MS raised prices so people will now start renting their office products instead

users
#81

Hi :slight_smile:
I think that renting could result in better software because it eliminates the excuse that major bugs are only fixed in the newer release.  At the moment MS can claim that it's the users fault if they suffer a bug because they should buy the new release.  While they probably still will do that it will be easier for users to just stop paying for the current release.  At the moment people have to keep using the current/old one in order to make the initial expense worth it.

Effectively the rental model levels the playing field between OpenSource and MS's proprietary stuff.  Well, it levels it a little bit at least.  It takes away some of the advantage that OpenSource currently enjoys.  How quickly that all plays out is a different issue.  MS probably haven't thought about it just yet.  OTH that may be exactly part of their 'sinister plan' (It's not really sinister, they just need to make a profit) 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#82

Hi :slight_smile: I think that renting could result in better software because it
eliminates the excuse that major bugs are only fixed in the newer
release. At the moment MS can claim that it's the users fault if
they suffer a bug because they should buy the new release. While
they probably still will do that it will be easier for users to just
stop paying for the current release. At the moment people have to
keep using the current/old one in order to make the initial expense
worth it.

You miss the main point: you stop paying, you lose the ability to read, write and modify your documents. I don't see how user will have a chance to stop paying.
But maybe I'm just missing some important detail.

Effectively the rental model levels the playing field between
OpenSource and MS's proprietary stuff. Well, it levels it a little
bit at least. It takes away some of the advantage that OpenSource
currently enjoys. How quickly that all plays out is a different
issue. MS probably haven't thought about it just yet. OTH that may
be exactly part of their 'sinister plan' (It's not really sinister,
they just need to make a profit) Regards from Tom :slight_smile:

As far as I understood MS rental model until now, I think FOSS will increase its advantage. On the proprietary side, users will have something they'll _have_ to pay, not ste^H^H download at will (and I'm not thinking only about joe home user), while OOo will be free and available forever, in whatever current or previous version the user prefers (security patches aside).

________________________________ From: Marcello Romani
<mromani@ottotecnica.com> To: users@global.libreoffice.org Sent:
Tuesday, 2 October 2012, 7:32 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re:
MS raised prices so people will now start renting their office
products instead

Il 18/09/2012 21:38, Jay Lozier ha scritto: [...]

The rental model, in theory, guarantees a stabler cash flow
whether the software rental is good for users is another matter.

I totally agree.

At $WORK we had a 3D CAD package that would not work anymore if the
licence was not renewed periodically. We eventually switched to a
3D package that had a heftier tag price, but didn't force us to pay
every year just to use it. When the licence for the first package
expired, we lost access to all of our previous work. We had to
convert everything in a hurry.

It's OK to pay for software "maintenance" (i.e. updates, priority
support, etc.), but I find it totally unacceptable to have a
software package just stop working if you don't pay the "rent". If
I was writing in italian I'd call it "pizzo" - which is a mafia
thing - "Stop paying and you'll lose access to your beloved
documents!". How does it sound ?

-- Marcello Romani

-- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to:
users+help@global.libreoffice.org Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/

Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette

#83

Hi :slight_smile:
It's sometimes difficult to appreciate the work that others are doing especially if it's in a very different area and especially if you do tons of work yourself.  Dan does tons of very heavy lifting that hardly ever gets appreciated.  Everyone's effort, however little, should be appreciated more but doubtless there are some people that do notice and do appreciate whatever people do here but they wont always say so. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#84

Dan's statement is also a very good one. Another BINGO if you want so.

However, an exchange of opinions should also be possible. Was the discussion on "morons" too long? Depends on the criteria applied...
I personaly think that Wolfgang's word "IT-illiterate morons" were not meant to be taken literally.

and hopefully someone can support Dan with his effort to improve LO, this should be our main objective.

ROSt

#85

I don't think we need to remove existing features. But I DO think we need to focus on the "90% of average users". Basically, I think LO should be making sure it can do everything that MS Office 97 (15-year-old software) could do, and do it just as well and just as easily. If LO could do THAT, it would eat Microsoft's lunch.

-- Tim Deaton

#86

I don't think we need to remove existing features. But I DO think we
need to focus on the "90% of average users". Basically, I think LO
should be making sure it can do everything that MS Office 97
(15-year-old software) could do, and do it just as well and just as
easily. If LO could do THAT, it would eat Microsoft's lunch.

-- Tim Deaton

+1 on focus. We often forget that average user only uses part of the
features available MSO of LO. The problem is that how of the features
are used by the average user. Is it 50%, or 80% or some other fraction
but with each user typical using about 20 - 30 % of the features.

This may be wrong list. Does anyone know which features are extensively
used and which ones users want? And then compare the two with features
of various MSO versions.

My suspicion is that most people do not use new features found in MSO
2007 and later. I am not sure about 97, 2000, or XP. Personally, I doubt
I use any feature found in a version later than XP and possibly even
earlier. In fact the only feature that would be absolute show stopper
for me is handling MSO/MSOX formats. I have to open and files to others
using MSO(X) formats regularly and LO has been excellent at handling
them for me.

From the comments on the list, the weakest part of LO is Base. However,

my observation is most people find learning any true database daunting
and thus do not learn how to use any database. Compounding this is the
fact many MSO packages do not include Access. Many thus use a
spreadsheet as a poor man's substitute for a proper database.

<snip>

#87

The only other addition to MSO-97 would be the 2007/2010/2013 versions of their "x" formats and any other file formats that might be used now by MSO or other software.

#88

Jay Lozier wrote:
<snip>

>From the comments on the list, the weakest part of LO is Base. However,
my observation is most people find learning any true database daunting
and thus do not learn how to use any database. Compounding this is the
fact many MSO packages do not include Access. Many thus use a
spreadsheet as a poor man's substitute for a proper database.

<snip>

Jay,
I use Base as a MySQL client to access my databases, which are mostly inventories. I started with MS Access years ago and switched to MySQL c. 2004, when a MySQL Open Source client (Rekall) finally appeared for Linux. But Rekall stopped being supported a few years later and the version I had still had a few bugs that should have been worked on. When Base started being a general database server client (interfaced to MySQL, etc.) rather than that proprietary database thing that StarOffice used (and may still do so), I looked into switching from Rekall to Base. Doing so was not a trivial task, since all the work I had done on data entry forms and reports in Rekall had to be discarded and that work redone for Base. After recreating all my data entry forms and reports, I got Base to work reasonably well within my requirements. However, the latest version (1.2.1) of Oracle Report Builder (ORB) is a basket case. When it doesn't crash LO, it is dog slow at creating my reports. Too slow to be used. I have just this week, downloaded an Open Source report generator program called DataVision http://datavision.sourceforge.net/ and got it to work on my Slackware Linux system with MySQL. This version, 1.2.0, is rough, many features are not working yet and it does not seem to be supported any more either, since this latest version is dated 2008. However, unlike ORB, it does do what I want a report generator to do - without crashing and at a reasonably fast speed. Since it is an Open Source JAVA program using an Apache license, if any of the Base devs are listening, I suggest they look into taking over DataVision as an addition to Base. Base without a report generator is like a computer program that accepts inputs but does not output anything - useless. Akin to Writer or Calc not printing!

Was all my database work, including learning a bit of SQL "daunting"? Yes, I suppose it was, but it was and is a learning experience and I don't mind learning something new. I am not in the least a SQL master, but I do understand it enough to get by. If not, I hit the books again. There are those who can't or won't learn anything new. For them, there is the Calc tool, which fits their hands better, but maybe isn't quite the best tool for the job.
Girvin Herr

#89

Girvin,

Most people I have talked to about databases find them less intuitive
than other typical office and general software.

#90

Hi, I am a database user and emphasis on the word *user*. I like learning new stuff too and Base is a challenge. I want LObase to work so I will contribute feedback whenever I can but no more than that because I haven't learnt to code or programme...yet. I have a couple of questions but I will start a new thread for them.

Howard

#91

Am 03.10.2012 09:23, HBarr wrote:

Hi, I am a database user and emphasis on the word *user*. I like
learning new stuff too and Base is a challenge. I want LObase to work so
I will contribute feedback whenever I can but no more than that because
I haven't learnt to code or programme...yet. I have a couple of
questions but I will start a new thread for them.

Howard

I am not a database user. I am a database developer. The users of my
databases have no problem with Base since all they see is standard form
controls.

#92

Absolutely agree. Most of the "functionality" that MS has added to Office 2007/2010 has been geared towards the corporate collaborative user, which certainly in my experience (and I have to say my last corporate job was over ten years ago so the playing field may well have changed in this respect) wasn't a key factor in usage, and certainly has never been in the SOHO sector.
I believe that Office 2013 is even more aimed at "cloud" and "collaborative" usage - although it's highly probable that I shan't ever find out!
One of the problems that I've come across is that my daughter uses LO and "sends as" MS Office 97-2003 documents when emailing. It appears that her recipients get gobbledy-gook so I need to find out what's happening there because that shouldn't happen.
IMHO LO is every bit as good as MS Office 97, but then that wasn't a particularly good iteration of MS Office! I think the aim should be to match Office 2003, which still seems to be the current standard by which Office suites are measured. (The very large international company my Wife works for are still on 2003......)

#93

I should be following this tread more closely. But does anyone have links
to any M$ sites
that spell out the details of the "rentals"? Also, what happens to people
using older versions
of office (like officeXP, etc). Will they roll forward into this pricing
model? When does this
take affect?

Join The RVLution <http://www.monavie.com/rvlution>- Together We Win!

#94

What I hate is that LO will need a new filter for .docx files since MSO-2013 will have a format not usable to 2007 or 2010 versions.

I still have troubles with .docx documents sent to me from one professional in the transportation industry, but she is the only person that will not send out files as .doc instead of .docx - even though I tell her that people/agencies with MSO-2007 will have trouble with her .docx files. She sent out a Press Release that had formatting errors in it, if you viewed it with MSO-2007 or LO. She should have sent that one out as a PDF file.

#95

Chad

Older versions, as I understand, are not affected only the next version
and forward are included. If you want the latest features in MSO you
will be paying rent but if the older versions still meet your needs then
the only reason to consider an upgrade or new office suite is that it is
no longer supported.

One commenter noted that most SOHO users do not need the collaboration
features in MSO (or any office suite). Also, I am not sure that many of
the collaboration features are used extensively in large organizations.
Its not that the features are bad but how important are they to many, if
not most users.

The issue for many commercial software vendors is how to get people to
buy a new version (or pay for services) when the old version is more
than adequate. MS' business model dates from the 1980's but when one can
find a FOSS equivalent or an older version that will meet most user
needs they have a problem with how to keep customers buying a new
release. Many, like MS, are turning to a rental (SaaS) model to keep
income levels. This will probably work in the near term but long term I
am dubious, there are many commercial and technical issues with the
model; at least two dissertations.

#96

Hi :slight_smile:
Yeh, people are weird sometimes.  I'm sure some people would have peaceful pro-war protests or fight for peace given half a chance.

One client group claimed they didn't know how to use "Save As ..." so i sent them screen-shots and then the month after i even visited them to show them by hand.  Since then they stopped using our services so their events don't get so widely publicised.  I'm not sure it's had a huge effect on them (or us) tbh.

Regards from

Tom :slight_smile:

#97

Hi :slight_smile:
I suspect a good place to start might be somewhere like
http://www.microsoft.com
but it might still only be written for a certain web-browser and might render badly on yours (or even block you).  I think they sorted it out now but for ages it just wouldn't work.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#98

/snip/

One commenter noted that most SOHO users do not need the collaboration features in MSO (or any office suite). Also, I am not sure that many of the collaboration features are used extensively in large organizations.sides.

I guess I don't understand something here. Almost 20 years ago, I wrote user manuals for equipment I designed, and had the software
engineer modify them as required for the user programming requirements. (This was for burglar-alarm systems.) there was no problem
using the MS software that existed then--it would mark modifications with red underlines or something similar. I'd just send the copy over
the network to my software person, and she would do whatever was necessary, and send the copy back for me to check it and release it.
No special "collaboration" software, but we certainly collaborated. What's the big deal?

--doug (Retired RF Engineer)

#99

Have you ever tried to do the same with larger group of recipients, say 6
people?

I tried. Some time ago we were writing rather large research report. Each
member of team (5 or 6 people) wrote his part, then we pasted it all together
and did proofreading. Each member received a copy, marked his changes and sent
it back to me. Merging these changes together on ≈170 pages document was the
most painful experience I have ever had with any office suite.

In such scenarios - and they are not uncommon in larger businesses - anything
that eases collaboration of >2 people is a bless.

I think that Microsoft Office has real advantage here. Team members are just
using Word, without need of gaining any new skills/knowledge. But if it was up
to me, I would teach team members to use private wiki or LaTeX + git. I trust
these tools more than I trust Microsoft or Google.

#100

In many (most) companies/organizations (other than IT) the managers
have quite little own knowledge in IT why they do not have many
alternatives: they have to buy the IT from outside (more or less)
experts or build up a IT-dept of their own.

Dedicated IT departments are well known and well documented to be *the*
most important organisational pathology ("antipattern") that ruins
productivity of information workers in companies.

And if all (95% ?) your important contacts, customers, officials,
private, etc. use Windows, and all of your own staff know (only)
Windows/MSO then the economic calculation says that you must "talk
the same language" -- you can not afford anything else.

If you had ever tried to do the work of an average information worker,
you would know that "compatibility" in the real world (where the actual
work has to be done) means efficient re-use of content. And that, in
this sense, Microsoft is incompatible with itself, because the
unstructered spaghetti content model of MS applications does not allow
for efficient re-use of content. In fact it is more efficient to re-use
content from, e.g. an MS Word document with e.g. LyX rather than with MS
Word itself.

I strongly disagree with you about Jay's and Wolfgang' s behavior -
take a look at my parallel post "MS problems" some minutes earlier.
If these managers concentrate on their own jobs - and buy the IT - it
does not qualify them to be called "IT-illiteral morons" as Jay and
Wolfgang did.

It does not only qualify them as "IT illiterate" morons, but also as
generally illiterate concerning analytical, pertinent problem solving.

If one would categorise the competence of people in a similar manner as
Wolfgang Pauli categorised scientific theories, typical managers would
have to be attributed to the category of "not even incompetent" people.
Because they are obviously incompetent, but pretend otherwise *and*
arrogate the power to "decide".

In 30 years I have had no problems (!) with the Windows' programs
(the cost are a relative matter),

Because you never tried to do actual information work with it. And/or
because you never tried to do actual information work with *efficient*
worktools.

Sincerely,

Wolfgang