That seems different though. If you are paying a fixed cost for offline software, you are not entitled to updates for it, that seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

> That seems different though. If you are paying a fixed cost for offline software, you are not entitled to updates for it

I don't know, back in my day you could get at least discounts on updates for your paid software.

It costs nothing to update to the newest LibreOffice.

The cost is all the features you are missing.

Like? Wouldn't be surprised if those features don't matter for the 95th percentile.

Like loading or saving CSV files and choosing the separator character.

I don't remember which, but Excel doesn't do one of them. Oh, did he say _LibreOffice_ is missing features. Well, probably it does too.

I feel like the word processor as a product is fairly "finished." There's not much about it that'd you want to change year over year. Are there any new features to write home about?

I think the word processor, and the office suite have advanced features that would be better suited in a programming language. like mail merge or macros....

do you really need them in a day and age where you have an llm subscription is a different question

That's how I feel about using MS Office. I have a text file somewhere of all the things I couldn't do with MS Office at my last gig, that I do regularly with LibreOffice.

Please share it!

I guess technically you aren't entitled to anything wrt software; They could charge you a monthly fee to use the v1.out.of.date and stop providing updates unless you start paying for v2.the.latest.

You would rightfully be upset, and it might even be a bad business move but you aren't "entitled" to anything but what is shoved onto your plate like gruel in a Dickensian workhouse cafeteria

I think most people would be happy to pay $250, or whatever, for an office suite that worked and was free of serious/security-relevant bugs.

The idea that you can release a shoddy product full of bugs and then expect people to pay you for the privilege of fixing your shitty product only exists in software.

In no other industry would that be okay. Automakers, for example, issue recalls when their products have safety defects, and then they fix them on the company's dime. Remind me again who's acting entitled?

>> so you have to spend another $250 to get the newer version

But why? I still use Office 2016 and I haven't yet come across a document it wouldn't open. What am I missing out on?

Because you no longer get any security updates.

Some security updates, some features, and if you're unlucky and run MacOS - the ability to save files.

Not sure about Word or other apps, but in Excel there are many useful functions added in the later versions like XLOOKUP, LAMBDA, LET, FILTER, MAP, REDUCE, GROUPBY.

It's less new features and more security problems. There are patches for office 2016 though, and your use case might have a low security risk if you're not opening that many files people send to you.

i'm more concerned about the security of my operating systems, not my office suite. Like the other person, i also used office 2016 and it meets all my needs just fine. Honestly, i don't care about security updates for my word processor.

Why do you need the newer version?

No one "needs" new features, but everyone needs security updates.

Microsoft doesn't stop shipping security updates after a new version is released.

Splitting hairs about what a version is won't recover the point that you simply cannot let complex software idle as installed most of the time, especially when big bad CVEs are being found all the time.

It's not like you get security updates if your subscription has lapsed.

New and better WordArt templates, of course.

I have been on HN since 2010, and I will never understand this sentiment of "we deserve free updates". Unless you were promised an update in the purchase agreement, you got what you literally paid for.

I have to assume a large portion of the community here are paid software engineers or adjacent, how do you think your employer is able to pay you? By selling software...and software updates.

I'll counter with "Why aren't you paying your subscription for your BMW's heated seats?"

Fact is, there's a lot of "unnecessary" and innovation-deterring in the "own nothing; subscribe to everything" model you're espousing.

On the flip-side, yes, we do love being paid to continue doing our thing.

So. It's a balance.

That is not what GP is suggesting.

The equivalent comparison would be expecting BMW to update your car after you have already bought it. It is perfectly reasonable that once you have bought the car, any updated parts have to be bought and installed separately.

But if you don't want to pay for that, your car works as before. That's what the GP is suggesting.

Kinda. I think the prevailing sentiment is more of a manufacturer recall where BMW has realized a flaw that leads to a safety issue or a critical functionality and issues a recall to resolve it.

Unfortunately that often also includes security updates, which are a horrible idea to skip.

Yes, security is important. Either the developer/company is benevolent or incentivized to provide security patches for free, or they may offer a paid security update package. The US Govt was paying for patches to XP for many years: https://time.com/3935855/us-navy-microsoft-windows-xp/

I have office 2003. Works fine.

No, I don't open rando word docs

The commercial software industry has gotten me to the point where I don't want updates anymore. Every time [company] updates their software, it's worse than it was before. It's got more telemetry. It's removed features. It needs a login now. It's moved things around in the UI. It's put things that used to be free behind payments. It's monetizing me. It's cramming ads and spam into it. It needs more memory and disk space to use. I deliberately don't update commercial software anymore. Y'all developers have poisoned the well.

Forget the cost. Just having my data and documents in a truly open and documented format is value enough to use LibreOffice.

Even though other implementations of the spec are lacking (looking at you Koffice) the fact that a spec exists is data security. Especially in an age where LLMs are getting cheaper and alternative (or custom) implementations might become feasible to produce.

Not to mention, old versions of MS Office are not compatible with the new versions of paper they sell today. Technology moves forward, after all.