Re: rant

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:55:12 -0500, Altered Beast
<j63480576@gmail.com> wrote:

JAB wrote:

On 04/08/2024 17:09, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 8/3/2024 10:38 PM, Mark P. Nelson wrote:

Look, the whole point of the *personal* computer was that you didn't
have to rent time from
IBM to figure out your profit/loss balance.
>
Ever since then, every computer company has been trying desperately
to revive the "You
only rent it" model to bolster their bottom line, no matter their
public face on the question.
>
We're getting closer and closer to no longer having personal
computers which we own and
can configure/control as we wish but rather Microsoft or Banana
computers for which we pay
a regular fee.
>
Pfui!

>
Its not just computers.
>

 
I think it's got it's place so for example in the UK it's now common for
people not to buy new cars but instead pay for them monthly and then
after three years or so have some sort of option to buy. It's a simple
but effective idea from the car manufactures. Open up a whole market for
people who want a new car but just don't have the money on hand. I still
remember when it wasn't uncommon for people to rent household items such
as TV's and washing machines.
 
Were it goes wrong is with the likes of BMW, oh you want the maps
updated, well that will be £80 a year. Even worse is something like like
high beam assist which is more than just a bit of software. That'll be
£10 a month.

>
That 60 pounds is a contrived number based on the average income of
their users.  You've got a graph that goes from what some people can pay
and what the others can pay.  I mean it's just way too much.  Microsoft
wants $67/yr for the use of Microsoft Word, and there's no way I am
willing to pay that much ANNUALLY.  What do I have to do buy the
software ten times over?  I'm content to use word and wordpad for my
writing.  Shit is way too high in price I understand about the maps.

All the more since -at least for small office/home users there are so
many FREE alternatitives that are equivalent in functionality that the
pricing for office software makes no sense. But even Microsoft knows
that, which is why there are free tiers to their office product
line-up. The paid tiers are mostly aimed at larger businesses, which
have to worry about SPA auditing their businesses to make sure all
their software licenses are in order (and can pass the cost on to
their customers anyway).

     [I'm a fan of Libre Office, which is 99.9% compatible with
      MS Office, is frequently updated, still uses the old
      'toolbar' interface (I hate that damn ribbon!) and doesn't
      cost me a dime.]

Much worse is Adobe, with its cloud-based/subscription service that
it's forced on all its clientele. Rightly or wrongly, Photoshop/etc.
isn't seen as having any equivalent.

     [I'd say wrongly, at least for the vast bulk of users,
      including many of those who use it professionally. The
      Affinity software suite comes very close to matching
      Photoshop feature-for-feature, but even GIMP or
      Paint.Net are often good enough for 90% of what most
      people use it for. It's inertia, not capability, that
      maintains Adobe's poistion.]

Adobe's actions are stupidly short-sighted; it gets them money NOW but
at the cost of future users. Dabblers, students and small-businesses
that normally might have grumblingly paid the $300 entry fee are now
all balking at the $360 PER YEAR subscription cost, and migrating to
non-Adobe alternatives. I've even met a number of professional users
who have ditched Adobe (and universally, even those who have not
dislike Adobe's forced subscription model and don't feel it adds
anything clost to worth the price they are being charged).

But MBA say, line gotta go up NOW, so screw rationality, morality or
long-term effects on the company.