Apple Has Let the Cat Out of the Bag, Again. . . MEOW!!!

[Q Classic]

lol. i'm not asher, so no.

i'm a lover of all computers; right now on my short break from school, though, i'm a sysadmin, and we run a windows 2k3 network here. thinking of pushing them from office xp to office 2k3, so i went to the launch event to see what all the hubbub was about.

since we're part of the volume licensing thing, we could download the cds almost two months ago, which is what i did to install it on my home computer; we got a media kit that had the cds last month, so i installed it on my main office workstation to see if it integrated well, and it does. and now it's availible to the general public.

i only know this much about it because i've been working with it for awhile right now. ask me about their plans next year, and i won't have the foggiest.

[Q Classic]

its all an accounting wash anyway. since any cost can be suppositionally funneled through the monopoly(windows).

well, if you want to believe that...

trust me, microsoft gets most of its money on office from corporate licenses. we have to pay through the nose for "volume licensing educational select" rather than the standard one, and most of that cost goes to windows server and office. xp they seem to give away to corporations right now.

and on oems? the computers you buy from dell or compaq or hp don't have office costs integrated--the oems make more money if they sell you a retail copy, and microsoft won't license it for an integrated install, so...

[Q Classic]

hm. one thing i've noticed, office 2k3 does seem to load faster than office xp. could just be me

i do like microsoft right now, though. their latest eula for volume licensing allows for home use rights as well (even though before, one could take it home and they wouldn't be able to do much about it--it's just now it's legal).

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

its all an accounting wash anyway. since any cost can be suppositionally funneled through the monopoly(windows).

well, if you want to believe that...

trust me, microsoft gets most of its money on office from corporate licenses. we have to pay through the nose for "volume licensing educational select" rather than the standard one, and most of that cost goes to windows server and office. xp they seem to give away to corporations right now.

and on oems? the computers you buy from dell or compaq or hp don't have office costs integrated--the oems make more money if they sell you a retail copy, and microsoft won't license it for an integrated install, so...

its SOP for microsoft to use profits from its OS to fund its other "startup" programs. why is it at all rational to think that it stops there? or has to? money is liquid. and its infinitely easier to get more profit from ur monopoly than it is from anywhere else.

[Q Classic]

its SOP for microsoft to use profits from its OS to fund its other "startup" programs. why is it at all rational to think that it stops there? or has to? money is liquid. and its infinitely easier to get more profit from ur monopoly than it is from anywhere else.

i see where the problem is. what you said is that the cost of office 2003 would be integrated into all new computers. rather than sounding like what you describe now (correctly, mind you), it sounded like people would be billed for office whenever they bought a new computer, which isn't the case.

profits that microsoft earns can be used anywhere, but to say that you're paying for office when you buy windows is stretching it. not unless you want to also make the claim by saying that going to rent crouching tiger, hidden dragon, you're also paying for 50 cent.

besides, if you think microsoft gets most of its money from $299 copies of xp pro in the shelf, or from selling it through oems, you're sorely mistaken.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

its SOP for microsoft to use profits from its OS to fund its other "startup" programs. why is it at all rational to think that it stops there? or has to? money is liquid. and its infinitely easier to get more profit from ur monopoly than it is from anywhere else.

i see where the problem is. what you said is that the cost of office 2003 would be integrated into all new computers. rather than sounding like what you describe now (correctly, mind you), it sounded like people would be billed for office whenever they bought a new computer, which isn't the case.

profits that microsoft earns can be used anywhere, but to say that you're paying for office when you buy windows is stretching it. not unless you want to also make the claim by saying that going to rent crouching tiger, hidden dragon, you're also paying for 50 cent.

besides, if you think microsoft gets most of its money from $299 copies of xp pro in the shelf, or from selling it through oems, you're sorely mistaken.

=D. it is a bizare accounting argument. but when a monopoly exists it becomes a lil clearer IMO. crouching would only pay for .50 if it was in the companies interest for some reason(which is a lot harder to think of then in the MS case).

[Nubclear]

Oh. How nice.

[Q Classic]

=D. it is a bizare accounting argument. but when a monopoly exists it becomes a lil clearer IMO. crouching would only pay for .50 if it was in the companies interest for some reason(which is a lot harder to think of then in the MS case).

ok, whatever. believe what you want. i don't know how it is where you are, but where i am, when someone says they paid for something, it means they either received a good or a service, or divine (and not-so-divine) retribution got to them.

if you wanted to look at it the way you're describing, you could in essence say that you're paying your own salary. not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's just odd.

btw: office is actually more profitable for microsoft than windows is because of the corporate situation. windows licenses are cheaper than office licenses--the reasoning, i guess, is at redmond they figure that it's better to have everybody using windows (so it's cheap), and then make up the lost money on the stuff they use on top of it (office). it's kinda like how the console gaming industry works: the console's cheap; the money's made on the game licensing.

[Grrr]

I must say I like the licensing with Office 2003.

You have home use rights on corprate copies, and acadamic editions are legal for three installs.

[mrmitchell]

For being little plastic discs, they sure do have *****y licensing schemes.

[Asher]

If all you were buying were little plastic discs, perhaps you meant to buy CD-Rs rather than software.

[mrmitchell]

cd-rs cost $0.25 / disc

office costs $150+...definitely about $50+ / disc.

I wasn't complaining so much about the cost as about the liscencing that finagles that you assume complete liability and risk without being able to use the disc as you wish.

Of course, if Microsoft wants to assume liability over all the data I lose every time it crashes, then I'll gladly let it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wasn't complaining so much about the cost as about the liscencing that finagles that you assume complete liability and risk without being able to use the disc as you wish.

Well you don't have to accept the license, do you? You could always... not buy it?

[monkspider]

Or you could join a ring of software pirates, that sounds like the best option to me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well until you get busted .