Did they ever. Over the past week, I've probably received the most creative insults since Andy Kaufman's ill-fated venture into pro wrestling. (My favorite: "Not even a single dumb-ass WinBot agrees with your marketing schlock!!") Even Microsoft sympathizers hate the new plan. I got so many flames, many of them so well-argued, that I thought I would devote this column to summing them up along the lines of a few recurring themes:
Who wants frequent upgrades? Several readers noted that we've reached a plateau in desktop software and there's simply little need for a new version of Office or anything beyond Windows 2000. So software by subscription is just sleazy way of coercing users into paying annually for something they'd otherwise pay for a lot less often. Subscription is the only way Microsoft can keep the revenue engine going and at the very least the company should admit it.
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to pay any more! The feeling is that the Microsoft monopoly is engaging in extortion, pure and simple, at a time when many companies can least afford it. Everyone who wrote in apparently believes they will be paying more. Yet Microsoft continues to assert that 80 percent of its volume licensing customers will pay the same or less. Well, I have a proposal. Licensing can be so horrifically complex that generalizations about cost are seldom meaningful. Let's get some volume licensing customers and, just like labs test products, see how they fare under the new scheme. The Gartner Group did it for companies that upgrade every four years or longer and came up with the widely quoted estimate that customers will pay "33 to 107 percent" more. So let's take a couple of real companies that upgrade every three years or less--members of the 80 percent group--and see if we can get Microsoft to make the numbers work over a three-year period. Volunteers?
Don't make me a beta tester. Here I can take credit for making matters worse by describing a future where Microsoft upgrades and patches get pushed out over the Internet. Just about everyone thinks this is a horrible idea, given Microsoft's history of shipping what amounts to beta software and then issuing a service release that actually works. Currently, none of Microsoft's plans force you to upgrade on the company's schedule--but of course, under Software Assurance, you pay for the upgrade whether you use it or not.
I'm outta here. A few readers indicated that Microsoft's new scheme was the last straw--they're going elsewhere. In fact, a new study by the Giga Information Group reveals that 36 percent of those surveyed say they'll search for alternatives to Microsoft software as a result of the licensing changes. While the study's authors doubt that most of those respondents will make good on the threat--the sunk cost in Microsoft applications is staggering--there may indeed be renewed opportunity for competition. And not just from Sun's StarOffice or Lotus' SmartSuite. CNET's News.com recently reported that Yahoo is determining consumer demand for a Web-based productivity suite.
Conspiracy theories. One sharp reader zeroed in on the malevolent potential of Windows XP's new activation technology, which prevents piracy by requiring that you reactivate the software if you make a change to your hardware configuration. Although the scheme isn't included in the volume licensed version of XP, our gentle reader speculates that Microsoft will use deactivation as a "time bomb" to disable Microsoft software if you haven't kept up on your subscription fee. Or maybe when rival software such as Linux is detected. Paranoid? Or plausible?
My favorite comment is from Jim Noon of WebBuildBoston, who writes "I don't understand how a company that is so sharp in so many ways can't understand that they have created, and are still creating, a cult of people with nothing to bind them together other than the fact that they hate Microsoft."
Well, guess what? Despite the truth of that statement and all the tirades and reasoned opinion to the contrary, I still think software by subscription is a good idea. Why? Mostly because I believe that the .Net vision of distributed computing--where XML-based standards create a software "fabric" across platforms--is a good idea. If it doesn't matter where the software lives, then "by subscription" is the only model that makes sense.
But clearly, Microsoft has more than just a public relations problem on its hands. It has to prove that it can execute with a higher degree of security and reliability than it ever has before. And it needs to deliver solid, useful innovations commensurate with its customers' paying roughly the same, let alone more, for its software. Otherwise, the company will be hard-pressed to defend itself against accusations that it's simply abusing its dominant position.
Anything else you want to say, pro or con, about Microsoft's new licensing plan? E-mail Eric or Talk Below.
