The unspoken software licensing debacle
Imagine the look on someone’s face when you tell them they must not use a particular piece of software for business use when it has been purchased for use on their home computer – are we expected to turn a blind eye?
I am of course talking about Home and Student versions of software. As one example, it costs sixty-odd pounds for the Home and Student version of Microsoft Office 2007 (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint) and nearly £300 for the business version (Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook). For the Office 2007 Standard Edition with Software Assurance (just the client access licence – not even a media product) – it tops out at over £400 - for essentially the same software. The Academic version of Outlook is only just over £40 which makes the student versions of software quite tempting indeed.
Over the years I have lost count of how many times I have had to tell users they must not use Home and Student Software for work at home and they often balk at the seemingly stupid rules. The reasons I am given include:
- It is only the occasional work file
- It came with the computer
- Well then, I won’t work from home
- I only work from home one day a week
- Are you telling me I need to have two versions of the same software installed at home?
- Why is there such a big price difference for the same software?
- Should we use free software such as OpenOffice instead?
The user confusion and frustration brought about by different versions of the same software often forces technical support people into looking, and acting, like the information technology police with little or no backup from the manufacturers whose rebadged software is sold as “home version”. For the student versions do they even check if the purchaser is an actual student? Does my four-year-old daughter at nursery qualify for a student version of Microsoft Office? I wonder how many copies have been bought and licensed on that basis?
At least Outlook is no longer included in the Home and Student version because the obvious question would arise: “Are home version users allowed to receive work emails using Outlook?”. However, Outlook was included in Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003 which was also available at a low cost.
I would love to understand what the software manufacturers take on this must be as they make the software freely available at such a temptingly low cost compared to the same version for use in business that it makes it really difficult for us to ensure our users are suitably licensed for the products they use. Type Office 2007 into Amazon and see the same product come up in a list – which version would you be tempted to buy?
Some of the questions that I feel need answering include:
- What is the usage scenario if, as a business, we receive a file created by a private user using a home version?
- Is occasional use acceptable for work and if so – what does occasional use mean?
- What are software manufacturers doing to ensure individuals understand and buy the right version for their needs?
- Why is there some much difference in the price of the software in the first place?
- What do support personnel do if we discover a user is using a home or student version of software for business use?
- How should a business deal with trading partners who might use home versions of software?
- What about users who might bring the computers in to work? Is the business responsible for their private software?
We seem to spend our time telling people what they can and cannot do but the ridiculous thing is it is essentially the same software. I really wish this debacle could be sorted out or made clearer with support from the software manufacturers without IT staff having to be made to feel like they have just pointed out their best friend in a police line-up.
I hope as time moves forward, we see more software vendors licensing software to a person instead of to a particular machine. Users demand flexibility in how they use their software. For example, if I wanted to share my license for a particular piece of software for a day with a co-worker, I should be able to do that. Software vendors need to start looking at supporting the scenario of floating licenses around to various machines. Current software licensing approaches seem very draconian and treat customers like criminals in my opinion.
Posted by: Andrew | Thursday, 18 June 2009 at 02:35 PM
These days users are not fixed to a specific location or machine - software should not be either. Even though many people have laptops and can work anywhere at anytime, there is often a need to 'share' licenses with more than one person in a workgroup or allow software to be floated from work to home and back.
Since most software vendors don't consider the licensing of their software as a key component of the customer relationship - they often give away more than they should (e.g. family packs) or play the price/feature game to take away features, introduce incompatibilities, and maximize frustration of the users (a.k.a. customers) for an attractive price point.
Increasingly, scenarios where a company/users wants to be able to 'share' their software with vendors and/or outside consultants are common demands that are often only solved with 'piracy'!
The demands for licensing flexibility do not align with the current business model(s) in the software industry. Even Software as a Service (SaaS) vendors have not figured it out (they still try to sell as a named-user access instead of a shared access model). But offering software a true 'service' to customers should be independent of named users or machines.
A more flexible approach to licensing would result in a competitive advantage with more profit per unit/subscription sold.
Posted by: Dave | Thursday, 18 June 2009 at 02:56 PM
I suppose another way of looking at it is that if a cheaper 'student' edition is offered at least there's some revenue coming in. If there was only the more expensive versions then consumers may be even more tempted to either use open source or pirate.
Posted by: Sharon | Thursday, 18 June 2009 at 03:12 PM
Sharon - I agree with your point. But it would be better to produce one code base, and then control the features that customers use by the type of license. This makes for a more bloated distribution - but would be cheaper in that you would eliminate the development, support and distribution and marketing for 2-3 products instead of just one (1) that works consistently.
Using Licensing as a "feature" enables the company to focus on the core development - and price things accordingly. This would likely result in a lower price to the consumer because the overhead for the company would be less to produce and support. This is why licensing should be considered as a powerful component to the business process - but it is often an after thought (the last thing to be considered) mainly because it is considered to be a 'light switch' or uncontrollable.
The answer is in hosted licensing - like Nitro-LM. www.nitrolm.com/blog http://www.nitrolm.com/blog/2007/09/16/killing-the-customers-copy-machine/
Posted by: Dave | Friday, 19 June 2009 at 03:32 AM
For what most people use Open Office is finally a very good application. It is only went my clients start trying to use MS Office for graphic arts and typesetting does MS Office start to show a clear superiority over OO. But also this is when things get messy. When I say messy I do not only mean the headaches using the software but I also the final document output on a professional color printers (office photo copies with digital input).
MS office still does not hold it's formatting well when move a Doc between different computers. Fonts change with out warning causing even more formatting errors and just simply the wrong font getting printed. Also the RGB color scheme often fails on the CYMK printers, and it's impossible explaining gamut to most office workers.
I bring this up because Microsoft really needs to get the advance features working correctly in order to justify charging the premium they do. Open Office is much cheaper at the office, and free at home; this saves you money for really program to do graphic layouts.
Posted by: David McMillan | Thursday, 25 June 2009 at 11:49 AM
^sorry I did not prof read my post correctly.
PS The last two MS Office apps have very good spell and grammar checkers. 2007 is simply amassing, while 2003 is right up there. I am thinking about installing 2003 because of said features, but unlike 2007 it does not slow down your computer as much.
Posted by: David McMillan | Thursday, 25 June 2009 at 12:00 PM
Sometimes its not even the software that's particularly different. Although I am not sure about Office, the Vista DVD contains all the versions (except 64 bit on a 32 bit DVD and vice versa) and it is only the product key entered that determines which one is actually installed. Thus, if one does not enter a product key, one can have Vista Ultimate for about 30 days. £200 for 25 different characters - sounds a lot, doesn't it?
Posted by: JH | Thursday, 25 June 2009 at 02:36 PM