A decade ago, Bill Gates and other executives at Microsoft decided that traditional packaged software was dead–all software would eventually be delivered via the Internet.
Microsoft gets outside the box with software
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Hell, its true. The last software I bought was Dreamweaver, and I just download it after purchase. All the rest is OSS and that is free to download. No one really wants to go to the store to get the software they need, they just want to point and click to get the programs, like Linspire’s Click and Go thing. And I’ll just say it, MS didn’t think of it first, they are just going to try and capitalize on it.
You still like to have a hard-copy CD/DVD product.
I can certainly see an increasing premium for such, but the ‘all’ in the post seems too inclusive.
From what I gathered they are not talking about all software being downloaded.. they are talking about having programs execute remotely or stored remotely and brought over to be executed localally.
This for some reason just makes me think there is going to be a huge security issue..
I just get thinking MS is getting serious about security and then they pull in something else to exploit.
The problem with the MS model is that no one trusts binaries over the web now unless there is source code available. We even have a name for these pieces of code – virii. We even have other pieces of code you use to get rid of them.
If the MS model had held any water, ActiveX would not be a taboo word like it is now.
>> traditional packaged software was dead–all software would
>> eventually be delivered via the Internet.
Yah, the ultimate wet dream of Billy Boy and friends.
No thanks, I would like my (commercial) programs on a CD, *especially* an operating system like Windows.
I’m always loosing my connection to the web at times I need it most (never trust Murphy! I’m warning ya, he’s evil!), so no ‘webware’ for me.
From what I gathered they are not talking about all software being downloaded.. they are talking about having programs execute remotely or stored remotely and brought over to be executed localally.
This for some reason just makes me think there is going to be a huge security issue..
I just get thinking MS is getting serious about security and then they pull in something else to exploit
You know this kind of service exists for years (ASP – application service provider) and works quite safely, don’t you?
Then Gates needs to be pushing for broadband to be available everywhere, sooner.
A deacade ago Windows couldn’t natively support the internet. Windows 95 wasn’t released until August.
So a boxless distribution model would be impossible.
Client/Server systems were in the realm of Unix and Netware, Which handle networks very well.
MSFT’s ASP doesn’t work well, and in fact it is the cause of many virus installs. It is part of the insecurity of IE. It’s not that Internet Explorer is bad, but the tech that it is built on is bad. ASP, Active X, Unique HTML elements, all lead to security problems. Combine with very little actual restrictions inside windows for multiple users, has lead the current problems.
Hopefully Longhorn will force multi-user security from the very begining. So you don’t get ‘problems’ like SP2 has caused.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with downloading software, as long as I can make a copy of it and store it locally on CD or DVD and use it forever without ever having to upgrade.
As far as the remotely stored applications, that’s just a good way for these guys to grab you by the nuts and then they can simply squeeze whenever they decide they want more money from you.
I can let slide some subscription-based things like anti-virus programs where they are constantly spoon feeding you updates (a service), but not much else.
… that is why I am downloading Fedora Core 4 Beta 1 as I type … 😉
Coming from the company that helped end the dominance of dumb terminals attached to mainframes, for the Personal Computing era. It seems that MS wants to go toward a dumb terminal system where your apps and maybe docs are hosted on their machines. It would certainly help computer Newbs with security and backups. But given all of the security problems MS has, are people willing to trust them with important data?
SELECT * FROM MESSAGES WHERE CLUE IS NOT NULL
——————————
0 rows returned
This model exists _for years_, folks, why don’t you guys go read about app providers on Wikipedia or something?
1. Microsoft gets to suck more money out of customers using a subscription model.
2. Microsoft gets to suck more money out of customers by thwarting “unauthorized distribution.”
3. Microsoft gets an easier to push unwanted updates, such as DRM, to customers.
Being able to rent software as a service where the protocols are changed gradually to keep competitors out would be the ultimate source of income.
Once software is created, being virtual, it never degrades in quality like physical objects, it performs just as well as on the first day of creation, and thus needs absolutely no maintenance whatsoever.
With such a monopoly they could innovate incredibly slowly and still convince politicians and the popular vote they are the best innovators as they would compare themselves to the non-existant competition, they could also get away with fixing security issues extremely slowly.
With such easy and large income, the monopoly could spend a tiny fraction of that great centralised wealth on lobbying governments to perpetually maintain its position with the help of law.
This is Microsofts aim. The didn’t quite make it this far, but they are still aiming. Noone knows which way the future will go. They still may be able to achieve it.
Imagine little innovation in 1000 years of MS.
but downloading windows is easy!
I can just imagine this scenario whereby to use the computer, you will be required to connect to the internet. Soon everything you use will require a connection and each time you connect, MS will bill you.
MS will then probably incorporate BSODs every once in a while to force you to login again and again so that they can bill you.
Screw them.
This is all Valve Software’s fault. Imagine having to connect to Steam just to play by yourself. This sucks.
I think you only have to login once to validate the account and then
you dont have to log in to play steam games. I’m not sure
MS will then probably incorporate BSODs every once in a while to force you to login again and again so that they can bill you.
Yeah, like MS is really going to cras people’s computers on purpose. Remember, puff .. puff .. PASS.
“Personally, I don’t have a problem with downloading software, as long as I can make a copy of it and store it locally on CD or DVD and use it forever without ever having to upgrade.”
Are you nuts? So you buy something and do not see the need to upgrade? That’s just plain unrealistic. Every program you buy is a program under constant review, whether you use Linux, Windows or Mac and “upgrades” are the way the authors give “improvements” and new features. NEVER upgrading is therefore a bit silly, to say the least.
Darius: Personally, I don’t have a problem with downloading software, as long as I can make a copy of it and store it locally on CD or DVD and use it forever without ever having to upgrade.
Anonymous (IP: —.cust.tele2.ch): Are you nuts? So you buy something and do not see the need to upgrade? That’s just plain unrealistic. Every program you buy is a program under constant review, whether you use Linux, Windows or Mac and “upgrades” are the way the authors give “improvements” and new features. NEVER upgrading is therefore a bit silly, to say the least.
I believe what Darius means is that he doesn’t want to be FORCED to upgrade if he does not want or need to.
This is perfectly understandable, because sometimes “upgrades” can make things worse as far as some users are concerned.
A perfect example of this is Windows 2000 vs Windows XP. Some people prefer 2000 to XP.
>> Are you nuts? So you buy something and do not see the
>> need to upgrade? That’s just plain unrealistic. Every
>> program you buy is a program under constant review,
>> whether you use Linux, Windows or Mac and “upgrades”
>> are the way the authors give “improvements” and new
>> features. NEVER upgrading is therefore a bit silly,
>> to say the least.
What is plain silly and unrealistic is the fact that people (including you, it seems) expect me, a customer, to pay whenever an update is available, while I could perfectly use an older version of the software.. which had to be paid for as well.
Microsoft and their friends should realize that their customers are NOT money-machines from which they can pull a bit of money every once in a while.
No, where cost is involved, I always upgrade but maybe am 2 upgrades behind. I had Win98 until 2004 when I gave Windows anything the boot. I moved to Linux, where I settled with Slackware, and I am now with OS X and sticking.
However I get your point, sometimes “upgrades” do screw up what was working before. I did once or twice experience that with Windows, but not with Linux or OS X – so far.
Most of the upgrades I have done in the last year are free and can be reversed.
All companies should realize the same truth – in a sick economy, customers are not money-machines! I agree with that. Look at cameras, the mad MP race for the most mega pixels fro the least cash as a prime example.
1) Trusted Binaries.
2) You cannot work on documents if your network goes down. So if my ISP has an issue for a night, that mean I cannot launch Word or Excel to get my office work done. That means driving back to the office instead of working at home. No thanks.
3) Release Cycles. So if it takes long for MS to release software than say 4 or 5 years than, I am paying more for the office suite than if I got a CD.
4) Renewing subscripitions and what are the rates going to be. No thanks.