I could be wrong in this, but isn't what MS is talking about just a little different from that type of agreement? As I understood it, while MS has backed off the XP subscription system for North America for this year, the intention, once it's introduced, is that you will get all these neat bells and whistles, but if you do not pay your next year's subscription fee, some of those bells and whistles may stop working. In other words, you pay each year just to be allowed to continue doing what you were doing last year.

Yes, there may (probably will) be upgrades, but even if you don't need or want a particular upgrade, you still have to pay the fee.

In most vertical apps of which I'm aware, you don't lose functionality by not paying a maintenance fee. You lose automatic upgrading, and probably support, but you still are allowed to continue on as before.

Like I said, it's possible I misunderstood MS's stance, and if so, hopefully someone will correct me.

Alan

>I don't think MS is leading the way. Subscriptions are common for vertical market applications, although they may not be called subscriptions. Take a maintenance contract for example. It typically says you'll get any upgrades for the life of the contract...sounds like a subscription to me. What other vendors are learning is that subscriptions level out the cash flow and typically make you more money.
>
>>
>>IF other software companies are, indeed, moving to subscription licensing then you can bet your bottom dollar that it is because MS is leading the way.
>>
>>These others may well be first actually doing it, but that is only because it is far easier for them to do so than it is for MS.
>>
>>You make it sound like MS is only doing what others are doing.
>>
>>Jim