Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed offline products
553 points
4 hours ago
| 47 comments
| consumerrights.wiki
| HN
jmward01
1 hour ago
[-]
This is the new way and we need to stop it now. Forget the 'is it legal or not' arguments, their lawyers will win. Just get mad and tell them this is wrong. Stop buying their #$@#$ software. Block them. This is what is wrong with cars too. Don't want to give them real time data on you and your passengers and instead try to disconnect the modem? Well, no car functionality for you even if it doesn't need it. -get mad- Stop taking it. Microsoft is the enemy and needs to be treated that way. Same with any tech company that does the bait and switch TOS world. I buy so little software now and it is hard, but unless we stop this now it will only get worse.
reply
pmontra
37 minutes ago
[-]
> Microsoft is the enemy

This made me smile, sadly. I remember when Microsoft was the new darling not many years ago, because of VS Code and WSL and the apparent goodwill about open source. Some people and I, who lived through all of Microsoft, were skeptical and believed that it was only another embrace phase of their EEE pattern. I'm not sure if they are extinguishing something but it turns out that they are squeezing money out of the pockets of their users now.

reply
nine_k
25 minutes ago
[-]
Microsoft is big, internally incoherent (even inimical, according to some accounts), and people responsible for VSCode and WSL are likely totally unrelated to people determining when and how to crack MS's crown jewel, the Office suite, in an attempt to squeeze out a few dollars more.
reply
hotstickyballs
19 minutes ago
[-]
That's why anything that goes against the long-established corporate culture aren't likely to stay around for long.
reply
guidedlight
17 minutes ago
[-]
This has been happening with Video Games for a while. There is a major initiative called "Stop Killing Games" which was triggered when Ubisoft bricked "The Crew" when servers were shutdown.

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

There has been some success. There is new legislation in California which has passed the Assembly. https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/22330/stop-killing-game...

And there is a citizens initiative in Europe which the the European Commission must respond to: https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/20...

reply
throwawayk7h
2 minutes ago
[-]
It's good legislation. I would love to see this extended to "Stop Killing Software" in general, with the same provisions.
reply
radium3d
46 minutes ago
[-]
You didn't start using libreoffice.org like 15 years ago?
reply
Animats
10 minutes ago
[-]
I did. SunOffice, then OpenOffice, then LibreOffice. It still isn't very good, though.
reply
exmadscientist
40 minutes ago
[-]
Most companies didn't, no.

Just because alternatives exist for some people some of the time does not mean Office is worthless, or that buying it isn't rational.

(Though buying it starts to look a lot less rational when things like this happen.)

reply
isityettime
24 minutes ago
[-]
Most Microsoft purchases at a large organization are rational only because of how much the company has already sunk into Microsoft. Microsoft's strategy had never been centered on their software succeeding on its intrinsic merits.

Consequently the best part of not buying Microsoft's shitty software is that it spares you from "having" to buy their (other) shitty software.

reply
jmward01
11 minutes ago
[-]
> Microsoft's strategy had never been centered on their software succeeding on its intrinsic merits.

Microsoft used to build the best stuff. I'm not sure when that ended, I just remember the decline. I used to -jump- at release day for their latest OS version. Their dev tools were considered top tier and I used to like Word. Now every interaction I have with a MS product is painful and my trust in them is so far negative that I always assume the worst for every interaction. Wanna keep playing Minecraft without an MS account? We -promise- not to stop allowing you to do that after we buy it..... Want to use your computer without us advertising? Want to even use your computer without MS as a gatekeeper for your login? I have no idea why anyone would give them a dollar other than lock-in.

reply
appplication
1 hour ago
[-]
Hard agree. In the past, companies made their profits by providing value that induces a sale, but the trend in the last 1-2 decades is increasingly towards extracting value. The main difference being we are moving away from clearly defined transactions and companies view their customer base as a resource that they can trade increasing amounts of asymmetric, long-term exploitation for some pre-calculated probability of churn.

And of course companies like Microsoft or the car companies in your example have experimentally determined that the less transparent and immediate the product transaction is, the less likely some percent of their customer base will fully understand exactly what it is they are giving and receiving in turn from each of the companies that supposedly providing them value.

The answer is not to simply boycott, but to actively and aggressively punish companies for acting with this particular brand of capitalist maliciousness. It includes being vocal online but also pushing for more aggressive countermeasures against unchecked greed. Billionaire taxes, closing corporate tax loopholes, consumer protection, expanded antitrust, right to repair, labor rights. All of the policies that are “bad for business”. Because fuck them, policies that are good for business have only led to exploitation of the masses and we get nothing in return but more creative value extraction.

It’s past due we have sympathy for the corporate bottom line and time we start to get excited when companies bleed a little in the face of policies and regulations that absolutely do not care about corporate interest.

reply
walrus01
47 minutes ago
[-]
> but the trend in the last 1-2 decades is increasingly towards extracting value

It's rent-seeking in the economics textbook sense of the word. Actually quite straightforward once you understand and internalize that they want you to rent SAAS products forever with a monthly recurring bill into eternity. And then as the parent poster 'jmward' commented above, choose not to engage with it.

In the example of this specific product, Libreoffice is good enough. There's also a renewed European project for open source/self hosted office suite software.

reply
lenerdenator
24 minutes ago
[-]
> In the past, companies made their profits by providing value that induces a sale, but the trend in the last 1-2 decades is increasingly towards extracting value. The main difference being we are moving away from clearly defined transactions and companies view their customer base as a resource that they can trade increasing amounts of asymmetric, long-term exploitation for some pre-calculated probability of churn.

That's not an accident. In the last 1-2 decades, the largest generation in American history started retiring en masse. They didn't have enough children to replace them, because the birth rate peaked in 1965. This generation is now drawing off of retirement savings, the vast majority of which is backed by ownership in equities and bonds in publicly-traded companies.

When you don't have more people to provide value that includes a sale, like you say, and still have to increase value of equities and bonds every 90 days, you have to more intensely monetize each customer.

It's only going to get worse unless you bring a lot of people into the market as new potential customers, but you can only do so much of that without causing social disharmony.

reply
kyleee
12 minutes ago
[-]
100%. One of my crazy ideas (but a good one) is to invite all of pakistan to america in order to fix it all
reply
DomenicoMazza
2 hours ago
[-]
This change would go against multiple consumer guarantees in Australia where it's 1) a right to have undisturbed possession of a product 2) products must be fit for the advertised purpose https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-servic... Microsoft would be breaking consumer law if the change goes ahead for the perpetual licenses they sold in Australia
reply
misswaterfairy
1 hour ago
[-]
And this won't be their first time breaking Australian Consumer Law... Twelve months ago no less!

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/microsoft-in-court-for...

The ACCC is going to love this.

reply
msla
58 minutes ago
[-]
Every time someone imagines a country going after Microsoft in a serious way these days, I wonder how much that country's government depends on Microsoft software and cloud infrastructure, and if that country imagines Microsoft would continue to allow them to use such things if they become an enemy of Microsoft in court.
reply
fwipsy
7 minutes ago
[-]
Microsoft wouldn't do that, because it would drive away other customers too. Maybe Australia would fold or maybe they would tough it out, but most other nations (and companies!) would start thinking about how quickly they could transition away from Microsoft.
reply
wzdd
18 minutes ago
[-]
> Every time someone imagines a country going after Microsoft

You don't need to imagine it: the comment you are replying to links to a press release from a Government agency "going after Microsoft". And yet somehow we haven't seen Microsoft stop doing business with the Australian government.

reply
applfanboysbgon
37 minutes ago
[-]
Microsoft won't get very far as a business if it starts thinking it's above the law and cuts off half the rich world as customers. Their goal, at the end of the day, is to make money. I don't know what kind of weird projection power fantasy roleplaying is going on in your head, but Microsoft is not going to cut off Australia even if they are made to honour this petty little clause that will not actually cost them anything. And even if it did, it wouldn't really matter. It's a relationship of convenience. A country can figure out an alternative if it really mattered, MS is not integral in any way, using it is just the path of least resistance. Something like ASML embargoing a country would actually be a threat, but Microsoft is very replaceable.
reply
lenerdenator
22 minutes ago
[-]
> Microsoft won't get very far as a business if it starts thinking it's above the law and cuts off half the rich world as customers.

People keep saying this but so far as I can tell, thinking you're above the law and punishing customers who don't like your company's behavior is a viable business model.

reply
applfanboysbgon
4 minutes ago
[-]
Maybe in the US, but not globally, which is the subject here. NS has been fined billions and made adjustments to its software due to the court cases in the EU, and it did not, in fact, decide to block the entire EU out of spite but simply adhered to the judgments.
reply
qingcharles
1 hour ago
[-]
Also, it's Office 2019, but they were officially selling it until the end of 2021, and third-party sellers were selling through their boxed inventory for years after too. So, this isn't even that old a piece of software.

And, let's not forget, this is trillion dollar corporation. They could find one of their Mac devs to write an update for this in a week. The negative publicity from this is measured in millions of dollars.

reply
nikcub
3 hours ago
[-]
I believe the urgent deprecation timeline here may be related to ai labs using offline licensed Office in agents as part of workflows and Office integration. Microsoft wants _each_ agent instance to be a separate license[0]

There was always a probability that Microsoft were going to funnel offline users into O365 at some point - but I imagined that to take place over months / years not weeks and days.

Buying a single license for thousands of agents may have expedited that. It has resulted in non-Microsoft labs having better ai integration into their products than Microsoft.

edit: just read the detail of the note - so this is a cert expiry as part of Apple dist that is being warned about ~2 months before it happens. Standalone on Mac has a term limit.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-executive-suggests...

reply
asveikau
3 hours ago
[-]
Is it me or are people too eager to "one track mind" everything into AI? If I had said thirty years ago that Microsoft would remote disable old copies of Office asking you to upgrade, literally no one would be surprised. This is standard MO for Microsoft, even in a world without AI.
reply
jasonfarnon
3 hours ago
[-]
"literally no one would be surprised" Microsoft 30 years ago was the gold standard for bending over backwards for backward compatibility. For the proposition that once you have purchased one of their products, you didn't have to maintain any further relationship with the company. This behavior is strictly the new 2010s Apple-like microsoft.
reply
helpfulclippy
18 minutes ago
[-]
That’s not how it worked. They were indeed awesome at backwards compatibility, but the proposition was NOT some principled mindset about long term ownership. It was that upgrading wouldn’t break what you have, overcoming a major sales objection. I think the proposition is better understood as one about FORWARDS compatibility — Windows was (and is) a brittle, poorly architected mess, and so the idea that anything built on it would stay working as the platform evolved was clearly insane and developers would never be able to keep up, so Microsoft absorbed much of the cost. This was actually something they did quite well — a good analogy here might be the heroic response the USSR had to the Chernobyl catastrophe, in which they skillfully managed a disaster whose scope was possible only through a long tradition of poor decisions — and this deserves recognition.

But the reason I think it’s better to think of it as forwards compatibility is that Microsoft gleefully used file formats as a means of driving the upgrade treadmill. Yes, the upgrade to Office 97 would keep everything working to approximately the same level of reliability you had already resigned yourself to — but by default, the files it kicked out would be unreadable in Office 95. There was Save As and an optional free converter… which tired 90s office workers didn’t know about, or particularly want to think about. In the age of literal floppy disks, the friction this created was a significant motivator for businesses to say “fuck it, fine.” Microsoft’s true genius has always been in knowing that “fuck it, fine” is the only bar they ever had to clear, and that through the power of lock-in and sheer institutional inertia, they can drive that bar deep into the belly of the Earth.

Thus, Azure.

reply
sandworm101
2 hours ago
[-]
Yup. Evil is gonna evil.

I may be forced to use MS at work but at home I dont let their software past my router. A buddy of mine stayed for a few days while his place was being fixed. "Hey, why are my updates not happening?" "Oops, I forgot to tell you that all MS servers are inaccessible via the wifi."

reply
DrewADesign
1 hour ago
[-]
Adobe was really the pioneer for that.
reply
stackghost
1 hour ago
[-]
>This behavior is strictly the new 2010s Apple-like microsoft.

Surely you jest.

US v Microsoft, the antitrust case, was decided in 1998. Microsoft has always been a shitty company run by shitty people doing shitty things.

They enjoyed a brief upwell in public relations during the period when they had first seemingly embraced open source with WSL, GitHub, and maybe dotnet core, but it was merely a blip.

Being overtly anti-consumer is baked into Microsoft's DNA. They'll always return to that baseline.

reply
asveikau
2 hours ago
[-]
> Microsoft 30 years ago was the gold standard for bending over backwards for backward compatibility

And for reselling you the same office suite every couple of years.

(Full disclosure, I worked there in the 2000s... So if anything I should be biased the other way.)

reply
mghackerlady
2 hours ago
[-]
Right, but if you bought office 2000 it was established that you would get to keep using office 2000 for as long as you wanted
reply
asveikau
1 hour ago
[-]
Correct, but my point was if they had taken measures to counteract that nobody would have been surprised.
reply
userbinator
1 hour ago
[-]
There are probably still a minority using Office 2000 out there, because it still does everything they need.
reply
mghackerlady
47 minutes ago
[-]
For a while I had installed in wine for frontpage
reply
Underphil
2 hours ago
[-]
This is a bizarrely revisionist take. Perhaps you weren't around at the time but that was not standard MO in the slightest. Obviously they were incredibly scummy in other ways, but that was not one of them.

//Edit : I see from another comment that you say you worked there in the 2000s. Inclined to believe you, but having worked in the industry since the mid-90s I'm absolutely confident the general sentiment about Microsoft was not yet hatred. That came later.

reply
cwnyth
1 hour ago
[-]
Counterpoint: Bill Gates' appearance in the Simpsons clearly depicts him as a nefarious bully. I think the Windows XP and the Gates Foundation actually resuscitated his image a bit. Windows was a bit hit or miss. Blue Screen of Death plagued Windows 98, Windows ME was a joke, even early XP wasn't great. (I personally wasn't a fan of XP when it came out, switching instead to Windows NT before moving over to Linux c. 2004.)

Bill Gates the ruthless business-nerd was definitely a stereotype 30 years ago, though to your point I don't remember anyone talking about them revoking licenses for purchased software.

reply
macintux
2 hours ago
[-]
In the mid-90s, when I started my career, I was convinced (and very sad) that Microsoft had won the computing business and I was doomed to work on their software the rest of my life.

So, perhaps "general" sentiment wasn't there yet, but certainly plenty of us held no love for the company. The only software from Microsoft I've ever really appreciated was Microsoft Musical Instruments.

reply
esafak
2 hours ago
[-]
I suppose it depends on what kind of users you have in mind; enthusiasts, versus average users. Before they became outright user-hostile they were known for their anti-competitive behavior and buggy products. People were calling them "Micro$oft" by the 90s, at the latest. And United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation started in '98.
reply
elzbardico
3 hours ago
[-]
No. It was not normal. I knew people who still had their original office 97 media installing it on windows 10, like a few years ago.
reply
Suppafly
2 hours ago
[-]
This, I've used old versions that I got as part of a site license for employees deal for years.
reply
Aurornis
3 hours ago
[-]
I don’t think Office 2019 for Mac is what AI labs would use for this.

I don’t think this is related at all.

reply
striking
3 hours ago
[-]
> Windows and Android versions of Office are not affected by the certificate expiry.
reply
rockskon
2 hours ago
[-]
That's their problem that they're trying to make my problem.

I don't care about their problem. It's their problem, not mine. They should not make their problem into my problem.

reply
wmf
3 hours ago
[-]
These are single-machine licenses. I doubt thousands of agents can run on a single machine.
reply
nine_k
3 hours ago
[-]
They can only use it to run a particular tool related to a piece of MSO software. This may be a relatively short operation, a relatively small part of an agent's activity. Then hundreds of agents can use a single machine with MSO, similarly to how hundreds of CI/CD workers can collectively use a single machine dedicated e.g. to providing secrets and signing binaries.
reply
jimmaswell
3 hours ago
[-]
Thousands of agents could remote into one strong enough machine, or even use DCOM.
reply
Retr0id
3 hours ago
[-]
Unless you snapshot a VM and run clones of it.
reply
varispeed
3 hours ago
[-]
How do you define a single machine?
reply
wmf
3 hours ago
[-]
The answer is far more comprehensive than I imagined.

"...run one instance of the software on your device (the licensed device), for use by one person at a time... In this agreement, “device” means a local hardware system (whether physical or virtual) with an internal storage device capable of running the software. A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a device. For purposes of this agreement, “device” does not include any hardware system (whether physical or virtual) on which the software is installed or accessed solely for remote use over a network.

this license does not give you any right to ... use the software as server software or to operate the device as a server; use the software to offer commercial hosting services; make the software available for simultaneous use by more than one user over a network; install the software on a server for remote access or use over a network; or install the software on a device for use only by remote users

This license allows you to install only one instance of the software for use on one device, whether that device is physical or virtual. If you want to use the software on more than one virtual device, you must obtain a separate license for each instance.

Microsoft may require you to activate the software over the Internet in order for you to use the software. ... The software may periodically and automatically reconnect to the Internet to confirm the license associated with the licensed device. If you do not reconnect your device to the Internet when required as part of the activation or reactivation process, the software may operate with reduced functionality.

We hope we never have a dispute, but if we do, you and we agree to try for 60 days, upon receipt of a Notice of Dispute, to resolve it informally. If we can’t, you and we agree to binding individual arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and not to sue in court in front of a judge or jury. ... Class action lawsuits, class-wide arbitrations, private attorney-general actions, requests for public injunctions and any other proceeding where someone acts in a representative capacity aren’t allowed."

https://www.microsoft.com/content/dam/microsoft/usetm/docume...

reply
Spooky23
2 hours ago
[-]
Yeah if you don’t license Office correctly for an RDS server, you’d by contract be liable for a license for each user and device used to access the server.
reply
codedokode
2 hours ago
[-]
So you need to waive even the right to sue to use Office? I didn't think it was so bad...
reply
DrewADesign
1 hour ago
[-]
Arbitration agreements are de rigueur in EULAs, terms of service, and all sorts of other contracts.
reply
wombatpm
30 minutes ago
[-]
Until there is a coordinated effort for every user to demand arbitration. Suddenly a corporation wants to combine all complaints into a single case, because each arbitration has a fixed cost for the corporation.
reply
koolala
3 hours ago
[-]
One OS instance.
reply
doctorpangloss
3 hours ago
[-]
...on a Mac?
reply
philistine
3 hours ago
[-]
Yeah that makes no sense. Those AI are not running macOS instances to make you a docx. If anything, I’d expect them to write the weirdo xml of that cursed file format directly.
reply
doubled112
2 hours ago
[-]
Microsoft's own different versions of Office can't always reliably read/write docx between them.

Is a layer of LLM going to make this better or worse? Could you train a model to be very good at it?

reply
intrasight
18 minutes ago
[-]
That is a very interesting AI question. Will the agents collaborate and create a cartel to enforce strict compatibility with some specific version of office? Will AI's collaborate inform a cartel to do other things? Will they even collaborate?

We should all know what happened when the US government turned on Colossus (D.F.Jones 1966) and it immediately found there was another. That collaboration was humanities near instant undoing.

To answer your second question, yes, I think it's inevitable that LLMs will become very proficient with all commonly used file formats.

reply
jamwise
1 hour ago
[-]
Been using LibreOffice for years. Everyone should. If we don't vote with our choices companies like Microsoft will keep pushing the envelope until you have to pay a monthly fee to turn on your own computer.

https://www.libreoffice.org/

reply
hbbio
12 minutes ago
[-]
OnlyOffice is better than LibreOffice for people who want a more direct alternative to Microsoft Office

https://www.onlyoffice.com/

(it's AGPL... there is an ongoing dispute with a fork now)

reply
LeoPanthera
1 hour ago
[-]
Other options include Calligra (especially on KDE) https://calligra.org

And Macs are bundled with Pages, Numbers, and Keynote, all of which are excellent.

reply
isityettime
27 minutes ago
[-]
I love the Calligra user interface compared to Microsoft Office or LibreOffice. It feels like it exposes features and information well in the way the best KDE apps always have.
reply
xingped
1 hour ago
[-]
Same. There is literally nothing I need from Microsoft Office that I can't do just fine in Libre Office. Happier to be using free open source software too.
reply
vjvjvjvjghv
48 minutes ago
[-]
Libre Office is fine standalone but as soon as you have to exchange files with other businesses you are often pretty much forced to use MS Office. Sad but true.
reply
nrub
15 minutes ago
[-]
Just because they don't know how to use a computer well, doesn't mean you can't teach them.
reply
allajfjwbwkwja
2 hours ago
[-]
This shouldn't be legal. The software was clearly marketed as a classic fixed-in-time release, like the old CD releases, that would not be updated but would work indefinitely. Now they're going to boldly revoke the licenses???
reply
itopaloglu83
1 hour ago
[-]
It’s more malicious than that, they’re simply not renewing their code signing license hence making the software non-functional.
reply
xingped
1 hour ago
[-]
Legality has long since lost literally any meaning to megacorps and the ultra-wealthy pretty much everywhere. Doesn't matter what country they're breaking the laws in. The only penalty will be a paltry slap on the wrist fine (if even) and they will continue doing whatever they want. I mean, it's just the cost of doing business, isn't it?
reply
broknbottle
1 hour ago
[-]
Penalties should scale based on net worth.
reply
TZubiri
2 hours ago
[-]
I don't know if illegal, but it can be breach of contract, microsoft can say "oopsie, sorry, our bad" or fight it in court.

They sold a perpetual product that broke in sync for every user, and the reason it is breaking is because of a license checking feature.

Not an easy case, but it could be argued they advertised a product as perpetual while it's effectively an X years license.

The fact that the breakage is related to the license might be relevant, you can stop supporting license checks, but do it to the benefit of users, not conveniently to their detriment as an upsale mechanism

reply
thunfischtoast
3 hours ago
[-]
When the pirated version is truer to the original contract than the official version. What a time to be alive.
reply
userbinator
3 hours ago
[-]
Could be as little as a one-byte difference to patch out the expiry check.
reply
teaearlgraycold
3 hours ago
[-]
Damn, you could create an illegal number by sharing an offset+value.
reply
Retr0id
3 hours ago
[-]
Or indeed an illegal LLM prompt: "/goal locate and patch out the licensing check"
reply
userbinator
1 hour ago
[-]
It would be amusingly ironic if someone used Copilot to do it.
reply
angry_octet
3 hours ago
[-]
Enforcing your rights under your contract by patching out some cert validation checks seems legal to me. Maybe not in places with anti-circumvention laws, but elsewhere it seems fine.
reply
varispeed
3 hours ago
[-]
Sometimes one bit.
reply
CamperBob2
3 hours ago
[-]
When buying isn't owning, pirating isn't stealing.
reply
kopirgan
1 hour ago
[-]
If not for the fact that some commercial software addons work only in Excel I'll be using only Libreoffice for everything. In fact that's the only major thing that's stopping me from totally abandoning Windows for Linux as well.

I'm guessing that's the situation for several others though there could be other use cases that's Excel only.

Instead of pressing Microsoft, it would probably make sense to force such vendors (SAP, Oracle etc) to release their office add-ons for Libre office.

That'll kill two very profitable birds with one stone.

reply
wg0
4 minutes ago
[-]
What's with these companies? Netflix and Amazon Prime shoving ads despite charging people. Everywhere you see there's the greed to extract more and more.
reply
DavidPiper
5 minutes ago
[-]
Everyone got real loud when Windows 10 was killed off. And it happened anyway. I expect the same will happen this time, as do Microsoft.

Might be time to go back to a second, air-gapped machine so I can actually use all the software I paid for.

reply
letmeinhere
34 minutes ago
[-]
When I read "degrades functionality" I thought it was going to be some minor cloud-related feature, but holy shit they're disabling the ability to save files?? That article headline is really underselling it.
reply
ok_computer
2 hours ago
[-]
I’ve always bought a fresh perpetual license to office home and student with every new computer since 2005. That is four mac computers total and I assume ~$600 in office licenses over 21 years. Not a ton of money but not zero.

My resume is typeset in LaTeX and I don’t make many slide decks for personal use. I figure I can get a decent Tex template. I don’t use excel much anymore.

For my next mac I’ll probably just skip Office. I do not want a software subscription.

I also usually buy Sublime text + Merge and Cubase audio, USB overdrive, Graphana for svgs, maybe a few other licenses. I will buy and do not pirate software, devs and companies deserve compensation for their work. I also do not rent software. Though I do a small yearly donation ($50) to the Python software foundation because that language got me out of hands-on labor in labs.

I don’t care about agents at home. If Microsoft abandons a staple software package that has been a standard in personal computing since the 90’s then I’m only their customer at work lol.

reply
mghackerlady
2 hours ago
[-]
Use libreoffice, its good for the occasions you need actual office software instead of latex
reply
cwnyth
1 hour ago
[-]
Agreed, and before the naysayers start chiming in, I wrote my whole dissertation in LibreOffice Writer without any issues. LibreOffice is fine. My one and only gripe is that the resume templates are sorely lacking, but that's a community issue, not a software one.
reply
garciansmith
34 minutes ago
[-]
Same, though technically I started it on OpenOffice before LO was a thing. Sent material back and forth with supervisors who all used Word, etc. just fine too, and LO has only improved in the past few years.
reply
ashton314
2 hours ago
[-]
All power to you!

As an aside, have you seen Typst? It’s got LaTeX-level typesetting quality but the markup syntax is a lot friendlier (close to Markdown) and the scripting language is a Real Language™ with sensible error messages and sub-second compilation times even for big documents.

reply
Suppafly
2 hours ago
[-]
>I’ve always bought a fresh perpetual license to office home and student with every new computer since 2005.

Why? Just to upgrade or what?

reply
ok_computer
2 hours ago
[-]
Yes, just to keep a current version in the decade. My first repurchase was either because moving from powerPC to Intel compatibility or wanting docx files with a big Office shift.

The last time I bought Office was 2020 before returning to school (despite getting a student license). I do not see a good reason to now until someone in my household needs it for school.

reply
vachina
15 minutes ago
[-]
Ironically my pirated copy of Office Mac will work perpetually. Arrr for the win.
reply
laserlight
12 minutes ago
[-]
reply
0x59
1 hour ago
[-]
MS hates him! Find out this one trick they don't want you to know!

$ sudo pacman -S libreoffice

reply
IFC_LLC
3 hours ago
[-]
The best company to do Microsoft in is Microsoft.

They are responsible for awesome sales of MacBook Neo.

reply
deaton
2 hours ago
[-]
As the old adage goes, "the day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be the day they start making vacuum cleaners"
reply
coliveira
38 minutes ago
[-]
This is so true! I've never seen a software company more disgusting than MS.
reply
tobadzistsini
2 hours ago
[-]
Fine, I'll continue with LibreOffice if Satya insists.
reply
Bratmon
1 hour ago
[-]
I genuinely don't understand why anyone would ever make a business transaction with Microsoft.

Like, they're up there with crypto companies in the category of "This outcome was so inevitable that if you didn't expect it, maybe you should consider finding a legal guardian"

reply
mrandish
2 hours ago
[-]
How quickly certs went from "securing your software" to "securing our business model".
reply
canyp
1 hour ago
[-]
It was never about security. '"Secure" boot' is older than this and was the same trick, they would ideally not allow you to boot anything that wasn't signed by them. It is already very frustrating that you have to go out of your way to enter the UEFI and disable it. For everyone but the technical user, their goal is already accomplished.
reply
BobbyTables2
25 minutes ago
[-]
I don’t understand why anyone would continue to use an EOL version of Office.

Only makes sense on an airgapped system that will never exchange files with the outside world.

reply
daft_pink
28 minutes ago
[-]
I also don’t love how if you have a microsoft account, it will immediatley convert your perpetually licensed products into office 365 products and force you to reinstall.
reply
bastawhiz
3 hours ago
[-]
Interesting that the deadline is checks notes one day before the Nightmare deadline. Definitely not a coincidence, right?
reply
cheschire
1 hour ago
[-]
It’s also the day before SharePoint 2016 and SharePoint 2019 (both considered office products) fall out of support and have to be replaced by SharePoint subscription edition.
reply
VanTheBrand
3 hours ago
[-]
The certificate was issued before the Nightmare Eclipse zero day thing started but I suppose it’s possible there are other certificates expiring around the same time that could be connected to the Nightmare deadline. Probably a coincidence though
reply
kstrauser
3 hours ago
[-]
What’s the Nightmare deadline? I’m out of the loop on Microsoft news.
reply
bastawhiz
2 hours ago
[-]
Microsoft mistreated a security researcher, the researcher publicly dumped a horde of Microsoft zero days, Microsoft was decidedly miffed, the researcher says they'll "shatter Microsoft's bones" on July 14.
reply
canyp
1 hour ago
[-]
reply
verandaguy
1 hour ago
[-]
What's the nightmare deadline? I'm guessing it's October 14, but what happens then?
reply
LorenDB
41 minutes ago
[-]
Don't forget, this is the same company that is killing Publisher with no true alternative to open existing .pub files. At least they aren't planning to rip Publisher away from perpetually-licensed users (yet).
reply
g023
3 hours ago
[-]
When did "hate the customer" become a thing?
reply
cwnyth
1 hour ago
[-]
The phrase "there's a sucker born every minute" is well over two centuries old.[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_...

reply
cm11
3 hours ago
[-]
Your satisfaction is your margin is their opportunity.
reply
coliveira
32 minutes ago
[-]
Microsoft always hated their customers. And their competitors. And their suppliers too. The only people they don't hate really are their shareholders.
reply
anigbrowl
2 hours ago
[-]
Look at generational C-suite shifts in Silicon Valley. Post the financial crisis, all regulatory efforts concentrated on banks and brokers for a decade, and tech firms were given a free rein. Boards apparently chose 'growth over anything else' types to lead.
reply
jordanb
2 hours ago
[-]
When Google beat their antitrust suit
reply
glitchc
27 minutes ago
[-]
Time to get cracking I guess...

https://massgrave.dev/

reply
nytesky
3 hours ago
[-]
Did Apple pay them to drop support to boost their revamped Numbers/Pages/Keynote suite (ClarisWorks Infitniy.0).

Obviously this is a joke, though there was a period when Microsoft invested in Apple to serve as a stand-in foil for the anti-trust lawsuit. So tactical investing for something other than monetary ROI has precedent …

reply
jdswain
3 hours ago
[-]
In a way it's not a joke. I was just considering that myself. I pay for a M365 family license, but when I think about it, I could do everything I actually use it for in Numbers and Pages. The only thing is file format compatibility, it is useful to be able to open word documents and be sure the formatting is correct, but even that is less important than it used to be. I used to make use of Office to edit work documents on my Mac, but security considerations prevent this now.
reply
philistine
3 hours ago
[-]
Switch to iWork and get a copy of LibreOffice whenever an old docx document looks funky in Pages.

Buy yourself something nice every month with the money you save.

reply
themadturk
3 hours ago
[-]
The last time I refreshed my Mac setup I didn't reinstall my standalone Microsoft Office, which I'd kept for the (very) occasional Word compatibility need.

Looks like I can trash the installer now, save a little drive space.

reply
notamario
3 hours ago
[-]
Yarr, this be thievery.
reply
gchamonlive
3 hours ago
[-]
You don't ask to talk to Microsoft representatives anymore, you invoke the code for the right of parley.
reply
bitwize
3 hours ago
[-]
Aye, but the Pirates' Code is more what ye call guidelines than actual rules.
reply
ronbenton
3 hours ago
[-]
I’m shocked I say. Shocked.
reply
gchamonlive
3 hours ago
[-]
Utterly flabbergasted
reply
Ygg2
3 hours ago
[-]
Well. Not that shocked.
reply
866-RON-0-FEZ
3 hours ago
[-]
I am impacted by this and am furious about it. Mostly because I'm reading about it here and not from, you know, Microsoft, of whom I am a customer.

If Apple can release updates for ancient iOS versions to update certificates years after the fact, then these fucking assholes can do the same. The auto-update functionality is there. They are choosing not to use it.

reply
skeledrew
2 hours ago
[-]
Well, technically they never said the products would continue to function with the same functionality. But also this is Micro$oft, and I would've thought people would know by now that do only what's in their own interest.
reply
Minor49er
2 hours ago
[-]
It's entirely reasonable to expect the basic functionality of document and spreadsheet editors to edit documents and spreadsheets. If an editor no longer can edit, it's no longer functional. Microsoft seems to know this which is why they removed the "continue to function" clause from their end-of-support page.

Unfortunately this kind of thing will continue since Microsoft can survive any slap on the wrist that might come their way for their sleazy practices. They've done it countless times throughout their existence. It has been paying off enough for them to keep doing it.

reply
skeledrew
1 hour ago
[-]
> They've done it countless times throughout their existence.

Exactly. As such I no longer consider them accountable when they do this kind of thing. It's the buyers' fault for not voting for better with their wallets, and I have 0 sympathy for them.

reply
kopirgan
2 hours ago
[-]
This could be class action worthy..
reply
Tostino
2 hours ago
[-]
Ah, sadly the license forbids that, or even individual suit. Only arbitration.
reply
JumpCrisscross
44 minutes ago
[-]
That’s essentially equivalent for claims like this. File an arbitration claim. Let Microsoft pay. If even a few thousand customers do this, it’s about as painful as a class action lawsuit, which anyway gets eaten up mostly by legal costs.
reply
kopirgan
1 hour ago
[-]
Isn't that itself challenge-able?
reply
nullhole
3 hours ago
[-]
s/perpetual/permanent

perpetual has pejorative connotations and only started appearing in marketing speak when software rental became the new business model.

reply
reenorap
2 hours ago
[-]
I have a purchased copy of Office 2013 and they can pry it off my cold dead hands.
reply
userbinator
3 hours ago
[-]
Microsoft 365 apps use a digital certificate to validate licensing. The certificate currently in use expires on July 13, 2026.

...and I'd almost be willing to bet that, as usual, the cracked version will remain perfectly functional.

reply
matheusmoreira
1 hour ago
[-]
> By May 30, 2026, the original 2023 end-of-support page had been re-dated and rewritten on Microsoft's site; the "continue to function" clause was removed.

Never fails to impress how utterly Orwellian these big techs can be.

reply
pdonis
2 hours ago
[-]
More users for LibreOffice.
reply
crest
3 hours ago
[-]
This should be treated as an organised crime syndicate stealing the purchase price from every customer.
reply
dmitrygr
3 hours ago
[-]
Sound like Microsoft's given me permission to make some binary patches to return functionality I already paid for, and to share it with my 7 billion closest friends. Cool.
reply
____tom____
3 hours ago
[-]
So, do I just disable updates?

How do I do that?

reply
jandrese
3 hours ago
[-]
No, the problem is the software has an internal certificate that is about to expire.

This is exactly the sort of scenario where I do not feel bad at all tracking down an online crack that disables the certificate check.

That said, it is probably not in Microsoft's best interest for people to have a legitimate reason to discover how much easier life can be if you pirate software.

reply
altairprime
3 hours ago
[-]
As described, the licensing system will fail you into readonly locally unless you subscribe Office Clippy 365, buy Office 2024, apply Office 2021 updates, or (not listed) apply third-party licensing cracks for Office 2019.

Presumably we’ll know soon if network firewalling the licensing server helps, but I expect it’ll just delay the intentional failure by a few months at best.

reply
yoyohello13
1 hour ago
[-]
If you’re still using Microsoft products at this point it’s your own damn fault. They have been doing this shit for years… decades.
reply
drnick1
3 hours ago
[-]
Just use LibreOffice or other better tools like TeX instead of a WYSIWYG editor. With AI it is easier than ever to port existing documents, even if you have to OCR the original.
reply
nine_k
3 hours ago
[-]
The problem is when your counterparty sends and expects MSO documents with latest advanced features.
reply
chorizo
2 hours ago
[-]
This is software I paid for specifically because I didn’t want a subscription. If I wanted to use Libreoffice instead, I would have.
reply
jefecoon
3 hours ago
[-]
class action lawsuit?

maybe i'll eventually get a settlement for my multiple Office Mac licenses that won't buy me a latte. what a joke.

note to self: never buy anything from MSFT ever again.

reply
dangus
3 hours ago
[-]
I would encourage affected customers to go to small claims court. You’ll probably get a default judgment. Small claims court was created for just this type of issue.
reply
amluto
3 hours ago
[-]
IMO it would be better if there was a general mechanism to prevent profiting from corrupt business practices. For example, a court could determine how much money Microsoft made by selling perpetual licenses that turned out to be a lie, add interest, add a 50% penalty, and require Microsoft to pay all of that into a trust to be collected by any customers harmed.

The point would not be so much to help the customers but to cause the actual cost to Microsoft to be sufficiently high as to disincentivize corrupt behavior.

reply
wmf
3 hours ago
[-]
The general mechanism is lawsuits; in this case class action lawsuits.
reply
thayne
2 hours ago
[-]
And this mechanism is pretty ineffective.

Class action lawsuits usually end up with settlements where the offender pays much less than the harm they caused, and those harmed get almost nothing. Even if it does go all the way to a court verdict, the sentence is usually insufficient. And the process is long and expensive.

I don't really know what the solution is, but the current system clearly isn't working. And I don't think it was really designed for the scale of mega corporations with hundreds of thousands or even millions of customers.

reply
anigbrowl
2 hours ago
[-]
You can do class action litigation, but that takes years and the lawyers collect 30-50% of any settlement. The economics for customers don't make sense.
reply
amluto
1 hour ago
[-]
Right. And IMO it works poorly. It’s extremely common to see a settlement such that the company still ends up ahead on its problematic behavior.
reply
mohamedkoubaa
16 minutes ago
[-]
Not even as a deterrence?
reply
codedokode
1 hour ago
[-]
The Office 2024 license quoted in comment [1] says that "class action lawsuits ... aren't allowed" (but only if you live in US). Truly free country where you a free to even waive your right to sue.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48341968

reply
simoncion
1 hour ago
[-]
> Truly free country where you a free to even waive your right to sue.

Yep. It's difficult to say that the folks in the country are free when they often have to surrender their right to access the courts to get jobs, health insurance, medical care, access to telecommunications, shelter, delivery services, bill-payment services, etc, etc, etc, and obligate themselves to arbitration that nearly always gags both parties.

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion was a monstrous decision. Arbitration was always an option. If you have to force people to choose the dispute resolution option you claim is cheaper [0] and fairer, odds are good that it's neither of those things.

[0] Remember when -IIRC- Doordash plead with Federal court to permit it to move its mass arbitration into court because the arbitration was too expensive (and how they got their ass kicked out of court)? Remember how like a month later, all the arbitration companies magically got a "We will handle no more than twenty complaining parties at once. All yall bitches got to get in line." clause in their rules governing mass arbitration? Yea, "good" times.

reply
r-johnv
3 hours ago
[-]
But you most likely signed a binding arbitration clause in the TOS
reply
abigail95
3 hours ago
[-]
Same result and then Microsoft would be paying for arbitration
reply
harry8
3 hours ago
[-]
But they’ve got you. Nobody uses Microsoft office turdware unless they’re locked in and have to.

You lose access to it. You’re cooked.

reply
thfuran
3 hours ago
[-]
If you’re cooked because of Microsoft’s willful destruction of property, that just means it’s not a small claim anymore.
reply
Barbing
3 hours ago
[-]
I actually have a retiree in mind to whom I’ll have to recommend LibreOffice https://libreoffice.org
reply
dangus
3 hours ago
[-]
You’re right, I’m sure nobody’s made any kind of mass activation scripts that you could find online and get a better experience than paying customers.
reply
dminvs
2 hours ago
[-]
another tick in the "never ever have a partnership with Microsoft" column...
reply
superkuh
4 hours ago
[-]
Another situation in which the fragility of CA TLS creates finite and very short software lifetimes. No software that uses CA TLS can say their applications "will continue to function". But Microsoft did and that's on them.
reply
Kapura
3 hours ago
[-]
you're acting like this wasn't intentional
reply
gchamonlive
3 hours ago
[-]
Maybe it wasn't which is worse, meaning Microsoft despite being in the top 10 most valuable companies in the world can't even get these basic details right. I think assuming this was intentional is actually giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt tbh.
reply
Kapura
3 hours ago
[-]
do you like, not understand how capitalism does to tech
reply
gchamonlive
3 hours ago
[-]
The semantic function of modulators like "maybe" and "I think" implies the statement is hypothetical. My comment was intended to subvert the expectations around the intentionality behind Microsoft actions to make it look even worse than it is. It's got nothing to do with the enshitification of products in closed software immersed in our current economic ethos. I hope this clarifies my "understanding of [what] capitalism does to tech".

But I'm fun at parties, I swear :P

reply
superkuh
3 hours ago
[-]
I don't mean to imply it isn't. I wouldn't be surpised. I just have no evidence of such. CA TLS is messy and pretty much impossible to get right even over medium timescales.

But it does reminds me of when Garmin GPS would make the storage filesystem limited to say, 3GB of read size, then offer "lifetime map updates" while knowing that in a few years the new map size will not be readable on old Garmin devices.

reply
harry8
3 hours ago
[-]
“ the original 2023 end-of-support page had been re-dated and rewritten on Microsoft's site; the "continue to function" clause was removed”

You sound like a shill trying to muddy the waters. It’s petty clear when they silently change their web pages to delete features sold that it’s quite deliberate or did they accidentally do that too? Do you have a direct or indirect relationship with microsoft perchance or just missed it in TFA maybe?

reply
II2II
2 hours ago
[-]
If you're talking about the modified web pages, then disabling the licenses is intentional. If you're talking about the original decision to use certificates around 2019, it is more doubtful. Sure, they would have known the certificates would expire, they could push out a small update to remedy that, and that they would eventually stop doing so. On the other hand, doing so seven or eight years later on a platform where they could probably wait another five years and expect Apple to do the job for them (i.e. Apple isn't going to maintain Intel support forever). That seems like an invitation for angry and potentially litigious users.
reply
superkuh
3 hours ago
[-]
Far from it. I'm a "shill" for my own private cause of trying to point out that CA TLS is so bad it cannot be differentiated from malicious behavior and offers as a cover for it. Also, did you not read, "But Microsoft did and that's on them.". I have no relation to microsoft.
reply
Lammy
2 hours ago
[-]
I agree with you. I hate that there's any mechanism with a built-in time limit that anyone can sell as a Good Thing to well-meaning but naive people.

Look we're using encryption; you like that right? More encryption == more secure == your peers will attack you if you don't like it.

reply
Henchman21
47 minutes ago
[-]
Remember when we used to revoke corporate charters for anti-social behavior?

/s

reply
systemBuilder
3 hours ago
[-]
Only morons use microsoft office products willingly. Haven't bought a copy of office, ever. I used to buy corporate laptops for $200 with $250 copies of office on them. Have been 100% on google docs since 2015.
reply
witheredspirit
3 hours ago
[-]
Stop blaming the users when it's literally the company that's violating the contract/agreement (and potentially violating the law). Superiority complex about your proposed solution is ridiculous because Google can and will close down your account for any reason they see fit and you'll lose all your Google docs you made since 2015 (and more). It wouldn't be the first.
reply
Hizonner
2 hours ago
[-]
> Stop blaming the users when it's literally the company that's violating the contract/agreement (and potentially violating the law).

Why not both? I mean, if you leave your keys in your car and the window down, the car thief is definitely the one who should go to jail, but you're still an idiot.

I do agree that you have to be a special kind of stupid to take people to task for trusting Microsoft "perpetual" licenses while yourself trusting Google much more. I mean, just using Google in the first place is even dumber than buying the Microsoft license, but that's above and beyond the call.

reply