dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2308
share rss forum feed


jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
kudos:4

When your PC dies, so does your Office 2013 license

"Why Microsoft’s new Office 2013 license may send users to Google Docs."

Interesting article by Peter Bright

»arstechnica.com/information-tech···le-docs/
--
"It turns out we're very good at not seeing things" - Jack Hitt



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

"It's also unlikely to make any material difference to many people."

Yep, he pretty much nailed it.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


rrockingb
Semper Fi Mac
Premium
join:2002-03-28
Silver Springs, NV
kudos:3
reply to jmorlan

Thanks for posting this link.....

Very interesting indeed.



plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3
reply to JohnInSJ

said by JohnInSJ:

"It's also unlikely to make any material difference to many people."

Yep, he pretty much nailed it.

After reading the article, that was the same conclusion that I came up with.

Sure, for most of the people who post in this forum, that would not be the case. However, we are the exception to the rule here. As was said in the article, most non-business, non-technical consumers will buy a PC will the OS and other software pre-installed. The user will use that PC until it either stops working (virus, hardware failure) or the user wants something faster. At that time, they will "junk" their current computer, and go back out and buy a new PC (probably from the same location they got their previous one at). These are the same users that will use a specific version of the OS (and software) for as long as they have their computers. To them, if the software does its job, and is still running, why go out to the store and purchase a new version?

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail


jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
kudos:4

I guess for me it's a bigger deal than that. Although my own views are somewhat ambivalent, as a matter of principle I feel a sense of outrage that software I paid for will no longer work when/if my PC dies. In my own case, I own (license) a copy of Office 2010 and was considering an upgrade to 2013. But my main computer is aging. I bought it December 2009. It's not exactly nearing end of life but it's not exactly brand new either.

If I were to buy (license) Office 2013 now, and install it on this computer, that's three years off the life of the license. There are a number of considerations when deciding on a major software upgrade such as to Office 2013. I liked some of its features such as being able to edit PDFs, but was unaware of the change in licensing until I saw the article.

For me, it's probably a deal breaker.
--
"It turns out we're very good at not seeing things" - Jack Hitt



aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1

While MS has every right to change their license, users also have every right to use some other SW, or continue to use an older version. Personally, the only two pieces I normally use are Word and Excel, and I mostly use Word to open attachments that come through email since I normally use Wordpad or Notepad for my own editing.

This is clearly an attempt to steer people toward their subscription based SW.
--
Wacky Races 2012!



Msradell
P.E.
Premium
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY
reply to jmorlan

Don't forget, Microsoft is trying to push everybody into leasing their software from Microsoft instead of buying it. This is being discussed in another thread. Making the license like this is probably just another way to push users into the model they want customers to use.



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

said by Msradell:

Don't forget, Microsoft is trying to push everybody into leasing their software from Microsoft instead of buying it. This is being discussed in another thread. Making the license like this is probably just another way to push users into the model they want customers to use.

Sure, as was covered in this and every other article and podcast. Microsoft doesn't make money selling one copy of office every 15 years to a single user. So they'd just as soon have that one customer try open office (you'll be back) and get the other 14 on an annual subscription.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Kerodo

join:2004-05-08

said by JohnInSJ:

said by Msradell:

Don't forget, Microsoft is trying to push everybody into leasing their software from Microsoft instead of buying it. This is being discussed in another thread. Making the license like this is probably just another way to push users into the model they want customers to use.

Sure, as was covered in this and every other article and podcast. Microsoft doesn't make money selling one copy of office every 15 years to a single user. So they'd just as soon have that one customer try open office (you'll be back) and get the other 14 on an annual subscription.

I don't know that what they're doing makes all that much difference practically speaking. I bought Office 2000, then 2003, then 2007, so that's even more often than I bought a new PC. Some will certainly try LibO, but as you said, and IMO, the MS product is the real deal, and the best....


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

Right... they are only impacting a tiny number of users. Who would represent virtually no impact to their bottom line, since those users buy one copy every millennium. Or so it seems.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us



H2OuUp2
Happy to be here
Premium
join:2002-03-15
Oklahoma City, OK
reply to jmorlan

If it was just for personal use only, then one of the other Office suites would be fine. However even in your home you will run into times when you need the full MS Office app.

While most people don't realize the difference, there are tons of incompatibility issues, but these don't raise their head on a simple text document in Word, or some simple calculations in Excel.

The issue is when you get some complicated formulas in Excel that don't convert, or a pivot table with slicers, or custom VBA, etc. Since so much of "my" stuff needs to be 100% compatible with corporate files the other options are still not there yet; because I need to share with people/business who have the MS Office app, and the files we work on are beyond what the "free" Office apps offer.

Back to the license: For some it will be much better, other it won't. I have had versions of Office 5.0, 97, 2000, XP, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2013. But then again I do work that even requires I keep older copies for programming purposes, so I'm not really typical.

Lets say I started in 1995 with Office 5.0 to now with Office 2013. This is 17 years. In 17 years I would have spent around $1700 for a subscription based software with 5 license.

Now I have never bought more than one license of Office, and have always been able to use it on at least two PC's. I have always upgraded my PC during the life cycle of Office, so if the key had been hard linked to one PC this would not have been good, and would have at least doubled my cost.

Now I paid retail for some versions, Student for others, and even MSDN subscriptions. I have been able to get great discounts on all but one Office product, so in reality my guess is I have spent about $700 on all the different products through the 17 years. (had I paid retail I would have spent approximately $2400).

So looking at this the Subscription service is a better deal vs retail if you upgrade to every version. If however you are still using Office 97 (the first with VBA) and it's working good for you then you would be out a lot of money. So this isn't an easy argument to settle one way or the other. - Some will need it for compatibility, some for the new features, some for keeping knowledgeable on the latest software. There are many reasons why one would need to have the latest version, and many reasons why one would not need it, or could just use the "free" versions out there.

I have tried the Office 365 with 5 license. I didn't need all five license so I had a friend pay me 20 bucks each for two license. Now my subscription is only $60 a year. Not bad. Also If I need to move a license to another PC I just go on the next and deactivate which one I no longer need and I'm good to go.

The biggest reason I see about having the subscription is you always get the newest software for no extra charge, so if they come out with an Office 2014 you will get it no charge (only your yearly subscription.) Second what happens if you change jobs? All of a sudden you are in an environment that requires you to use the latest Office. You have been using something else, and now you are behind the 8 ball trying to catch up. Don't think this will happen?

Well I have had two friends that refused to use Office, that recently changed jobs, guess what? They have to use MS Office A LOT.

I think Microsoft is trying to go the route of so many other "Custom" programs out there. Roofers, Adjusters, REALTORS, Doctors, Lawyers, Builders, all have software that is a lease software that you either lease by the month or by the year. I have never been a fan of the lease, but right now the MS lease is not a bad deal.

However should the "free" versions or other alternative versions ever go away, then they could raise the subscription price to what ever they wanted to and there would be nothing you could do about it other than not use it.
--
He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot



DarkSithPro

join:2005-02-12
Tempe, AZ
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to jmorlan

I find all this talk about subscription services disturbing. First I heard talk about the newer Windows OS versions in the future being subscription based and now their latest office suites. When I bought my computers I didn't spend my hard earned money to lease them and I didn't expect the software to be leased either. My understanding was once I payed for my PC it's mine, not on some loan, due to very hard to understand/shady license agreements. If I want to upgrade it, I can upgrade it, if I want to smash it then I can smash it. If in the future all software becomes a cloud based license then you really don't own your computer anymore. You're literally being held at the mercy of a giant software monopoly. At that point why even have a hard drive anymore?



Kramer
Premium,Mod
join:2000-08-03
Richmond, VA
kudos:2
reply to aurgathor

said by aurgathor:

While MS has every right to change their license, users also have every right to use some other SW, or continue to use an older version. Personally, the only two pieces I normally use are Word and Excel, and I mostly use Word to open attachments that come through email since I normally use Wordpad or Notepad for my own editing.

This is clearly an attempt to steer people toward their subscription based SW.

Absolutely. It worked with me. It wasn't the fact the license wasn't portable, but the fact they no longer include a 2nd install. The subscription seemed like the only way to go for me. It ticks me off, but the the best thing to do is to find the best thing for you. For me and I bet a lot of other people, the subscription model makes the most sense.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
reply to jmorlan

Maybe it's time to dust off my LaTeX skillz!


OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to jmorlan

Thanks for letting us know about this change. It will stop me from buying Office 2013 retail. I'll continue to use my old 2003 version or move to another alternatives.

In this case m$ is trying to grab extra money not only form enthusiasts (as the author of the article tries to portray the move). We all know that computers have tendency to brake. And if in case HD is suddenly gone or I start to see a problem with MB or network card (or whatever else it checks) and after replacing faulting components m$ will tell me - "Bad luck, go and pay us again", I'll feel... well, you know how everyone would feel in such case.

With this move m$ becomes a cheapskate for its own customer base and that is just sad.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...



DarkSithPro

join:2005-02-12
Tempe, AZ
kudos:2

1 edit

said by OZO:

Thanks for letting us know about this change. It will stop me from buying Office 2013 retail. I'll continue to use my old 2003 version or move to another alternatives.

In this case m$ is trying to grab extra money not only form enthusiasts (as the author of the article tries to portray the move). We all know that computers have tendency to brake. And if in case HD is suddenly gone or I start to see a problem with MB or network card (or whatever else it checks) and after replacing faulting components m$ will tell me - "Bad luck, go and pay us again", I'll feel... well, you know how everyone would feel in such case.

With this move m$ becomes a cheapskate for its own customer base and that is just sad.

n/m


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

1 recommendation

reply to OZO

said by OZO:

I'll continue to use my old 2003 version or move to another alternatives.

Yep, this is an excellent example of the customer that Microsoft will loose due to this change. One that hasn't generate revenue in 9 years.

I don't think it will hurt their bottom line.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


Msradell
P.E.
Premium
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY
reply to H2OuUp2

said by H2OuUp2:

The biggest reason I see about having the subscription is you always get the newest software for no extra charge, so if they come out with an Office 2014 you will get it no charge (only your yearly subscription.) Second what happens if you change jobs? All of a sudden you are in an environment that requires you to use the latest Office. You have been using something else, and now you are behind the 8 ball trying to catch up. Don't think this will happen?

This brings up an interesting point. Will you upgrade to the newest version of the automatic or will you have a choice? Many times you don't want to immediately upgrade to the newest version for various reasons. Some of them would be compatibility with the version you use at work, compatibility of certain programs or an extended learning curve. If the upgrade is automatic, as soon as it's available real problems could occur.


kickass69

join:2002-06-03
Lake Hopatcong, NJ
reply to JohnInSJ

Because all of us need to buy the newest version of Office when it comes out when the version they use suits their needs? Same applies to Windows.



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

said by kickass69:

Because all of us need to buy the newest version of Office when it comes out when the version they use suits their needs? Same applies to Windows.

Nope - not at all. You can decide what you want to do. If what you want to do isn't something Microsoft wants to sell you, then you do what you want to do with some other software.

But do recall that unlike FOSS, for profit companies tend to prefer to generate profit. You can decide for yourself if you find their product offerings worthwhile, and vote with your $.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by JohnInSJ:

Nope - not at all. You can decide what you want to do. If what you want to do isn't something Microsoft wants to sell you, then you do what you want to do with some other software.

I think that's a little unfair a characterization - this is surely a case of vendor lock-in. If I've got a couple of tonnes of existing Word documents going back to the 20th century, and my new employees need access to the same, then I might well feel compelled to buy whatever Office version MS will agree to sell me, under whatever terms they want.

i.e., they've already got me by the nuts and I can't really stop them squeezing.

Here's how I see it: the Office software is now mature enough that it does pretty much everything everyone needs, and the previous sales driver of "see new features, willingly upgrade" is no longer operational.

A switch to a subscription-based model seems like an honest way of confronting the issue. An underhand "full retail but tied to one PC forever" somehow smells of deceitful tactics. My PC is nothing to do with Microsoft. If I choose to build a new one every month (the bit-bucket fills up so rapidly these days), it's unclear to me why there's any moral grounds for saying I need to pay MS more money for the same thing because... well, because they want me to.

Well, there goes any chance I ever had of getting returned as an MS MVP...


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to Msradell

said by Msradell:

said by H2OuUp2:

The biggest reason I see about having the subscription is you always get the newest software for no extra charge, so if they come out with an Office 2014 you will get it no charge (only your yearly subscription.) Second what happens if you change jobs? All of a sudden you are in an environment that requires you to use the latest Office. You have been using something else, and now you are behind the 8 ball trying to catch up. Don't think this will happen?

This brings up an interesting point. Will you upgrade to the newest version of the automatic or will you have a choice? Many times you don't want to immediately upgrade to the newest version for various reasons. Some of them would be compatibility with the version you use at work, compatibility of certain programs or an extended learning curve. If the upgrade is automatic, as soon as it's available real problems could occur.

And that all raises yet another point: if a subscription model will automatically bump software versions and features at Microsoft's discretion, then business customers (large or small) lose their own ability to determine when to break in new software versions within their organizations. When planning for software updates, businesses must consider deployment impact and cost... things like re-training, inefficiency and customer-service disruptions until the learning curve is mastered, IT department overtime, system compatibility issues, etc, etc.

Imagine the chaos within a business if one Tuesday morning, all their Office software had been reverted from the "ribbon" back over to some new menu-tree format, or from the present panel layout to some Win8 metro-desktop-type work area format... and the software was only working on 2/3 of their systems. Now, obviously, major feature break-ins would likely be advance-announced by Microsoft, but a business would still be stuck with MS's break-in point, not their own. If they chose not to continue subscribing, their existing Office software would... what? It would no longer be legitimately licensed, with all the legal repercussions that implies. I really question how business will ultimately react to these MS nudges and shoves toward software subscription licensing...
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to JohnInSJ

said by JohnInSJ:

said by OZO:

I'll continue to use my old 2003 version or move to another alternatives.

Yep, this is an excellent example of the customer that Microsoft will loose due to this change. One that hasn't generate revenue in 9 years.

And why do you think that my mission is to generate revenue for that company?

I have different financial objectives and I buy a tool, when I need it, to achieve them. Wasting my money on something, just because this company wants to get revenue from me, is not one of them. If you think otherwise, you live in a world of some illusion, that has nothing to do with reality.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

said by OZO:

said by JohnInSJ:

said by OZO:

I'll continue to use my old 2003 version or move to another alternatives.

Yep, this is an excellent example of the customer that Microsoft will loose due to this change. One that hasn't generate revenue in 9 years.

And why do you think that my mission is to generate revenue for that company?

I have different financial objectives and I buy a tool, when I need it, to achieve them. Wasting my money on something, just because this company wants to get revenue from me, is not one of them. If you think otherwise, you live in a world of some illusion, that has nothing to do with reality.

I don't think that at all. I think you are a non-issue for Microsoft. Go forth and enjoy your other options.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH
reply to jmorlan

I don't like Microsoft office anyway I use Google Docs why pay for something you can get for free.


UmmaGumma

join:2011-06-19

Open Office and/or Libre Office work fine for anything I do.



Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4

You must not need excel and powerpoint.

I've used libra and it's awesome for word but powerpoint and excel are trash. I'd rather use google drive.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.



Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to chip89

said by chip89:

I don't like Microsoft office anyway I use Google Docs why pay for something you can get for free.

skydrive gets you office for free as well.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.


chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH

Which I don't get If why want you to pay for it in the first place I knew that though I have 25Gs of storage on skydrive.



J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to jmorlan

So Microsoft is trying to be irrelevant? Why would they do this? Makes no sense!