>>>>From grumbling aside - this is a sure sign they are milking a cash cow
>>and not really innovating. So not a good long term investment.
>>
>>That's the way of it: the closer a behemoth gets to monopoly, the less desirable innovation becomes. IMHO this has two effects: a) it requires a huge sea change to get things moving again and b) when that happens, the dinosaurs are far too slow to react and they are lost. Probably a good thing- the old know they should make way for the young but it's not always voluntary. ;-)
>
>In case of software that's out there for decades, like office suites, there's not much demand for new features - any new feature is something that millions need to learn how to use. OTOH, marketing doesn't seem to know what else to do to make new version sell, so... at some point, I bought Office 2007, and then on next reinstall of everything, went back to 2003. For music, I use the same player for years, moving to the next version only if there's some crucial feature I need (like a better playlist randomizer).
>
>They seem to think software is like toothpaste, that you can sell the same thing for a hundred years, claiming every year that what you sell is new and improved. If that were true, by now the toothpaste would fix teeth and make dentists extinct.

I'm with you about featuritis. It used to be, when the world was young, that when a new version of a program I used with any regularity came out, I upgraded without even needing to think much about it. As the releases accumulate, though, it has become more like the other way around. In general a new version is more trouble than it is worth. The program is already stuffed with features I don't need and don't use, so why should I pay money to add yet more unneeded features? Quicken, a program I have used heavily for over 20 years and am loyal to, is a great example. I don't upgrade it any more unless a new OS version breaks the version I have.

For me the perfect example is the one you mention, Office. I was quite content with Office 2003 and chose not to upgrade to 2007. Then I worked in an (actual) office where 2007 was standard so I had to learn it. Oh, the agony. It seemed like I spent half my time in Word and Excel trying to figure out or remember where they had moved everything. Even with a crib sheet it was a royal pain. Now I am used to it and use 2007 at home as well, but do not plan to move to any versions after that unless I have to.

Of course it makes a difference how you use the software. As a VFP developer I always upgraded, immediately, to new versions and SPs. I imagine accountants who bang away on Excel all day long want the latest version and to know all capabilities inside and out. But for stuff I use only irregularly? No way. Another example -- WinZip. I have used it for a long time and like it. When they email me about a new version, which seem to come out about every two weeks, I look at the list of thrilling new features and think "don't need it, don't need it, don't need it." In fact there was just such an email in my inbox this morning touting WinZip 17. (If there are 17 versions, that is not necessarily a good thing IMO). The headline new features are cloud storage and social sharing capabilities. Into the Deleted folder it went.

Now this is funny. I just referred back to the email and see that the come-on is that you can upgrade to the Pro version at no additional cost. Now there's a scary thought! LOL