Off Topic but is newsworthy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno-Crat
  • Start date Start date
T

Techno-Crat

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+to+charge+for+Office+beta/2100-1012_3-6099987.html?tag=nefd.top

This is a first ... for a public beta.. Sure previous to this it was beta
testers and MSDN etc who got to see the builds


Microsoft to charge for Office beta
Microsoft plans next week to charge a nominal fee for Office 2007 Beta 2
downloads, in a move that runs counter to the practice held by most software
companies.

Consumers who download the 2007 Microsoft Office system Beta 2 will be
charged $1.50 per download, beginning next Wednesday at 6 p.m. PDT, a
Microsoft spokeswoman said.

"Since the end of May, Beta 2 has been downloaded more than 3 million
times...That's 500 percent more than what was expected," the spokeswoman
said. "The fee helps offset the cost of downloading from the servers."

Although Microsoft's Information Worker Product Management Group decided to
initiate a fee for new users of Beta 2, the "technical refresh," or update,
for current users of the software will remain free, the spokeswoman said.

Those who want to test drive Beta 2 to review how it works can access the
software for free. But if they need to test it against their internal
systems, a download or the CD is required.

"This is the first time Microsoft has charged for an Office beta, and it's
not something that is planned for on a repeat basis," the spokeswoman said.
 
It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. "Charging money for a beta
program" is a sensational kind of headline but that isn't what they are
charging for. It's a non story.
 
Parrallels charged about $40 (credit was given towards the final version).
I think it is fair enough to defray the download expense. I think a lot of
folks here who lost their Vista Product keys would have paid $1.50 for a
download service.
 
I know 1,50 bucks isn't much, but why should WE pay MS to help THEM fix/test
THEIR product?
 
"I know 1,50 bucks isn't much, but why should WE pay MS to help THEM fix/test
THEIR product?"

I don't know... you're the one that wants to test it.
You may consider this a service to Microsoft... but this is also very much a
service to you.
 
In this case it isn't to test it but to pay for the bandwidth. But just
to be contentious :-) they could ask $5 or $10 for the privilege and
then it would be up to us to choose whether or not we wanted to pay it.
There isn't any should about it. It's just an offer. We each choose to
accept or refuse. It would be a pretty perverse thing for MS to do as
with a beta product they want to encourage feedback and not stifle it
but they surely must have the right to be perverse and stupid.
 
I wouldn't pay, either.

No one is "forcing" anyone to download a beta product
and test it. But, with three million downloads of Office,
which more than likely covers a broad spectrum of users-
Microsoft has gained a lot of valuable information. Information
that is hard to come by on limited test machines used by
"professional" beta testers, whose machines are *not*
typical and whose experience is not "average'.

It probably wouldn't bother me so much if it weren't for
the fact that Microsoft is huge, with over $12 billion in
profits, and cash assets pouring out their arse. How
much cash do they have on hand- $50 billion? Profit
to sales ratio that beats any large company in the world.
They act like a company that is hemorrhaging money.
Their $1.50 for a beta download looks tacky.

I could understand if was a smaller company or
some start-up. But the world's largest software
company charging a $1.50 for a beta? The last
Office beta was quite bug ridden. Thanks to those
3 million who downloaded it, Microsoft has been helped
tremendously in making their "bread and butter" better.

I'm not one of those who believe beta users should get
a final product for free. But, I do believe that my time is
valuable and I am performing a service for them, I have
good input to offer. If I had to pay anything to test a beta-
I absolutely would not do it.

I will try not to sound like I am bragging or tooting my
own horn. However, if they had charged $1.50 to download
Vista, I wouldn't be here. I consider my input about BitLocker
protecting System Restore points very valuable information-
something I never saw anyone else report before. Even
though I was first told it couldn't be, it wouldn't matter, and
didn't work. I'm sure someone at Microsoft knew that BitLocker
encryption would protect Vista's volume, but the users here did
not know that. Mark V. and I offered two very valuable options
at protecting SR points when dual-booting. Mark's suggestion
was to hide the Vista partition, which is pretty much what BitLocker
does but without the encryption. Mark and I are fond of saying:
"Can't delete what it can't see." Makes sense. Did anyone
from Microsoft or even a MVP make those suggestions? If they
did, I didn't see it.

Anyway, I'm off to test Vista's upgrade install on another box.

Catch you guys later.


-Michael
 
And how would you feel it you were told that you must continue doing as well
or better in your work, but everyone thinks you make too much money?
 
Not quite sure WTF you are talking about. Enlighten me.

Fortunately, I do not have a boss. I dabble in stocks and
commodities- I work at home.


-Michael
 
Self-employed? Even better! Me too.

Why do you feel MSFT should be limited in how much money they should be
allowed to make? Or do you feel the same way about yourself?

You can't say, "I believe in capitalism up to a point," or "only for certain
people or entities." There is no logic in these statement.
 
Mark, I have never said Microsoft should be limited in how
much money they make. I do believe there are times when
profit levels get a bit obscene- like Exxon, their profits
have been amazing. While many struggle to pay for gas.
Although, I do believe consumers have brought a lot of
this on themselves. As long as gas prices are cheap in this
country, and they are compared to many countries, we will
never wean ourselves from the tit of the oil companies-
never. We need prices of at least $4 to $5 a gallon before
it hurts enough to change our ways and look for viable alternatives.
A short term hit on the economy would be better in the long run.
For power generation, I believe we need more nuclear power
plants. But there are so many high power groups that are
ready to do battle against nuclear power- they are fear mongers.
Some are now even attacking wind power because birds are
being killed. Read this news article by ABC News and John
Stossel regarding the fear tactics many use against nuclear
power: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1955252&page=1

Wow, I strayed.

Back to Microsoft. My simple position is simple. I just believe
that charging $1.50 to test a product for them is tacky. A
product that they make a ton of money from. If it was a trial
version of a final product and they wanted to charge $1.50
to download, okay. I wouldn't do it, but I can see the logic
in that. But beta testers are helping them to make a money
maker better. It looks silly for a wealthy company to charge
for that. I also don't think it's really fair to start charging others
when you didn't before. If they have enough better testers
already- a few million should be enough- just close the beta
to new testers. The whole thing just looks and smells greedy.
They want to charge users for the "privilege" of testing a beta
product that will make Microsoft an ass load of money. Think it
through and see how tacky it sounds. Of course, I'm sure
there will be those who pay it. That is their prerogative.


-Michael
 
I agree that charging to test a beta product is very tacky. As you pointed
out...after a specific number of downloads...don't let it get downloaded
anymore! It's bad enough there are a lot of software vendors releasing Beta
products as Release versions, something that we as the consumer have
stupidly allowed. Let's not allow the trend of having to pay to be lab rats
for official Beta's.

-->Begin Rant
On a side note about you're saying we need gas prices of at least $4 to $5 a
gallon before we change our ways. Please...that's all we need...the "gas
lobby" infused government boosting up gas prices to "teach" consumers that
we need alteranative fuel?!? As the oil companies (and the government if
Michael Moore is right) get fatter...lower and middle income Americans would
pay not only more at the gas pump but at the grocery store, at the clothing
store and every other part of consumer related merchandising. A lot of
these Americans don't even gas up, but rely on public transportation (i.e.
the elderly). No, teaching the public that we need alternative fuel by
raising the price of gas only gets the the oil companies richer. The
American public knows we need alternatives. It's the government (aren't
they supposed to be working for us?) that needs to step up and say and do
something for the people!
<--End Rant
 
The US has some of the lowest gas prices on the planet.
The lowest taxes on gas on the planet. The biggest/most gas
guzzlers on the planet. Unfortunately, people, especially
Americans, only change their ways when it hurts. People
do start to conserve, they buy better mileage cars, and they
drive less. The SUV market is already taking a big hit- only
because it started to hurt, and it started hurting once gas
prices rose and have stayed that way. If people want to
put it to the likes of Exxon, buy/use less gas. Do they/we
do it on our own? Not usually. It almost has to be forced
upon us to conserve. The force is the price. That is
unfortunate, but it is the truth. Everyone loves to attack
Exxon, BP, oil companies, oil countries when prices go
up. But, when the prices go back down, everyone stops
complaining and conserving. It's a cycle. Keep the crack
relatively inexpensive, keep more addicted. If we did a
better, more constant job of controlling our consumption-
the Exxons of the world would have a lot less power. We
only want to do that when it hurts. $5.00 a gallon would hurt
a lot.

-Michael
 
One may pay for some beta programs on DVD to cover the cost of the media.

One may pay for downloads to cover the cost of the media?
 
One may pay for some beta programs on DVD to cover the cost of the media.

One may pay for downloads to cover the cost of the media?
Click to expand...

.....or the cost of running the servers to feed so many people!

Tom Lake
 
deebs said:
One may pay for some beta programs on DVD to cover the cost of the media.

One may pay for downloads to cover the cost of the media?
Click to expand...

No. To pay for the bandwidth used to download
the .ISO file. Microsoft is not the 1st to
charge for the privilege of downloading a large
file, so what's the beef?
 
I view it as just the cost of pursuing my hobby. If I were pursuing it as
my profession the cost would be covered by my MSDN or TechNet subscription.

I'm with you, No Big Deal.
 
Same here. 1.50 USD is nothing really.

From a PR perspective maybe Microsoft should offer two options?

a) 1.50 USD or equivalent
or
b) 3.00 USD or equivalent with 1.50 USD going to the Gates Foundation?
 
Back
Top