for a brief time they have to get a new copy. You are not able to move the license around the way you can move a printer or a toaster around. Some of them go to other ridiculous model where if you want to share you need to pay 5X more for the same copy of software (aka concurrent licensing).

    The primary reason for this used to be that unlike a toaster, software can be easily duplicated so instead of trying to solve that issue the software manufacturer took the easy way out by making the customers pay a lot more by making the strict rules about who can use the software.

    Another reason the customers did not bother about this is because Even if the ISV allowed you to move the software license around there is not a tool that easily moves the software around and let you keep track of total number of licenses etc.,

    So here is a question to this group :

    As a buyer of software, assuming you have a tool that makes sure that people cannot copy the software at will in the company and it lets you move the license around (when the people do not use it remove the copy and return the license to the central pool and when the user wants to use the software it should be installed and they should be able to use the software in couple of minutes) will you be willing to (and able to) negotiate a licensing model that will allow you to move the license around at will with the ISVs?.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2715357

      That’s almost what Macromedia an ACT are doing

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      Macromedia allows each single copy to be installed on two machines, if you need to, you can PARK the licence and then run another machine after loading the licence that is actually stored online.

      ACT allows itself to be installed on the server and depending on how many licences you have, that’s how many can be using it at the same time, regardless of the different machines. You can install it on all machines and it will allow the number of simultaneous users, based on which licence you have, to use it at the same time.

      Novell and SuSe Liux, well you can afford to licence ALL machines at abotu $50.00 per box , including Open Office that is MS office compatible, web software, email software tc. So the multiple licences do not even become an issue, when you can setuup you whole office for the same price as just a couple of MS boxes. With SUSE Linux beig just as easy to use as Windows and the interface VERY similar, yet with added stablity and less vulnerabilities, one must wonder why ANY organization would possibly see value in any MS products at all. Why even bother, let them sink themselves if they can keep up.

    • #2721291

      Why do we buy software the way we do

      by tjsan42 ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      It is not just software that is sold this way of course. For example if you buy a ticket to Disneyworld, you are not allowed to sell it on to someone else or if you subscribe to a health club, only you can use the subscription, if you buy an airline ticket, you can’t sell it to someone else. You are not buying the ticket, only the right to use the service it represents.

      • #2722205

        I am not sure these are the right examples

        by venky ·

        In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

        These examples are not assets bought by the company. These are specifically bought for an individual however assets like software have nothing specific to an individual.

        The point is that there is a huge waste in unused software that is going unnoticed. IT folks do a lot to track down a laptop costing $2000 but don’t pay too much attention to the software on that laptop which may be worth many times more than that.

        It is time people realized that software is just another asset and it is important to share it use it productively instead of letting it sit around idle.

      • #2706438

        Fair Market Value

        by bbertovich ·

        In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

        Ultimately, markets set the rules based upon value. It may take some time, but that’s what happens. Take the HP 12C calculator for example, in 1980 the street price was around $200, now it’s around $70. Except for additional memory, it has mostly the same fundamental financial capabilities as it had in 1980. Why has it held its value? Because it is the standard of the financial industry. It still uses reverse polish notation, and those in several financial industries have learned how to use it. Most use the standard pre-programmed formulas and don’t even explore its programming capabilities. Calculators with similar capability sell for $19.99. Why don’t they gain market share? Because 12C users don’t know how to use them and won’t take the time to learn. It’s value is ubiquity in the financial communities where it has a foothold. The only exception I’ve seen is where intellectual property protection (patents etc.) hold values artificially high due to lack of competition. As long as there is value, we will buy and accept the status quo.

      • #2706437

        Fair Market Value

        by bbertovich ·

        In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

        Ultimately, markets set the rules based upon value. It may take some time, but that’s what happens. Take the HP 12C calculator for example, in 1980 the street price was around $200, now it’s around $70. Except for additional memory, it has mostly the same fundamental financial capabilities as it had in 1980. Why has it held its value? Because it is the standard of the financial industry. It still uses reverse polish notation, and those in several financial industries have learned how to use it. Most use the standard pre-programmed formulas and don’t even explore its programming capabilities. Calculators with similar capability sell for $19.99. Why don’t they gain market share? Because 12C users don’t know how to use them and won’t take the time to learn. It’s value is ubiquity in the financial communities where it has a foothold. The only exception I’ve seen is where intellectual property protection (patents etc.) hold values artificially high due to lack of competition. As long as there is value, we will buy and accept the status quo.

      • #2706436

        Fair Market Value

        by bbertovich ·

        In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

        Ultimately, markets set the rules based upon value. It may take some time, but that’s what happens. Take the HP 12C calculator for example, in 1980 the street price was around $200, now it’s around $70. Except for additional memory, it has mostly the same fundamental financial capabilities as it had in 1980. Why has it held its value? Because it is the standard of the financial industry. It still uses reverse polish notation, and those in several financial industries have learned how to use it. Most use the standard pre-programmed formulas and don’t even explore its programming capabilities. Calculators with similar capability sell for $19.99. Why don’t they gain market share? Because 12C users don’t know how to use them and won’t take the time to learn. It’s value is ubiquity in the financial communities where it has a foothold. The only exception I’ve seen is where intellectual property protection (patents etc.) hold values artificially high due to lack of competition. As long as there is value, we will buy and accept the status quo.

      • #2706434

        Fair Market Value

        by bbertovich ·

        In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

        Ultimately, markets set the rules based upon value. It may take some time, but that’s what happens. Take the HP 12C calculator for example, in 1980 the street price was around $200, now it’s around $70. Except for additional memory, it has mostly the same fundamental financial capabilities as it had in 1980. Why has it held its value? Because it is the standard of the financial industry. It still uses reverse polish notation, and those in several financial industries have learned how to use it. Most use the standard pre-programmed formulas and don’t even explore its programming capabilities. Calculators with similar capability sell for $19.99. Why don’t they gain market share? Because 12C users don’t know how to use them and won’t take the time to learn. It’s value is ubiquity in the financial communities where it has a foothold. The only exception I’ve seen is where intellectual property protection (patents etc.) hold values artificially high due to lack of competition. As long as there is value, we will buy and accept the status quo.

        • #2706432

          Jive Software powers this site, and it sucks.

          by bbertovich ·

          In reply to Fair Market Value

          Hitting back on your browser will re-submit your posting.

      • #3295489

        I favor purchase………..

        by carlsf1 ·

        In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

        I favor the purchase of software, the problem is that the price of the product is too high (yes I know they use the illegal copying excuse) but if the cost of the softeware was reasonable then people would purchase. It appears that even the licence models being touted are still far too high.
        THIS IS WHY THERE IS SUCH A HIGH PIRATED RATE.

        • #3313202

          How much is too much?

          by mike ·

          In reply to I favor purchase………..

          The right price of ANYTHING is a function of how much the market will bear and what the VALUE of it is to the user. If you buy a piece of software that saves (or earns) your company say, a MILLION dollars a year, why is it bad for that program to cost $50k?

    • #2723989

      Products enabled with a license server

      by marco schumacher (at biznesslegion) ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      The IBM/Rational products can be configured that way.
      1. You buy a number of so-called floating licenses, say 100. A license server (on a central server, as the name implies) keeps track of how many are in use.
      2. You install the application software on all machines that might need it, say 200. On each client, the licensing profile is pointed to the license server. Whenever someone starts the application, it obtains a license token from the server if the allotted pool has not been used up. When the application stops, it returns the token.

      You can also buy fixed licenses. At any given time, they are tied to a machine. However, you can move such licenses too, using Rational’s web site. This approach would be more relevant if you don’t switch machines too often.

    • #2705791

      Software Licensing

      by ajmsandy ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      My understanding of most computer software licensing agreements; is just what it says in the license agreement. You as an individual or a company purchase the right to use that software nothing more than that. The licensee owns the software through perpetuity. The license being enforceable once the software is installed on a single computer or computers, this type of licensing agreement is usually referred to as a “Break Seal Agreement”

      As an individual or company purchases a license to install software it should never be treated in my view as a company asset as there has no asset value that is tangible. We as individuals or companies have no right under the ?Break Seal Agreement? to sell or dispose of the software for monetary value as it was never our or the companies property in the first place.

      There are many software products that are server based which allow installation of the client (Workstation) on as many computers as needed. The server installed core software keeps a maximum user count running; when the license maximum count is reached further logins are rejected. If logins in excess of the maximum licence count are required then it is our option to purchase further client licences.

      The high cost of software reflects the many thousands of man hours in some cases man years it took to develop the software in the first place. The costs incurred by the software developer can and does in many cases run into many millions of dollars. There is also the ongoing support and updates and improvements to consider as well. Many large wealthy internationals companies would balk at the sheer cost and complexity of such a development.

      Whilst we might complain about what our balance sheet reflects in software license investment it pales into insignificance the costs involved of developing and supporting our own software. For sure successful software development companies can make vast amounts of profit from the products they produce and license.

      Without doubt for every successful piece of software produced there are many hundreds of other software applications that are abject failures. Software development is a very costly high risk business; failure does in some cases end up in bankruptcy for the application developer.

      When I consider the software I use every day, I marvel at its complexity and usefulness. The software I deploy allows me to complete the many tasks I ask of it and earns me a comfortable living. The few hundred dollars I spent purchasing the license in the first place seems good like very value to me.

      • #2722061

        The only value software actually has after installation

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Software Licensing

        Is as a Tax write off in deprecation. Otherwise everything you pointed out is correct.

        Companies spend vast amounts on software and quite often it costs more than the hardware involved so they need a means of recovering some of the outlay over the long term.

        Col

      • #2722851

        Software licensing — Reply

        by venky ·

        In reply to Software Licensing

        I am not questioning the price of any software. The vendor should price it correctly taking into account their R&D and other costs. However I do not understand that why a company purchasing licenses are not allowed to move it from emplyoeeA to employeeB when employeeA is on vacation or otherwise not using the software. The company purchased the software (or the right to use it) so anyone in the company should be able to use it without keeping it idle.

        Software is also bought with real money so there is no real good argument to keep it idle.

        • #2721553

          chicken and egg ?

          by travel4aliving ·

          In reply to Software licensing — Reply

          If the software was priced to permit the flexible usages you describe then I am sure the ISV’s could arrange that easily. I have been with a number of ISV’s over the past 35 years and all of them have made those arrangements for corporate clients that have enterprise wide usage. In order to survive against the giants like Microsoft and IBM, the ISV’s do continue to innovate their pricing models, but they cannot survive if they do this after the license has been purchased under a different price/usage scheme.

        • #2706267

          This is what aThin Client system is useful for

          by david.stergo ·

          In reply to chicken and egg ?

          For many apps, thin client, (Citrix, Tarantella, Terminal Services, etc) is a way to have a few licenses distributed to anyone who needs them. Of course this has its shortcomings when yuo need the power of a workstation to run something like 3D Studio Max, but for many Productivity apps it works well.

    • #2721606

      What about grid, what about virtualisation, what about the internet ?

      by tonysr ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      I feel the landscape of software licensing has already begun to shift, with the increasing geographical displacement of IT resources and staff (take offshoring or home working as examples of this).

      These changes to the way in which business operate, have forced the need to deliver software faster and more flexibly that traditional license agreements allow. There is an emergence of enabling technologies (Citrix, VMWare, etc.) which challenge the license models of today, and the smart ISV’s (e.g. Macromedia & ACT as have already been mentioned) will spot the opportunity to provide higher value flexible agreements at a premium. This will have the effect of protecting their revenues, whilst delivering what the customer wants.

    • #2721604

      Floating Licenses is what we re after?

      by yiannos ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      I think what you (correctly) point out is a ‘floating license’ scheme as described earlier in the thread. To me it seems only logical and fair. Nevertheless, many companies do not adopt it or have adopted it in the past and dropped it. Does anyone know why?

      In my case, as a happy SAP customer, I may have a lot of horror stories to tell to my grandchildren relating to SAP’s ‘named user’ license scheme and the way they try to impose it to customers.

      On the other hand, isn’t the same happening to processing nowadays? Isn’t the whole ‘Grid” and ‘Computing-on-demand’ idea along the same lines of not overbuying resources which are not used?

      Yiannos

      • #3305353

        Floating license is only for client server software

        by venky ·

        In reply to Floating Licenses is what we re after?

        desktop applications such as Visio or Photoshop etc. do not have floating licenses. Also floating licenses cost a whole lot of money than ordinary licenses. It is like saying if someone is going to sit on this chair all the time you need to pay double :).

    • #2721574

      Because they are different

      by mwolfstone ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      First, software is not like a toaster because you can copy software. Unless you have a Star Trek Replicator, you can’t very well copy your toaster.

      Second, most software licenses I have permit the software to be used on ONE PC AT A TIME. You can legally remove the product from one and install it on another.

      That is why we buy it that way (and because the developers can get away with it).

    • #2721566

      One solution

      by mmalouf ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      At my previous job we had a similar problem. We had about 120 people that needed to use MS-Project, but only about 25 used it at any one time. Rather than buy 120 copies we bought one 25 user copy and placed it on a shared Windows 2000 server. The 120 users had a client front end on their system to access the server copy. Rather than use licence manager or a license server we went to the sharing tab of the directory on the server containing MS-Project and set the user limit to 25. End result, multiple users could use the software and we did not bust the software licence limit. We also did not have to mess with license manager or a license server.

      NOTE: Our network admin worked with Microsoft to configure MS-Project to work this way, so I’d say we were legal.

      • #3305354

        Yes you were legal I think

        by venky ·

        In reply to One solution

        Microsoft has an 800 number for license questions and if you ask them whether you can move license around they do say that you can if you
        1) Have a volume license (you can purchase one if you purchase more than 5 copies)
        2) If you completely remove the software from one machine before you install it on another machine.

        • #3305269

          The only problem there is

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Yes you were legal I think

          That on my Web Page I used hyper links to M$ anti-piracy site and added their phone contact point. Now normally I would have thought that M$ would have been happy with this particularly as I did ask and received approval to do this from my immediate contact with M$.

          But when the marketing boys and girls saw it they got their LEGAL WHORES to send me a letter demanding that I remove all the links and phone numbers from the Web Page and that I could not use any of these in any other advertising or even to tell the potential customer. The only thing that was acceptable to them was if I rand g the number on my phone and then allowed the potential customer to talk to them that would be OK!

          Now I for one fail to see exactly how advertising M$ anti-piracy links and hotline in any way impinges on M$ Intellectual Property if anything it shows my willingness to only deal in genuine M$ product. Eventually it got sorted out and the only thing that I had to change was to place a demo of a M$ EULA on my site again with links to the anti-piracy department and a phone number.

          I originally provided hyperlinks to M$ web sites to show what pirated software did and what the disadvantages where, a hyperlink for a direct e-mail and a phone number and that upset them no end. Personally I would not consider asking M$ Anti-piracy section a single question about anything.

          Now my only contact with them is to report pirate software deals that I run across in my work otherwise I really want nothing at all to do with them.

          Col

    • #2721559

      License sound awfully harsh!

      by poordirtfarmer ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      Tieing one license to one INDIVIDUAL forever sounds awfully harsh. What software is this?

      • #2721547

        Mostly with OEM or Volume License

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to License sound awfully harsh!

        Software it is tied to a computer not a user. However M$ has recently also introduced the ability of people using the same number of copies of a program that a company has a volume license for use at home on their home computer.

        This currently is something that they are not policing too harshly either as if a staff member was to move on the new staff member could install the software on their home computer and M$ doesn’t appear to be too upset that the person who left still has use of the software. At least that was the current direction at the last M$ Partners meeting.

        Col

    • #2721524

      I agree!

      by mhasf ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      I have seen software, in days of yore, where it kept a license file that checked that there was only the number of people using it that you were licensed for. This makes more sense. It is rediculous to pay for something that is used only occasionally, locked to just one user. We just got hit with that with some pallet planning software. There is only one primary user, but we needed the potential for someone else to use it if he may be out on vacation, etc. We ended up paying for two licenses. The second license has yet to be used. What a rip off!

    • #2721523

      Negotiate – Don’t just accept it.

      by ais.sfwbuyer ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      Hi, My job is to buy corporate software from giants and small ISV’s alike. There are many many half truths and misconceptions in the posts above. The most important one for any company is that you don’t have to buy the software and simply accept the License Agreement.

      You get what you negotiate. If you want perpetual use licenses ask for it. If you want repurposeable licenses ask for them.

      Software vendors License software because the source code is their business. If they gave the rights to it away everytime they sold it anyone could copy and reproduce or slightly modify it and all of their R&D would be lost as would the ability to maintain it or upgrade it.

      As a company you acquire a license. That is the Asset. It has tangible value. You can use it (or not) just as you can with any three dimensional product. The point is that if you want specific use rights (and protections by the way) you need to negotiate for what you want. You nearly always have product choices and the vendors know that. If your demands are reasonable you can get changes made to meet your business needs.

    • #2706423

      common disk image allows switching

      by ppb ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      to get around the holiday problem, we install all software on the standard disk image and then switch apps on/off as required

      at any moment in time, we do not contravene the #licences we are entitled to operate, but we do have the flexiblity to give different users access to the software that they need

      so I would say the licensing model already exists, if you can find a practical way to manage it

      for some types of software, web services with unit-based pricing offer a good way forward, I am seeing this with addressing software solutions

    • #2706391

      All this mess has its days counting down…

      by joe mctroll ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      Soon, most of the software used both at companies and at home will be licensed under liberal open source agreements, TCO shall go to the basement and further down, and these horror stories about restrictive licenses or EULA’s will all be part of the past…

    • #2706315

      Watch what you ask for

      by thechas ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      One way to implement software licensing as you desire would be to change to a subscription style of licensing.

      Theoretically, you pay for software based on what software you actually use, and how much you use it.

      Microsoft has desired to change computer software from a purchased to a subscription model for a while now.

      The plus for Microsoft would be that they would have a nearly constant revenue stream.

      The BIG negative for most of us is that the cost of software would go WAY up!

      Right now, we purchase the major software packages that we use on a regular basis. My experience is that most of the time, software stays on the PC for 3 to 5 years, or the life of the PC. On average, typical office software applications work out to under $200 per year per workstation.

      With a subscription model, would we pay based on how long an application is open each day?

      Or, would we need to monitor the actual active usage time?

      I personally want to stick with the purchased model. We just need to help Microsoft learn to lower the cost per seat.

      Chas

    • #2706281

      That is one of the things

      by zlitocook ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      That I was called out for. I was trired of over priced software and learned how to change the software to let others use it. It was a USA only way to do things a few years ago. But alot has changed and now if you change any thing with software you can go to jail. You can still get around the user limit with most software, but you need to do it yourself, I can not tell you how.

    • #2706220

      License for Use

      by bfilmfan ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      You are actually paying for the license to USE the software, not to own it…

      Consider it rent.

      • #3305352

        But why restrict the use of license

        by venky ·

        In reply to License for Use

        When a company buys a license to use for a year anyone in the company should be able to use it as long as only X (being equal to the license purchased) number of users should use it irrespective of which user or which machine.

        That is the point I am trying to make not whether a company owns a license or software. This does not really matter.

    • #3305401

      Isn’t used software like a used car?

      by clindell ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      If you bought a car and needed to sell it regardless of age, could it be considered an asset? If it is an asset it is still of value to someone else. So in the case of some of the Dot-com’s that went bust and had bought lots of software and you buy the license to the software, doesn’t that give you the right to use the asset the way you want, you did buy the license didn’t you? Well in the case of some licensing agreements you are not allowed to use the license if you also don’t have the original media that came with that license. Shouldn’t this be illegal???

    • #3306065

      ACCPAC’s concurrent licensing works well

      by bob.beaucage ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      ACCPAC accounting software has been using concurrent licensing via Lanpaks as far back as their DOS product, and I think it works quite cleanly. You pay for the software, and then for each additional concurrent user that you want to have access, you buy Lanpak licenses (roughly 20% of the cost of the original software purchase).

      You then install the software on as many machines as you want. When you login, the lanpak license file (which sits on the server) determines if there are additional licenses available, and login is allowed or denied based on that.

      I’m sure other software vendors have a similar model, but it is the best I’ve seen, and easiest to work with.

      • #3307401

        This is not applicable for desktop software usally

        by venky ·

        In reply to ACCPAC’s concurrent licensing works well

        This model works well for client server software however for desktop apps (such as Visio, Photoshop etc.,) this model is not applicable. This is where most of the wastage is.

    • #3305951

      Software

      by stephen.buttery ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      Software is a real problem for IT professionals. It cost so much but you cannot see a software licence so it can’t be an asset. The software firms keep pushing the software on to us; they want us to purchase it. They then make it difficult to keep track of, make ever changing and complicated licensing rules. It has got to the stage that in order to keep within the law you need to employ someone full time to keep track of the stuff.

      There is software that can be used to track software on your system and it can help. There are software-licensing models that can be used, software assurance agreements for example. However, it has become difficult, complicated and expensive to manage. The software companies definitely want to have their cake and eat it.

      • #3307399

        You are right — Looks like we need a revolution :)

        by venky ·

        In reply to Software

        Yes. On top of all this the software vendors have also created a attack dog called BSA. While they are justified in expecting people to buy the software they use they are totally wrong when they force software to be kept idle by their licensing policies.

        Several of the infrequently used apps are costing enterprises millions of dollars. If IT folks payed real attention to these software and figure out a way to move them from one machine to another efficiently they can save a bundle of money.

        Let us take an example :

        Visio is on almost every machine of admin assistants, managers, executives etc., A typical company with say 5000 employees will have at least 500 copies of Visio and Project installed. These copies are probably used once or twice a month. In reality these companies can get a way with 100 copies of each. So because people do not move software from one machine to another there is potentially 800 copies of software lying around extra costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars.

        This example is only for 2 apps and I am sure there are several of this kind of so called productivity apps which are not being very productive at all :).

        There is more than a billion dollar market in the area of making software assets productive. I am not sure why there is not a lot more interest in this area.

    • #3306929

      A Rip Off System of dealing

      by aaron a baker ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      Dear Sirs;
      Regarding
      “Why we buy Software the way we do”
      I have always “Felt Ripped Off”, whenever the Software licensing issue arises.
      It’s my opinion, that the whole purpose for the creating the Software in the first place is to “sell it”.
      I think the way Microsoft and the like minded do business is at best, disreputable and underhanded.
      Admittedly, there is a lot of work that goes into planning, programming and implementation of the Software, but isn’t that what it’s all about anyway?
      If I pay what I consider to be an already outrageous price for Windows XP PRO, then I should have full ownership rights to do with it as I will.
      I should be able to put in any and/or all of my computers in the home without becoming “Microsoft illegal”.
      As it is, regardless of how many computers you own in your own home, you “must” purchase one XP for “every” Computer.
      This to me is ludicrous beyond words and should definitely be challenged.
      When I buy the Software i.e.; WinXP Pro, I don’t pay well over $300.00 for the 50 cent disk, I pay for the work and the creation of the Software on that disk. I do not however feel that this would entitle us to any intellectual claim but it should give us complete right of ownership.
      As it is now, we don’t “Buy” Software, we buy the disk and “Lease the Product”.
      In my opinion, “Although lucrative for Microsoft” this is very wrong and it’s a rip off.
      People and Firms should be able to by a software program and install it in all their computers without the Microsoft prerequisite of licensing or buying an XP for every single computer or networking the system to Death.
      Now it’s gotten even worse.
      When you buy “Windows XP Home Edition”, you have to “Activate” the product through Microsoft or it will cease to function within a certain amount of time. This is Microsoft’s way of keeping tabs on you, something that I find to be a highly objectionable business practice.
      Did they get their money, do I have a receipt? That’s all they have to know. They were paid.
      The reason that we buy software the way we do is that we have never challenged the methods by which we are “forced” to buy or more appropriately lease the product that is on the disk.
      The answer is that I should be able to buy one Windows XP Pro system for my entire Home and one system for entire Office, not be forced into a situation whereas we are actually leasing the product for a given amount of time and then must pay all over again under the pretense of a purchase.
      It’s a scam, I don’t care how much work goes into making the product. When you buy a car, the car is yours. “Ask GM or FORD what it cost to plan and create a car” You may not claim rights of creativity or intelectual property to the car but you sure as heck own it and may do with it as you please.
      The same should apply to “All Software”.
      The worst offender in this scam style of doing business is “Microsoft” and they should be challenged and brought to task for what is obviously a system designed to bleed you on a continuous basis. In my opinion, the Product is excellent but the business practice is cheap, underhanded and shoddy at best.
      What’s worse is that we let them getaway with this and so it goes on year after year.
      You want changes?, go after them and give “Them” no choice, either get fair or we go back to the old systems. Then they can “Create themselves Auld Nauseum” and have no one to sell to. Think about it, all dressed up with nowhere to go, it would change things.

      Thank you for your attention.
      Aaron A Baker
      Ottawa Ontario Canada

      • #3307397

        Microsoft is not necessarily the only bad guy

        by venky ·

        In reply to A Rip Off System of dealing

        Actually according to the 800 number they have setup for licensing you are allowed to move the software around from machine to machine except for the OS (which is your biggest gripe 🙂 ).

        Actually it is not easy to move OS around. We cannot expect to buy one copy of XP and put it on all the machines we own. I do not think it is fair to the software manufacturers. First of all they have to let people move the software around when it is not being used and then they will take the next step for being more open.

        In spite of availability of appropriate technologies companies still do not let others rent their software on an as needed basis. Microsoft is the only company that rents is software (though it is still extremely expensive to rent). All other companies are worried about loosing revenue so they have not taken that step yet.

        It is surprising that big enterprises have not gotten together to say enough is enough and try to change the way we license software.

    • #3295569

      sharing software licenses

      by owen.squire ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      Great idea, but there are already software vendors out there that use license servers with a pool of licences so users can use the software as they need.

      Perhaps if more software was supplied with a lisense server then many of these issues could be negated. Simply buy more licences for your pool if you need to. Maybe even sell them back if your needs reduce? This way you don’t need a license per individual all the time?

    • #3295546

      The Lic model.. updated

      by mr. tinker ·

      In reply to Why do we buy software the way we do

      The model should be updated and could probably save both the ISV and the users a bunch of money.
      Provided that the ISV’s finally come to a rational realization that we know live in a connected world. Most homes, and small business now have more than 1 computer in the office, and cannot afford to purchase multiple copies. So why not offer the installation in a fashion that reduces piracy? Sell a 1-2, a 1-5, a 1-10, a 1-100, and then a 100-1000 version out of the same box? Simply supply the ISV with your needs and the extra lib parts that allow the application to share-run on one machine with only 1 more machine in the network are downloaded after the appropriate License payment. This would give everyone their needs at a price that’s affordable, and give the ISV’s their revenue, while reducing the piracy. But of course this would only make sense which is why an ISV won’t do it.

Viewing 21 reply threads