Euklid
Member
I know there's people from Microsoft browsing these forums. So you gang,
listen up.
I propose Windows offers a yearly fee option. Instead of asking for $200 or
$300 upfront, charge a yearly fee of $40, just like Norton Antivirus. The longer
the person uses your software, the longer you are getting paid.
Look at it this way - most people have $50 or $60 available to pay for
software. That's about the price of a new video game. But most people will
not have $200 or $300 ready to spend on software, especially when they're
already dishing out $1200 or more on hardware to build a system.
Notice how most posters on this forum who are building a system never
mention operating system? Operating system is an after thought. Face it -
for residential customers, if your operating system won't fit in their budget,
they'll just rip your software from the internet. No one uses Linux, games
don't run on Linux, and look at the ugly interface! Blah.
Now, I'm not an advocate for copyright infringment. I like Windows, I think
people who produce good work should be compensated for it. But, I am a
realist, and this is how I see things. If a person can't afford the latest
CPU, they'll downgrade - because they need a CPU to run their computer.
But if a person can't afford Windows, they'll rip it - that's one of
disadvantages of being in the software industry. Information has a history
of being copied and used without compensation.
I think the current model squeezes people with limited budgets into a bind.
And most people are noble and more than willing to share appreciation with
Microsoft, in monetary form, for their software. Now I would like to see
Microsoft reciprocate that noble gesture.
The idea I propose is a yearly fee more like rent-to-own. The charges would
stop when the sum of the years paid is equal to the cost of the software.
listen up.
I propose Windows offers a yearly fee option. Instead of asking for $200 or
$300 upfront, charge a yearly fee of $40, just like Norton Antivirus. The longer
the person uses your software, the longer you are getting paid.
Look at it this way - most people have $50 or $60 available to pay for
software. That's about the price of a new video game. But most people will
not have $200 or $300 ready to spend on software, especially when they're
already dishing out $1200 or more on hardware to build a system.
Notice how most posters on this forum who are building a system never
mention operating system? Operating system is an after thought. Face it -
for residential customers, if your operating system won't fit in their budget,
they'll just rip your software from the internet. No one uses Linux, games
don't run on Linux, and look at the ugly interface! Blah.
Now, I'm not an advocate for copyright infringment. I like Windows, I think
people who produce good work should be compensated for it. But, I am a
realist, and this is how I see things. If a person can't afford the latest
CPU, they'll downgrade - because they need a CPU to run their computer.
But if a person can't afford Windows, they'll rip it - that's one of
disadvantages of being in the software industry. Information has a history
of being copied and used without compensation.
I think the current model squeezes people with limited budgets into a bind.
And most people are noble and more than willing to share appreciation with
Microsoft, in monetary form, for their software. Now I would like to see
Microsoft reciprocate that noble gesture.
The idea I propose is a yearly fee more like rent-to-own. The charges would
stop when the sum of the years paid is equal to the cost of the software.
