• radix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is for commercial users, so if your company mandates MS Office, none of the free alternatives are much use.
    On the plus side, the prices don’t really matter to those end users, so anyone outside procurement won’t notice any difference.

    Raising home user prices would lead to a lot more backlash, but I wouldn’t put it past MS to try it anyway. They just can’t seem to get out of their own way.

    • kungen@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not directly, but it still does matter to me. I’d rather my CEO buy a new car instead of giving even more money to Microsoft, as weird as that sounds.

      The real problem is that it makes it even more appealing for C-suiters to cut costs – and C-suiters usually choose to reduce licence counts (read: firing people) instead of migrating away from Microsoft.

      • partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        CEO still gets his new car, Microsoft still gets their check, … it’s you, sir, who gets a 2% raise instead of a 7% raise. So you’re paid less value the following year, against inflation, which is what helps make up the difference.

      • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’d rather have the CEO buy me a new car, but y’know, perspectives and all that. I’m just working my ass off for a 1b 1ba and a used Toyota Yaris, so really they deserve a new Jaguar this week.