Microsoft wants you to pay $100 a year for Office 365

Sorry if this has already been posted.

Article

 

Re: Microsoft wants you to pay $100 a year for Office

"Microsoft wants you to pay $100 a year for Office"

This title is a joke , Office 365 is a service , not just software.

 

Re: Microsoft wants you to pay $100 a year for Office

I'll edit the title to say Office 365. Thanks.

 

Re: Microsoft wants you to pay $100 a year for Office

True - not just software, but it includes the software meaning that you lose access to applications if you allow the subscription to expire. There are good articles about the pros and cons of the subscription service on Paul Thurrott's site:

http://winsupersite.com/

The subscription service can be a good value if you have a sufficient number of PCs in your network/family, otherwise it may be more affordable to buy licenses in the usual way.

 

OpenOffice, mon amour!

 

Residual incomes are the driving force of corporate corruption. Just a couple decades ago if you asked anyone about paying monthly or yearly for much, they'd laugh at you. It was unheard of except for the basics like gas and electric. Nobody considered it for anything else, because it was viewed as a ripoff. Back when I went to marketing and business school we were taught that companies want to drive everything into a residual, they make a ton more money that way. They DO NOT want you to buy something and then run off, they want to milk you incessantly for more money. Also statistics show, many people ignore a 'few dollar' charges on their CC for residual services, even if they stop using the service.

In the 1990s I had a software firm with 12 programmers. One of the things we released was a monthly texture pack for graphic designers. It was only $5-$6 a month but I had 2,000 people that signed up. When I had metrics done on it, I discovered only 20-30% of the signed up folks actually logged in to download the textures, it was then I turned off the service as I considered it unethical at that point. But companies eat this stuff up!

When I buy a product, I want to make sure it doesn't come with strings attached as a general rule I try to follow. For example yearly admuncher I think is a ripoff, regardless of how much I like the product, so I purchased the lifetime. If the lifetime wasn't available I wouldn't have purchased it. I dislike residuals because I think they are just another scam to get people conditioned to paying 'forever' on crap.

 

Lifetime purchases can be just as much of a scam, depending on the vendor's definition of "lifetime" (hint, it's very rarely your own lifetime). Paid 100 bucks for AM did you? And what happens when those two guys run out of time/energy? What happens if it's several more years down the road before the v5 you're wanting comes out? What if it doesn't? That applies to all software and services. Both residual and lifetime payments have their ups and downs, but you're right, residual is all about keeping you hooked in.

 

Lifetime I mean, no monthly or yearly. Not necessarily a lifetime per-say. I bought AM for my primary machine during the 50% off sale, more as a test than anything else, as my primary machine gets 90% of the web browsing and I wanted to see if it worked. But yes there are perils to even that, but the company has been around since 1999 so disappearance is unlikely.

Anyone remember when cable first came out? It was paid because it was commercial free, and the major selling point was - you pay so you don't get bothered by commercials. Then quietly, year after year, more and more commercials came in. Then we have what we have now, paid + commercials, and bills that surpass $100 a month (lunacy). Prior to a couple decades ago, everyone had free TV, why did we let this residual scam take us over?

So I tend to steer folks away from monthly/yearly, and myself I try to avoid them when possible.

 

Yeah, remind me how much OO costs again ...

I get Freeview free. I have to pay for the BBC licence though.

 

How do you guys look at free SkyDrive Office Apps?
Since I've been using those (98% Word tbh), I rarely find the need for more extensive Office versions.
Having only an occassional need for 'pure' Windows docs with immaculate layout (so no Libre/OpenOffice derivative), SkyDrive suffices completely.

 

Yeah, I am sorry but getting charged 1x year is something that I will never agree to. Whether it's Office, AV or anything else besides my VPN. I will always strongly support reliable company that provides lifetime license. Having said that, I paid $100 for Office 2010, I will buy more versions as long as they are not subscription based. Once MS Office moves to yearly or monthly fees, I will simply explore other alternatives or use whatever I have for as long as I can. Same goes for Windows or any other software. I buy it, I own it and no rental.

 

lifetime licenses are nice but a business plan that rely on them only is doomed to failure eventually.

 

Wow really? Did you know the majority of businesses out there still rely on lifetime licenses, or freeware? The ONLY product on my computer that doesn't have a lifetime license is Bullguard, and that was a 3 year for a few bucks. All of my games are lifetime, same with my productivity junk. Who would ever pay yearly for office? LOL!!

Your statement should read "Lifetime licenses are the best deal, which is why businesses don't want you to have them.". CON-SUME, they want you using stuff, always burning through stuff, seeking more replacements. It's how they get your money. The first person to invent never-ending-soap will be a billionaire, oh wait.. He will 'disappear'...

 

let's say there would be only 100 people on Earth.
if you sell a product with lifetime licenses the money intake will stop eventually.

whether it's 100 people or 7 billions, it's the same principle.

 

Many seem to echo this statement. I share part of it. Since many have done the opposite, I thought of making a small argument for lifetime license model (just for fun).

Common argument against lifetime license is due to the prediction of market saturation. License renewal or subscription models are often touted as the guarantee for flow of income. Proponents of subscription models also tend to assume that customers will come back. I'm not calling it 'wrong' but more often than not, there's hasty generalization when other factors are not taken into account. For one, brand loyalty can be an issue. In a market where consumers can switch brands/vendors easily, who's to say that your existing consumers will be your future customers in the years to come? Economic variables like purchasing power and real income also comes to play...

I will be stating the obvious that in a lifetime license model, you don't get continued flow of cash from the same entity. However, not all is lost - there is an advantage in that you get an early investment in your product. In a scenario where an entity is less likely to be a repeat customer, you have basically secured an investment from him/her/them. With the profits you get from this entity (and all others combined) minus the liabilities, your owner's equity grow in strength. Here's where money management comes in. Splurge with the profits and you know what happens. Manage it resourcefully and there are ways you can work it to your advantage. There are plenty of finance advisers out there...

I'm in the opinion that there's no 1 golden rule of approach when it comes to handling businesses. Even economists have disagreements...

 

There's a lot of hype in that article. First, you still have the traditional office, so no one forces you to do anything. Second, this new model is supposed to go against Google rather than the home user. Third, you can still use the free version of Skydrive and create basic Office docs.
Mrk

 

Yep, exactly.....

 

Not true at all. It can be a very profitable business plan. You can still sell licenses to businesses, sell your engine module to other antivirus companies or offer other subscription based products while you build your brand name.To say that lifetime license is doomed to fail is complete nonsense.

 

maybe so, but eventually you will have hit a wall.

subscriptions based model was not part of my argument.
the point i was making was about a business plan that would offer lifetime licenses *only*

 

anyway, to get back on topic a little more:

from:
http://arstechnica.com/information-...h-microsofts-office-365-home-premium-edition/

 

I dislike the subscription idea of software. It allows these companies to collect a monthly paycheck and stop innovating. Why advance any product when you can create it once and collect indefinitely? If they could have sold Windows 95 by subscription, we would still be using it.

 

Microsoft, like many others, are clearly trying to take advantage of novice users...who are apparently flush with cash (their own, or mommy & daddy's).

IMO, this is what Apple did. They turned all these lazy brats into tech consumers. Whereas, in the past, these newbs would limit their involvement to basic software...or rely on the guidance of some enlightened "nerd".

Now, they're ready to spend on purposefully restricted & inefficient software. Shrewd companies no longer have to respect standards of quality & service that the sophisticated nerds had set for them.

Enjoy the back-slide!