Submitted by Acknowledging the software industry is undergoing a radical transformation, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said Thursday that his company is moving rapidly to create products that can be funded by ads and served up over the Internet. “Software is becoming a service,” Ballmer said at the company’s financial analyst. “Embracing advertising and subscription-based models and Internet-based delivery across Microsoft’s product line is an important part of what we will do.”
the only thing i can come up with is a troll to this balmer person…
“We’re not afraid to (encounter) initial resistance to our ideas,” Ballmer said, adding that the company will “put even more bright people” behind those ideas. “Sometimes things take a really long time.”
Really smart people implementing bad ideas, I don’t see how this can be a good thing…
When Microsoft says software as a service they mean paying for updates, when RedHat says it they mean paying for service calls
. Both want a yearly fee I bet though.
Given Microsoft’s ability to provide novel updates lately I’m not sure how they’ll convince people to pay continually hoping said updates will come to them. At least paying by the upgrade keeps the producer producing. Paying by the year only keeps them just honest enough not to lose you.
It’s avoiding offending you as opposed to fighting to get you on every release. Of course the company’s CEO wants that!
It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Now, we all know Microsoft’s litmus test for entering a “new” market: if it isn’t already successful for somebody else, we’re not interested in trying it.
This has worked marvelously for MS in the past, because they didn’t enter unprofitable markets, and they could leverage their platform dominance to destroy the previous market leader in short order. They problem is that Microsoft, for some odd reason, didn’t take MSN to its logical extreme and turn it into a proprietary WWW incompatible with the existing one. They would have succeeded, much to our dismay.
The web evolved into a platform of equal or greater strategic value with respect to Windows or any other native platform. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they can’t leverage this platform in the same way as they can leverage Windows, and therefore their litmus test is failing them.
They ignored the web as a software delivery platform for way too long, and by the time Google became massively successful at it, it was already too late. Microsoft can afford to follow trends when it comes to native software, but they need to lead if they want to capture marketshare on the web. Leading means investing in untested markets and business models. Leading means establishing open standards that allow 3rd parties to adopt the new technologies. Microsoft hasn’t been so hot in these areas in the past several years.
This sounds like the old Xbox argument again- You’re not BUYING the Xbox, you’re LEASING the Xbox… so Microsoft can claim legal control over your hardware.
I mean… there are already provisions against reverse-engineering software, but this sounds to me like “we’re not selling enough new software so we gotta find a way to charge you for the software you already have”.
I can kinda understand paying for antivirus updates… and I can understand new versions… but paying for bugfixes (unless you’re a corporation with service contracts where you’ll want these bugs hunted down for you) and ‘pay to keep using the software you purchased’ sound unreasonable to me.
In short, what I’m trying to say is, software doesn’t sound as much like a service as internet access, or, say, cable TV, or access to someone’s online gaming facilities are.
And didn’t Microsoft burn a lot of companies by promising them they could pay yearly and then get the new versions of Windows for nothing extra, and then produce few if any versions of Windows to make it worth the while? Since then there’s been what? Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 2003?
I have no problem with people wanting to make a buck. What I do have problem with is greedy people milking it for all it’s worth. Sorry Microsoft, I’ll opt-out of this “sounds good on paper” concept.
In its every-increasing need to amass more revenue, Microsoft, due to poor or static sales, needs a better way to guarantee a profit for investors.
If you buy into their argument, then they will gladly charge you every year or for every update to keep you paying on a steady basis.
Once you pay for software, you should be entitled to updates. Now, if Microsoft wants to change their revenue model then their prices will have to drop drastically in order for the constant payment on the part of consumers to seem reasonable.
If Microsoft decides to keep current pricing while adding the service, then that will be the point where Linux on the desktop will finally become a reality.
I believe Microsoft will eventually shoot themselves in the foot.
Isn’t that what the Open Source guys have been telling all along?
Edited 2006-07-27 23:13
Adware? That is bound to change how people perceive the value of Microsoft’s products, and I doubt it will be to Microsoft’s benefit. Most people don’t seem to think about the “Microsoft tax”. They think that a PC equals Windows. They don’t (want to?) see the cost of the software component, and they probably won’t be happy to have to pay for some “Vista Live” service, unless it makes their digital lifestyle a lot easier than today.
Great software, as great engineering, will always come at a cost, but the price of commodity software is plummeting. The EULAs will have to become human readable and a lot less restrictive, to compete with EULA-unencumbered GPL/BSD software.
(Here’s an idea: a personal software agent that can accept or reject an EULA, based on preferences, so we don’t have to accept to have our freedoms taken way all the time, semi-blindy. It might need more formalized legal texts though. I don’t know.)
Entertainment has worked for Apple, with the Quicktime/iTunes/music store trojan and the .Mac services, and Microsoft has a huge foot in the door and mind of consumers everywhere with MSN and Messenger. The services concept has risks for Microsoft, but it could work. Businesses might like to only pay for what they’re actually using, rather than for keeping a library of licenses.
I think Microsoft may become more vulnerable to competition. But it is scary to think of how they could leverage all their markets (goodbye “net neutrality”) to create this media magnet, black hole, that sucks everything in. Like Apple on steroids. Hardware, Software, Media, Entertainment, Communications, .. What’s next? (Next election voting through MSN Messenger?)
A ray of sunshine here is that open source software transcends the business entities. A business can only co-exist in temporary symbiosis with the software. But you never know which one has the most longevity. Each form can have offspring and each has its own rules of (im)mortality.
It’s the creators and the users that shape the future. If we, as passive consumers usher in a new world order of digital bondage it sadly is our own fault, but we don’t have to buy what they’re selling.
Edited 2006-07-27 23:19
I noticed an error in the article’s title. It should read:
“Ballmer: Software is becoming a privelege”.
Windows Genuine Advantage: All your software are belong to us. Thanks, MS.
Edited 2006-07-27 23:29
Software isn’t supposed to be the service.
The upgrades and support are the service.
A service is a service. eg. google is a service, they provide software and access to a huge database.
Software is software. eg. Microsoft office is just a word processor, it doesn’t require external resources that need constant updating.
When you turn Software in to a service, all that happens is that you can then charge your customers over and over again for the same thing and customer aren’t going to like that.
Quite frankly, I look forward to the day when software becomes a service.
Installing software locally is an utterly inefficient model, with few economies of scale.
Software is software. eg. Microsoft office is just a word processor, it doesn’t require external resources that need constant updating.
But it does require local installation and local maintenance. How is that better, than a single point of maintenance? Last time I checked, maintaining software on desktops was still a very costly affair.
When you turn Software in to a service, all that happens is that you can then charge your customers over and over again for the same thing and customer aren’t going to like that.
Well, yes and no. If people ends up paying more in the long run, they are not very interested. The way MS did it with its Software Assurance, was not really software as service, but rather a glorified software-leasing model, being advantagous to MS only.
But if people can buy discrete software components hosted as services, instead of installing a large blob of code on the local computer, this will be a very compelling model. Its not about screwing customers over again and again, but about reducing software complexity.
I have no illusions, that Microsoft will be prepared to break away from its “integrate everything but the kitchen sink” paradigm. A truly service-oriented model, would likely help to drive down software-cost, and this is not something MS is very happy about.
But software as it is delivered to day, is simply way to complex. And I am sure, that someone out there, will reap huge opportunities by offering a service model.
Heck, Google is already doing it.
I personally don’t believe in this software as a service business which is one of thr reasons I went to Linux/Open Source.
I feel that totally taking away the right to a local non net connected machine is a dangerous step towards POLITICAL as well as commercial Fascism.
Therefore I believe that the installation CD or DVD for local non net connected machines should always remain an available alternative or “service” for those of us that don’t want to use the Internet as a software server.
Also there is the problem that those who think in terms of software as a service seem to thank that broadband high speed Internet is everywhare now. This is not true. I live in an area that is still basically dial up ONLY where the internet is concerned. (Not that I would put all my machines on the net to use software even if i had high speed/broadband for the reasons cited at in the second paragraph.) I think a lot of people thinl like me and that therefore installation CDs and DVDs will remain a profitable part of software as a service in the OPEN SOURCE world for a long time to come.
This is to general. If you think about typical business modells for open source software, software might very well be concidered a service.
The open source projects never “end” (so they are actually no projects in the strict sense of the definition) and so can be understood as a continuus service to the user.
Added to this core, there is revenue generating services like customer education, customization etc. that turn it into a product.
But general product improvements, as opposed to custumization are not supposed to be misused to gerate revenue. This is probably what Balmer doesn’t get.
At least if they plan to implement a system where you pay for updates and were you have to pay a certain fee up front as well I want to see some sort of Service Level Agreements. And I can’t see Microsoft making any promises, at least not legally enforcable ones
I can’t help thinking of “All your base are belong to us!” with that statement.
It is futile to resist, you can just pay monthly – like you do your rent.
Oh, and by the way, if you miss a payment – “All your data are belong to us!”.
And never mind the tattoo on your forehead.
When he things ‘subscription’ his is thinking, “we’ll sell you a copy, but after the subscription, the applicaiton will stop functioning.
This isn’t the subscription model sold by Sun and Linux vendors; the “here is a free copy, purchase a support contract if you want updates and support” – this is; you either continue your subscription or pretty much loose access to your data due to Microsofts proprietary lock-in.
The day when Microsoft offer free downloads of Microsoft Office and Windows; with option support contracts being sold seperately, then they’ve made progress.
When I read the statement by Balmer that, “software is becoming a service,” all I could think of was George Orwell and “1984.
I’ll admit that I am (as are many) awed by what Microsoft has able to accomplish. Forget their product quality. The products they provide & market has given them incredible and tremendous power & influence over individuals, corporations and even governments.
If you think Microsoft’s influence isn’t an issue, I invite you to:
– go to your bank and have a teller get you an on-line statement. They use Windows.
– go to any hospital and look at the OS they run. All of them use Windows.
– go to your local Unemployment Office. They use Windows.
– visit your Insurance Agent. Their client s/w is Windows-based.
– Visit ANY local, state, federal office. With a few exceptions, they all use Windows.
And that’s only what’s out front & in plain site. Now look at the server farms for these companies. The vast majority use Win 2000 or Win 2003 server editions. There may be a few Sun Servers, but the majority, by far, run MS Win Server OSes.
My personal opinion is that this is a case of the wealthiest, most powerful & influential company on the entire planet wanting MORE! They’ve been established as a monopoly for many years ensuring a very comfortable longevity. Yet, it doesn’t seem to be enough.
Now it seems they wish to have each user provide them with a perpetual revenue stream beyond the initial, individual (and collective) licensing costs. Also, there is a potential threat of locking you out of your software if you don’t to keep your subscription(s) current.
Microsoft is not a utility company providing electricity, cable TV, natural gas/oil or water to someone’s home. If a consumer ‘purchases’ a computer and the bundled s/w has a version of Windows on it, great! The purchaser should be able to use the OS however he/she wants. If they do not want to purchase (or renew) subscriptions from Microsoft, they should be able to make that decision without fear of lockouts.
If these attitudes & practices become part of the, “Microsoft Way,” computing for the average consumer would be tough with such a choke-hold. An earlier poster suggested that, “Software would become a privilege.”
With Microsoft, this is a very real possibility…..