MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-11-17 |
| FROM | Mike Richardson - NYLXS PRESIDENT
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Morality and MS
|
It's still overprice.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Ray C. wrote:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/14/commentary/ontechnology/microsoft_morality/index.htm
>
> Morality and Microsoft Software
> Is it wrong to buy the $149 Student and Teacher Edition of Office, thus saving
> $250?
> November 14, 2003: 3:42 PM EST
> By Peter Lewis, Fortune Magazine
>
>
> NEW YORK (Fortune) - In my review of Microsoft's new Office 2003 software, I
> noted that "Standard Edition" Office and "Student and Teacher Edition" Office
> were essentially identical, but that the Standard version cost $399 and the
> Student-Teacher version cost $149.
>
>
> To qualify for the $149 edition, according to Microsoft, someone in the
> purchaser's household must be a student or a teacher. But -- and here's where
> today's conundrum arises -- I also pointed out (wink wink, nudge nudge, say
> no more ) that neither Microsoft nor any retailer I visited had any intention
> of checking customer identification to verify the buyer's student or teacher
> status.
>
>
> Reader Mike Massa of Coral Springs, Florida, was upset.
>
>
> "You have embarrassed FORTUNE and should issue an apology to Microsoft to say
> the least!" Mr. Massa wrote via e-mail. "Are you advocating that if you are
> not a student or a teacher, not to worry about buying a copy since no one
> checks if you are or not? If FORTUNE sold your article to another magazine,
> and they knew you wouldn't check, would you be so easy to mouth off? Do you
> steal stuff from a store if you know they won't check to see if you are as
> you leave the store?"
>
>
> I asked Mr. Massa to elaborate. He wrote back: "Just because Microsoft has
> been declared a monopoly does NOT allow their rights to be ignored ..." He
> said he doubted that I would advocate falsely pretending to be a student or
> teacher in other situations in order to obtain discounts. "Yes, Peter, this
> is a high moral ground, but ... it's what you do when the cameras are not
> viewing you that makes you a moral person or not."
>
>
> So now I find myself in the paradoxical situation of asking Microsoft for
> moral guidance.
>
>
> Is it morally wrong, I asked Microsoft, to buy the $149 Student and Teacher
> Edition of Office-thus saving $250 on the cost of the Standard Edition but
> forfeiting the right to purchase upgrades in the future?
>
>
> Dan Leach is Lead Product Manager, Microsoft Office System. Here's what he
> wrote via e-mail:
>
>
> "Microsoft's goal with the Student and Teacher Edition of Office is to make
> our best productivity software tools available to students and teachers, and
> make it as easy as possible for them to acquire those licenses. Mr. Lewis's
> review accurately points out twice that the purchaser must qualify for this
> non-commercial license. By accepting the licensing agreement, customers are
> confirming they are eligible and agree to follow the terms of the license.
> Mr. Lewis's review is also correct in stating that neither Microsoft nor its
> retail partners check student or teacher ID cards at the retail point of
> purchase. That is because we trust our customers, and they are confirming
> they qualify when they go through the license acceptance procedure on
> installation."
>
>
> Here's a link where you can see the qualifications needed to avoid moral
> turpitude.
>
>
> Ignoring Mr. Massa's admonition that I have embarrassed FORTUNE by revealing
> my moral deficiencies -- hell, I'm a journalist, for crying out loud -- the
> question is whether I owe Microsoft an apology for suggesting that people who
> are not officially students or teachers can save $250 by buying the Student
> and Teacher Edition of Office, which is identical to the Standard Edition of
> Office except for two main things: It cannot be upgraded, and it can be
> installed on as many as three PCs in the home.
>
>
> Here's what I think is really going on: Microsoft officials do not want the
> Student and Teacher Edition of Office to be used in commercial situations
> (i.e., in small businesses or home offices that can afford the $399 Standard
> Edition price). But the last thing it needs is a public relations black eye
> for busting widows, orphans, nuns, community volunteers, and other honorable
> but humble customers who want to use the industry standard Office software
> but who cannot afford the full cost of Standard Office.
>
>
> A growing number of such potential customers are sniffing around at cheaper
> alternatives like Corel's WordPerfect Productivity Pack, and indeed a number
> of PC companies like Dell and Gateway are sending budget-class computers out
> the door with the WordPerfect suite installed instead of the Office suite. By
> offering a less expensive version of Office to families with young children,
> Microsoft is cultivating customers who are likely to continue using Microsoft
> Office software as they grow older.
>
>
> Microsoft, being an honorable company, would never dream of gradually locking
> in these users through the use of proprietary file formats, meaning that
> documents created using Microsoft Office would not be readable (at least in
> their formatted form) except by people who also own Microsoft Office. (The
> last time I checked, Office had a 94 percent share of the office suite
> market, and Microsoft wants to keep it that way.)
>
>
> But I digress. The issue at hand is whether I owe Microsoft an apology for
> noting how easy it is to purchase Microsoft Student and Teacher Edition under
> false pretenses, assuming one is not a student or teacher.
>
>
> If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Leach's letter suggests that my column may have been
> dishonorable but fell somewhat short of being morally repugnant.
>
>
> Still, in this era of moral absolutism, reprehensible acts demand some sort of
> punishment or retribution. Accordingly, I hereby apologize to Microsoft for
> pointing out to readers that they can buy a fully functional copy of the
> Student and Teacher Edition of Microsoft Office 2003 for a mere $150, plus a
> small slice of their souls for violating Microsoft's trust.
>
>
> As penance, I vow to use a Windows-based PC for at least an hour this week.
> --
> At times the discrepency between institutions and technology becomes an
> incompatibility, and then one or the other must give way.
> -Allen Wheelis
>
> ____________________________
> NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
> Fair Use -
> because it's either fair use or useless....
> NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
>
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
