office license perpetual vs subscription

If that functionality is done right, there’s no need for upgrading other than to add more functionality, which you may not need or want. When you buy software, you pay for a certain functionality. Bugs are seen as a natural part of the process, and regular updates as a necessity. Software development as we have it now, doesn’t encourage companies to write good quality software. So, we’re basically paying for a regular, almost daily, patch? It’s just amusing to me.īut it wouldn’t make sense for software people would use everyday, such as operating systems, email/web-browser clients. If you take it to the extreme, a virus definition update is almost like a patch. This whole concept is pretty ironic to me as a programmer. Or the casual hobbyist could play around with the software, which is my angleĪlso, anti-virus software have classicly been working on the subscription model as well, but you’re paying for service/support as well as the updates. If you’re a freelancer working from home, you could basically rent the program for the duration of your project. I wish they’d do the same for commercial users. They do offer a “1 year license” to students and people in education, at a very reduced price. High end 3D packages that cost upwards to $6,000 USD. Today we can even buy full version games and download them as well, I’m just illustrating a few models. More common though is to buy the CDs (pay for the software + media) in stores. So all you’re paying is the monthly fee to play. With a few games, the company behind it gives away the actual software for free as a download. So far it’s working pretty well for them, and it’s becoming an increasing popularity. Massive online multiplayer games follow a subscription model. Now, through some new experiences, I think I might like it. I first heard about the concept of subscription based software licensing roughly a year ago, probably right here on OSNews.

Office license perpetual vs subscription