"Mike MacSween" <mike.macsween.damnthespam@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:407125ad$0$63623$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk:
[color=blue]
> "David W. Fenton" <dXXXfenton@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
>[color=green]
>> The ISP is providing a service that is measure in bandwidth,
>> which is time-based. It's rather different from software.[/color]
>
> Like I said, I'm agnostic on the thing. I'll go with whatever the
> people who make the software decide is best for their business.
> BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE AND I'M NOT GOING TO WHINGE.
>
> You ARE renting software from your ISP. Bandwidth on it's own
> doesn't go anything.[/color]
No, I'm not renting any software whatsoever from my ISP. I haven't
bought any, either. Indeed, my Internet connection uses absolutely
not one byte of software that came from my ISP -- every piece of
software is either part of my OS or software that I downloaded
elsewhere.
[color=blue]
> The basic problem is lack of imagination. We're all still so used
> to the idea of software-in-a-box-that-we-own that we can't see all
> the software we actually rent already, like telecoms software and
> ATM software and web server software and.... Imaginarily word
> processing software and spreadsheet be the same.[/color]
It's not lack of imagination. It's the control that we would give up
by going to a subscription model.
If the software is Internet-provided (either it runs remotely or it
has to have an Internet connection to be updated or run at all),
then the use of your software becomes dependent on the availability
of an Internet connection.
If it's not, then it will expire and you'll need to renew, perhaps
in circumstances where you can't do that easily.
Then there's the issue of upgrades and patches pushed down the wire
to you without your permission.
I have a TiVo, and I'm stuck with the upgrades they give me (I have
no control). Fortunately, they haven't taken away anything I care
about. But they did once alter the database such that the
programming categories that previously existed were altered in a way
that, apparently, couldn't be mapped from the old ones, so all my
category-based data got lost (wish lists based on category,
recommendations based on category). It wasn't a huge deal, but if it
had been something that really mattered, it would have been a major
problem.
And, of course, there's the case of ReplayTV, which took away the
30-second commercial skip in a slipstream upgrade.
I don't trust the software makers to get it right. I *am* a software
developer, and I know how hard it is to get it right, and I wouldn't
trust anyone to always get it right so that I'd trust them to
automatically upgrade my software. I certainly don't trust Windows
Update enough to do it automatically, so I'm not about to do the
same with subscription software.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> But now I have to change, because they are no longer supporting
>> the product I want to use.[/color]
>
> That's life in a capitalist economy. You can only buy what
> somebody wants to sell.[/color]
If enough customers don't like it, the capitalist economy will force
the providers to change their ways.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I don't like giving up control of the software environment on a
>> PC to an outside source[/color]
>
> But you've already done that David. You target Windows based
> machines, Office applications, SQL Server etc. etc. The 'outside
> control' is the control of the companies (well, company it looks
> like) who wrote that software. . . .[/color]
Well, I have tested the software in a number of environments and
read about its reliability and features, so I have a choice about
which versions I put on my PC.
[color=blue]
> . . . Seems to me that all that's
> happening is that MS are actually enforcing the EULA (that
> nobody's bothered to read these past 2 decades). The one that
> says, basically, 'you don't actually own this software by the way,
> we're just letting you use it for a bit'.[/color]
No, they are going a step further and making it conceivable that
they can revoke your use of the software for arbitrary reasons. Or,
that it could stop working because they are no longer in existence
to pay the subscription to.
[color=blue]
> Of course you haven't really lost control atall. Get a machine,
> install Window 2000, Office 97 etc. and then NEVER EVER CHANGE
> ANYTHING. It'll still work won't it? . . .[/color]
Office97 is going to work on all versions of Windows for the
foreseeable future (with the appropriate registry tweaks to make it
run right under restricted user logons, but we've had to do that
since the release of Win2K).
It's the activation versions of software that tie you to a single
PC, and that's *wrong* -- you should be able to install the software
on any single PC you want, and the vendor should allow you to do so.
Otherwise, they are already selling you a "subscription" of sorts
that will eventually expire at some unspecified future date.
[color=blue]
> . . . The only variable is the
> mains voltage and I daresay if the lecky company ever changes that
> you could knock up a transformer at Radio Shack (hey, I've played
> at Mr Radio Shack's house a couple of times!). So what's the
> problem?
>
> Ah, I see, you want to change the machines to the newer version of
> Windows 2010 and the old version of Office won't run on it. C'est
> la vie. Que sera.[/color]
Microsoft is changing the terms of their licensing, and, yes, they
have a right to do that. They have a right to drive their business
into the ground until they simply go out of business.
And, indeed, that seems to have been their strategy for about the
last five years, at least in regards to the attention they pay to
small business customers.
That's why most of my clients are spending a lot less on Microsoft
software than they did 5 years ago.
[color=blue]
> Luckily there is an alternative I suppose and that looks like the
> open source movement. Seems like a good idea, but right now I
> can't be arsed.[/color]
Not a very good alternative at all -- right now, open source
software is a pile of unusable crap, at just about every level.
--
David W. Fenton
http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net
http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc 
