Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!microsoft!jamesth
From: jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Software piracy
Message-ID: <55192@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jun 90 16:10:39 GMT
References: <3914@moondance.cs.uq.oz.au> <56447.2673B586@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> <9243@paperboy.OSF.ORG> <41882@apple.Apple.COM> <36990@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 29

In article <36990@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes:
>
>I'm not replying to any particular reply to Chuck.Arelei's original posting but
>I have some thoughts:
>
> 4) In the Media lab Stuart Brand suggests that in the future we won't buy
> Microsoft Word so much as subscribe to it -- good service coming on a regular
> basis with a good update policy. Wasn't this what made Red Ryder a success?
 
Now here is an excellent idea that I've liked for a long time.  It has
advantages to both the buyer and seller.  For example, the buyer can
cancel the subscription if the  product fails to live up to expectations.
The seller gets a steady revenue flow.  The buyer and seller both benefit
when new machines/operating systems come out because there is a mechanism
in place to support upgrades (currently the buyer feels cheated because
he can't run on the new machine - the seller feels put upon because he is
expected to fix it).

There are other possible advantages in my mind, such as getting out of
the "batch" upgrade rut, where a new Excel/PageMaker/etc. only comes
out every year or two.  If there were subscribers the vendors would
want to keep up the flow of new goodies to keep them happy.

Enough on the advantages, who'll suggest what's wrong with the idea?

>	--Thom Gillespie

James Thiele -- microsoft!jamesth
Standard Disclaimer + I'm a developer, not a marketer