Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




WEB applications

>Microsoft took over the browser market fair and square
>by making a better product, but they were so afraid that
>Web-based applications would eliminate the need for
>Windows that they locked the IE team in a dark dungeon
>and they haven't allowed improvements to IE for several
> years now.

Let's imagine that a brave knight frees the IE team from its dungeon.
Wouldn't Microsoft be able to rent web applications ?

What about the business aspect of renting software as compared to selling copies on CDs? Which one is better?

Michael Moser
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

.. with web applications you have 0 loss due to piracy.

Michael Moser
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Microsoft tried that in Brazil. Or so I read. They were testing waters in distant markets, so to avoid risking theis franchise in the bigger markets. But it was a failure. Unfortunately I don't have any details about the technology used, just that they were charging something like $8 USD per month on a annual contract. They teamed up with a major portal (Terra Lycos) to promote it, then retreat after the year ended.

Mauricio Macedo
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

huh?  What about sharing logins?  Depends on the app whether that would possible, but for lots of websites it's a problem.

Lou Franco
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

>Let's imagine that a brave knight frees the IE team from
>its dungeon. Wouldn't Microsoft be able to rent web
>applications ?

Microsoft could probably change the world, with regards to what people expect when buying software.

I think its a big transition though, I mean when people buy software (I for one) I expect to carry something home.
Its not easy to pay $1000 and get "nothing" to carry home.

Its not a coincidence that expensive software comes in big heavy boxes.

Patrik
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Renting applications is much better than selling them.

The problem is, people don't like to rent things they are accustomed to buying or pirating, so it's one of those things that they would like to move towards but never manage to get people to move towards.

Flamebait Sr.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Sell. Who sales software? You buy a use of it. Constant improvements require you to "pay again" ... In the last 10 years I think I went from 95->NT->XP ... personally and for my kids it was 95->98 ... I have kept the same car in the last 10 years (since 1994 with no plans on buying another ... and I own it, I can change anything about it that I want). I bet businesses have paid more than this for the "software they buy". And I've gone through more version of linux than windows but those I don't pay for other than in time.

me
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

The development problems of IE aren't so much that the developers were treated as mushrooms but that the original product was licenced from Spyglass and then added to in ways increasingly more bizarre in order to get things to work.

A question more to the point might be why couldn't the IE for the Mac be ported back across to Win32 since that is, in almost all respects, superior to any other version of IE.

Simon Lucy
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

".. with web applications you have 0 loss due to piracy."

And $Xmillion in losses from people who can't conveniently connect to the Internet whenever they need to use your application. Or people who just plain don't like to rent software but would have bought it if they could.

T. Norman
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Let's see. On the low end there's $5 shareware, you want to pay for that once. On the high end there's $500 Photoshop, which takes lon enough to load when it's on your hard drive.

Breaking a Photoshop license down to annual would be.. Let's say $500 buys you two years because that's something approaching their release cycle. $500/24 = $20.83 a month, and you get free upgrades for life, as long as you're a subscriber.

TiVo MaNaGeS to do this for $300 lifetime or $12.95 per month - again, 2 years. However, with TiVo you buy the HaRdWaRe and since they do provide you with something every month - the TV listings - you can see it as a subscription service, certainly worth the price of a TV Guide subscription, even if it costs almost nothing to them. (Okay, it probably costs them a lot, not everybody is Google with their $0.005 disposable computers).

Speaking of Photoshop, they do have a license where you install Photoshop on every computer (or maybe it's bundled and delivered... with a 100mb pipe, you could hardly tell the difference), but can only use up to 5 or 6 (or n) in the office at once. Access from any desktop, but you're limited as to who can use it when. This approaches a subscription in style and tone.

I just want to know, how fat does the client have to be to support robust applications, and is what's downloaded practically the size of the application itself each time you use it? Will some parts of the subscribed program remain on the computer anyway?

It would be interesting if the world evolved along a subscription line and we were debating the benefit of buying & owning applications. Interesting mental exercise.

www.MarkTAW.com
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

I'm not convinced that the consumer will ever be comfortable with web-based, subscription software.

Christopher Hawkins
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Consumers make up a small portion of the overall software sales.  It matters much more what buisnesses are willing to do than the consumer.  I think many buisnesses like the subscription model.    I know little about it, but I believe there are account advantages to subscribing to software rather than buying it outright.  We sell all of our software on a subscription basis.

christopher baus (www.baus.net)
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

>> A question more to the point might be why couldn't the IE for the Mac be ported back across to Win32 since that is, in almost all respects, superior to any other version of IE. <<

In what respects, it is better?
i went through a lot of pain using IE on mac and finally swicthed to using Firefox besides  using safari.

mrc
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

In relation to IE on Windows its a lot better, it supports considerably more CSS 2 and is closer to adhering to standards.

I wasn't comparing it to anything other than IE, it was a point about Microsoft development not which browser out of all browsers may or may not be better.

Simon Lucy
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

I work for a company that sells subscriptions to its website. You go on the website and do whatever you need to do. We charge around $750-1500 a month.
Of course, our service does heavy calculations and requires an extensive database, so it's probably not worth while for most people to buy the systems needed and do it themselves.
The best hamburger isn't necessarily the one you make yourself, because you don't always have the equipment to slaughter the cows and mince the meat. Not to mention you have to create the cow.
- In order to bake an apple pie from scratch you must first create the universe.

John Q Tester
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

John Q, that is why it is important to distinguish between providing a service that the consumer can't or doesn't want to do for themselves, vs. artificially making something available only as a service when there are no technical or logistical barriers that would prevent the consumer from owning their own copy of the product.  Consumers hate paying for the latter.

NoName
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home