Office for iPad: Possible to Activate More Than Five Devices with Single Subscription

21

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

jbitzer

Sorry, I'd pay for these apps, but not a yearly subscription. I own MS office 2013 professional because I don't want a recurring fee. What a joke.

avatar

KenLV

It all depends on how often you upgrade OR if you have more than one computer.

I upgraded through 2007 and then stopped once they said there was no longer going to be an "existing customer discount" for 2010.

Now if I want to upgrade and stay on the same schedule as we were on prior to 2010, it's WAAAAAAAAAY cheaper to "subscribe". We now have 4 computers and 2 tablets that we'd install on.

MS Pro is $400 for ONE computer. That's = 4 years on 5 systems + 5 tablets.

The only way that's a better deal for you is if you only have the one computer AND won't be upgrading for 4 years.

Not the case nowadays for most folks/families.

avatar

jbitzer

Or you just buy it once and install it on all of your machines anyway like I do.

Plus I get it for $10 through the HUP. Otherwise, I've paid $60 for all the previous versions with military discount. Either way, A forever fee is a joke.

The point is, there should be another option for people who did buy a $400 product other than tacking on a subscription to a service they don't want or need.

avatar

KenLV

Few have either the military discount option or HUP eligibility.

As far as "Or you just buy it once and install it on all of your machines anyway like I do." sure, stealing is always cheaper than paying. So I guess you're right.

avatar

jbitzer

They are all my machines, only 1 person is using it at a time, if you want to be a corporate bullshit defender, be my guest, but I bought office, I'm using office, it shouldn't matter which machine I'm using at the time.

Either way, it's still bullshit to make people with the no subscription copy get the subscription too in order to use the Ipad app.

But hey, there are other office suites for Ipad that aren't consumer unfriendly and trying to nickle and dime you to death.

avatar

KenLV

"...it shouldn't matter..." is a fine opinion, but legally it does matter.

There are plenty of free suites available to you that you can install on all your devices. Or you can legally install Office on up to 10 computers/tablets for what? As little as $10 per device per year?

You made a choice. You aren't using Office because you have no other options, you chose to break the law because THIS program is the one you want - not the free one.

avatar

KenLV

It's like the little darlings who SWEAR they wouldn't pirate - if only there was a good demo of all these games/program/suites/etc... Yeah, I believe that too.

avatar

KenLV

Label my points anyway you want to try to justify in your mind that your stealing is any different/less than someone else's.

I just think that in a discussion on cost of use, one should stick to actual cost of use while NOT breaking any laws. I'm very good at finding bargain, but I can't compete on costs with anyone who steals. They will always get things cheaper than I. Even more so when their stealing costs me money.

avatar

KenLV

BTW, sorry for the multiple posts. MPC SPAM filter is broken...still

avatar

jbitzer

Sorry, but I'm not going to the trouble of finding the infographic that explains piracy Vs Stealing, it's on XKCD, you can look it up.

You can be as uptight about it as you want, but you're not hurting my feelings calling me a thief for using something I purchased, not even pirated, so, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to rent something I bought, and then complain I use it in ways you don't like, then you won the internet, congratulations.

Edit: I'd love to know how my imaginary stealing costs you money. You're really sad if you can't distinguish between stealing and fair use. Because MS decided 25 years ago to license a platform instead of a user, doesn't make my use theft all of the sudden. I guess you don't loan or borrow books, rent movies, visit a library, or read a magazine without spending equal time on the ads and articles either, you dirty dirty thief.

Edit 2: Last license agreement I bothered to read actually states a copy of office is good for 1 desktop and 1 laptop. You can't convince me that you bought multiple copies previously, you sound stupid, but no one's that stupid.

avatar

KenLV

I don't know what info-graphic you are referring to, but it wouldn't matter anyhow. My comparison was to your feeble attempt at justification and theirs. Both are equally full of garbage. As I said, you have other FREE options BUT aren't willing to use them and instead justify your actions much the same as they do.

I didn't complain because you use a product in way I don't like; I stated that you are using it in ways that you are not legally allowed to. It doesn't matter what I like or don't like. What you missed though is that it doesn't matter what you like or don't like either. If you don't like the terms and conditions put upon you when you made that purchase, then DON'T make it.

Really? How does your theft cost me money? You don't understand how theft, fraud, etc... by one group of people, we'll call them "criminals", costs the rest of us money? You honestly don't understand that? Do you think that stores just absorb the cost of shoplifting? Do you think that insurance companies just "absorb" losses to fraud? Do you think credit card companies just absorb the losses due to card theft? Come on man, wake up, ALL of these costs are passed on to the consumer. That'd be me.

I get that it's hard for someone with you inclinations to understand this, but yes, I have purchased the appropriate number of licenses for my Office suites and Windows installations.

I pay for my cable too...

...and get this, when I sell goods or services to others, I expect them to pay me...stupid me... I guess I didn't win the internet after all. :/

avatar

jbitzer

Again, Paid for software. Also, when speaking about piracy, 1 pirated copy!= 1 lost sale. I didn't take anything from MS, nor did I take it from you. MS's EULA is ***NOT A LAW***, I bought the software, how I use it is not their business. I'm glad you think you know more than the courts about the issue, but they seem pretty evenly divided on the matter as well.

Here's a synopsis from Wikipedia, this argument isn't worth further research on my part:

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.—see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology,[4] Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd..[5] Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg,[6] Microsoft v. Harmony Computers,[7] Novell v. Network Trade Center,[8] and Ariz. Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.[9] may have some bearing as well. No court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other circuits do not[citation needed]. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.

Normally, I just dismiss the people who can't distinguish copyright infringement from theft as idiots and don't argue, but you're a special brand of corporatist apologist since you can't even make the distinction with paid for software.

I guess if you found out a blender you bought had a little slip of paper included in it that said as a condition of purchase, you weren't allowed to put alcohol in it, you'd be cool with jailing someone for making a margarita with it then too?

I trust if you're a builder, you buy a completely new license of windows for every computer you own, too since the OS is bound to the hardware, right?

Edit: I've actually decided to add a EULA to my posts, if you read my IP, you must pay me $50. Message me, I'll let you know where to send the check.

avatar

KenLV

"I'm glad you think you know more than the courts about the issue, but they seem pretty evenly divided on the matter as well."

Well actually, as you said, the courts are "divided on this matter" so OF COURSE yes, yes I do know more than some of them. How can it be any other way? Clearly you aren't reading my posts, but you should at least read what YOU write. Much like the courts on my side of that divide, I believe what you do to be criminal - and while EULAs themselves are not laws, laws protect the public (and yes, business owners) from criminals.

1 lost sale/stole item = additional costs for the company which is passed on to the PAYING consumer.

I already answered your ignorant accusation that I don't pay for ALL my licenses. You must have missed it:

"I get that it's hard for someone with you inclinations to understand this, but yes, I have purchased the appropriate number of licenses for my Office suites and Windows installations.

I pay for my cable too...

...and get this, when I sell goods or services to others, I expect them to pay me...stupid me... I guess I didn't win the internet after all. :/"

I certainly understand why you wouldn't want to debate anyone. If I were you I'd probably feel the same way.

avatar

jbitzer

Well, like I said, EULAs are not a law, MS can put on there they can come over your house and bang your wife if you install their software. Doesn't make it legal or right.

But hey! Thanks for whatever it is you believe you paid for me to install my copies of office 3 times instead of 2, I appreciate it.

Now I see you read my previous post and I haven't gotten my licensing check, so you're a filthy pirate after all.

avatar

KenLV

Really? Is that your concern now? Bill Gates coming over and banging Mrs. Bitzer? You see that a lot in your EULAs do you? Is the NSA spying on YOU? Do you need a tinfoil hat? Anyway, what they can and do put in are reasonable and legal terms and conditions of use.

You can choose to ignore them, and clearly you have. You are not alone. There are tons of morally bankrupt folks out there.

Like I said, there are a plethora of FREE options out there that you can install on as many machines as you want. Why not go that route?

I always find it interesting how you guys rant and rave about these evil corporations who do nothing good for society BUT when push comes to shove and the choice is given to you to take a FREE product or buy/steal theirs, you guys always seem to go with the latter option. Odd that.

Your foolish IP example with reference to what you post on a public space is a further example of your inability to understand any of this.

I know you can't see it, but believe me, I've got my shocked face on, really, I do...

avatar

jbitzer

It's cool, keep paying, my MS stock keeps going up on people like you, so thanks!

avatar

KenLV

Good to hear. I'm sure that comes as another surprise to you. You see, I have no problem with a company, AND its investors, earning more and more money by producing products and service I wish to purchase. If I worried that people with less than high moral standards were making money off products I buy I'd never be able to buy anything.

Of course if what you say is true, it's interesting that you, as a supposed investor, would refer to their successful subscription model as "a joke", "consumer unfriendly", and "bullshit". Don't you want to make money as an investor? Encouraging people to steal your product seems at odds with investing in a company.

Hey, my disagreement with that ingenious business model must just be me being a "corporate bullshit defender" and "corporatist apologist". LAWL

avatar

KenLV

Double post.

avatar

MrHasselblad

No proof on this one just yet.

A lot of Microsoft "people" are claiming that the one hundred dollar fee will just be a type of introductory rate. Some have even suggested that the fee could easily double for the second term of the contract.

avatar

MrHasselblad

Let me see if I have this one correct. One has an iPad and then wants to add in a paid subscription to what is referred to a Microsoft OFFICE.

But that term OFFICE is heavily restricted in the TERMS OF SERVICE.

Simply use the Microsoft Office for iPad in most ANY office environment (which is AGAINST the TOS) and BOTH the user and the company are heavily penalized.

I'm actually looking forward to this one

avatar

themohawkadmin

I believe this is also the case with Microsoft Server and enterprise products, where everything is basically just the honor system.