Here's a clear picture of how Microsoft can abuse their monopolistic market position:

"Ballmer said other big changes are in store for Microsoft and the information technology industry. In particular, he noted that Microsoft and other companies have to come to grips with the fact that much of the software business will evolve into a subscription service, whereby people essentially rent applications rather than buy them."

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Feed=IndStd&Date=20010723&ID=945271&Symbol=US:MSFT

Why? Why should we have to rent our applications? Where is the benefit to the consumer in doing so? There is none, as far as I can tell. This scheme is designed solely to benefit software companies. They're faced with a situation where they have mature products and there are fewer reasons for us to upgrade with each passing year, so to protect their revenue stream they want to rent to us so we have to continue to pay them, year after year.

In a competitive market, we'd have a viable alternative to Windows and we could find a maker who would sell us an OS instead of renting it.

I know, Linux or MacOS. Those are not realistic choices for most of us, unfortunately.

If it ever does get to the point where MS no longer sells Windows but forces us to rent it, I hope the Justice Department comes down hard on them.

It doesn't indicate that they will be renting OSs...Not that it's out of the question, but it'd be pretty hard to make that fly. But perhaps a word processor -- if you pay a dime to rent it for a day, and only need every now and then, it could turn out to be cheaper than paying outrageous amounts for the latest version of Office...

I dunno, Lotus tried something like this in 1997. (I was working for Lotus at the time.) I think Oracle also tried something similar with their whole "network appliance" thing. Both ventures failed miserably, so there's a bad precedent. Microsoft has a tough road ahead of them.

- Alan

>Why? Why should we have to rent our applications? Where is the benefit to the consumer in doing so?

Well, I can see quite a few situations where that would be of benefit. It all comes down to what the subscription cost is.

If I want to use Photoshop for a class project but I don't wanna shell out $600+, maybe I can just rent it for one month for like $40 (assuming Photoshop is still grossly overpriced, even as a subscription "service").

If I spend $90 a year upgrading Windows, maybe I'd rather SUBSCRIBE to Windows for $5 a month - assuming that means I'm always up to date.

Maybe I wanna subscribe to Dreamweaver for a few weeks to do the initial design of my website, and then update it manually after that.

The subscription model for software has some merit, if it's done right. You can get into a piece of software on the cheap, try it out, and decide if you want to keep using it. If you do, and you keep subscribing, it has the potential to be cheaper than the upgrade cycle. And STILL more profitable than the retail model.

After all, screw retail and the markup there--make the initial buy-in super cheap (or free if it's downloaded software) becuase you're going to skip the middle man and bill direct on the subscription.

Hell, I don't need Office, certainly not at that price. I want just Outlook and Word, and on my work machine, Excel. Maybe I could subscribe to just those pieces, and it would be cheaper than the whole of Office?

I agree with Alan - it's a tough sell, and it's been tried before. Poorly. But the idea of renting software is not, to me, patently rediculous.

After all, we "subscribe" to our electricity, water, garbage removal, cable TV or satellite service, TiVo service, phone... adding software to that list is unprecedented, sure. But maybe not Dumb.

The big, and I mean BIG, reality that every software publisher has to come to grips with is this:

If subscription-based software is to work, it has to evolve from a PRODUCT to a SERVICE.

That's true. I wouldn't mind renting some software, either. But I don't think that I'd want that to be my only choice. In reading the article posted, I didn't particularly get the impression that you wouldn't be able to BUY stuff anymore -- that seems ludicrous. I can't imagine that anyone would stop selling in exchange for renting exclusively, but I suppose that's possible.

They'd have to have some hefty anti-piracy encryption in there, though. Unless they do it like Hypersnap-DX, or something, I imagine that they could have problems.

I don't mind a subscription plan if we have the option of buying the product outright. If Microsoft wants to give consumers options, I'm all for that.

What concerns me, and what I think Microsoft wants, is to take away the option to buy and thus force subscriptions on us.

Well, that's a possibility, sure. Sounds pretty risky, though. And, again, I'd be more surprised to see this with an OS than another application, at which point you always have the option to just not upgrade.

Granted, I'm far from being an expert, but I just don't know if Microsoft could stop selling stuff outright and go to a subscription model with all their software. That doesn't sound like something that would fly...

And, like Jason said, it could turn out to be cheaper for a lot of people, as opposed to shelling over huge sums of money for upgrades, like we do now.

I think the operative statement here is that the "software business" will "evolve" into a subscription service. Personally, I envision that we will one day get all of our applications through our service providers. You sign up for whatever applications you want on your machine for whatever period you need and you get billed at the end of the month.

I personally am more afraid of what AOL could do in this situation. By becoming the Wal-Mart of ISP's, they could seriously influence the kinds of applications that mainstream users have access to. Just like your friendly cable company, they will decide what is and is not profitable to provide.

If history is any guide, Microsoft will continue to use its muscle with its Office applications to get "shelf space" for its other software (games, etc.)

What does it mean to the average gamer? No warez copies of Tribes2 (GOOD!). Less choice for games (BAD!). Emphasis on standards for hardware compatibility (GOOD!). Less innovation in the hardware (BAD!).

Billing through the ISP is also the only logical way for website subscriptions to work. But that's a whole other post.

Software subscriptions aren't as evil as you think. Wardell's been talking about how they can be good, for one.

Sure, if they just start charging $90/year to subscribe instead of $90/copy, it'll suck, but I don't think that'll happen.

As long as we have the option to buy an app that we use a lot. Give consumers the choice to buy or rent -- that's the best situation for consumers.

I don't know if there's a big market for renting software unless we have no alternative. What products would home consumers want to rent in mass numbers? Games, maybe, but not word processors or email apps or even HTML tools. You can get all those either for free or for cheap. Why would you ever rent?

In the business world you get a situation where any tool needed to create something probably needs to be available all the time to the business, so why rent if you can buy outright? Software's pretty cheap. It's not like leasing a fleet of delivery trucks or even copiers that will break down.

It's hard to make a case for renting something that you can buy outright for $200 -- e.g., Office upgrades. What's MS going to rent it for? $50 a year?

Microsoft (and other companies) have a lot of work to do to make a compelling case for renting software. The best argument they can make is that it will save consumers money. I'm not sure that's what they have in mind, though. I think the whole rental thing is being driven by fear of declining revenues and the realization that it's harder and harder to come up with new versions of their software that have "must buy" features.

Microsoft is a master of marketing - I'm sure they will describe the benefits in a way that makes it sounds as if they are only thinking of the public's best interests (e.g., "we can ensure that at all times the customer has the latest version; when you calculate the "system cost" it ultimately is cheaper; etc.) However, I'm pretty sure that Mark's hit it on the nose: how do you convince the majority of folks to purchase a new version of Office or Windows every year? I'm sure they sit with the software engineers and designers and ask "What are the new features for the next version, and the version after that?" and realize that it's getting to be a tough sell. Heck, look at the response of a lot of us to XP, the "biggest change since 3.1 to 95."

I'm not a MS basher at all - I'm a huge fan of capitalism and I think there are huge benfits to an OS that most people use. But if I'm forced to repurchase the product over and over, I've got a real problem with the model. And if it's successful at all, I could easily see many others in the software market following their lead.

Jeff

I'm not a MS basher either. I'm just getting a bit uneasy about the way things are going.

There's value in the marketplace standarizing on one OS and one suite of tools (Office), but there's also danger that the standard-bearer can abuse that position.

If MS wants to move to a subscription model, then it has to be of value to the marketplace for them to do so. The reason can't simply be because a subscription model will be easier for them to keep their revenues up. That's not capitalism. That's abuse of a monopoly.

My feeling is that the PC industry is maturing and some of these companies either need to shrink or find new lines of business to sustain their current levels or grow. There's fewer and fewer reasons to upgrade hardware and software these days. The stuff we have works pretty good, and the PC industry hasn't done a good job of coming up with new ways that PCs can increase productivity. Why upgrade a PII-350 if it's basically a word processor and email client? Who needs a 2GHz CPU?

I used Framemaker for years as a tech writer. It's a great document creation tool, superior to Word for creating complex documents. It got to the point where they couldn't really put anything into new versions of the product that I needed, though, so I never pushed for an upgrade. It's kind of odd, but the ultimate design goal of a software product is in some sense to make future versions unnecessary.

Hey, IBM is STILL renting their mainframes and mainframe software along with just about every mainframe software vendor out there.

If IBM can do it and survive, then why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to?

Because IBM doesn't sell to consumers? Ah, but their outrageous prices get passed along to consumers anyway, so that's a moot point.

I would be willing to bet that a lot of people would give Linux a chance if they get annoyed enough at this whole subscription bit.

Anecdotal evidence: One of the Pubbers recently installed Linux on a laptop and actually had fewer problems with it than trying to get Windows back on it after a catastrophic failure.

My problem with Linux is games. I need Windows to run the games. Other than that I could give Linux a go. I've used Unix boxes before.

IBM's mainframe business may be tied to rentals, but then buying mainframes would have to be quite expensive. Once you get people to rent the hardware, renting the software is probably an easy sell.

It's also how they built their business, isn't it? If Microsoft had been renting their products all along it would be easier to swallow.

Wake up guys... For any personal or private use most utilities out there have an evaluaiton copy that is usually good for 45 days on the average. Why rent when this is an option? And if you are a business where you need access to your apps 24/7/365, why rent?

Jeff

Granted, it's a perception thing.

IBM is ok because they've been doing it all along (or for quite some time).

M$ is not because they haven't.

I'm not really trying to stand up for Microsoft. I hate the idea of "renting" software. Maybe, just maybe, Linux will continue to mature and we'll get outstanding game support. Then, it's adios, Microsoft, at least for me.

>but not word processors or email apps or even HTML tools. You can get all those either for free or for cheap. Why would you ever rent?

By that logic, why would anyone ever BUY? But people do, in droves.

>In the business world you get a situation where any tool needed to create something probably needs to be available all the time to the business, so why rent if you can buy outright?

For the same reason businesses are the only places that rent the mother of all tools, the actual computer itself.

>But if I'm forced to repurchase the product over and over, I've got a real problem with the model.

There's a gun to your head?

>I'm not a MS basher either. I'm just getting a bit uneasy about the way things are going.

Okay, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt there, but you DO realize that you only ever bring up negative stuff about MS, right?

>Maybe, just maybe, Linux will continue to mature and we'll get outstanding game support. Then, it's adios, Microsoft, at least for me.

And standardize on one desktop, and completely, totally lose the command line, and make installing easier. I never want to see another command line again if I can help it. Linux has a long way to go before it'll be what I want to use "most of the time," and a whole lot further to go to reach the "general consumer use" level.

Personally, I just don't think they can keep up with a $6 billion a year R&D effort.

">But if I'm forced to repurchase the product over and over, I've got a real problem with the model.

>There's a gun to your head?"

If the company is Microsoft and the product is the dominant OS, yeah, I do kinda have a gun to my head if the only way to run the OS is to subscribe to a service.

"For the same reason businesses are the only places that rent the mother of all tools, the actual computer itself."

I work for a Fortune 50 company, with a gazillion mainframes and servers (and a couple of decommissioned Crays, because parallel processing systems are now faster.) We rent and lease purely because of the way the tax system works.

">I'm not a MS basher either. I'm just getting a bit uneasy about the way things are going.

Okay, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt there, but you DO realize that you only ever bring up negative stuff about MS, right?"

But Jason, you also come across at times as a real MS apologist. Perhaps it's because no one else takes that side, but I can't ever remember you not sounding enamoured with an MS product, whether it's their XP or the MS Gamevoice.

NOT meaning to come across as a personal attack. Just an observation that I perceive you to be a huge MS fan.

Jeff

">but not word processors or email apps or even HTML tools. You can get all those either for free or for cheap. Why would you ever rent?

By that logic, why would anyone ever BUY? But people do, in droves."

Couple of observations here:

1) Once you discount corporate purchases and OEM copies of Office preinstalled on new computers, I wonder if the sales of Office to individuals really are sold in droves?

2) A lot of people who are into computing as their hobby like to buy the latest versions of software, whether they get real value from them or not. It's just neat to have the new version. I think that fuels a lot of sales, but I also wonder if that's becoming less and less of a selling point for a lot of people?

I wonder if the entire PC industry isn't less exciting now than it used to be? To my kids a PC is a thing in the house that they enjoy, but it's like a VCR or a TV. They're not particulary excited by it the way I was when I first started using one. I imagine they'll grow up and be hard to sell to as far as software goes. They'll look at a software box the size of a book and see the $200 pricetag and think of all the other things they could buy for $200. It won't be, "Cool! The latest version of product X! I gotta have this!"

More Microsoft news. I just read at ZDNet that Microsoft already has an OS they plan to roll out in 2002.

"Blackcomb, the successor to Whistler, was due out in the second half of 2002, Gates said, adding that in both releases, the Internet Explorer browser would become more fully integrated and more central."

http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2797164,00.html

Now why exactly should I buy XP and then turn around one year later and buy another new Windows OS? Isn't this getting a little silly? I think I'll just leapfrog XP and wait for the following OS, or maybe the OS after that which MS already has in the works, according to the article.

(According to the article Blackcomb is getting pushed back beyond 2002 but Microsoft will have something else ready then, tentatively called Longhorn. Whistler was the code name for XP.)

I'm with Mark on this one. Computers AREN'T as exciting as they use to be.

Yes Microsoft is setting us up to rent software. In fact it goes furthur than that. Sony, Microsoft and a few others have this vision for the future of consumer computing. Yes it will be the whole set top box thing. Except it'll be connected to an HDTV, and software will be "bought" like you pay for HBO. Needless to say that will be the last thing I'd consider fun on my list but there ya go.

---

Quote:

Wake up guys... For any personal or private use most utilities out there have an evaluaiton copy that is usually good for 45 days on the average. Why rent when this is an option? And if you are a business where you need access to your apps 24/7/365, why rent?

---

One word: DIVX.

- Alan

Well said, Alan.

>Now why exactly should I buy XP and then turn around one year later and buy another new Windows OS? Isn't this getting a little silly?

Uh, how is this different from the fact that MS has had about one OS release every year for the past, what, 8 years? Is it some kind of surprise or shock that they'll have another release next year?

I'll go ahead and break the big news right now - they'll have an OS release in 2003 as well.

Divx: now this is an example of how subscription software could really fail. They took something that costs $20, and decided people would rather pay $5 to have it for a few days. The difference with software is the scale of price: $50 at the low end to hundreds of dollars on the high end. If the rental or lease prices are cheap enough, it's a whole different story.

Plus, they rent DVDs for like $5 or less already, so if you only want it for a short time, you don't need DivX, you need blockbuster. They don't rent PC software at blockbuster. =)

>Yes Microsoft is setting us up to rent software.

You know, just because Microsoft says they're preparing for the "software as services" model, doesn't mean this whole thing is being forced down our throats by them. For some time now, analysts have been saying that this is the future of software distribution. Other companies, like Sun, have accelerated plans for this model far beyond Microsoft. Is EB forcing software rental down our throats because of EB1.com?

Microsoft is preparing for what is viewed by them as an inevitable evolution of software. But it's not like it's their idea, or even that they'll be the first to do it.

MS went from W95 to W98 which was about a 3 year gap. That's about the length I'd expect. And how long was Win 3.1 around before W95 came out? It's only been since W98 that Microsoft has accelerated their release schedule, and guess what? The new iterations of the OS are at best marginally better as a result.

I'm sorry, coming out with a new version of the OS every year is just milking the market, and the market will get tired of it very quickly, I predict.

"You know, just because Microsoft says they're preparing for the "software as services" model, doesn't mean this whole thing is being forced down our throats by them. For some time now, analysts have been saying that this is the future of software distribution. Other companies, like Sun, have accelerated plans for this model far beyond Microsoft. Is EB forcing software rental down our throats because of EB1.com?"

If EB were the only store where you could get games and they stopped selling retail boxes then yes, they'd be forcing it down our throats. There is no viable alternative to Windows right now.

I'll have no problem with the subscription model if they also give us an option to buy outright. I get the feeling that's not what they have in mind, though. If they don't give us the option to buy, then how would you characterize their subscription model as anything other than forcing it down our throats?

"Microsoft is preparing for what is viewed by them as an inevitable evolution of software. But it's not like it's their idea, or even that they'll be the first to do it."

Why is this the evolution of software, though? So Microsoft can sustain their current level of revenue, or because it's better for consumers?

Maybe Microsoft is unnaturally large now due to feeding off the market during the initial growth of the PC industry. As the industry matures, maybe their future size should be quite a bit smaller if free market forces are allowed to be the determining factor.

"Why is this the evolution of software, though? So Microsoft can sustain their current level of revenue, or because it's better for consumers? "

Ever since the advent of Windows as the dominant OS, Gates has been chanting the mantra of "simple as a television." And he's not the only one. This may be part of that path. (Not to say that it isn't also part of their path to world domination.)

Maybe this is a win/win for industry and consumer. MS keeps their revenue stream high, and users get upgraded software that can handle new technologies as they come.

It also may give developers (application and game) a broader market to design for. There are a lot of people out there still using Win95. How many developers have Win95 machines in their QA dept? Not many, I'll bet. How many of the Win95 people are willing to spend $90 on an OS upgrade because the latest iteration of PrintHero Master Gold+ requires Win98? Again, not many.

One point that comes to mind is that I believe now when you buy software you don't actually own it. I think if you dig down into the liscensing agreement you are only purchasing the right to use that software rather than the software itself. So the transaction is already a little screwy to begin with. Considering software goes out of date aren't you really just renting it anyway? Just some food for thought.

"Maybe this is a win/win for industry and consumer. MS keeps their revenue stream high, and users get upgraded software that can handle new technologies as they come."

Which they then have to rent also? The only benefit to consumers to leasing software like Windows is that it might mean that our computing experience will continually improve each year. If Microsoft could guarantee that, I'd be much closer to being sold on the concept.

My guess is that they'd have a hard time delivering on that kind of promise, though. If they can't, then leasing software simply becomes a scheme by which software companies prop up their revenue stream. And that's fine because consumers can opt out of it, except in the case of Windows and Office, which are monopolies right now, in effect. (Does MS make a Linux version of Office, btw?)

The real test for Microsoft and other companies would be to both lease and sell outright, and then they can make the lease agreements attractive enough to get customers to go for it, just like dealers both sell and lease autos. Let them offer consumers both deals and if leasing has enough advantages, the marketplace will adopt it.

I need to learn how to spell. That should be licensing.

"(Does MS make a Linux version of Office, btw?)"

No.

"except in the case of Windows and Office, which are monopolies right now."

I don't know about Office being a monopoly much longer. SUN makes similar productivity software called StarOffice in two flavors, Win9x and Linux. It's a free download for individual users. They have already had 5 million downloads of the product, and it can open, edit, and save documents in Office format.

Normally I would say "big deal," but this news story makes me think that SUN may have hit on something:

http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2001-06/sunflash.20010625.3.html

"Which they then have to rent also? The only benefit to consumers to leasing software like Windows is that it might mean that our computing experience will continually improve each year."

I think the idea is not that you would rent Windows Me for a year, and then Microsoft would release Windows XP and you'd have to switch over to renting that. Rather, you'd just rent the Windows OS, and it would be upgraded continually, rather than in big yearly releases.

If the price is right, that's fine by me. If I spend X amount each year on software upgrades anyway, I'd rather just have them come automatically over time, with as little effort required on my part as possible.

The price is the key issue, though. I spend about $90 on my OS every year and a half or so--I don't buy every upgrade--in fact, I'd wager that most people don't. I'm currently still using Windows 98. So if the price was even as much as $10 a month, Microsoft would have to provide something a lot more compelling than they provide already to sell me on the idea.

Still, the advantages of having a system that could, theoretically, keep everyone's OS more up to date in some automatic fashion are pretty substantial, especially for developers. I know people (my mother, for instance) that still use the original Windows 95. That has to make for a real nightmare in terms of compatibility testing.

Price is the big consideration. $10 a month for Windows and Office updates would be too high for me. I'm still using Office '97 and I'd still be using W982R if I hadn't been grabbing at straws to fix my computer, which is why I purchased ME. It's nice, but it wasn't worth the $90 I spent.

I'd probably be willing to give MS about $50 a year for OS updates. I can't imagine wanting to subscribe to Office, though. Word's already bloated with features I don't use. I use Excel once or twice a year to read a spreadsheet someone sends me, and I never use Powerpoint.

"Normally I would say "big deal," but this news story makes me think that SUN may have hit on something:"

Yeah, but the DOD in this case is using Star Office to replace some suite running on UNIX boxes. I'll be impressed when a major corporation running Windows replaces Office with Star Office.

Still, it's nice to know that someone's challenging Microsoft's position.

The only benefit to consumers to leasing software like Windows is that it might mean that our computing experience will continually improve each year."

One of the problems with software development is how expensive it is to make a great product, especially a first iteration product. You need time to refine your vision. I'm not so much thinking of Windows or Office here as I am stuff like IE, or OE. Remember how lame those things were when they first came out? A subscription model might benefit consumers, assuming that there are more types of software, like browsers and e-mail clients, that we'd like integrated into our OS. Maybe our future OS should have a copy of Office installed?

Also, I wish game developers worked like this, specifically flight sim developers. If you released a flight sim with a decent flight model and a canned campaign for an inital release, but then knew you could count on later versions to add a dynamic campaign, more planes, flight model refinements, and additional theaters, I think developers would have a better chance at success.

Well, the MMOGs are subscriptions models and they continue to improve the game. The trick is coming out with a decent game in the first place. And also, the MMOGs have to cover their server expenses, too.

I'm just not sold on subscriptions for other types of software unless they can show me the benefit. Why would I want to subscribe to Office, for example? Maybe what we currently have is good enough. Why should we pay Microsoft a yearly fee to use Office? I hope the real answer isn't because it's good for Microsoft because it guarantees them revenue that might not otherwise have.

Yeah, it'd be tough for MS to come out with an office pack that I'd be willing to part with cash with on a monthly basis. I just can't think of much that I'd like Word (Office) to do that it doesn't do already. Why would I pay any monthly fee if I can just keep my Office 97 like it is now? It'd have to be pretty phenomenal, and pretty cheap. Fat chance.

Yes, why would you subscribe to Office? I would have no reason unless they changed the doc file format and I needed word to read and distribute doc files. Other than that, I can think of what would make me upgrade.

But what about software that's not Office. It might be helpful to create viable, robust flight simulations, for example. My point here is only that a subscription model might be useful for some things. I guess the determining factor would be how many people would be willing to pony up for that sort of scheme.

MMOG's are a different animal all together. The game is limited to on-line play or might have very weak off-line play included. Whatever. The emphasis is the on-line service. And then there's the server fees you mention. But what if they didn't have those type server fees and could just concentrate on creating an excellent product that they could be build on incrementally, so that there was always an excellent product available to you. You're saying that because it's subscription based scheme you want no part of it?

However, I imagine that an OS that is continuously evolving would be a nightmare for game developers. They already have a hard time with two year development cycles and the Windows at release not being the same Windows as when they started, and then trying to support the game when a new version of Windows comes out a year later. Imagine trying to write for a version that is being "improved" at random times in a continuous fashion.

"Yeah, it'd be tough for MS to come out with an office pack that I'd be willing to part with cash with on a monthly basis. I just can't think of much that I'd like Word (Office) to do that it doesn't do already."

I'd have to agree with that. Most of my complaints about Word relate to things that I wish it DIDN'T do...

"an OS that is continuously evolving would be a nightmare for game developers. ... Imagine trying to write for a version that is being "improved" at random times in a continuous fashion"

Yes, or just the oposite. This is assuming that the folks developing the games are using the subscription model OS. If they are, they know that yesterday's update to the OS has had an impact on their code and they have to modify their work, so that they can continue to develop. This way they're always working with the latest bits, so there are no awful surprises when MS releases their latest and greatest.

But I think the real benefit for a subscription model might be for companies other than MS, making products other than Windows or Office. A company making flight simulations, for example.

>MS went from W95 to W98 which was about a 3 year gap. That's about the length I'd expect. And how long was Win 3.1 around before W95 came out? It's only been since W98 that Microsoft has accelerated their release schedule

1992 - Windows 3.1
1993 - Windows for Workgroups 3.11
1994 - nothing ('cept DOS and NT)
1995 - Windows 95
1996 - Win 95 OSR 2 (adds FAT32, AGP, USB)
1997 - nothing
1998 - Windows 98
1999 - Win 98 SE
2000 - Windows ME

If you think Windows is bad, look at MacOS.

1992 - System 7.1
1993 - System 7.1.2
1994 - System 7.5
1995 - 7.5.2
1996 - 7.5.3
1996 (again) - 7.6
1997 - 7.6.1
1997 (again) - MacOS 8
1998 - MacOS 8.1
1999 - MacOS 8.5
1999 (again) - MacOS 8.5.1
2000 - MacOS 9
2000 (again) - MacOS 9.0.4
2001 - OS X
2001 (again) - OS 10.1

And yes, virtually all of these were actual on-the-shelf sold upgrades, not just downloaded patches or anything.

In the end, nobody says you HAVE to upgrade. If you have '98, you don't need 98 SE or ME. You only really need to buy on the big-time upgrades, of which Windows XP is one. And even then, you can probably hold off until you get a new computer and get it pre-installed anyway.

>However, I imagine that an OS that is continuously evolving would be a nightmare for game developers.

Enter Linux's problems - constantly evolving, and in a dozen variants no less.

"an OS that is continuously evolving would be a nightmare for game developers. ... Imagine trying to write for a version that is being "improved" at random times in a continuous fashion"

That's already true, though. And here's the catch--currently there is no way to ensure that all of your users will be running the same version of the OS. Some people might upgrade to XP, some people are still perfectly happy with 98 or Me, or even with 95. I have to imagine that's an even worse nightmare for developers--haveing all sorts of different version of the software still in use, and knowing that people expect you to support all of them. At least with the subscription model, you'd know that your users are all running the same OS.

Re macos stuff - They may have put out 9.0.4 boxes, but you can download the minor revisions (i.e. from a .0 to .4, then you have to buy .5, and then the free updates are from .5 to .9)

I know this was the case for 8.0 to 8.1, and 8.5 to 8.6.

http://www.info.apple.com/support/downloads.html has links to both the 9.0.4 and 9.1 updates.

"I'd have to agree with that. Most of my complaints about Word relate to things that I wish it DIDN'T do..."

As a tech writer I ended up using it for all my documents -- we're talking big, multi-chapter, hundreds of pages stuff with screenshots, etc. It really sucks for that. It just gets more and more unstable as your file gets bigger, and Word did a poor job of handling multi-file documents, so the impulse was to try to keep everything in one file, if possible.

Framemaker OTOH was a dream for that. Unfortunately the widespread acceptance of Office everywhere forced me to abandon it. That was a sad day.

"That's already true, though. And here's the catch--currently there is no way to ensure that all of your users will be running the same version of the OS."

With a subscription system there wouldn't be a way of ensuring that either, at least for the first few years.

A fixed target would be easier to develop for. Maybe Microsoft should make XP the last version they do for the next five years and just focus on squashing bugs in the interim? That would be the best thing for the development community, and if XP is everything MS says it is, everyone would be happy. Well, maybe not Microsoft.

"In the end, nobody says you HAVE to upgrade. If you have '98, you don't need 98 SE or ME. You only really need to buy on the big-time upgrades, of which Windows XP is one. And even then, you can probably hold off until you get a new computer and get it pre-installed anyway."

That's what I would prefer. The subscription model seems to infer a different scenario, however, one where we pay continuously for the OS.

So far my pattern has been to buy a new Windows OS once every three years. I guess if Microsoft made the subscription price about $30 per year for OS upgrades, that would match the kind of money I spend on OS upgrades. My fear is that once they have us roped into this kind of arrangement they'll slack off on adding value to the OS.

I have an idea, and I can't believe no one has mentioned it before now:
Micropayments

Everytime you use your OS a small payment of say $0.10 gets sent to Microsoft. It'd be simple to implement and is obviously the future! Mark my words!

-Andrew

AUGH!