No thanks.
Posted on 02/22/2007 8:32:16 AM PST by rawhide
I heard that this was coming, and then I heard it on the radio this morning. BUt this is the first I heard about the fee. Doesn't seem to be worth it to me. It might seem cost-effective to some, but it doesn't take into account that a lot of people are using bootleg copies or just the same edition of the software that they bought years ago (which still works fine).
For comparison: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/FX101754511033.aspx
No thanks.
"For comparison:"
For comparison I can use what everyone else is using, thereby avoiding file usability issues. OR I can go with something new, retrain everyone, and have usability issues internally and with my customers.
Shark + Google = Jumped
I have to have MS Word so I can exchange texts with others, but I still use WordPerfect 6 for my own writing.
I have to rename a few files during installation so it doesn't screw up my system files, and then rename them again after the installation, because it was designed for a much earlier operating system. I also have to prevent it from installing Netscape Mosaic. But it does a few things that MSWord won't allow.
"The Google guys are smart and I suspect that they can build a compelling office suite over the next 5 or so years. Just don't expect Microsoft to stand still."
Not to sound like a paranoid, tin-foil lunatic, but it seems that storage of documents is on Google servers. This is downright insane for the most part. For me, all of my "non critical" email goes to stuff like Yahoo or Google, but anything business related goes to something a lot more secure (I hope).
So, if "casual" users of this tool are willing to part with $50/year for program+support (a good value by the way when compared to Office assuming this does what Office does), then this should work well in academic and casual use markets...however, the big bucks comes from all the seats @ companies....are companies willing to put critical documentation on Google servers???? Unless I am missing something, everything you type using these tools is stored on Google servers! I would NEVER do that...
Just my opinion...Google founders are a lot richer and more successful than myself in a financial sense, so I am probably wrong here :)!
....or, you could just use this for free when ever you need it.
http://us.ajax13.com/en/ajaxwrite/
Other than being abe to open/manage older versions of Word/PPT files with less formatting anomalies than Microsoft apps do, what more do you need it to do?
I just do not see the advantage of this, especially with a $50 annual fee, per user?
Exactly!
I call this "whistling past the graveyard" advertising.
"Renting" one's software has been tried (and failed) many many times. Microshaft has never given up the idea, which might fly among huge corporate types, but is doomed to failure among the other 75% of users.
In theory, software should be useable forever if the data formats and the platforms used for the software remains downward compatible.
Users should expect that when they buy software, that is does what the users need done, and is essentially bug-free (and call-home free). If someone decides to use it for 10 years, he should be able to do so.
Viewed this way, even moderately priced software, in the $200 range, would cost $20 a year. Not enough for the corporate types.
Why produce a clothes washer that lasts 20 years when that essentially produces no repeat customers?
Outside of the biggest corporations (with their own IT departments), no one who produced business-related data 20 years ago can access those records today. Not because it's not possible, but because it's not profitable to allow it.
Rent my software? Never. Not so long as I have an alternative. Fortunately, rent-seeking has not been able to outlaw alternatives -- yet.
But the biggies keep trying. Notice the recent renewed legal attack against users who have opted for Linux.
Essentially undisguised extortion.
Here's how it compares:
Microsoft Office 2007 Professional : $430
Microsoft Office 2007 Professional Upgrade : $280
At those prices, keeping current with Office costs ~$70 a year (assuming a new version upgrade every four years). That's after paying your initial cost of >$400 to get started. And the upgrade option only reaches back a couple of versions, so after a few upgrades you'll have to pay the full price again.
Microsoft also must make the data formats of newer versions incompatible with older ones. Otherwise, there would be much less incentive to upgrade. If you want to be able to share documents with a Word 2007 user, you'd better have Word 2007.
Compare that to a subscription model. You pay $50 a year to get started and to stay current. The cost is lower immediately. Also, from Google's perspective, there's no need to constantly break compatibility, since there's a revenue stream from subscriptions. You don't have to drag your customers along, kicking and screaming, on an upgrade ride every few years in order to make money.
I think it's a great idea, personally. But my ideal would be tiered subscription model, or include some short-term use fee as well. Make it so you can pay $1.00 to use it for an hour or two, without committing to a whole year. That way, people who might use their word processor twice a month, and rarely use any other functions at all, won't be soaked for the full subscription price.
Google office will be as successful as every other enterprise Google has ever tried before(apart from search) has been: fail as usual.
Dear John Smith,Thank you for using our online office productivity software. We want to take this opportunity to pledge to you that we will do everything in our power to insure that your private messages and documents remain secure on our distributed servers. We know that we required you to give us your encryption keys for those files, but this is for your protection, not ours. In the unlikely event that we need to use those keys to access your files, it is highly probable that we will notify you of this fact (unless a government official from some nation in which we do business orders us not to).
By the way, thank you for your prompt payment of your $50 annual subscription fee and your $100 late-payment fee. In a few weeks, we will email you a password which will permit you to again access your files. We always regret having to deny users access to their own files, but we trust that you will understand that we are unable to provide our valuable services to you while your account is not paid in full.
Please email our service bot if you have any further questions about why you have been unable to access your private files for the last few weeks.
Sincerely,
Well reasoned.
The writing is on the wall and Microsoft had better pay attention now while they have the chance to adapt. There's far more innovation going on at Google than there has been in Redmond for quite some time.
Most people don't think outside the box.
I recommend Open Office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.