Free ride? I'll say

Started May 4, 2002 | Discussions thread
JoePhoto Veteran Member • Posts: 6,916
Re: Yearly Renewal vs. Software Maintenance

Silicon Junkie© wrote:

JoePhoto wrote:

DCsince89 wrote:

With all due respect, Joe - nobody, including Microsoft, was
keeping you from buying/downloading and subsequently installing
Netscape Navigator.

YES ... and NO-NO ... first of all with regard to Netscape specifically. Yes I agree that "I" (and YOU), could have done that. BUT we are the MINORITY of users. It is easy to forget that most people are completely computer illerate. 90% of computer buyers walk into a store and ask for a computer; (maybe to get on internet). The salesman collects their money .. and tells em to go home .. plug it in .. and "click" on the IE icon. They have NEVER HEARD OF NETSCAPE .... AND DON'T NEED TO EVER HEAR OF NETSCAPE.

Now it can argued, (and will by MS), that this is GOOD for consumers since they have just been able to "easily" and "quickly" connect to the internet. I would agree except that the same goal could still be achieved IF the OEM's were allowed to install ANY brower they, (or their consumer), desired. Once the computer is "home" ... a computer illerate will NOT, (and DID NOT), take the extra time and RISK to dowload Netscape.

Now notice ... we are no longer talking "possibilities" here ... that argument was valid back when IE was "first" bundled/integrated by MS. At that time Netscape had over 90% of the market. Computer literate idiots, (like you), argued the same thing you are arguing now; that it would never make any differnce because indeed you could still install Netscape; (like you just argued). But other people that UNDERSTOOD HUMAN NATURE argued that it would spell the end of Netscape. The argument is OVER. We now KNOW who was RIGHT.

But you are also wrong from a couple of additional reasons; even if you installed Netscape ... there were several operations that would kick you OUT of Netscape and BACK INTO IE anyway.

You are also WRONG from another standpoint ... with reference to the REAL PLAYER ... with WinME and MS inclusion of their own MEDIA PLAYER --- MS rigged WinME to NOT LOAD Real Player. It was ONLY because of the currently ongoing Netscape lawsuit that they were able to present their case as a side-issue and MS aggred to allow Real Player to load.

This was almost identical to what MS did to DR-DOS back when MS deliberately rigged Win3.1 to NOT LOAD on top of DR-DOS. DR-DOS claims their sales were 28 MILLION copies the year before Win3.1 introduction ... and then sales DROPPED to 1.5 Million the next year BECAUSE OF THE DELIBERATE MS SABOTAGE THAT RUINED THEIR REPUTATION.

Following that, upon it's first use, you would have been presented
with a dialog box which said, "Netscape Navigator is not your
default browser. Would you like to make Netscape Navigator your
default browser now? Yes~No." You could have easily clicked Yes,
and used Netscape to your heart's content.

Except that it still kicked you BACK into IE in several situations.

BUT ... also interesting is that MS "promised" to NEVER CHARGE FOR
IE. I submit that if there is no essential difference between
Win95 and Win98 except the added integration of IE ... THEN WE GOT
CHARGED $89 FOR IE THAT MS "PROMISSED" TO NEVER CHARGE FOR.

Windows 98 had a completely revamped print engine over Windows 95,
among many other improvements "under the hood." The difference in
the UI (user interface) was minimal, therefore many people do not
clearly understand the differences between Windows 95 and 98.

The "yearly renewals" you speak of are actually software
maintenance and version upgrade protection agreements. Such a
practice has been common in the software industry for many years.

Nothing is preventing you from buying Windows, and using it until
the day you die without further upgrades, or further cost.
Conversely, a continual usage fee is a different story, and if that
is what is going on, I have a major problem with that practice.
I believe that once I purchase a license for the product, I should
be able to use that product until I choose to upgrade, or use some
other product.

If Microsoft wants to charge me on an annual basis to make use of
their product(s), then that is more like a subscription than a
license. I can see benefits in a subscription model, over a
license model (continual automatic updates - XP does this already,
always have the latest and greatest, etc.), but subscription fees
should be substantially lower than the cost of a license.
Additionally, the consumer should have the option of buying a
license, or a subscription, as the subscription model may not be
right for everybody. If they aren't doing this, then Microsoft
could be in for a rude awakening in the future, as their revenues
decline.

I am AMAZED that you do not even seem to be aware that a YEARLY RENEWAL FEE is EXACTELY where MS is very quickly headed. I mentioned they are ALREADY doing that is many foreign countries to work out the "bugs" in their schemes. They have admitted this is their intent because they realize that Windows at $300/copy is already the SINGLE HIGHEST PRICE COMPONENT in most of todays computers. And thus they risk alienation if they attempt further price increases. BUT; with a yearly fee ... they can charge a "little" bit less ... but with YEARLY RENEWALS they will guarantee MORE MONEY in the long run.

You mentioned that yearly fees "should" be lower ... and of course I agree that should and probably will be the case ... BUT; lower is "relative" ... and the question is HOW MUCH LOWER ??? I submit that even if the yearly renewal is "half" ... they will made 50% more money in three years than they would have at their original double price. (And a 50% increase in a $300 program would mean the equivalent to a $150 price increase ... while MS has been content with only $100 increases/upgrade.)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow