I should state here and now that I am not a Microsoft basher or an Apple basher, or a Microsoft lover or Apple lover. I may praise or criticize either company, and comments either way should not be construed as pro or anti-anybody. That said, on we go.
It seems that Microsoft has been struggling with how to support (or not support) the aging Windows NT 4.0 platform. By the end of the year both NT workstation and NT server will be "expired" in the eyes of Microsoft, with no additional patches or support. Some are seeing this as a way for Microsoft to force its users to upgrade to a newer operating system, such as Windows 2000 or XP, or even Server 2003. Is this a valid argument? Perhaps, but that's not what I want to discuss.
Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but it seems that a better model would be to pay an annual fee, and as long as you are staying current with payments, you receive access to the newest software. Obviously cost isn't the only problem with migrating from one OS version or software version to another, but it's a significant cost. If you have 10,000 workstations to move from NT 4.0 to XP, that's not going to be cheap. Of course, when you quit paying the fee, you lose access to all versions of the software.
Windows XP Pro costs about $190 retail. Given that there is a new Windows release every 2-3 years, why not charge something like $40-$50 per year to use Windows, but whenever there is a new version, it is included (you can install and use it for no additional fee). In addition, any paying members could use any older version at any time, so for the same fee, if I chose, I could use Windows 98SE. It could work with expensive software, too, like PhotoShop or Adobe.
Why would this be better? Foremost, you'd never be stuck with old versions or obsolete software without an inexpensive upgrade path. Secondly, there wouldn't be a major investment required to "purchase" a new version of software, instead, you'd essentially always be paying for software in installments. Thirdly, companies would be more likely to create exceptional software, because at any time you could quit paying your annual fee, and start paying someone else, so there would be a direct loss in the immediate future for switching. If I switch to Corel from Adobe, Adobe may not feel that for another 3 years, there's no urgency to keep me.
Most importantly, it would make software more accessible to everyone, and would give consumers an improved sense of control and feedback for their software. You always would be able to have the newest, and you always would be able to leave at any time, without having lost a lot of money in the process. In addition, your cancelation would hurt the company immediately--so they would be more inclined to try and keep the customers that they have while also "converting" or recruiting new one.
It's kind of like leasing a car: if you want, you can pay $x/month, and after a few years, get a new model and still pay $x/month. With a fixed cost you always get the upgrades, and if at the end of a lease you don't like brand Y anymore, you can go elsewhere, and brand Y knows you left and feels it rigth there and then.
I think it can work for software. What do you think?
Noooo way. This is what I've been fearing for years. Turning software into a service industry will destroy everything. There is no way a corporation would play nice. They wouldn't accept being paid simply for upgrades (new features, functionality, etc). They would find a way to force an upgrade out of as much of their userbase as they can. It's all about money for them. Plain a simple. Morals have no place in the existence of a corporation. Newer versions of software would be designed to be totally incompatable with previous versions. Any networking features of older versions of software would cease to function. People would be forced to pay for an upgrade not for superior software, but simply to ensure operability.
Moreover, when you talk about owning, say...100 applications, how do you possibly afford that? You see what happens with pay-per-play video games. The simple fact is--you don't afford it. You pick a single game and play it for eternity.
Services==bad for consumers. They have a right to totally and completey own a piece of software unrestricted. No EULA, no service agreement, no required upgrades, no strings attached. They also have a right to have that software function properly and function (foreseeably) forever. If there are bugs, the developer has a responsibility to offer fixes and patches in an accessable manner and completely free of charge. This is especially true when you talk about an OS.
I'm confused, you say that companies would force people to pay to upgrade--but there's nothing to pay for. If it's subscription-based, there's no forcing. Any upgrades are free as long as you subscribe. It wouldn't be of any benefit to the company to force you to upgrade, and even if they did--it'd be "free" beyond what you're paying already.
Further, in terms of affordability: the subscription games are costing $10-$20 month. Most software would cost less than that per year. I'd pay winzip $10 per year, if I knew I could always get the latest. Something like Weatherbug that costs in the ballbark of $20 for a license could cost $4 per year. It wouldn't have to be any more expensive. I think that companies could sell more because everything could effectively be on the installment plan.
No software will ever come without a license or EULA. Further, you say that companies have no morals, yet you expect them to offer fixes and patches and make them free. Which is it? As highlighted in the article "forever" is not a reasonable time period. Should Microsoft still be required to provide patches to DOS 6.22? I'm sure there are still unresolved bugs.
"I'm confused, you say that companies would force people to pay to upgrade--but there's nothing to pay for. If it's subscription-based, there's no forcing."
My point was, as I said, that they most certainly would not play nice. They would--with my absolute certainty--require new "key" upgrades which require an additional purchase. Yes, that's a bit off point; however, I believe it's a key ideal that needs to be recognized. There is no way in hell that a corporation would allow one to pay a flat-rate subscription and be afforded free-and-clear upgrades for all titles (fixes, upgrades, revisions, new versions) for the rest of eternity.
"Further, in terms of affordability: the subscription games are costing $10-$20 month. Most software would cost less than that per year. I'd pay winzip $10 per year, if I knew I could always get the latest. Something like Weatherbug that costs in the ballbark of $20 for a license could cost $4 per year."
Okay. So, with my example of 100 apps, let's figure out the math. $10x100=$1000. $4x100=$400. $400USD/year or $1000USD/year. Do you really view those figures as affordable?
"No software will ever come without a license or EULA."
They should. I fully believe EULAs are illegal.
"Further, you say that companies have no morals, yet you expect them to offer fixes and patches and make them free. Which is it? As highlighted in the article "forever" is not a reasonable time period."
Forever is a perfectly reasonable time period. If you release software, you better make it work. If you leave it unfixed (within reason) then you're morally faulty. The dollar simply should not be the deciding factor. Moreover, in the case of an OS, it's all the more imperative that you support legacy versions for as long as humanly possible. It's your responsibility as a company to make sure your application isn't the target of exploits that could harm users. I don't see why that is so unreasonable to ask for.
I believe the answer is already given to us. Major applications required for everyday productivity, production, or clerical work are being developed open-source and free of charge. It's real tough to fight free software that has the entire development community to support it's upgrading and patching.
"There is no way in hell that a corporation would allow one to pay a flat-rate subscription and be afforded free-and-clear upgrades for all titles (fixes, upgrades, revisions, new versions) for the rest of eternity."
Why not? You wouldn't pay a company for all titles, you'd pay for one title, like Adobe Acrobat. Say, $100/year. As long as you paid the $100/year, you get whatever you want for Acrobat, any version, old or new. When you quit paying, you can't use it anymore. There's nothing to force, it's a flat yearly fee.
"Okay. So, with my example of 100 apps, let's figure out the math. $10x100=$1000. $4x100=$400. $400USD/year or $1000USD/year. Do you really view those figures as affordable?"
Yes, but you make it sound like you could purchase the 100 apps today for free. You can't. 100 apps x $50 per app to purchase outright = $5,000. That's 5 times the $1,000 you calculated for the subscription model. Obviously our numbers are totally made up here but you seem to have neglected the cost to purchase outright your 100 apps.
"Forever is a perfectly reasonable time period."
So you're saying everything should work forever? Nothing should ever wear out? Nothing ever exceeds its useful life beyond which the cost of maintaining it is more than the cost of replacement?
"applications required for everyday productivity, production, or clerical work are being developed open-source and free of charge."
Free of charge to obtain, but not free of charge to use. RedHat linux used to be free, and now you pay for it. People do pay for it--thousands and thousands of dollars. Is RedHat still free, open source software?
Off-topic, I think open source's greatest challenge is that most non-technically savvy people don't have the time or knowledge to deal with open source software. Based on the time and understanding I need to have to get certain things done, my mom doesn't have a chance.
Another thought -- perhaps older versions could be given a reduced rate if you needed a second copy for a secondary (less capable) PC.
"Why not? You wouldn't pay a company for all titles, you'd pay for one title, like Adobe Acrobat."
Why not, you ask? Simply my opinion, heh. I don't see it happening. All too often to I come into contact with the goofball extra zillion dollar charge for this or for that. I don't see why it would be any different in this industry.
"Yes, but you make it sound like you could purchase the 100 apps today for free. You can't. 100 apps x $50 per app to purchase outright = $5,000. That's 5 times the $1,000 you calculated for the subscription model."
Yeah but my $5000 lets me use 100 applications for life. Your $5000 grants you the use of them for five years. As it stands, I'll get any upgrades to that software for free. Only a new iteration would require a new purchase and that usually is a smaller "upgrade" fee. I can easily see my one-time investments becoming much cheaper than a subscription model after x number of years. Also, what about third party upgrades? I can't imagine a company would stand to let that happen if their business model relies on people subscribing simply for the benefit of free updates.
"Free of charge to obtain, but not free of charge to use. RedHat linux used to be free, and now you pay for it. People do pay for it--thousands and thousands of dollars. Is RedHat still free, open source software?"
Well, I think Red Hat is a bad example. It's a distro intended to make a dollar. That's all well and good. However Linux proper (and most of the software included with Red Hat) is free. Regardless, there are plenty of purely free Linux distros.
"Off-topic, I think open source's greatest challenge is that most non-technically savvy people don't have the time or knowledge to deal with open source software. Based on the time and understanding I need to have to get certain things done, my mom doesn't have a chance."
I agree but I attribute that simply to the rather localized support that open source has had until late. The programming "elite" developed software by them, for them. Now-a-days though, you see stuff like OpenOffice.org. That's easy as pie to install and use. There's a clear trend to make open source software (intended for use by the mainstream) as accessable and user-friendly as possible.
Hopefully I can wrap this up as I think we've both pretty much exhausted our sides. :) Since neither of us can really predict what any company will do in a specific environment, it's not very worthwhile to really debate what they will do. Of course, I concede that it could end up with companies treating consumers badly, but I'm not sure that's much of a change from the present. ;)
I chose RedHat for my example cause it's the main distribution that's purchased. You're right that there are purely free distros, but they aren't used nearly as much in business environments (to the best of my knowledge). Buying/"leasing" software goes to hell when you throw free software in the bag, so I couldn't use free software to support my side. ;)
Open Office is easy to use, but it's still not as powerful as Office, nor is it fully interoperable. For someone in business needing to share 100% compatible documents, that's no good.
In any event, I do how these scheme could fail, and I do see how open source would create a challenge to it. I'm not convinced it would work, but it sure has been interesting to think about and discuss, no?