Comments on: Microsoft offers subscription Outlook

Firm shoots for power users among Hotmail crowd, marking first time an Office component is available as subscription service.

you gotta be kidding me

outlook is the second worse email program available, second only to AOL's shoddy service. and they expect people to pay for this ***** in the form of a premium service? n pleez.

[201293546946733175101343322673]

Really?

Hi Ass Clown, I use my Outlook and loving it. BTW, nobody forces you to pay anyway.

[Gerald Quaglia]

This is only the begining

Expect M$ to make all its software subscription someday. Why sell it when you can rent it and soak the consumer for as long as they use the software. Quite briliant! I can't wait until they make the Windows OS a subscription as well.

[201293546946733175101343322673]

I see

So movie studios are too dumb to "sell" DVDs. They should learn from MS to just let people "rent" DVDs, is that what you are trying to say here, smart brain?

[cingphan]

Subscibe to Windows

I like that comment actually. Of course Microsoft won't actually say that we have to subscribe to the Windows OS.

Instead, Microsoft will have us buy the software only to inform us that it's riddled with holes and bugs. And...of course...to ensure our security, we should subscribe to the Windows Update site.

If you ask me, that'll be Microsoft's best revenue driver: charge for the Windows Update site.

[ckought]

Don't they already offer this service sans Outlook?

MSN Hotmail Plus - $19.95 a year

2GB Inbox
20MB file attachments
Account never expires
No banner advertisements
Access Hotmail using Outlook®

[Fray9]

Good point

It seems you are correct that all they are doing is selling their hotmail service bundled with a $30 per year rental copy of Outlook.

Considering the retail full version of Outlook 2003 costs ~$80 I guess its not a bad deal.

The mandatory email service is kind of a pain though.

If you have more than a few employees then your going to have to worry about bandwidth issues, accountability, server availability, archive retreival if theyre are needed in court, security, an exposed web front-in to your accounts, lost data, the risk that Hotmail could change it terms pricing or just go out of business with little to no warning, etc etc ad nausium.

It just doesnt seem worth it considering its just as expensive as an in house solution.

[David Arbogast]

Excellent Option

Given the number of organizations that rely on Exchange and Outlook today, it is nice that they will be able to compare costs over time and have the option of shedding some internally supported hardware and software.

[scdecade]

Wonder what HP/Dell/IBM/VAR's/etc. think

Well, here's Microsoft's first attempt at cutting the hardware vendors and VAR's out of the equation. Any "partner" of Microsoft's that doesn't realize that Microsoft has NO partners ought to wake up right now and smell the napalm.

It's proprietary and it locks you in to Windows

Using Outlook is proprietary and not much use if you want to use Linux. What's to stop Microsoft increasing the license fee having locked users in?
There are Outlook alternatives that are Open Source or perhaps Microsoft could open Outlook source code and port to Linux?

[David Arbogast]

More Information

Please cite your sources. This article mentions nothing about the technology used or its compatibility with various platforms. Furthermore, as a web-based service, open-sourcing it would be worse than pointless. It would be giving away a service that they plan to use to sustain a business model.

$60/year = $5/month. Personally, I don't think this is too expensive for a subscription to all of Outlook/Exchange features. But if you only see Outlook as a plain email client, I can understand how you might prefer a free service like Yahoo or GMail.

[bobby_brady]

$60, YIKES!

Not sure why anyone would go for this "deal". Up the storage size and attachment size to something worthwhile.

[David Arbogast]

Actually

The storage and attachment size announced far exceeds the limits set on many corporate networks. There is also nothing stopping users from archiving email on their own system... assuming they actually collect more than 2GB of email.

[Internet_veteran]

Hotmail??? and Power Users???? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

I don't know any self-respecting computer user who's used "hotmail" in years. It's a pile of crap that somehow still manages to attract people who just don't know any better.

I'll keep "suffering" with my 250MB Yahoo service... or experimenting with my 1GB Gmail account....

[David Arbogast]

250MB on Hotmail

Yahoo and GMail are really no better than Hotmail. They're all the same in my opinion. Lots and lots of people use hotmail. I agree that there may be better solutions, but for some things Hotmail is a great service. It also integrates with Outlook. You certainly understand the benefits of web-based email.... you have 2 other web-based accounts already.

[stevenmcs]

Bugs become revenue

I don't like software that charges for support, because software bugs suddenly become revenue instead of an expense. So the worse the software is the more money they make. Do you see a problem with that.