Why is it robbery for Microsoft to not allow you to install one piece of software on all the machines you own? They want one license per machine. Their strategy has never changed. What should change is everyone's understanding. Office apps have become commoditized as have computers. The parties that realize this quickest are going to win.
Under this new understanding an office suite shouldn't cost more than $100. Star Office is free and PC alternatives are popping up that are completely MS Office compatible for no more than $200 per SITE.
In a day where many PC's are going for roughly $799-999 including monitor, standard software (not professional apps) shouldn't be hundreds of dollars. Heck they shouldn't even be $100.
Apple and MS are going to both get rolled over by the same stone. We shouldn't complain on one hand that Apple should be able to charge $2500 for a mid-level performance tower and the not expect to really pay MS's price for Office.
If you're hell bent on giving microsoft their "fair share" then you can always order a single site, multi user copy of office. That's what we did at work and, strangely enough, it ended up being even cheaper than retail. This was because if you buy the single site multiuser license you don't get any fancy packaging or documentation. This was for Office XP. We're using office in our business so we couldn't be caught using pirated software, but in the case of a home user I'd just recommend getting another serial number.
As for that "fair share" part... I think 95% of the entire computer OS market is a tad more than their "fair share". The DOJ seemed to share this opinion as well. If they want to illegaly hold a monopoly over the entire market then I don't feel the slightest shread of guilt from pirating their software for my own use.
My biggest complaint isn't the registration restrictions or even the price of Office. It's the price of individual office components.
Think about it: there are 4 main apps in Office v.X (Word, Excel, Powerpoint & Entourage). Yet, if I wanted to only purchase Word, I'm still going to pay about $399 (retail) compared to $499 (retail) for Office in its entirety. Shouldn't 1/4 of a software package at least only cost 1/3 to 1/2 the price?
<strong>Think about it: there are 4 main apps in Office v.X (Word, Excel, Powerpoint & Entourage). Yet, if I wanted to only purchase Word, I'm still going to pay about $399 (retail) compared to $499 (retail) for Office in its entirety. Shouldn't 1/4 of a software package at least only cost 1/3 to 1/2 the price?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just more smart marketing. For only $100 more, you get three additional apps. Plus Microsoft gets to put four times more bloatware on your hard drive. I suspect that the vast majority of customers buy the entire Office suite, even though they have absolutely no need for PowerPoint, Excel or even Entourage.
Case in point: I bought the entire Office suite, even though I use Word 95% of the time, barely touch Excel more than once a month, have never started up PowerPoint and didn't even bother to install Entourage. Of course, I took advantage of the more affordable $200 educational price.
I agree with many that have posted here (both sides of the issue). However, I do find it interesting that no one has brought up one particular issue: LAN/Internet bandwidth use.
I personally am further annoyed that software companies feel that can chew up my bandwidth without my consent. Further, that they don't provide me a way of limiting or turning it off. While a company has a right to protect its revenue stream, it doesn't have a right to my resources (except for the money I pay them for the license of course).
As we move into the future, and our homes become wired personal LANs permanently connected to the Internet (unless you don't pay your bill ), with who knows what running on them, and more companies adopt tactics like Microsoft's, how are you going to feel if all that "license sniffing" bandwidth traffic interferes in your quiet enjoyment of a "pay-per-view" movie that you are streaming real-time?
I don't care if the traffic generated by this one app doesn't congest my home LAN, it's the thought of tens, or hundreds, of these types of things chewing up my precious bandwidth. I think people should voice their opinions of this type of practice. Disable it at home (if you can) and complain to any company that uses this type of tactic.
Remember, one or two banner ads or pop-ups didn't sound too bad just 4 years ago, but look at what a headache they can be now...
Comments
sudo ipfw add 0 deny udp from any to any 2222
And then the check will not occur.
Under this new understanding an office suite shouldn't cost more than $100. Star Office is free and PC alternatives are popping up that are completely MS Office compatible for no more than $200 per SITE.
In a day where many PC's are going for roughly $799-999 including monitor, standard software (not professional apps) shouldn't be hundreds of dollars. Heck they shouldn't even be $100.
Apple and MS are going to both get rolled over by the same stone. We shouldn't complain on one hand that Apple should be able to charge $2500 for a mid-level performance tower and the not expect to really pay MS's price for Office.
Nick
As for that "fair share" part... I think 95% of the entire computer OS market is a tad more than their "fair share". The DOJ seemed to share this opinion as well. If they want to illegaly hold a monopoly over the entire market then I don't feel the slightest shread of guilt from pirating their software for my own use.
Think about it: there are 4 main apps in Office v.X (Word, Excel, Powerpoint & Entourage). Yet, if I wanted to only purchase Word, I'm still going to pay about $399 (retail) compared to $499 (retail) for Office in its entirety. Shouldn't 1/4 of a software package at least only cost 1/3 to 1/2 the price?
<strong>Think about it: there are 4 main apps in Office v.X (Word, Excel, Powerpoint & Entourage). Yet, if I wanted to only purchase Word, I'm still going to pay about $399 (retail) compared to $499 (retail) for Office in its entirety. Shouldn't 1/4 of a software package at least only cost 1/3 to 1/2 the price?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just more smart marketing. For only $100 more, you get three additional apps. Plus Microsoft gets to put four times more bloatware on your hard drive. I suspect that the vast majority of customers buy the entire Office suite, even though they have absolutely no need for PowerPoint, Excel or even Entourage.
Case in point: I bought the entire Office suite, even though I use Word 95% of the time, barely touch Excel more than once a month, have never started up PowerPoint and didn't even bother to install Entourage. Of course, I took advantage of the more affordable $200 educational price.
Escher
[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Escher ]</p>
I personally am further annoyed that software companies feel that can chew up my bandwidth without my consent. Further, that they don't provide me a way of limiting or turning it off. While a company has a right to protect its revenue stream, it doesn't have a right to my resources (except for the money I pay them for the license of course).
As we move into the future, and our homes become wired personal LANs permanently connected to the Internet (unless you don't pay your bill
I don't care if the traffic generated by this one app doesn't congest my home LAN, it's the thought of tens, or hundreds, of these types of things chewing up my precious bandwidth. I think people should voice their opinions of this type of practice. Disable it at home (if you can) and complain to any company that uses this type of tactic.
Remember, one or two banner ads or pop-ups didn't sound too bad just 4 years ago, but look at what a headache they can be now...