Yes, but they eventually stop receiving updates, so you have to spend another $250 to get the newer version. And if you bought, say, Office 2021 just before Office 2024 is released (by necessity, for a new employee, say) then it has a significantly shorter lifespan. And you HAVE to spend this money because it is impossible to convince people they don't need Microsoft Word.

▲

georgel 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have been on HN since 2010, and I will never understand this sentiment of "we deserve free updates". Unless you were promised an update in the purchase agreement, you got what you literally paid for.

I have to assume a large portion of the community here are paid software engineers or adjacent, how do you think your employer is able to pay you? By selling software...and software updates.

▲

inanutshellus an hour ago | parent [-]

I'll counter with "Why aren't you paying your subscription for your BMW's heated seats?"

Fact is, there's a lot of "unnecessary" and innovation-deterring in the "own nothing; subscribe to everything" model you're espousing.

On the flip-side, yes, we do love being paid to continue doing our thing.

So. It's a balance.

▲

joshuaissac 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

That is not what GP is suggesting.

The equivalent comparison would be expecting BMW to update your car after you have already bought it. It is perfectly reasonable that once you have bought the car, any updated parts have to be bought and installed separately.

But if you don't want to pay for that, your car works as before. That's what the GP is suggesting.

	▲	swasheck 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Kinda. I think the prevailing sentiment is more of a manufacturer recall where BMW has realized a flaw that leads to a safety issue or a critical functionality and issues a recall to resolve it.

▲

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

That seems different though. If you are paying a fixed cost for offline software, you are not entitled to updates for it, that seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

▲

cwnyth 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It costs nothing to update to the newest LibreOffice.

▲

paxy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The cost is all the features you are missing.

▲

dotancohen an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That's how I feel about using MS Office. I have a text file somewhere of all the things I couldn't do with MS Office at my last gig, that I do regularly with LibreOffice.

▲

lanyard-textile 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I feel like the word processor as a product is fairly "finished." There's not much about it that'd you want to change year over year. Are there any new features to write home about?

	▲	htrp an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think the word processor, and the office suite have advanced features that would be better suited in a programming language. like mail merge or macros.... do you really need them in a day and age where you have an llm subscription is a different question

▲

consp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Like? Wouldn't be surprised if those features don't matter for the 95th percentile.

	▲	hobo123 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Like loading or saving CSV files and choosing the separator character. I don't remember which, but Excel doesn't do one of them. Oh, did he say _LibreOffice_ is missing features. Well, probably it does too.

▲

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

> That seems different though. If you are paying a fixed cost for offline software, you are not entitled to updates for it

I don't know, back in my day you could get at least discounts on updates for your paid software.

▲

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

With a well-defined python API instead of the abomination that is VBA, you could dispense with all the fancy mail-merge and other stupid features and greatly simplify the word processor product. I think most people would be happy to pay $250, or whatever, for an offline office suite that worked and was free of serious/security-relevant bugs. The idea that you can release a half-baked product full of bugs and then expect people to pay you for the privilege of fixing your shitty product only exists in software.

In no other industry would that be okay. Automakers, for example, issue recalls when their products have serious defects, and then they fix them on the company's dime. Remind me again who's acting entitled?

▲

b00ty4breakfast an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I guess technically you aren't entitled to anything wrt software; They could charge you a monthly fee to use the v1.out.of.date and stop providing updates unless you start paying for v2.the.latest.

You would rightfully be upset, and it might even be a bad business move but you aren't "entitled" to anything but what is shoved onto your plate like gruel in a Dickensian workhouse cafeteria

▲

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

Forget the cost. Just having my data and documents in a truly open and documented format is value enough to use LibreOffice.

Even though other implementations of the spec are lacking (looking at you Koffice) the fact that a spec exists is data security. Especially in an age where LLMs are getting cheaper and alternative (or custom) implementations might become feasible to produce.

▲

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

The commercial software industry has gotten me to the point where I don't want updates anymore. Every time [company] updates their software, it's worse than it was before. It's got more telemetry. It's removed features. It needs a login now. It's moved things around in the UI. It's put things that used to be free behind payments. It's monetizing me. It's cramming ads and spam into it. It needs more memory and disk space to use. I deliberately don't update commercial software anymore. Y'all developers have poisoned the well.

▲

carlosjobim 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not to mention, old versions of MS Office are not compatible with the new versions of paper they sell today. Technology moves forward, after all.

▲

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

Why do you need the newer version?

▲

jsLavaGoat 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No one "needs" new features, but everyone needs security updates.

▲

paxy 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Microsoft doesn't stop shipping security updates after a new version is released.

	▲	jsLavaGoat an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Splitting hairs about what a version is won't recover the point that you simply cannot let complex software idle as installed most of the time, especially when big bad CVEs are being found all the time. It's not like you get security updates if your subscription has lapsed.

▲

egeozcan an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

New and better WordArt templates, of course.

▲

readthenotes1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have office 2003. Works fine.

No, I don't open rando word docs

▲

gambiting 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>> so you have to spend another $250 to get the newer version

But why? I still use Office 2016 and I haven't yet come across a document it wouldn't open. What am I missing out on?

	▲	alex0015 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's less new features and more security problems. There are patches for office 2016 though, and your use case might have a low security risk if you're not opening that many files people send to you.
	▲	duckmysick an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Not sure about Word or other apps, but in Excel there are many useful functions added in the later versions like XLOOKUP, LAMBDA, LET, FILTER, MAP, REDUCE, GROUPBY.
	▲	close2 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Because you no longer get any security updates.
	▲	gnabgib 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Some security updates, some features, and if you're unlucky and run MacOS - the ability to save files.