I think we're at a crossroads in the future of software - in fact, it seems to me that the real dinosaurs are the people who still want to use the old model of paying well over the odds for software made by some mega corporation that has more interest in shareholder returns than functionality.
I may be wrong, but considering how many schools and educational institutions are going Open Source, the explosion in open source in the US and the fact we seem to get everything that happens there over here, I reckon Open Source has a major future. Microsoft won't go bust, but they aren't going to be able to charge hundreds a seat for office for much longer.
I may be wrong, but considering how many schools and educational institutions are going Open Source, the explosion in open source in the US and the fact we seem to get everything that happens there over here, I reckon Open Source has a major future. Microsoft won't go bust, but they aren't going to be able to charge hundreds a seat for office for much longer.
Eg, instead of physcially "owning" an OS, Application, etc, you "rent usage" for a time frame that is convenient to you, from the vendor.
Does anyone really need to "own" all these blimming CD's, DVD's, and source material ?
To paraphrase something Cowboy Bob asked me : "Do you really use the full potential of Office 2007 over Office 2000 ?"
I'll be honest and say no. I'm comforted knowing that should I need such features, they will be there however. Afterall, we live in uncertain times and who knows what the Client will ask for next ?
However, CB does have a point in that I (and others) have paid a lot for a lot more functionality that we currently use, and this could be defined a financially poor judgement.
I'd argue the reverse and say it demonstrates long-term thinking, because I have the ability to adapt to rapidly changing business needs, and a business than is agile and able to move with alacrity has business advantage.
But then again, if offered the choice of buying a product for £400 or renting usage for £200/yr with upgrades and constantly released feature sets built in, I know which I would choose.
MMORPG's like World of Warcraft are a perfect example of this. You "pay to play". When you tire of the game, you cancel the account. If the game industry has successfully used this concept, why are none of the App Dev companies doing the same ?
There are many "Pay to Use" concepts in real life...golf, cinema, football matches, etc, where the customer pays at the point of consumption.
You could argue that a golfer who has his own clubs continues to pay, even when not paying golf, and the clubs are sitting in the boot of his car. Therefore, why does he need to own clubs ? Surely club houses loan out such things, and he can hire then when he needs to.
But then we come round full circle to the outdated idea of "ownership" (and no doubt many deeper questions on the concepts of possession versus practicality versus consumerism versus lord knows what else)
Hmmm.
Do I really need a word processor ?
How many letters did I write last year (checks My Docs date stamps...12 letters)
On the basis of WP Software at £400, plus £50 for a printer, plus £15 for stamps, envelopes and paper, that is £465/12 = £38.75 production cost per letter.
I suppose you should add electricity in to that, as well as indirects like house rent and council tax, since the letter was composed in a dwelling. I'll add 1% of the cost of the PC, since it is used for other tasks as well, so that's £465+45 = 510 / 12 = £42.50 per letter.
Hmm..perhaps we've all been hoodwinked somewhere along the way with this PC malarkey
)
Comment