Can Microsoft Convince People to Subscribe to Software?

On the verge of what Steve Ballmer says will be a momentous year for his company, Microsoft is about to conduct a massive social experiment to see whether people are willing to pay yearly fees for basic software programs.

If it works, the company will have built a stable, lucrative new way of raking in money from consumers and small businesses. And if it changes consumer expectations enough, you just might see lots of smaller companies follow along the trail Microsoft lays down.

The details were spelled out earlier this week, when Microsoft revealed the prices it would charge for the new version of its Office software package.

Office is Microsoft’s single biggest business: It accounts for more than 90 percent of the sales in the company’s most profitable division, north of $5.6 billion in revenue during the last fiscal year. Its growth is driven by big business customers, many of whom buy their software in the form of multiple-year subscriptions.

Consumers and smaller businesses, however, don’t usually buy things that way. They’re more used to the up-front payment model, tied back to the days when all software came on discs in colorful boxes on the store shelves. They might buy one version of Office, wait out one or two new versions to wring their money out of it, and then pony up another chunk of change to get better stuff.

With the new version of Office, Microsoft is bent on changing that behavior. Sure, you can still buy software the old way—but it’ll be less convenient, and more confusing than the shiny new alternative.

(For excellent, detailed deconstructions of the subscription software offers, see the coverage from ComputerWorld, ArsTechnica, and ZDNet.)

Observers have said that, with this newest pricing shift, Microsoft is using a carrot-and-stick approach or trying to “nudge” customers toward a subscription service for Office. But I’d go a bit farther—for some buyers, it might feel like signing up with a gun to their head.

That’s because Microsoft is making it much more expensive to buy Office the old way, in order to make the new subscription model look like a better, simpler, more straightforward deal.

For a lot of people, that could be true. The consumer version of Office will cost $100 a year per household, which allows all of its applications to run on up to five computers. That includes new stuff like some free Skype calling, and SkyDrive cloud storage, along with old standby programs.

But if you don’t pay the fee next year, no more Office.

Office 2010, the last version, had a similar setup where consumers could install the home version on up to three machines. That cost $150, but it was just a one-time fee—you could use the software, theoretically, forever. The new version of Office can still be purchased as a non-subscription, available-forever product. But it’s a much worse deal than in 2010: The one-time cost is $140, and it can only be installed on one machine. That version also doesn’t have the Skype and SkyDrive extras bundled with the subscription version.

If they want Office to run on more than one computer in their house, the average consumer is just going to look at the subscription service first, because it’s set up to be easier—a lower-sounding price out of your pocket now, more stuff, for more people. You actually could get a better deal … Next Page »

Single PageCurrently on Page: 1 2

Trending on Xconomy

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

17 responses to “Can Microsoft Convince People to Subscribe to Software?”

  1. Mr. Jorbs says:

    What benefits will the new office packages have over 2010? Or which features are actually useful enough to make people jump ship? I have been using office 2003 until 2010 came out, and even that upgrade wasn’t necessary for me. I think the only way this would become mainstream is if they work with retailers to bundle service with new machines. Either pay the next year or office will stop working.

  2. As Joe Biden would put it, “one word:” Open Office. Or Libre Office.
    For that matter, pretty much any Linux flavor would save the average home consumer or small/home business more than enough to afford a new tablet to work with!

  3. Marco van de Voort says:

    The subscription deal entered the software scene because in companies would be easier to book software annually by accountants. Those might actually pay for the privilege.

    However Harry Homeowner is not stupid, and does the math. Unless the subscription is significantly cheaper, he will avoid it.

  4. This would work if MS Office did not have competition. However, LibreOffice is (a) free (b) updated regularly. There are all sorts of features in MS Office that aren’t in LibreOffice, but it does the basic stuff just fine, and that’s how disruptive innovation from below works. While Microsoft may be able to keep businesses paying them, consumers would jump ship immediately.

    • Curt Woodwardcurtwoodward says:

      I’d agree the opportunity for competition is there, and being widened by MSFT as it makes this move. But so far, most free alternatives have been pretty janky. Google Docs is ehh, and I use it a lot. OpenOffice was always a pain in the ass. I will say I’ve never used LibreOffice, so I will try it.
      But someone’s got to make an open/free version that seems more “safe” and less buggy to Joe Sixpack if it wants to really make a move against the MSFT behemoth. Regular consumers want something that seems stable and real in comparison to paid Office, which sets the standard for most.

      • Douglas Goodall says:

        I don’t understand your post. Microsoft software is notoriously buggy, vulnerable and expensive. Show me some software that is “safe”.

        • Curt Woodwardcurtwoodward says:

          I just mean “safe” from the Joe Blow consumer perspective, that’s why it’s in quotations – not in the sense of security, but in the sense of legitimate, with a known brand behind it.
          It’s definitely buggy, but I always found regular Office more stable and easier to use than Open Office, although it’s been years since I tried that particular alternative.
          I do use G Docs a lot, but again, people are trained that the MS Office experience is the standard and G Docs seems like a lesser product in that sense. It should be lesser in some way, since it’s free, of course. I just mean that a lot of mainstream consumers are going to have trouble figuring out new things – they might be likely to just pay thru the nose and complain, for now.

        • Timpster says:

          buggy YES
          in office 2003 i had to make a calender about every month for school in computer class
          and i go to put in a picture in one spot but it would go in another like WTF man i had to move it all over the place to get it right

  5. cpt_roxas says:

    This will cause a massive move to Google Documents and other free or low cost alternatives by the average user and small business. Microsoft’s greed is going to be their downfall.

  6. Ray Charbonneau says:

    Hmm.. $100/year for Office or Google Apps for free.

  7. Karin says:

    A yearly fee for a Microsoft product? Surely, that is enough to persuade me to walk in the other direction.

  8. CrossWired says:

    There’s been no real innovation with office since 2003. It gets sold in the millions because it’s a standard business tool, and MS decided they want to squeeze more money out of it. So they bump up the prices for the “buy outright” version and rip people off with the rented version.

    Guess what’s going to happen now. Most of us will reuse our old versions. The proliferation of cracks will spike. MS loses in the end.

    • Curt Woodwardcurtwoodward says:

      I also just noticed on Friday: Office 2010 Home (licensed for three machines) is on sale for $99 at Best Buy. Same price as 365 Home for one year, whenever it’s released.

  9. Robusto says:


  10. Curt Woodwardcurtwoodward says:

    I also completely missed this tidbit – not something MSFT invented, but being deployed nonetheless. Free Office 365 for education, to get the next generation hooked on the new version (and ready to shell out $100 a years!)
    They rolled this out under a big youth philanthropy initiative.

  11. Douglas Goodall says:

    I for one would not be interested in any subscription based licensing with Microsoft. I go for various periods of time between my usage of Office. Should I pay $100 per year if I only use it three times? I am a Mac switcher, and only occasionally do I need to use Office for some business purpose or another. I keep a Windows desktop with office around for the occasional use, and it doesn’t matter to me if the latest and greatest version has some new bell or whistle. I am also not comfortable with the idea that they will be constantly upgrading the software. It is hard enough to construct a stable machine and load a well integrated set of applications. Like many IT people, I am uncomfortable about accepting updates on an automatic basis. Usually enterprise IT people test updates before rolling them out. I don’t like my documents living in the cloud because I don’t know who has access to my data from one month to the next.

    So lets summarize…

    1. They want me to pay on a time basis, regardless of my actual usage.

    2. They want to slipstream the software behind my back whenever they like.

    3. They want to store my data on whichever cloud provider they can cut a deal with, possibly changing from moment to moment.

    4. They want me to pay upfront for the entire year.

    All this like they are doing me a favor.

    In your dreams Microsoft.