I have been using the Apache Open Office word processor for years. No charges at all. It uses its own language when entering data, but can convert to .docx for uploads. For years I have not had any problems with it, but the latest software update is making it quite unstable. Hope they send out a new patch soon.
I have always thought of the software fees more as service contracts for future upgrades or software updates. Every system has their vulnerabilities, and it is only a matter of time before they are attacked. Just recently SOF found itself being scrapped by some program, for instance.
I use the LibreOffice version of OpenOffice, also free. For the very limited image editing I do I tend to use GraphicConverter (shareware) - it can do much more than I need. For audio editing I use Audacity, and for the odd bits of music writing I use MuseScore. I am in hock to Apple for PDF editing and photo editing, but you don’t have to keep paying for that.
I use Open Office for WP and Spreadsheets, a ancient version of Sibelius for music typesetting and Paintshop Pro for photos.
There is no way on God's earth that I am going to pay a subscription for software that I used to own.
I keep GIMP around for if I need to do Serious image editing. One thing I have paid for recently is PlayScore 2 on my phone. This is because it can reliably take a photo or scan of a score and render it into a midi or xml format. Musescore purports to do this on its website but unless the score is completely clean and unembellished there's not much chance of it working.
For PDFs I use Foxit - it allows the modest amount of editing I need for personal use, and allows me to take measurements from e.g. architectural plans which has proven useful on a number of occasions.
Are you saying that you don't think there's any rent-seeking in software pricing?
I think I'd start by considering how using software products from Microsoft and Adobe creates value for you. (As would be the case for anyone using VMware commercially, thinking of KarlLB's illustration.)
It seems to me that part of the reason why the difference between sales and rent-seeking isn't that obvious as regards software is precisely that the companies did everything they could to blur the boundaries before switching wholly to the renting model.
…
This makes it harder for consumer protection legislation to apply to the software market. If not actually impossible. …
It's true that some software companies caught on to the profitability of selling licences sooner than others, and were furthermore quite prepared to tilt the playing field as far in their favour as regulators would allow them. But in relation to the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015, fitness for purpose applies to both goods and services, whether physical or digital, so blurring the boundaries doesn't in itself make a lot of difference.
More generally, the single biggest factor in computing and software making the transition from goods to services is the internet, and it's created an astonishing amount of value for both the providers, and many commercial users, of these services. (One of the ironies is the length of time it took some software producers to wake up to the potential of the internet.)
There are certain sectors where where you would still not want to connect your computers to the internet (such as running high-speed centrifuges underground), but economically, I think these sectors are decreasingly significant, particularly in the case of personal consumers.
The phrase, 'got us over a barrel' springs to mind! Upgrades in software cause Mrs RR endless frustration. I took my ancient PC 'off grid' years ago and use ancient versions of WP and grapics programs ... er . .. 'apps'. so far ... no probs ...... eek!
As long as you don't connect it to the internet, you should be OK, until such time as the hardware starts to deteriorate.
Comments
I have always thought of the software fees more as service contracts for future upgrades or software updates. Every system has their vulnerabilities, and it is only a matter of time before they are attacked. Just recently SOF found itself being scrapped by some program, for instance.
I use the LibreOffice version of OpenOffice, also free. For the very limited image editing I do I tend to use GraphicConverter (shareware) - it can do much more than I need. For audio editing I use Audacity, and for the odd bits of music writing I use MuseScore. I am in hock to Apple for PDF editing and photo editing, but you don’t have to keep paying for that.
There is no way on God's earth that I am going to pay a subscription for software that I used to own.
For PDFs I use Foxit - it allows the modest amount of editing I need for personal use, and allows me to take measurements from e.g. architectural plans which has proven useful on a number of occasions.
It's true that some software companies caught on to the profitability of selling licences sooner than others, and were furthermore quite prepared to tilt the playing field as far in their favour as regulators would allow them. But in relation to the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015, fitness for purpose applies to both goods and services, whether physical or digital, so blurring the boundaries doesn't in itself make a lot of difference.
More generally, the single biggest factor in computing and software making the transition from goods to services is the internet, and it's created an astonishing amount of value for both the providers, and many commercial users, of these services. (One of the ironies is the length of time it took some software producers to wake up to the potential of the internet.)
There are certain sectors where where you would still not want to connect your computers to the internet (such as running high-speed centrifuges underground), but economically, I think these sectors are decreasingly significant, particularly in the case of personal consumers.
As long as you don't connect it to the internet, you should be OK, until such time as the hardware starts to deteriorate.