• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Internet Based Applications?

Jeff7181

Lifer
A thread in another forum sparked this idea...

There's few pieces of software that stress a modern computer. Only things like video editing, photo editing, and games need all the processing power that's available today. Other things like MS Word, Excel, Quicken, Money, etc. can run just fine on everything that's out there today, and most of yesterday's hardware. Even the latest versions of all those are pointless, because they include a lot of features you'll never use. How many home users even use Excel at all? How many do mail merging in MS Word? Not many.
But, if we want to type a letter, and have it checked for grammar and spelling, we need something like MS Word, because Wordpad and Notepad just don't cut it for a professional document. MS Word is extremely expensive for what the average home user uses it for, yet as I said, there isn't another smaller program that's capable.

My solution to this is for companies to start selling Internet/Web Based Applications. For example, Microsoft Word Anywhere. You go to the website and have a choice, you can order the full version of MS Word and download it, or have it mailed to you... or you can buy access to a light versin of MS Word, without all the business type features, but still have the ability to insert pictures, format the letter, and have good spelling and grammar checking. The full version of Word sells for over $200 on MS's web site. So maybe make it $50 for the light version online. Or, have the option to have a 1 month pass, or a 1 week pass or a subscription of some kinda... like, you can buy online access for $50, or, you can pay like $10 per month, and then when a new version comes out, it's instantly available to you, whereas if you bought the access to the specific program, you'd have to pay like $25 to upgrade or something like that.

There's been pleanty of times when I would have liked to be able to use a certain program just once, but didn't want to go out and buy the program just for one use. Photoshop for example... I'd be a lot more likely to spend $15 for 1 month of online access to that program, than to go buy it for $300.

Or how about a subscription service for music... maybe pay $50 per month for a certain number MP3's per month. Or buy individual albums for like $5... or individual songs for $1.

With broadband becoming more available and affordable, and piracy becoming more common, I think Internet Based Applications are a good solution. Sure, people who pirate software won't like the idea of the software being run in a web browser from the company's server, and sure, the software company probably won't sell as many retail copies... but if you provide people with the convenience of being able to use any piece of software for a limited amount of time for a smaller fee than buying the software outright, I think they'd end up making more money. Even offer discounts for return customers... say you used MS Word Anywhere for a month, then cancelled your subscription, then a few months later you need it again, so you sign back up for half the price of a new subscription.

What do you all think of this idea? Would you find something like that useful? Would you mind paying a very reduced price for the use of software for a limited period of time?
 
Some market, sure. But enough of a market to justify doing it, given the costs and that it will cut into full-version sales? No, or companies would be doing it now. The Application Service Provider idea was tried out during the dot-com bubble and lost the companies doing it a ton of money.

Also, people refuse to buy light versions -- every company that has tried offering stripped-down competitors to Word & Office has failed in the mass market. People won't even buy full-featured competitors from Corel and Lotus at cheap prices because they need to share documents with the 97% of their coworkers and colleagues that use Office and are afraid of conversion hassles.
 
It's a nice idea, and I read a while back that larger companies like MS are ever-so-slowly moving towards this. But there's a certain sense of security at having Word available on my home computer whenever I want. The only problem with this online access idea is the fact that not everyone has broadband right now, especially as you move overseas. Not to mention the increase in viruses and whatnot as companies move to online distribution.

In regards to the Word cost issue, there are other affordable suites out there for home users (Works being an example...which includes a copy of Word) as well as free ones that do the job quite well (OpenOffice). The music issue has already been taken care of by services like Apple's music store, and if record companies are to survive, they'll need to offer similar services.

I agree with you on the one-time-use cost of say...Photoshop. Yes, there are lite versions and Photoshop Elements available, but if I'm going to use it just once, $99 is quite a steep bill. Providing a time-limited version would be nice, but will all eventually be cracked. Take examples of trialware from Macromedia or even Microsoft. It doesn't take much to find a crackpack that disables activation for Win2k3. I think moving to an Internet distribution of software would actually result in more piracy than runs rampant today.
 
but will all eventually be cracked
It would be extremely hard to "crack" a program that doesn't reside on your hard drive... you'd have to somehow clone the server that the application is stored on.

I think the reason past attempts at stuff like this has failed is because it wasn't properly done. I'm not saying get rid of all retail software and make everything online... but using my previous example... if MS created a light version of Word, that does everything that 90% of people need it to do, I think people would be just fine with using it online. It wouldn't be a replacement, but an alternative for those who want it, and have the capabilities (broadband) to use it.
I'm also not talking about a 3rd party alternative to MS Word, that looks, acts, and feels like MS Word, I'm talking about Microsoft making it. It would be especially convenient for people who like portability... like business men and women... they could use MS Word at the office, at home, on their laptop, maybe even on a PDA that's internet ready... and not have to have 3 or 4 separate copies of MS Word to do so.

I'm probably in the minority about this... but I'd like to see applications that are used on the internet. Not only would it help prevent piracy, it would be very convenient... you wouldn't have to reinstall Word, or worry about loosing CD's, or damaging CD's. Maybe a good first step towards this is to make software available for purchase and download online.

Remember... 25 years ago, some of the top computer people in the world thought it would be rediculous for people to have computers in their homes. They couldn't think of a use for them in homes, and didn't think it would be cost effective even if there was a use for them.
 
Maybe I'm just being a luddite about this, but if you can afford broadband, you can probably shell out enough for Word. Furthermore, if companies do adopt such a policy, they probably wouldn't offer a 1 user - 1 app scheme. Imagine the losses they would have on the corporate end...no need to buy x copies of MS Office 3012 for every computer if an employee already had a license to use it at home or a previous job. Another obstacle would be the whole big brother mentality we have today. The uproar caused by XP's activation, usually a one-time process, would probably be a lot worse if a user had to authenticate with a software company server every time he/she hits print. Like I said, it's a nice idea, but there needs to be a lot of work done on many fronts before we can see a successful implementation of this.
 
There was a big attempt to move this way a few years ago. Games-on-demand, programs-on-demand. They charged you a few cents or so every use and the idea was to make money that way... it never caught on. People don't like waiting for all the data to be transfered over their internet and what happens in the internet goes down? No more word? I would never use a service like that...
 
Originally posted by: darktubbly
Maybe I'm just being a luddite about this, but if you can afford broadband, you can probably shell out enough for Word. Furthermore, if companies do adopt such a policy, they probably wouldn't offer a 1 user - 1 app scheme. Imagine the losses they would have on the corporate end...no need to buy x copies of MS Office 3012 for every computer if an employee already had a license to use it at home or a previous job. Another obstacle would be the whole big brother mentality we have today. The uproar caused by XP's activation, usually a one-time process, would probably be a lot worse if a user had to authenticate with a software company server every time he/she hits print. Like I said, it's a nice idea, but there needs to be a lot of work done on many fronts before we can see a successful implementation of this.

You're not thinking it through very well... you think if a corporation orders 500 copies of Windows 2000 for all the workstations in their office that MS sends them 500 CD's? Of course not... they buy liscences... same would be true for an "application server" ... you buy so many liscences and the software allows only that many users.
 
I don't recall saying anything about licenses. I thought your method was a system for a user to use an application anywhere, including multiple PC's. I was just saying that if a user already had a license to use application x at home, he/she wouldn't need to purchase another one to use on a PC at work.
 
You're not thinking it through very well... you think if a corporation orders 500 copies of Windows 2000 for all the workstations in their office that MS sends them 500 CD's? Of course not... they buy liscences... same would be true for an "application server" ... you buy so many liscences and the software allows only that many users.
why should MS bother, when they demonstrated with licensing 6 that they have the power to raise prices (30% IIRC) even when IT budgets were being cut to the bone?

And remember that the job of companies is to maximize profits, not to save you money.
 
Back
Top