[h4rdcor3]

Source
Quote:

Can you reinstall Office 2013 on your new PC? Don't expect a simple answer from Microsoft.
In the push to shift customers to the Office 365 subscription model, Microsoft has rejigged the licensing conditions on retail copies of Office 2013 such as Office Home & Student 2013. People tend not to read this sort of fine print, but this bit is kind of important.

Microsoft has some explaining to do

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Dumbest article.......

Well I guess not dumb, but the single license per computer thing exists even within games and asking "PR"(?) for answers doesn't always give correct results.

My guess:

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((proportion)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

[Scorpion667]

TLR
If I change my motherboard I can continue using my copy right?

 

[Atomfix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scorpion667

TLR
If I change my motherboard I can continue using my copy right?

Nope *Your getting mad now right?* :

 

[Vakten]

So much hate for an optional piece of software.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Quote:

The key difference between the retail versions of Office 2010 and Office 2013 are as follows:

Office 2010: "One Copy per Device. You may install one copy of the software on one device. That device is the 'licensed device.'"

Office 2013: "One Copy per Device. The software license is permanently assigned to the device with which the software is distributed. That device is the 'licensed device.'"

Is anybody going to note that this sentence obviously only applies to licenses bundled with devices?

If you purchase a copy as a standalone software suite, how could it possibly apply to you?

Unless the assertion is that anybody who buys Office 2013 is either getting it as bundled software or is essentially being sold their own existing hardware "for free" during time of purchase in order for that copy Office suite to be "distributed" with a device?

If it sounds stupid, its probably because it is.

The other common sense assertion would be that since your license was not distributed with any device to be permanently assigned to, that part of the licensing is obviously not applicable.

I could be wrong though ¬_¬

Infact, why don't we just kick it up a notch and assume that since the licensing includes language of a distributed device, that we should actually be getting free computers with our Office 2013.

 

[akromatic]

damn where is that license for me to use my copy where ever i want on which ever one computer i want and transfer it to my new computer.

i should be sold a copy with license that allows me owner ship to that copy of the software and do what ever i please with that copy as long as i'm the owner of it

it should be like i bought a pen, i should be allowed to use my pen on any book or paper i wish or lend that instance of the pen to a friend or even sell my ownership of that pen but i cant duplicate it

 

[perfectblade]

ms: Well it seems like every time we try to innovate, or just catch up to the competition, in mobile we fail hugely. So we should abuse our monopoly even more and squeeze more money out of those who are "trapped" (businesses, large institutions).

 

[tht-kid]

Right, so what about if my copy is already on all of my devices?

So from this point on no other machines, or no new machines (not already been installed) or have I just somehow got myself away from the limitation already?

 

[Tsumi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tht-kid

Right, so what about if my copy is already on all of my devices?

So from this point on no other machines, or no new machines (not already been installed) or have I just somehow got myself away from the limitation already?

Based on the quote Grizzle highlighted, it appears to refer only to Office 2013 licenses that were sold with a computer. Meaning, already installed and activated on an OEM computer. Just like the Windows key belongs only to that computer, the Office 2013 license belongs only to that computer as well.

 

[Mygaffer]

You can only run it on one computer at a time for retail, for PKC it is supposed to be tied to the first system you install it on. Unless they have changed the retail version to work the same way as the PKC, which I highly doubt but have not verified, then you can install it on another computer if you get a new computer or your computer with office installed on it dies.

If Microsoft thinks it can force everyone onto a subscription because of their near monopoly in office software they are sadly mistaken.

 

[tpi2007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrizzleBoy

Quote:

The key difference between the retail versions of Office 2010 and Office 2013 are as follows:

Office 2010: "One Copy per Device. You may install one copy of the software on one device. That device is the 'licensed device.'"

Office 2013: "One Copy per Device. The software license is permanently assigned to the device with which the software is distributed. That device is the 'licensed device.'"

Is anybody going to note that this sentence obviously only applies to licenses bundled with devices?

If you purchase a copy as a standalone software suite, how could it possibly apply to you?

Unless the assertion is that anybody who buys Office 2013 is either getting it as bundled software or is essentially being sold their own existing hardware "for free" during time of purchase in order for that copy Office suite to be "distributed" with a device?

If it sounds stupid, its probably because it is.

The other common sense assertion would be that since your license was not distributed with any device to be permanently assigned to, that part of the licensing is obviously not applicable.

I could be wrong though ¬_¬

Infact, why don't we just kick it up a notch and assume that since the licensing includes language of a distributed device, that we should actually be getting free computers with our Office 2013.

You are wrong. You didn't read the article properly.

Quote:

The new wording doesn't actually use the phrase "the software license is permanently assigned to the device with which the software is distributed", like the old OEM license did.

This is what both OEM and retail copies of Office Home & Student 2013 say:
Quote:

Meanwhile new copies of Office 2013 states the same licensing details for both retail and OEM copies;

Can I transfer the software to another computer or user? You may not transfer the software to another computer or user. You may transfer the software directly to a third party only as installed on the licensed computer, with the Certificate of Authenticity label and this agreement. Before the transfer, that party must agree that this agreement applies to the transfer and use of the software. You may not retain any copies.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Hmm, other sources like Hexus were reporting differently.

Also:
Quote:

Meanwhile new copies of Office 2013 states the same licensing details for both retail and OEM copies;

Can I transfer the software to another computer or user? You may not transfer the software to another computer or user. You may transfer the software directly to a third party only as installed on the licensed computer, with the Certificate of Authenticity label and this agreement. Before the transfer, that party must agree that this agreement applies to the transfer and use of the software. You may not retain any copies.

Another part you missed out is:
Quote:

How can I use the software? We do not sell our software or your copy of it - we only license it. Under our license we grant you the right to install and run that one copy on one computer (the licensed computer) for use by one person at a time

Note how the insinuation is not one computer only, ever, but one computer at a time.

Notice how at no point does it say you cannot transfer the license? It says you may not transfer the software.

What is their definition of a license?
Quote:

Genuine proof of license. If you acquired the software in a physical package, your proof of license is the genuine Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity label with the accompanying genuine product key, and your proof of purchase. If you acquired and downloaded the software online, your proof of license is the genuine Microsoft product key or PIN for the software that you received with your purchase, and your proof of purchase from an authorized electronic supplier of genuine Microsoft software. Proof of purchase may be subject to verification by your merchant's records.

So here they've clearly stated that the language "software" and "license" are not the same thing, so now we look for where MS says you can't transfer the license. I'm not seeing it.

Another point.

If you use a download link from the MS website to install it on a new PC, did you "transfer" the software?

Once you enter your cd key or whatever, then you've effectively transferred the license through their own authentication process without actually transferring any software.

 

[tpi2007]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrizzleBoy

- snip -

Grizzle, don't make stuff up, I didn't miss out on anything. When you refer to "the insinuation is not one computer only, ever, but one computer at a time.", you didn't read the sentence right, they mean only one person at a time - forbids one computer having multiple monitors / keyboards attached / shared across a network to run multiple instances of Office for multiple users.

Anyway, Microsoft has already officially confirmed this story.

Here: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236818/Office_2013_retail_licensing_change_ties_suite_to_specific_PC_forever

Welcome to paying retail price for what used to be an OEM copy.

It's funny how Microsoft reacts to a threat: instead of making Office cheaper for consumers, which, of course would signal to the investors that the product is no longer worth as much as it did before and therefore devalue the company, they not only keep the price - oh wait, no,
Quote:

To make those perpetual licenses less attractive, Microsoft raised prices as much as 17%, and eliminated the multilicense packs of Office 2010 it sold to consumers and small businesses.

and in addition make this consumer unfriendly move, which keeps their value. And all because this is one of the ways to keep selling what is for 99% of people irrelevant upgrades. People with Office 2007 and 2010 will do fine for at least 99% of tasks, and even people using Office 2003 and even Office XP and Office 2000 (with the free add-on to be able to read .docx files) will do fine for most tasks. The only thing Microsoft still has going for it is the fact that Libre Office or Open Office or other Office suites don't make 100% Office compliant files, nor do they read Office files 100% correctly.

But they are forgetting something: this only applies in so far as people continue to use Office. If people start using Libre Office, for example, for present and future documents, those files natively created by Libre Office can be read anywhere, even with Office, so people can basically stop using Office for new documents, and just continue using the Office version they already have for previous files, and converting them to an open format as they eventually come across them.

 

[Rookie1337]

Everyone moans about MS raising prices...and then they go out and buy it any way (or pirate it thus contributing to the dependency and changing nothing). Then they complain they don't have any choice. Yup...got to love lazy consumers.

PS: All this sounds like is MS trying to force people into their "cloud" Office which everyone in the thread on that seemed quite happy with.

 

[Huzzbutt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rookie1337

Everyone moans about MS raising prices...and then they go out and buy it any way (or pirate it thus contributing to the dependency and changing nothing). Then they complain they don't have any choice. Yup...got to love lazy consumers.

PS: All this sounds like is MS trying to force people into their "cloud" Office which everyone in the thread on that seemed quite happy with.

Don't confuse freeware with actual competitions, Microsoft owns the market. Yes consumers are lazy, in fact they're so laxy that they're going to get that copy of office that they are familiar with rather than search for something that they barely know anything about, or even how to search for.
Lazy consumers is one of those silly remarks that never holds water. The perfect consumer knows everything about everything, most consumers don't care much about 90% of what they buy, Being part of a community of individuals who are knowledgable and critical in one area does not make oneself, or the communities member "über consumers"

What are your prerequisties for an axe? Hinges, Sowing machines, Floorboards, Greenhouses, Hot dogs, Cats, Winter tyres and so forth and how much do you research your options?
Your post has the same kind of arrogance as a carpenters sneer against the DIY'ers sub professional power tools.

 

[AznDud333]

thats fine, theyre just driving people to use any one of the free alternatives..

 

[Rookie1337]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huzzbutt

Don't confuse freeware with actual competitions, Microsoft owns the market. Yes consumers are lazy, in fact they're so laxy that they're going to get that copy of office that they are familiar with rather than search for something that they barely know anything about, or even how to search for.
Lazy consumers is one of those silly remarks that never holds water. The perfect consumer knows everything about everything, most consumers don't care much about 90% of what they buy, Being part of a community of individuals who are knowledgable and critical in one area does not make oneself, or the communities member "über consumers"

What are your prerequisties for an axe? Hinges, Sowing machines, Floorboards, Greenhouses, Hot dogs, Cats, Winter tyres and so forth and how much do you research your options?
Your post has the same kind of arrogance as a carpenters sneer against the DIY'ers sub professional power tools.

LOL. You prove my point entirely...people believe there is no potential for an alternative and therefore demand that the very monopoly they contributed to/continue to perpetuate and cry foul at give them the product for free? No wonder this is happening. MS has people by the balls because they can't sacrifice a little or get people together to make competition. IT IS NOT EASY. But hell, economics explains pretty clear..."if people continue to pay then they only enforce acceptance of the contract (price and terms) and the producers' direction of the product."

Asymmetry (or is it apathy) of information has come to bite the consumer in the behind and now they can't think of doing anything about it? Crass consumptionism has destroyed the markets more than any other factor in these past 20 years.

@Bolded part: A consumer doesn't have to know everything about everything even if that would make their lives better. BUT...if they actually bothered to attempt to change situations where they feel wronged (IE the price of cell phone contracts, software, etc) the situation would be improved instead of them just accepting norms or status quos. What's wrong with using the sub professional tool? The whole argument has been that MS is "price gouging" or "being unfair". There's been no comments about the quality of the product. Just complaints about "being forced to pay too much". If the price is too much then people need to make that clear and not pay (and not pirate as that only reinforces the price as being justified as the product must be worth the risks involved).

 

[Huzzbutt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rookie1337

LOL. You prove my point entirely...people believe there is no potential for an alternative and therefore demand that the very monopoly they contributed to/continue to perpetuate and cry foul at give them the product for free? No wonder this is happening. MS has people by the balls because they can't sacrifice a little or get people together to make competition. IT IS NOT EASY. But hell, economics explains pretty clear..."if people continue to pay then they only enforce acceptance of the contract (price and terms) and the producers' direction of the product."

Asymmetry (or is it apathy) of information has come to bite the consumer in the behind and now they can't think of doing anything about it? Crass consumptionism has destroyed the markets more than any other factor in these past 20 years.

@Bolded part: A consumer doesn't have to know everything about everything even if that would make their lives better. BUT...if they actually bothered to attempt to change situations where they feel wronged (IE the price of cell phone contracts, software, etc) the situation would be improved instead of them just accepting norms or status quos. What's wrong with using the sub professional tool? The whole argument has been that MS is "price gouging" or "being unfair". There's been no comments about the quality of the product. Just complaints about "being forced to pay too much". If the price is too much then people need to make that clear and not pay (and not pirate as that only reinforces the price as being justified as the product must be worth the risks involved).

What point?
Aside from touting that a monopoly is maintained by people buying into thse products no point new point was made.
Yes buying goods produced by a monopoly tends to maintain that monopoly. It's a statement and redundant reasoning. The only point i could see in your post was disdain for the consumers.

In most cases a consumer has a fair idea of what he or she needs, she might do some research if it's a large sum of money but in most cases the only research will be asking a clerk. If the clerk only has one thing to sell he or she will buy that. Microsofts monopoly can't be compared with much else except for Windows and Photoshop.

A monopoly can't be judged or treated as a normal market. There is no backing out for the average consumer who has no interest in software, don't know what to search for and so forth. It would require an uneconomic amount fo time for the person who has to make the decision to become aware of the alternatives since he or she has no idea where to start. It's not about stupidity or laziness, remember free will can't exist. It's simply that MS Office even if it costs a firstborn is the most economic choice.

Anyway it's a monopoly and it should be smashed.

 

[Rubers]

See, what's the point in buying the retail copy if you can't transfer it across computers? I don't want to be able to install it on 5 computers in the house. I just want it on my computer, and to be able to install it on my new computer.

MS, since Ballmer, have gone way down the drain.

EDIT:

I also don't want to pay £50 annually, when I'd rather just buy it once for £70 and use it for a few years.