Remix.run Logo
jmward01 3 hours ago

This is the new way and we need to stop it now. Forget the 'is it legal or not' arguments, their lawyers will win. Just get mad and tell them this is wrong. Stop buying their #$@#$ software. Block them. This is what is wrong with cars too. Don't want to give them real time data on you and your passengers and instead try to disconnect the modem? Well, no car functionality for you even if it doesn't need it. -get mad- Stop taking it. Microsoft is the enemy and needs to be treated that way. Same with any tech company that does the bait and switch TOS world. I buy so little software now and it is hard, but unless we stop this now it will only get worse.

pmontra 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Microsoft is the enemy

This made me smile, sadly. I remember when Microsoft was the new darling not many years ago, because of VS Code and WSL and the apparent goodwill about open source. Some people and I, who lived through all of Microsoft, were skeptical and believed that it was only another embrace phase of their EEE pattern. I'm not sure if they are extinguishing something but it turns out that they are squeezing money out of the pockets of their users now.

nine_k 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Microsoft is big, internally incoherent (even inimical, according to some accounts), and people responsible for VSCode and WSL are likely totally unrelated to people determining when and how to crack MS's crown jewel, the Office suite, in an attempt to squeeze out a few dollars more.

hotstickyballs 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's why anything that goes against the long-established corporate culture aren't likely to stay around for long.

emodendroket 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

Visual Studio Code has been around over a decade and there is zero indication it's going anywhere.

shimman an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Why are we acting like VS Code is nothing but a way to stop independent developers from selling their tools? Things like VS Code literally destroy the cottage industry and likely has held back our industry by several decades.

MSFT needs to be at least six separate companies: Windows, Office, GitHub, Visual Studio, Xbox, and Azure. That would kneecap the company and destroy its parasitic blight on our industry for several decades and if luck we with us indefinitely.

gucci-on-fleek 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Things like VS Code literally destroy the cottage industry and likely has held back our industry by several decades.

VS Code was released in 2015, so even if its initial release somehow completely stopped the entire software industry, it would still not have held the industry back by several decades.

> MSFT needs to be at least six separate companies: Windows, Office, GitHub, Visual Studio, Xbox, and Azure. That would kneecap the company

I'm pretty sure that all of those (aside from Xbox) are profitable on their own, so I don't think that them becoming independent would kneecap them at all.

watermelon0 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Is GitHub really profitable, considering how much Actions credits are given away to open source projects as well as free users? Same goes for Copilot.

jayceekay 8 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

They said cottage industry, not software industry.

Edit: s/he/they/woops sorry

emodendroket a minute ago | parent [-]

OK but is that even true? Lots of people buy IntelliJ licenses (or if they've stopped I'm guessing it has more to do with Claude Code than VS Code).

jijji 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think Microsoft stopped being the "darling" in 1994 when they got sued by Stacker and had to pay $120 million for stealing their source code and using it in their own product.

userbinator 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

They're open-sourcing things either because they get no value from them anymore, or just want more unpaid "community" labour.

emodendroket 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

OK well that's the whole "open source" model. It's not some Microsoft perversion of it. The reason they moved from "free software" to "open source" was specifically rejecting the ideological stuff that would prevent business exploitation

guidedlight 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This has been happening with Video Games for a while. There is a major initiative called "Stop Killing Games" which was triggered when Ubisoft bricked "The Crew" when servers were shutdown.

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

There has been some success. There is new legislation in California which has passed the Assembly. https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/22330/stop-killing-game...

And there is a citizens initiative in Europe which the the European Commission must respond to: https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/20...

somenameforme 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is much worse. The Crew was always framed as an 'always online' game, even if that was technically a farce. This would be more like if Bethesda rolled out an update to cripple Skyrim after releasing a new Elder Scrolls game to lackluster sales.

throwawayk7h an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's good legislation. I would love to see this extended to "Stop Killing Software" in general, with the same provisions.

wilg an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you should be allowed to stop supporting software or shut down your servers.

DrammBA an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I think you should be allowed to stop supporting software or shut down your servers.

That has nothing to do with Stop Killing Games.

platevoltage an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You should not be able to shut down the ability to play a game if it cost money to buy.

ryandrake 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

You should at least have to refund customers when you take away the ability to use a product they purchased.

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
emodendroket 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's a vanishingly small number of consumers buying Office compared to businesses.

xg15 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Forget the 'is it legal or not' arguments, their lawyers will win. Just get mad and tell them this is wrong. Stop buying their #$@#$ software.

I'm surprised that going through the legal system is already seen as completely useless, but calling for a consumer mass boycott would totally work...

radium3d 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You didn't start using libreoffice.org like 15 years ago?

Animats an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I did. SunOffice, then OpenOffice, then LibreOffice. It still isn't very good, though.

exmadscientist 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most companies didn't, no.

Just because alternatives exist for some people some of the time does not mean Office is worthless, or that buying it isn't rational.

(Though buying it starts to look a lot less rational when things like this happen.)

isityettime 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Most Microsoft purchases at a large organization are rational only because of how much the company has already sunk into Microsoft. Microsoft's strategy had never been centered on their software succeeding on its intrinsic merits.

Consequently the best part of not buying Microsoft's shitty software is that it spares you from "having" to buy their (other) shitty software.

gucci-on-fleek 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Most Microsoft purchases at a large organization are rational only because of how much the company has already sunk into Microsoft. Microsoft's strategy had never been centered on their software succeeding on its intrinsic merits.

Microsoft has lots of crappy software, and I personally find MS Office rather irritating, but I'd still argue that it's the best office suite currently available. Like yes, it has lots of bugs and weird misfeatures, but all its competitors are either buggier or only have less than a tenth of the features that MS Office does.

jmward01 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Microsoft's strategy had never been centered on their software succeeding on its intrinsic merits.

Microsoft used to build the best stuff. I'm not sure when that ended, I just remember the decline. I used to -jump- at release day for their latest OS version. Their dev tools were considered top tier and I used to like Word. Now every interaction I have with a MS product is painful and my trust in them is so far negative that I always assume the worst for every interaction. Wanna keep playing Minecraft without an MS account? We -promise- not to stop allowing you to do that after we buy it..... Want to use your computer without us advertising? Want to even use your computer without MS as a gatekeeper for your login? I have no idea why anyone would give them a dollar other than lock-in.

ribosometronome 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

The span in which it would make sense to be keen on jumping to the latest OS pretty narrow.

appplication 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hard agree. In the past, companies made their profits by providing value that induces a sale, but the trend in the last 1-2 decades is increasingly towards extracting value. The main difference being we are moving away from clearly defined transactions and companies view their customer base as a resource that they can trade increasing amounts of asymmetric, long-term exploitation for some pre-calculated probability of churn.

And of course companies like Microsoft or the car companies in your example have experimentally determined that the less transparent and immediate the product transaction is, the less likely some percent of their customer base will fully understand exactly what it is they are giving and receiving in turn from each of the companies that supposedly providing them value.

The answer is not to simply boycott, but to actively and aggressively punish companies for acting with this particular brand of capitalist maliciousness. It includes being vocal online but also pushing for more aggressive countermeasures against unchecked greed. Billionaire taxes, closing corporate tax loopholes, consumer protection, expanded antitrust, right to repair, labor rights. All of the policies that are “bad for business”. Because fuck them, policies that are good for business have only led to exploitation of the masses and we get nothing in return but more creative value extraction.

It’s past due we have sympathy for the corporate bottom line and time we start to get excited when companies bleed a little in the face of policies and regulations that absolutely do not care about corporate interest.

walrus01 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> but the trend in the last 1-2 decades is increasingly towards extracting value

It's rent-seeking in the economics textbook sense of the word. Actually quite straightforward once you understand and internalize that they want you to rent SAAS products forever with a monthly recurring bill into eternity. And then as the parent poster 'jmward' commented above, choose not to engage with it.

In the example of this specific product, Libreoffice is good enough. There's also a renewed European project for open source/self hosted office suite software.

lenerdenator 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> In the past, companies made their profits by providing value that induces a sale, but the trend in the last 1-2 decades is increasingly towards extracting value. The main difference being we are moving away from clearly defined transactions and companies view their customer base as a resource that they can trade increasing amounts of asymmetric, long-term exploitation for some pre-calculated probability of churn.

That's not an accident. In the last 1-2 decades, the largest generation in American history started retiring en masse. They didn't have enough children to replace them, because the birth rate peaked in 1965. This generation is now drawing off of retirement savings, the vast majority of which is backed by ownership in equities and bonds in publicly-traded companies.

When you don't have more people to provide value that includes a sale, like you say, and still have to increase value of equities and bonds every 90 days, you have to more intensely monetize each customer.

It's only going to get worse unless you bring a lot of people into the market as new potential customers, but you can only do so much of that without causing social disharmony.

kyleee an hour ago | parent [-]

100%. One of my crazy ideas (but a good one) is to invite all of pakistan to america in order to fix it all

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
rockskon an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

"Their lawyers will win" is plainly wrong assumption if something is clearly illegal.