Microsoft has clarified the licensing for retail versions of its Office 2013 productivity suite, confirming that boxed editions of the software are licensed for a single PC only and that the license may never be transferred, even if the user upgrades to a new PC. Over the past week, Office users around the web have expressed …
some really great anti MS ranting taking shape on the reg today, bet seeing this article to rant on made some peoples day lol
Open Office, no contest
I moved to Open Office years ago and have stuck with it since. I even used it to read Excel files from a client when my MS version wouldn't open them, and saved them into a version that it COULD understand. Then I had to go the reverse direction to send completed work back to client. MS Office? Yor avvin' a larf, encha?
Eventually Microsoft and all other similar companies will realise a few truths. Quite a lot of software companies have already realised and moved their models, but those hell bent on the most profit possible now at the expense of the future are still lagging behind. I suspect terms such as this will cause Microsoft even more issues before the EU soon.
Microsoft should either give away their operating systems and office products for free, or a nominal amount to cover distribution etc. The money they make on them retail is simply not worth the trouble and bad press. Also, people running these products at home is part of the reason why companies buy them. People already know how to use them, saves training etc. In other words, home sales drives business sales. Business sales is where the money is.
When home users are faced with having to shell out constantly for Office on top of the already silly costs of Windows (assuming not OEM), they are likely to move away and then the benefit of having the same software at home and work is lost. Maybe if people are mostly skilled in OpenOffice or whatever, companies might switch as well? The ubiquity of Microsoft is largely due to ensuring they remain on almost all computers sold. If this starts to be eroded, they will suffer financially in the future.
Yes MS should give away two products which each bring in $billions every year. Great business decision :)
I would go with you if you suggested they should give dev tools away - full-price Visual Studio must be out of reach of many developers - but simply saying Windows should be free because Linux is doesn't make sense.
I never said Windows should be given away because Linux is. Also, if you look into the financials, you'll actually find the vast majority of revenue for each product is actually from business, not home use. So, giving it away for home use won't actually cost that much, certainly not $billions.
Microsoft also have a history of dipping their toe into this. They actually got into their current position by effectively giving Windows away with every PC sold. The cost to the manufacturers was negligable, but it got their operating system into the position it is now. To extend that to retail and everyone would cost very little. HP had a deal with Microsoft that saw Office distributed with each of their PCs for free. Not every Office products, but Word and Excel and slightly cut down versions. But, good enough for home use by most people. So, I'm not talking about giving away Ultimate (or whatever they want to call it) edition for home use. Just something with enough functionality to ensure people stay with Office. That deal with HP was another toe dip. Again, the licensing loss would be minimal, but it would cement their position and ensure everyone uses it.
I'm not suggesting they should do it for altruistic reasons. I'm talking about it for cold hard business reasons. Negligable cost and keeps everyone on your software, especially businesses where the revenue is. Result.
Development tools as well? Why not. Don't know what the financials are around them, so can't comment, but if it ensures you keep your business use, why not give away home use?
having re-read my post, I should add that I meant give away Windows and Office for home use only. I hope this was clear by then saying that business use was where the money is. However, I know I didn't explicitly say home use.
Open office anyone
ex-msft, just sold my last msft shares (clearly if the company is going to try this sort of tactic it is going to fuck off whatever its users it has left
I won't be getting another copy of MS office if the licence agreement doesn't allow me to transfer it from a broken machine to a replacement - more common for me than 'upgrading'.
Frankly its fucking rude.
Worse than that of course Microsoft has gone into complete la la la la land and sticks its collective fingers in its ears and won't even let you send a comment on its website.
Pity I can't give them thunbs down, wtf and fail at the same time.
Idiots, greedy stupid blind and ignorant idiots. God I hope the whole damned company disappears up its collective backside and goes bankrupt.
Before ranting please check:
Does this actually apply to your country?
It does i.e NOT apply for germany where this type of licence is simple illegal and invalid! The EULA is generic and not always binding. MS Germany has upon queries by german media already stated that the bundling will not happen there.
IIRC the laws behind that are EU nor german so quite a few countries are getting the same rule.
The problem with that is that many are unaware of the validity or not. A good example was the Apple scam of selling you extended warranty for year 2 while that should be included according to EU law. I like Apple gear, but I never bought the extended warranty because I know this.
In the UK, for instance, it is quite possible that this is illegal as well as it could be argued the terms are unfair, which creates a conflict with contract law. In the US they have a problem with the First Sale doctrine, so there are plenty questions, but as with all large companies, Microsoft relies on the fact that many don't check to get away with it until it gets regulatory attention.
All AFAIK, btw, IANAL..
Congrats Steve, you have screwed over another piece of software and doomed it to the grave... who is going to pay $6-20 per month for what google and libre office give away for free?
Re: Congrats Steve
dur dunno but possibly the people who currently PAY for MS Office now rather than use the currently FREE alternatives, think theres a few million of them isn't there?
Re: Congrats Steve
You obviously have no idea what Office 365 provides do you?
I've already got a pirated version of 2013 for use at home. Through the nature of my job the bastards get more than enough money as a direct result of my existence, without me having to personally bankroll them as well.
Re: Fuck 'em
So! You are proud of pirating the software of a company who makes "standards" by breaking them? And then help to continue foisting these "standards" on the rest of us?!
What is a PC?
So exactly what defines a PC?
The Hard Disc, mother board, power supply, OS, Cabinet/Case?
I would think that for most its the cabinet since all other aspects are considered upgrades -- I can upgrade my disc drive, I can upgrade my motherboard, I can replace my power supply, and surely Microsoft will want me to upgrade my OS (they get money for that one).
The only thing most people would consider a different PC is when we replace the physical cabinet/case -- so it would be logical, and in my opinion a totally defensible legal argument, that only when replacing the cabinet/case are you moving the software to another PC. This I may not like but I can live with.
Home Use Program
I have MS Office Pro 2013 under the MS HUP.
It only cost me $15.00 so worse case is another $15.00.
I can live with that, although it is bad form.
Re: Home Use Program
Home Use Program falls under the enterprise licensing agreement from your workplace, so is again different from the retail version that's being discussed here. You can do 2 installations on different machines, though not sure if replacing a machine counts as a "reinstall".
Details here. http://www.microsofthup.com/hupus/faq.aspx
Who's at the front door now?
I installed 2013 two weeks ago. Last week the hardware suffered a major failure and I am buying a new system. I intend to physically transfer the hard disk from one machine to another. I am not re-installing software. But by reading the statement I would technically still be in breach.
If MS want it removed, they are welcome to make an appointment to come to my house at a mutually convenient time to perform the un-install.
i am still using my student version, but still teaching, albeit now grandchildren. However, I am guessing that my next machine may not have windows office on it. Open Office has problems sure, but the current stupidity of windows is draconian an irresponsible.
Thought though, so I load MS Office onto a machines ssd, use that machine as solely having office on it and gain access by using it as a server for say the next 20 years does that mean that MS is OBLIGED to give service and so on.
That will mean all my computers can use it and so can others via the internet. Its only installed on one computer Mr MS policeman.
Gotta go door bell, Oh gosh its the MS police!!
Doing nicely with Office 2003, thank you!
I cannot for any reason imagine why I would want to upgrade to the latest version of Office!? Office 2003 does a great job!
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month