Microsoft plans next week to charge a nominal fee for Office 2007 Beta 2 downloads, in a move that runs counter to the practice held by most software companies.
Consumers who download the 2007 Microsoft Office system Beta 2 will be charged $1.50 per download, beginning next Wednesday at 6 p.m. PDT, a Microsoft spokeswoman said.
Although Microsoft's Information Worker Product Management Group decided to initiate a fee for new users of Beta 2, the "technical refresh," or update, for current users of the software will remain free, the spokeswoman said.
"This is the first time Microsoft has charged for an Office beta, and it's not something that is planned for on a repeat basis," the spokeswoman said.
View: Full Article @ CNET News.com
Consumers who download the 2007 Microsoft Office system Beta 2 will be charged $1.50 per download, beginning next Wednesday at 6 p.m. PDT, a Microsoft spokeswoman said.
Although Microsoft's Information Worker Product Management Group decided to initiate a fee for new users of Beta 2, the "technical refresh," or update, for current users of the software will remain free, the spokeswoman said.
"This is the first time Microsoft has charged for an Office beta, and it's not something that is planned for on a repeat basis," the spokeswoman said.
View: Full Article @ CNET News.com
as long as the refresh version stays free... its all good (hope what said in the article will remain true)
I'm not ****ting you about this; but there are also actually people out there who download things for the hell of downloading things; they have no intention of using it let alone testing and providing feedback.
I don't blame Microsoft for the stance, its put up to be tested, in the perfect world you would have only the people interested in testing and giving feedback, using it; for me, sure, I could download it, and try it, but I'm not going to waste mine or Microsofts time knowing that I'm not going to actually contribute anything back.
I believe the statement was suppose to be like this: ...but I'm not going to waste my time, and Microsofts bandwidth...
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/06/21
I really hate this idea from MS, there's no point for asking user to paid jsut to test you UNSTABLE software. Becaus it's title B E T A.
Will u go to pay for a test drive which the car not yet well manufacturer?
Stardock. Their products are useless without themers. Themers not only work for free, they have to pay for the software.
Stardock. Their products are useless without themers. Themers not only work for free, they have to pay for the software.
Hmm...another company on par with Microsoft on the crap-'o-meter. Fair enough though.
frankly, that's a flimsy argument. you don't have any obligation to do any beta testing, or to do anything, for that matter. they are most definitely paying people to do serious in house testing of the software, and the people who pay $1.50 to get some software, are not in ranks with them.
Indeed! The vast majority (probably 95%+) of people downloading the public beta have absolutely no intention of doing any active bug hunting or providing any real or useful feedback to Microsoft. They just wanted something for nothing and are considered "freeloaders". The REAL testers (of which I am one) on the other hand will continue to get the beta builds free of charge through the beta.microsoft.com site.
I downloaded the beta and I haven't given much feedback on it. I also haven't had many problems with it. I sent in bug reports with Vista nearly every day though.
Also, MS is not going to fall anytime soon. MS=Awesome.
Or (shudder the thought), wait til someone seeds it on bit torrent......
Gee, like that hasn't been thought of....
versions. Lots of people downloaded the vista beta from bit torrent, because the bandwith from MS
couldn't handle the load......not saying its right, just being realistic.
versions. Lots of people downloaded the vista beta from bit torrent, because the bandwith from MS
couldn't handle the load......not saying its right, just being realistic.
Lol, you replied to the wrong thread
if they dont want their products tested just say so we will gladly not test.
chargeing any price for testing is stupid. it should be the reverse they should be paying us to test.
chargeing any price for testing is stupid. it should be the reverse they should be paying us to test.
You people just do not get it! They are not charging you to test this product. They are charging you to download it. Besides the vast majority (95%+) of people who downloaded it from the public site have absolutely no intention of doing any active testing or providing any real or valid feedback to Microsoft. It is those kind of FREELOADERS who this charge is targetted at.
chargeing any price for testing is stupid. it should be the reverse they should be paying us to test.
You people just do not get it! They are not charging you to test this product. They are charging you to download it. Besides the vast majority (95%+) of people who downloaded it from the public site have absolutely no intention of doing any active testing or providing any real or valid feedback to Microsoft. It is those kind of FREELOADERS who this charge is targetted at.
Yay for making up statistics and practically spamming them throughout the comment thread!
chargeing any price for testing is stupid. it should be the reverse they should be paying us to test.
You people just do not get it! They are not charging you to test this product. They are charging you to download it. Besides the vast majority (95%+) of people who downloaded it from the public site have absolutely no intention of doing any active testing or providing any real or valid feedback to Microsoft. It is those kind of FREELOADERS who this charge is targetted at.
That argument makes no sense when the BitTorrent protocol would quickly solve their problems. Heck, if MS is afraid that people will learn what bittorrent can do, all they REALLY need to do is make a proprietary app that will only download their torrents (don't even have to call it a torrent file, just some random extension) and voila, SAVED BANDWIDTH. I'd understand if this happened when there wasn't a cheap way to distribute large amounts of data but this is just pure BS right here.
chargeing any price for testing is stupid. it should be the reverse they should be paying us to test.
You people just do not get it! They are not charging you to test this product. They are charging you to download it. Besides the vast majority (95%+) of people who downloaded it from the public site have absolutely no intention of doing any active testing or providing any real or valid feedback to Microsoft. It is those kind of FREELOADERS who this charge is targetted at.
you simply dont get it. if i pay for something, call it a download fee or a shiping fee to beta test a product this is called a charge. its not a good thing to charge the very people your relying on to help remove bugs. word of mouth gets around that microsoft product or inferer quality after that.
and PR is a more valuable asset to the bottom line then the few cents they will recoup on a shady charge to beta tester gimic.
btw, ms DID have the attitude of 'you're testing it, so we'll give it to you' however after 3 million downloads, i think they can get a little picky
and PR is a more valuable asset to the bottom line then the few cents they will recoup on a shady charge to beta tester gimic.
You seem to have just conveniently skipped right past the point I was making and returned to your original argument. If this was a charge to test a product, then yes it would be wrong. But you and I both know that 1) The majority of people downloading this from the public site have no intention of performing any bug hunting, they just want a free ride... and 2) The public version is not a testing release intended for serious testing, it is a customer preview program and nothing more. Charging for it makes sense.
Potentially true (I got the beta off a cover DVD so it's cost me nothing), but all these FREELOADERS (your caps) also have an opinion that they'll merrily trumpet in hundreds of blogs. If some part of the new Office they're using is crap, they'll say so. This is probably what Microsoft is banking on; hundred of people with opinions that are accessible worldwide. Having a download charge when torrents are a tried and tested technology is not only uncalled for, it clearly demonstrates the hide-bound attitudes that pervade BigCo's (it's not ours, therefore it's BAAAD).
Yeah, right. Why cut off a revenue stream? Get people used to being milked and then stop milking them? Not going to happen. Get them to pay, get them to "review" it (even if it's just a few lines "tried the new Office beta today. I don't like the new tabbar when you click such-and-such"
Just like OGA.
Honestly, the average consumer keeps getting the low end of the stick those days...
The average consumer does not download Office betas. They know nothing of this. This is hurting noone but a bunch of whiny little brats on Neowin.net. These same brats are probably the main cause for this as they are the ones downloading the betas and not testing or reporting.
You guys are downloading this crap just to increase your e-penis size, and that's it.
GTFU.
go back to your hole troll, your hibernation isn't finished yet.
go back to your hole troll, your hibernation isn't finished yet.
Chavo could have been a little more diplomatic in what he said, but what he was saying is in essence correct. This charge is aimed at the FREELOADERS (the majority of folks downloading from the public site) who have no intention of doing any testing or providing any feedback to Microsoft. Neowin does seem to be a home for a large amount of these people who think that they can get something for nothing.
If the majority of people downloading from the public site did any REAL beta testing and reported bugs as they were discovered, then you can bet that Microsoft would not be charging for the privilege and would see the bandwidth costs as necessary testing expenses.
plase show me where in the above link that it says the public beta was for users to beta test it. No please I'm all ears since we are obviously free loaders. I CHALLENGE you to find where it stated that the beta is being distributed to the public for them to find bugs.
"2007 Microsoft Office system Beta 2 is for evaluation and planning purposes only."
It's for evaluation, not for everyone to go around doing the beter testers and MS's job. Absolutly nowhere does it state that beta testing is an expectation of this release.
the only mention of testing is here: "Beta testers may experience problems with 2007 Microsoft Office system Beta 2 products that could potentially result in loss, corruption, or destruction of existing data." and that doesnt actually state that a person downloading the software is expected to be filing reports or anything, simply that there may be issues. Lets not forget that anyone who isnt a managed tester has a extremly limited amount of feedback they can actually provide since they dont get connect access so they cant access surveys, check bugs ect.
Chavo could have been a little more diplomatic in what he said, but what he was saying is in essence correct. This charge is aimed at the FREELOADERS (the majority of folks downloading from the public site) who have no intention of doing any testing or providing any feedback to Microsoft. Neowin does seem to be a home for a large amount of these people who think that they can get something for nothing.
You are correct on that part, BUT Microsoft didn't provide an easy way to let these public users report their problems to the Office team. The only way is to post a question in their newsgroups - and what are the chances of an actual developer/team member picking up the bug or request?
At least in Vista beta 2 you have a link right there in your face on the desktop labelled 'Report a problem' or something. Not in Office beta 2.
Therefore, a person that wants to report a problem but can't exactly figure out how to do so aren't exactly freeloaders.
plase show me where in the above link that it says the public beta was for users to beta test it. No please I'm all ears since we are obviously free loaders. I CHALLENGE you to find where it stated that the beta is being distributed to the public for them to find bugs.
"2007 Microsoft Office system Beta 2 is for evaluation and planning purposes only."
It's for evaluation, not for everyone to go around doing the beter testers and MS's job. Absolutly nowhere does it state that beta testing is an expectation of this release.
the only mention of testing is here: "Beta testers may experience problems with 2007 Microsoft Office system Beta 2 products that could potentially result in loss, corruption, or destruction of existing data." and that doesnt actually state that a person downloading the software is expected to be filing reports or anything, simply that there may be issues. Lets not forget that anyone who isnt a managed tester has a extremly limited amount of feedback they can actually provide since they dont get connect access so they cant access surveys, check bugs ect.
Congratulations on actually proving my point in your attempt to counter it. My whole argument was against those who said they objected to being charged to test a product for Microsoft. This simply isn't the case, the release is to allow folks to preview the technology and prepare for it's official release. Microsoft are right to apply a charge for this.
And rm20010, the point I and Smigit are making is that this release is not for the public to do any bug hunting on. Microsoft have dedicated beta teams (myself included) for that. The public release is purely for preview and evaluation purposes only.
My objection though with them charging for the download now though is it will deter people to use it, including those on the current beta. Since it doesnt expire until Feb next year alot of people will sit on the less secure platform. Hopefully MS will at least allow these users a free upgrade if they dont to all simply for security sakes.
And Neowin getting money for ads isn't exactly the same thing. Now if Neowin started charging $1.50 a month to talk in the forums, then that would be on the same page as what Microsoft is doing with this beta.
Some people don't even bother to read what others are saying and want to go straight into bashing people and calling them cheap because they don't agree with what Microsoft is doing. GROW UP
Microsoft could easily switch to releasing a torrent and wouldn't have to worry about bandwidth costs. Which is a joke to hear coming from the largest software company in the world.
I can't even tell what side you're on.
On one side, you are getting fully operatable(?) software that professionals pay $150 for a copy of MS Office, we get the software for free. On the other side, we got unfinished software, but fully usable.
I don't necessarily think it's right to charge but I don't think it's that big a deal either.
The Torrent protocol is only in the 'dog house' because no big company wants to take the first step and use it. Its highly efficent at distributing large files.
I don't necessarily think it's right to charge but I don't think it's that big a deal either.
How can a technology clean up it's act? It is the people using the technology at fault for piracy, not the technology itself. Besides, other legitimate companies use Bittorrent to distribute their products. Suse Linux from Novell for instance.
The majority of big companies remain reluctant to take that first step because of this perception which is preventing/slowing the take up for legitimate use.
If this perception can be changed, then maybe companies like Microsoft will embrace it.
The majority of big companies remain reluctant to take that first step because of this perception which is preventing/slowing the take up for legitimate use.
If this perception can be changed, then maybe companies like Microsoft will embrace it.
Use the protocol, don't call it a torrent, and wrap the download in a proprietary app so that users don't even KNOW they are torrenting. Problem solved.
I think we need to start adjusting to the fact the internet is now succumbing to huge pressures from businesses and profit.