So, according to you, they ARE deprecating (non-OEM) Office? If you are a regular customer, you won't be able to buy standalone new Office versions?
The Office 2013 licensing is the way it is, because they want to get done with it entirely soon. It comes to this, right?
If you're a regular customer you probably weren't going to buy a new Office version until you bought a new laptop anyway, but supposing you want to upgrade anyway you still have three options:
* Office 365 (with automatic upgrades)
* Any subscription to a new version of Office
* An MSDN install.
* For the time-being, you'll be able to walk into PC world and buy a $200 CD and install from there (which I suspect will eventually become effectively a one-time MSDN subscription and web-install).
Explain that please. One-time MSDN subscription and web-install?
What would be the difference to this?:
Let's say that actually there is no tangible difference. Again, how is the license change of 2013 and further ("one-time MSDN subscription") not a ploy for Office 365?
--Because the old EULA contained terms for a product install type that Microsoft is moving to no longer support.
This isn't about deprecating Office in favour of Office 365. It's about deprecating shrinked wrapped CD installs in favour of OEM and MSDN web installs.
And thus all the toughing up is needed? If it's no ploy for Office 365, then why the toughing it up?
Downloading the Office installer from a website instead of getting a DVD automatically leads to non-transferable licenses, one-device only licensing and the loss of the family pack? Is there some sort of natural law here?
Conclusion: Office 2013 is just the preparation for getting rid of non-subscription versions entirely.
It's a well known fact that many people (and firms) skip versions because they are content with the features. Customers who bought H&S in 2007 for 120$ can still use it (and many do).
If they were on subscription, they would have paid 600$ by now.
Do you mean the Office key cards here?
You say such an user-scenario is an absolute edge-case. I don't buy it. If it's such an edge case, why the change in licensing then?
They're not changing the licensing for OEMs or subscription. They're withdrawing the licensing for permanent ownership of shrinked wrapped copies because, why bother paying for all of the infrastructure to maintain it if people aren't using it, and it's expensive to maintain? And if you've withdrawn that option, why keep text in the EULA that only relates to options you no longer support?
I don't see this is a "let's tie everyone into buying new versions of Office every year", I see it more as a "Google Chrome, Firefox and all of Apple only have to support one version (the latest) of their software, and yet we're supporting versions that are nearly a decade out of date - which makes it expensive for businesses to upgrade (because they become dependent on the product), and expensive to fix (because we have to security fix the product multiple times for every vulnerability we find) and it's expensive to support (because we have to train customer support how to do stuff in the customer's version of Office).
It feels much more like "let's try pushing people into updating more quickly so we can avoid some or all of that cost, because we have horrendous overheads that none of our competitors have, and that's not translating into profits."
It might be a little bit evil, but it's still orders of magnitude less evil than everyone else in the industry. Nobody else supports anything other than the latest version of anything these days.
No. I mean, they walk into PC world and they say "I'll have the pink version of this laptop because it looks nicer than that one." and the representative says "I can give you a great deal. We'll bundle Norton on it and Microsoft Word and Excel for only $40 more" and the customer says "Oh. I thought Word and Excel came with Windows" and the serivce representative says "No, maam, you pay extra" and the customer says "OK".
Case closed!don't see this is a "let's tie everyone into buying new versions of Office every year"
It's certainly a nice side-effect. There's also a very high chance that the "OEM version" will be Office 365, with no other available (otherwise the "only one version"-dream won't work). It's already happening:
"on new PCs, most PCs will utilize an Office 365 Home Premium trial now, instead of the old Office Starter product, which was discontinued."It might be a little bit evil, but it's still orders of magnitude less evil than everyone else in the industry.
How so?Nobody else supports anything other than the latest version of anything these days.
If MS really does this plan, why would they still be "orders of magnitude less evil"?
Looks like those damn trolls over there at PC World are out defaming Microsoft again. You'd think that loyalty to Microsoft's products had something to do with the fact they supported older versions of their software or something. Who are they kidding? Besides why stick with old versions of software when you can have brand-spanking-new software every couple of years! Everyone loves learning new things so let's give them more opportunity to do so. Plus business need to invest more in employee training anyway. They've been cheapskates for years.
New version of Office? How about some new hardware to go with it? Microsoft really needs to keep giving Intel reasons to keep up with Moore's law. Can't let those brilliant minds at Intel go numb! By forcing people to upgrade to newer versions of software with all of those new features they'll get those lazy people to upgrade their hardware more frequently too. I guess I was wrong of the 64GB version of Surface being a problem; people will be forced to replace it soon enough.
Didn't you get the memo that you are supposed to feel bad about it when a multi-billion dollar conglomerate (with more money than the GDP of most countries on this planet) supports the software you paid for, as outlined in their own life-cycle policies?
Egoist legacy enabler!
Don't forget the rule: If you have amortized your software purchase, you're evil.
So if you're going to be hated at either way, you might at well drop the cost of supporting old versions to remain competitive with your competitors.
But anyway, this whole discussion is academic. Either people will continue buy Office in which case MS are right to do what they're doing from a business perspective, or they'll stop buying Office and they'll go in a different direction. Either way, this gets resolved by people voting with their wallet, not by punditing on blogs and forums.
Regular customers would most likely use web-installers or OEM distributions. My grandma isn't going to have an MSDN subscription, but then, she's not going to install Office on lots of her home computers with a CD either.
Back in the olden days, I used to work in retail and sold thousands of computers. I can only recall a handful of people ever buying Office with their computer, and there was no advantage in price for doing so. Most people bought it separately.
Also the type of people who buy Office tend to be businessish types. Grandma isn't buying $120 software with her $300 computer (she will buy a $200 service plan, though! )