|
Renting software would only prevent software piracy on a corporate level. Home users are going to have pirated software, and servers can be hacked. Not all pirated software is gotten from the net but a good deal of it is. Getting copies of something is as simple as knowing where to look or who you know. Renting won't help a great deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
modified 29-Aug-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
NEVER ! 
|
|
|
|
|
If the software in question is an app you'll use once, or for a short period, it makes sense to rent it if the rental cost is lower. In the same vein, it makes sense to rent software and the resources it runs on if it requires more computing resources than you have (example: web farm).
Does it make sense to rent a text editor, or a compiler? Nah. Think of the software as if it were a tool. Is it a screwdriver (which you would never rent), or an automotive engine lift (which you probably would rent)?
"Think of it as evolution in action." - 'Oath of Fealty' by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
|
|
|
|
|
I think renting software makes sense just like renting any other item. It also depends on the situation and purpose that you need the software.
Say you have a client that will only accept a certain format of document. The profit made from selling to this one client would not justify the cost to buy the complete license to the software that is required for that software, but renting that software for one use may be justifiable.
More an more there are application servers on the internet that allow people to rent software. As some of these application servers become more developed, and more reliable, it will be possible to rent a copy of Microsoft Word or some other popular product.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
kilowatt wrote:
I think renting software makes sense just like renting any other item.
I don't think renting EVER makes sense. Typically you pay for an item plus interest if you rent it for a year. If you didn't, the rental company would make no money.
No chance in hell I'll ever rent software, any more than I'd ever rent a TV or a computer.
Christian
come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever rented a video game?
I think that there are a ton of video games that are well worth the experience of playing them, but I would not want to waste 40-60 dollars on them just to play them for a week or so before I was bored of them.
I will pay five bucks, play the game for a week, possibly finish it, and return it.
As far as computer software, I have not found a need to rent anything, yet. But I do download the share ware or demo versions that give me the opportunity to create the document that I need to write or open one time, or I am able to use for a week before I have to register.
Like I said before, as some of the newer technologies are better developed, it will be possible to rent "session" use of software, and they make sense for some people, that only need to use a particular software once or twice.
If it was a program that I regularly needed, I would defintely prefer to buy over rent it.
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
kilowatt wrote:
Have you ever rented a video game?
Once or twice. That is a program I want to play with for a couple of days, not an app that I need to use long term.
kilowatt wrote:
If it was a program that I regularly needed, I would defintely prefer to buy over rent it.
Here is the problem. M$ are trying to push us towards a rental paradigm ONLY. Do you think that will benefit US, or THEM ? I'm all for options in the marketplace, but renting of software plain sucks IMO. I can see how Microsoft need to find new revenue streams, now that selling windows to people who buy PC's because they saw on the news that there was free pr0n on the net is drying up for them. Computers have become fast enough that only geeks will feel the need to keep upgrading every 18 months. And most people do not upgrade their OS. So it makes perfect sense for them, but I do not want to live in a world where M$ can shut down my OS and tell me I need to buy a new one.
Christian
come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote:
Here is the problem. M$ are trying to push us towards a rental paradigm ONLY.
I was unaware of the context of this poll. I do not think that software should ONLY be rented. You do make a number of great points in that paragragh.
I will never want to rent something that I will get the full value and use out of by flat out buying. As long as I have the choice to buy I will be happy, I think that renting software could just be an added bonus. If it were the other way around and renting was the only choice, that would just suck!
Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day
Light a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, it's a really horrible view to see Windows' messagebox telling you "You have another 29 days to get the new Windows Live Expirience from you vendor. Windows XP v2.0 weren't designed to run after year 2008"... aah.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh my! Are you guys suppose to be developers? You guys sure as hell are stoopid. Perhaps you should do a bit more reading before mouthing off.
First of all, if you rent software, you wouldn't have to get new versions. The new versions would be provided to you automatically--at no charge. The reason M$ is moving to a software as service model is to secure its customers. Did you forget that StarOffice is free? And that sun offers a version of StarOffice which includes support for only $79 bucks? If MS doesn't tie it's customers with a long term contract, they will loose market share to that crappy StarOffice.
If you guys *are* real developers and make money coding, then you should be the single most understanding people in the whole f***ing world. You shouldn't be flaming MS or Sun or whoever for trying to stay on top. It's the whole poing of a business, remember? You don't like it? Then go download StarOffice (for windows) for free.
I sure as hell will make money in the near future by selling software as service... I can't wait.
|
|
|
|
|
Ellery Familia wrote:
You guys sure as hell are stoopid. Perhaps you should do a bit more reading before mouthing off.
I think it is spelled "stupid", but then again, English is not my first language either.
Ellery Familia wrote:
First of all, if you rent software, you wouldn't have to get new versions. The new versions would be provided to you automatically--at no charge.
Naturally, and that is because the software industry is a giftshop. On the other hand, don't you think that there is a little risk of the service providers making an invisible jump in the price?.
When the software is provided as a service only, then you will not have the option not to upgrade, but you WILL have to pay.
At home I am using VC++ 5 and I am perfectly happy, if i had to lease the thing I would still be paying and as I see it, without getting any value for money.
"It could have been worse, it could have been ME!" -Rincewind
|
|
|
|
|
This whole subscription concept is driving me nuts. It is oriented towards making more money - MS Word is not a service, but a product like any other - my TV or a table at home. Why should I be paying monthly for that - unless ofcourse i bought it on lease?
modified 29-Aug-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas George wrote:
This whole subscription concept is driving me nuts. It is oriented towards making more money - MS Word is not a service, but a product like any other - my TV or a table at home. Why should I be paying monthly for that - unless ofcourse i bought it on lease?
Thomas George wrote:
This whole subscription concept is driving me nuts. It is oriented towards making more money - MS Word is not a service, but a product like any other - my TV or a table at home.
First off, I want to say that I mostly *hate* the concept of renting software. However, your point about the TV isn't a good one. I 'rent' the service I get on my tv. Sure, I own the appliance, but (neglecting on air channels) I have to rent my cable or rent channels through a satellite dish. Microsoft thinks (they're wrong) that the time has come for the general public to use 'software as a service'. They're flat wrong. The concept isn't a new one. I write medical billing software for a living. This is a particular niche area where renting *sometimes* works. But not always. If I want to turn my computer on and paint doodles in a paint program, I don't want to have to get online to do it. One does NOT need to be online to 'compute'.
My prediction: Microsoft will fail with this concept. Microsoft the company will survive, but this will be one of those things where in five years, their idea won't look like it looks now. They're going to have to rethink the whole thing and throttle it back.
My second prediction: The market's at the bottom.
Now... anyone trust me?
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
I define service as something for which the other party has to maintain an infrastructure or have something which adds value to what I already have, when I bought the service.
Like, when I get a cable channel, I pay for the programs. But, I do not pay monthly when I buy a DVD. In that sense, MS Word by my definition, cannot be a service. But, a stock trading app, which by itself is nothing unless it can connect to servers that provide the data and executions - is a service.
Microsoft will fail in the concept only if other players come in to the market with great products .. They are capitalizing on their monopoly.
modified 29-Aug-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas George wrote:
I define service as something for which the other party has to maintain an infrastructure or have something which adds value to what I already have, when I bought the service.
Like, when I get a cable channel, I pay for the programs. But, I do not pay monthly when I buy a DVD. In that sense, MS Word by my definition, cannot be a service. But, a stock trading app, which by itself is nothing unless it can connect to servers that provide the data and executions - is a service.
I don't completely disagree with you, but I think that this issue is highly based on context. Again, there are reasons to rent software. You or I may not feel comfortable with all of them, but in enterprise settings, the idea (often on paper) makes a lot of sense.
The problem is, as I'm sure you know, is that renting software has problems- such as unreliable or slow connections. Dependency on outside sources to keep your system running- and running well. Downtimes you arguable wouldn't have if the systems and software were local. These are just a few. But again, many companies are getting to the point where they'd do AAAANNYYTHING to get rid of individual desktop maintenance. Me included. I hardly get any time to program anymore- because I'm too busy uninstalling Suzies "Flash Baspo Super-Heterodyne Screen Saver(tm)" that she decided install which hosed her computer and now she can't get email or print documents- and she needs it working now, because she has a very important resume she needs to print. Or she decided to customize her outlook menus and now "they don't look like the used to look, and she really, really wants it to look like it used to look... 'n stuff". Plus, everytime Microsoft (or any other company) issues a patch, service pack, or develops and distributes new bugs (which they do very well), someone has to run around to every workstation and install these things. So, to IT managers, this idea of centralizing configurations, software, patches and versions becomes very, very attractive.
But like I said, this concept isn't new-- it's a paradigm which has been tried several times, and so far it's been sent packing home to momma with each try. Microsoft is simply betting that the time to try again is now.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Oss wrote:
My second prediction: The market's at the bottom.
Now... anyone trust me?
Cool.... how much to rent 500 shares of Microsoft?
|
|
|
|
|
Rick Crone wrote:
Cool.... how much to rent 500 shares of Microsoft?
It'll cost you the market price, but you have to have a .NET passport to rent shares.
I'm sorry, your .net passport indicates you're 12 years old, you can't buy stock. Thank you.
<connection closed="">
|
|
|
|
|
But I only wanted to rent it! That's ok even at 12 isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Only if you're accompanied by a parent or guardian! 
|
|
|
|
|
I need to create high-quality icons and bitmaps for about 1 month out every 12, as a new platform release goes into marketing-tart-up-mode. So, one month out of every 12 I need a Photoshop equivalent (and my talented developer-cum-graphic designer). Photoshop equivalents are too expensive to justify, so we end up using a crappy freeware tool which nobody else in the world can wield properly.
However, if I could rent it for 1 month a year at, say 15% of the original purchase price, then my development budget isn't caned by a one-off purchases that hardly get used, And I always get the latest version whenever I need it.
And the more 'micro' the rental gets (e.g. buy a shell cheaply, rent features as you need them), the more kinds of software it would be cost-effective to rent - especially if you upgrade regularly (e.g. every upgrade every 2 years and a monthly rental cost of say 10% the original purchase price doesn't look quite so costly, and involved no capital outlay!)
And lots of people rent their development tools already - MSDN is a rental service (you are aware that you're not entitled to any of the SW once the subscription period has ended!?)
Matthew Adams
Development Manager
Digital Healthcare Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
Ever? So when I have to put my car in the shop for a few days to get some work done should I rent a car or go out and buy a new one? Obviously I would rent one. I just need something for a specific use, for a specific amount of time.
Examples like this is where renting makes sense....and this is where renting software would make sense.
I'm not going to go rent an OS, but say I was working on a project where we needed something special once a year, say printing forms or something (bad example, but just hypothetically). Say I could rent software to do it for a considerable discount as apposed to buying the software, this might make sense.
As with everything else, you have to weigh the pros and cons. There is no cut and dry "renting is bad" or "renting is the only way to go".
|
|
|
|
|
I had seen Symantec charging 10 dollars for a PC Anywhere 1 month trial. In effect, it is like renting because there are no functional restrictions - just that it will stop working after a month. It would make sense if you need it once at home to do some stuff and never want it again.
modified 29-Aug-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Renting software per se does not make sense. However, renting a "service" can mean more than just renting software. You could own the software outright, yet still rent (or subscribe) to a service which in someway links your applicatoin to some sort of extended internet functionality. For example, I would not want to rent MS Word, I would like to own it. But suppose MS provided an internet extension to the product which allowed me to have some sort of collaborative internet access to an online library of information which wan relavant to the paper I was working on. Let's say, as a simple example, it would automatically create citations to documents within that library as I cited them in my document. A "service" of that sort could well be worth subscribing to.
"Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
