alt.hn

5/30/2026 at 11:26:13 PM

Microsoft Office 2019 and 2021 for Mac view-only conversion

 https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Microsoft_Office_2019_and_2021_for_Mac_view-only_conversion_(2026)

by antipurist

5/31/2026 at 1:45:19 AM

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

by DomenicoMazza

5/31/2026 at 2:01:11 AM

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.

by misswaterfairy

5/31/2026 at 2:54:48 AM

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.

by msla

5/31/2026 at 5:40:32 AM

They're working on it, they've recently stopped allowing the Australian government to be treated a single customer. [1]

While each agency still gets the same whole of government pricing for the next five years, I worry the next step is to make each agency negotiate their own individual licences, which squeezes the smaller ones with no bargaining power.

[1]: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/fed-gov-faces-major-m365-lice...

by cube00

5/31/2026 at 10:25:35 AM

More incentives to move off MS products. MS sales and marketing are just geniuses! I hope one day they will eat the consequences.

by zelphirkalt

5/31/2026 at 3:59:09 AM

Microsoft's key customers aren't consumers, its business and government: specifically enterprise licensing agreements. If Microsoft seriously upset business and governments, they wouldn't be profitable, if in business at all, not long after that.

Because of Microsoft's dominant position considering near ubiquitous penetration of Microsoft Office in government, one part of government will slap Microsoft on the wrist for anti-consumer practices, whilst other parts will still continue to purchase Office (and other products) because there simply isn't another product that competes directly feature-by-feature and compatibility (and usability in part), which matters in (often archaic) government processes.

It would cost far too much money to try to migrate away, at least at this point. Euro-Office[1] seems poised, if not likely, to dramatically shift that balance once it becomes a key part of EU government machinery.

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft responds to Euro-Office. If it takes off, it could invigorate other government efforts to fork Euro-Office and replace Microsoft's suite of tools. Someone just needs to put the business case to the relevant federal government stakeholders comparing the cost of (on-going) licensing vs. the cost of building an internal development team to maintain a fork for their whole-of-government machinery.

Given that there is a fair bit of EU and NATO overlap population-wise, if a significant portion of EU-based NATO countries adopt Euro-Office exclusively, I would suggest Euro-Office then poses an existential threat to Microsoft Office, and perhaps Microsoft's business productivity pursuits.

The moat that software companies had back in the 90s and 2000s before the Internet really took off, was distributing software by physical media. The Internet (as much as I have nostalgia for physical media) completely obliterated that model for mass-distribution productivity software, and indeed many others.

I'm certainly keen to give Euro-Office a test run, since the code is freely available (on GitHub too, ironically[2]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro-Office [2] https://github.com/Euro-Office

by misswaterfairy

5/31/2026 at 1:59:02 PM

Microsoft is actually large enough to start their own country. They'd just pull out of all government contracts all at once.

by anticensor

6/1/2026 at 11:48:46 AM

Since a lot of what Microsoft sells is snake oil, we'll just have the US liberate Microsoftland in that case.

by account42

5/31/2026 at 3:34:13 AM

> 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.

by wzdd

5/31/2026 at 5:15:56 AM

If "going after" means continuing to give them more and more money, one might question what you actually mean by "going after" ...

by tjwebbnorfolk

5/31/2026 at 5:30:00 AM

"Going after" means enforcing the law against them. Nothing more, nothing less.

by applfanboysbgon

5/31/2026 at 12:32:38 PM

In this context 'enforcing the law' means letting them get away with (via token inconsequential fines or the like) and then giving them even more money.

by Eddy_Viscosity2

5/31/2026 at 3:15:19 AM

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.

by applfanboysbgon

5/31/2026 at 3:30:21 AM

> 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.

by lenerdenator

5/31/2026 at 3:48:18 AM

Maybe in the US, but not globally, which is the subject here. MS 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.

by applfanboysbgon

5/31/2026 at 8:44:56 AM

"Microsoft won't get very far as a business if [they do what they've been doing for decades]"

Story doesn't check out.

by Valodim

5/31/2026 at 9:10:02 AM

Microsoft has been cutting off the EU and Australia for decades? That's news to me!

by applfanboysbgon

5/31/2026 at 5:55:48 AM

Microsoft themselves won’t do that. They are already under severe scrutiny internationally for fear of the US using Microsoft as leverage. They don’t want to stoke those fears. Once they do something like this, everyone who has been saying “stick with Microsoft services, they are the cheapest option compared to doing it ourselves, and have the lowest business continuity risk” will lose that argument at the same time. That creates a massive and clear opportunity for credible competitors to rise up.

This type of action would be like Trump in Iran “I am do much more powerful than you, so submit or suffer the consequences” can trivially backfire, and really reduces the effectiveness of your power.

by rocqua

5/31/2026 at 12:00:07 PM

Just because someone doing something would be stupid and self destructive long term doesn’t mean they won’t do it.

by lazide

5/31/2026 at 3:45:21 AM

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.

by fwipsy

5/31/2026 at 5:34:29 PM

Interesting how this has generated such negative response.

I wonder why Microsoft has so many defenders here.

Also, the change in the title of the post makes what happened much less clear. Interesting how that just chanced to happen as well. Pure coincidence, I'm sure.

by msla

5/31/2026 at 2:17:08 AM

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.

by qingcharles

5/31/2026 at 8:12:50 AM

Presumably copilot could do it in record time.

(Right..?)

by jen20

5/31/2026 at 9:24:42 AM

Yes, that's what i don't understand.

by siva7

5/31/2026 at 5:36:13 PM

Original title: Microsoft degrades functionality of perpetually-licensed offline products

The change in the title of the post makes what happened much less clear. Interesting how that just chanced to happen. Pure coincidence, I'm sure.

by msla

5/31/2026 at 2:42:52 PM

[flagged]

by hbwang2076

5/31/2026 at 2:59:25 PM

why do people build bots like ^ what is the motive?

by whimsicalism

5/31/2026 at 2:31:56 AM

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/

by jamwise

5/31/2026 at 2:45:17 AM

Other options include Calligra (especially on KDE) https://calligra.org

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

by LeoPanthera

5/31/2026 at 4:04:36 AM

Numbers is not excellent. It’s stubborn and unhelpful.

by qwerty_clicks

5/31/2026 at 6:29:26 AM

Apple should make their finance department use Numbers, it would be fixed in no time. I swear nobody at that company has ever opened Numbers, I don't understand how it can be so broken for so long.

by zarzavat

5/31/2026 at 6:47:37 AM

It seems to be a pattern with apple apps in my experience.

I don’t hate myself enough to have a Mac but I have an iPhone and there are so many bugs in apple supplied apps (mail, safari, iOS itself, iCloud) that apple have known about for years. And yet these bugs are still there with no desire from apple to fix them.

by ornornor

5/31/2026 at 7:25:07 AM

I don't have any inside information so perhaps an ex-fruit can shed some light on it, but speculating it seems that Apple's organizational structure implicitly encodes the waterfall pattern.

Apple has divisions for Design, Engineering, etc instead of divisions for products as is more normal. So sometime 20 years ago someone in the Design department designed a spreadsheet app, and they've been stuck with it ever since because Engineering isn't empowered to say to Design that this UI fucking sucks. Even though the app is otherwise regularly updated.

You see the same with Tahoe, when users report that they can't resize the window because the corner radius is so large that it excludes the hit box, Engineering does their best to move the hitbox, but they are not empowered to make the obvious fix which is to reduce the corner radius because that would be a UI change and those only go through waterfall.

by zarzavat

5/31/2026 at 3:25:51 AM

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.

by isityettime

5/31/2026 at 6:02:08 AM

Mac office suite is moving to the subscription model, too

by paozac

5/31/2026 at 6:49:49 AM

Are you referring to Apple Creator Studio?

https://www.apple.com/apple-creator-studio/

by boramalper

5/31/2026 at 7:04:19 AM

Yes, some features now require a subscription - it's clear where this is going

by paozac

5/31/2026 at 2:44:19 AM

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.

by xingped

5/31/2026 at 3:04:21 AM

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.

by vjvjvjvjghv

5/31/2026 at 3:37:57 AM

Just because they don't know how to use a computer well, doesn't mean you can't teach them.

by nrub

5/31/2026 at 11:45:28 AM

Uh-huh. Sorry mate, I'm not in the business of unwarrantedly lecturing my customers or authorities about technical correctness. But if that floats your boat…

by 9dev

5/31/2026 at 6:21:38 AM

Which is fine, if and only if that's your actual business

by hvb2

5/31/2026 at 4:17:03 AM

Most use PDF for exchanges anyway, as there is no guarantee the receiver system has all the document components/features used to author content.

10% of users with MacOS Office 2019 installs just got NERF'd by Microsoft. This story will not encourage users to spend more money on a disappearing rabbit trick. =3

by Joel_Mckay

5/31/2026 at 10:12:11 AM

The critical point is collaboration on a document. I wish LO had this. You know, like other collaborative editors online, where you can see the other person's cursor and inputs live and all that, with a conflict free data structure driving it all. LO needs this, if it ever wants to replace MS Word in businesses. Even if it would be totally fine for most situations to edit sequentially, there are those cases, when multiple cooks are trying to change a company document, and now they can't, and need to be in a call, to organize their editing or share their writing ideas, because the tool doesn't allow them to edit at the same time.

It does not even have to be in a web UI or browser. Just somehow make it possible to easily connect and edit collaboratively. I know, I know, it is a huge ask, unfortunately.

by zelphirkalt

5/31/2026 at 1:21:11 PM

>It does not even have to be in a web UI or browser

LibreOffice Writer online was not popular, so it is understandable you assume it doesn't exist. There is also the trivial headless Linux remote desktop cloud hosting with 100% identical functionality.

>"edit at the same time"

Perhaps you meant: "View -> Toolbars -> Track Changes..."

Most documents that support OLE have difficulty handling concurrent writes. Office 365 abandoned desktop publishing in 2019, and replaced it with a web document management system.

Best workaround is every user imports each instanced changes: "File -> Merge Document."

And manually handle any collisions.

I would post how to setup your own remote collaborative environment on an $8/month host, but people seem like they are not interested. =3

by Joel_Mckay

5/31/2026 at 1:57:41 PM

Are you talking about the LO WASM thingy? (https://wasm-test.libreoffice.org/)

I have recently tried to use it, but couldn't find a way to open files from local computer in it. It showed me a fake filesystem and dragging and dropping files also didn't work.

I have not used another web browser LO thing, I think. If you are talking about another thing, do you have demo site/link?

> Perhaps you meant: "View -> Toolbars -> Track Changes..."

No, I mean a mode or so that is like online word processors like Google Docs, where you see the cursor of someone else, with their name, and can see them typing live, while you are also typing somewhere in the document. Unless "Track Changes" somehow enables connecting to someone else and seeing their actions concurrently, it is not what I am talking about. I really mean collaboratively editing a document, at the same time, seeing changes others make live, not merging afterwards (the git model).

by zelphirkalt

5/31/2026 at 5:14:35 AM

This is true up until the point where someone sends you a crappy old version of a word document that breaks when you load it in Libre Office.

I had to install office after that

by rdedev

5/31/2026 at 1:34:48 PM

I have been using it for a while as well (started with OpenOffice). However, not all apps can keep up the pace.

As a word processor, I like Writer even more than MS Word, but Calc, for example, is just much slower than MS Excel when you build a bit larger spreadsheets.

So from an ideological perspective, I agree, but you should know that there are some drawbacks / the products have different strengths.

by arendtio

5/31/2026 at 3:40:21 AM

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)

by hbbio

5/31/2026 at 4:56:32 AM

The fork is called EuroOffice and will be released next month. Onlyoffice is from Russian developers and includes binary blobs, it's not fully open source.

by kuerbel

5/31/2026 at 5:33:20 AM

What blobs?

by fithisux

5/31/2026 at 6:47:12 AM

I dug a bit deeper after you asked because "compiled or obfuscated code blobs" was the wording from EuroOffice. It doesn't seem like they shipped binary objects hidden inside the editor source tree after a quick glance.

I guess they used "binary blobs" in the broad FOSS-maintainer sense, e.g. bundled third-party assets, fonts, generated/minified JavaScript in sdkjs, and possibly precompiled mobile components...

However, onlyoffice removed their mobile editor repo from Github a few days ago, and EuroOffice has been particularly critical of the mobile apps, claiming they contained proprietary sections. So if there is a concrete concern behind the "binary blobs" accusation, the mobile side seems like the most likely place it was directed at.

It feels a bit like a mudslinging match right now and you were completely right to question the claim :-)

by kuerbel

5/31/2026 at 8:28:56 AM

This is what I saw in their site. Thanks for taking the time to double check. Given the anti-Russian propaganda I am very suspicious. I mostly use Libeoffice + ODT or Latex, but occasionally a researcher shares a docx for review. This where Onlyoffice shines.

by fithisux

5/31/2026 at 3:12:50 PM

Russian developers, really ? Thanks for mentioning, I will download it and try it out, because there is nothing wrong with anything that is originated in Russia or made by Russian people.

by diimdeep

5/31/2026 at 10:05:45 AM

I tried it just a few days ago, and I can't recommend OnlyOffice. Well, I am not an MS Word user, but I think even MS Word, at least the desktop apps, used to support styles better. What I mean is naming and defining various types of styles, paragraph styles, character styles, table styles, etc. OnlyOffice basically has no character styles that work properly. What you can find online about how to do character styles are hacks for using paragraph styles in such a way that they become character styles. But they are still mixed up with paragraph styles at the top style selection bar thingy. Of course this is an area where LO excels, above and beyond MS products. But I have come to expect what LO can do in terms of styles as the baseline. If a word processor can't even give me those style type choices, it is a child's toy, for writing actually well made documents.

by zelphirkalt

5/31/2026 at 9:49:35 AM

In general, I also am a LO fan, but recently it left me hanging quite a bit.

I wrote my CV in LO, to avoid my endless tinkering mode, that I had with my LaTeX CV, that still never looked exactly how I wanted it to look. Then 2 things happened:

I upgraded my desktop computer from Debian 12 to 13. Now LO can no longer start. I am only getting a crash without UI error, and on command line I get a nothing saying C++ error, saying "std::alloc bad alloc" or so, and that's it. No details, nothing. Already tried reinstalling a few things, including LO, but apparently it doesn't come with all it needs.

On my laptop, which is the same OS, Debian 13 LO still works, so at least I can edit my CV. However, there is another issue there. Scrolling takes approximately 1s, before the document is re-rendered. I found out I need to set an env var to make LO use XWayland compatibility layer, instead of using Wayland directly, because if it uses Wayland directly, it is just pure laaaag, unbearable scrolling experience.

Needed: Way better error messages, not just slinging low level C++ crap at me.

Needed: Why doesn't it recognize Wayland and perform properly when scrolling?? Or act through XWayland by itself, rather than me having to search for a solution for an hour? If the Wayland experience is that rough, maybe it should not use Wayland at all and use the XWayland instead from the start?

In short, a very bumpy experience recently. But once it works, which it still doesn't on my desktop PC, it is maybe the best word processor tool. Briefly I looked at OnlyOffice, thinking it is also free/libre software and maybe it is good, but alas it is a child's toy, when it comes to editing styles. Character styles don't even work properly, so it's an instant no-go for me.

Maybe I will investigate Calligra, which has been mentioned here.

EDIT: Tried Calligra. Couldn't even open the first fairly trivial odt document I tried: My CV. My CV document is basically just a few tables with text in them, one photo, bullet lists, some paragrah styles for headings and such, and some character styles to highlight words. The writer tool of Calligra instantly crashed, with no error message dialog whatsoever. It does have paragraph styles and character styles, but the font rendering looks weird, blurred as well and often users a way too small font in the styles editor. Aside from paragraph styles and character styles I didn't see any other styles in the styles editor though. What about list styles, table styles, page styles ... To me the writer tool of Calligra looks also very immature at this point. (version 1:25.04.2+dfsg-1, as shown in "Discover" on Debian 13, KDE)

EDIT: Maybe I will truly have to invest more time and create a good looking LaTeX CV. Or just be lazy and use something pre-made I find online. Though I already know there will be something that will not satisfy me or that is not anticipated by some pre-made template and then I will probably be fiddling with it again ...

by zelphirkalt

5/31/2026 at 1:39:28 PM

Sounds more like a problem with the Debian upgrade.

Sure, better error messages could help, but when it no longer even starts...

by arendtio

5/31/2026 at 12:06:06 AM

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...

by nikcub

5/31/2026 at 12:26:09 AM

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.

by asveikau

5/31/2026 at 12:33:34 AM

"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.

by jasonfarnon

5/31/2026 at 3:34:31 AM

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.

by helpfulclippy

5/31/2026 at 1:41:59 AM

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."

by sandworm101

5/31/2026 at 12:40:39 PM

I’m trying to understand your threat model. Microsoft software is allowed to access the network and communicate with peers on the internet, with the exception of its source of security updates?

Struggling to see anything but more risk with no benefit with this security posture.

by xnyan

5/31/2026 at 5:25:32 PM

Much more simple. MS = evil so every domain name associated with it is blocked. I do not use MS software, have no need to update it, and certainly do not need to submit any telemetry info to them. So it is a non-issue until a guest wants to update their laptop using my wifi.

by sandworm101

6/4/2026 at 8:20:38 PM

I've done a bit of work with Microsoft and our enterprise firewall. I will bet you any amount you want that you have not blocked all of Microsoft's telemetry endpoints. They are still getting it. The only thing that's happening is introduction of more risk into your network by blocking people from patching known vulnerabilities

by xnyan

5/31/2026 at 12:02:17 PM

Lol, Microsoft has always had sunset periods. They just weren’t great at remote licensing. They would have totally disabled old versions if they could much earlier.

by lazide

5/31/2026 at 2:02:30 AM

>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.

by stackghost

5/31/2026 at 1:58:25 AM

Adobe was really the pioneer for that.

by DrewADesign

5/31/2026 at 12:58:35 AM

> 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.)

by asveikau

5/31/2026 at 1:27:08 AM

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

by mghackerlady

5/31/2026 at 2:01:16 AM

There are probably still a minority using Office 2000 out there, because it still does everything they need.

by userbinator

5/31/2026 at 6:30:18 AM

Office 97 not only has everything most people need (wordpad has all features most people need; most users have no need for Excel or other office tools) it also starts up faster and uses less resources. The only question is do you actually need any of the massive quantity of features in modern office, or is word processing today still fairly simple for you. And maybe if you don't like MDI and want your multiple windows instead (the thing I miss most about old office is having 15 documents open in a single window when writing essays in school, without cluttering up alt-tab or the taskbar. That and the toolbar button that initiates the active screensaver). If you want to use your cloud storage (you really don't need it most likely) you'll have to use a sync tool instead of having it directly. Turn off macros for security and make sure it can actually run (no idea when office stopped using 16 bit components), and I recommend firewalling it as well, but office doesn't really need to be up to date.

by efreak

5/31/2026 at 10:58:11 AM

There was an OOXML compatibility layer for Office 2000, though the latest version of that only runs on Win XP and later, but I suspect LibreOffice would be more compatible with OOXML made with current versions of Office.

by Paianni

5/31/2026 at 3:05:30 AM

For a while I had installed in wine for frontpage

by mghackerlady

5/31/2026 at 6:42:47 AM

I was one of those, way past its EOL. I could never switch to this braindead “ribbons” UI and refused to learn this idiotic new scheme so I stayed with office 2k. And then I switched to libreoffice.

by ornornor

5/31/2026 at 2:46:49 AM

Correct, but my point was if they had taken measures to counteract that nobody would have been surprised.

by asveikau

5/31/2026 at 12:44:32 AM

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.

by elzbardico

5/31/2026 at 1:22:34 AM

This, I've used old versions that I got as part of a site license for employees deal for years.

by Suppafly

5/31/2026 at 2:53:43 PM

>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

Ok. Doesnt mean its not because of AI.

Does Anthropic use one or a few licenses to serve all office artifacts?

by nonethewiser

5/31/2026 at 1:03:06 AM

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.

by Underphil

5/31/2026 at 1:27:08 AM

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.

by esafak

5/31/2026 at 1:38:19 AM

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.

by macintux

5/31/2026 at 2:29:26 AM

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.

by cwnyth

5/31/2026 at 6:45:14 AM

> 30 years ago, though to your point I don't remember anyone talking about them revoking licenses for purchased software.

People weren’t ready then. But enough “innovation” has happened since that most people will shrug and say “meh it’s an old version anyway”

by ornornor

5/31/2026 at 12:52:47 AM

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.

by Aurornis

5/31/2026 at 12:18:08 AM

> Windows and Android versions of Office are not affected by the certificate expiry.

by striking

5/31/2026 at 9:40:59 AM

Extremely unlikely. Automating Office (the desktop application suite) simply does not scale. It's not needed, either. Libraries exist that can extract information from Office documents (both legacy and OOXML) much faster. Many(!) orders of magnitude faster, in fact.

AI is entirely unrelated. This is simply yet another push to get more SaaS subscribers.

by fuzzy2

5/31/2026 at 1:41:57 AM

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.

by rockskon

5/31/2026 at 12:12:46 AM

These are single-machine licenses. I doubt thousands of agents can run on a single machine.

by wmf

5/31/2026 at 12:22:40 AM

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.

by nine_k

5/31/2026 at 12:30:39 AM

Thousands of agents could remote into one strong enough machine, or even use DCOM.

by jimmaswell

5/31/2026 at 12:16:14 AM

Unless you snapshot a VM and run clones of it.

by Retr0id

5/31/2026 at 12:16:14 AM

How do you define a single machine?

by varispeed

5/31/2026 at 12:30:51 AM

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...

by wmf

5/31/2026 at 12:59:30 AM

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.

by Spooky23

5/31/2026 at 4:20:03 AM

[dead]

by dirtbagskier

5/31/2026 at 1:48:14 AM

So you need to waive even the right to sue to use Office? I didn't think it was so bad...

by codedokode

5/31/2026 at 2:04:53 AM

Arbitration agreements are de rigueur in EULAs, terms of service, and all sorts of other contracts.

by DrewADesign

5/31/2026 at 3:22:16 AM

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.

by wombatpm

5/31/2026 at 2:10:45 PM

And arbitration agreements have been de rigueur for decades, while users have become more complacent about software licensing. I’d consider the chance of that happening to be somewhere around zero. Without policy change, there’s no way in hell that’s going to change.

by DrewADesign

5/31/2026 at 12:20:08 AM

One OS instance.

by koolala

5/31/2026 at 12:36:21 AM

...on a Mac?

by doctorpangloss

5/31/2026 at 12:39:59 AM

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.

by philistine

5/31/2026 at 3:26:07 PM

> If anything, I’d expect them to write the weirdo xml of that cursed file format directly.

Isn't this essentially what Claude Cowork is doing? AFAIK, it's running python in a VM and using stuff like xlxswriter, openpyxl, etc. at least it was last time I used it to generate some docs.

I've done that myself too when making some excel reports for management out of pandas data frames.

by thewebguyd

5/31/2026 at 12:57:05 AM

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?

by doubled112

5/31/2026 at 3:34:40 AM

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.

by intrasight

5/31/2026 at 12:55:41 AM

[flagged]

by BoredPositron

5/31/2026 at 1:25:55 AM

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???

by allajfjwbwkwja

5/31/2026 at 2:00:18 AM

It’s more malicious than that, they’re simply not renewing their code signing license hence making the software non-functional.

by itopaloglu83

5/31/2026 at 4:41:54 AM

Which probably allows them to skirt legal liability...

After all, a computer with the date set to 2021 will still function...

by londons_explore

5/31/2026 at 4:50:23 AM

Until they shut down the server, which will almost certainly be soon after the certificate expires.

by cyphar

5/31/2026 at 5:01:47 AM

Yep. Scummy, even for Microsoft. Too bad their EULA blocks class action.

They were selling it until October 2021, so it's not some ancient system. By building a time bomb into it, they misrepresented what was effectively a $50/year subscription as if it were a $229 purchase. Should be a slam dunk case, but it won't be.

by allajfjwbwkwja

5/31/2026 at 6:44:10 AM

Their EULA is meaningless in countries with strong consumer protection laws.

by tjpnz

5/31/2026 at 12:31:04 PM

I didn't know you could block class actions just by stating it in the TOS for a product - thanks for the tip!

by dansquizsoft

5/31/2026 at 6:52:08 AM

I don't think this can be the case given that the program will keep working in reduced functionality mode. This wouldn't be possible in the situation you describe.

by im3w1l

5/31/2026 at 2:47:01 AM

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?

by xingped

5/31/2026 at 2:52:04 AM

Penalties should scale based on net worth.

by broknbottle

5/31/2026 at 4:21:45 PM

And at a certain net worth the the scale becomes so large, the penalty for fucking up should be an hour/day in prison with no bail or parole for every person negatively affected.

by xerox13ster

5/31/2026 at 1:33:59 AM

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

by TZubiri

5/31/2026 at 4:39:46 AM

It's definitely not legal in my country (Australia)

by zik

5/31/2026 at 12:06:27 AM

When the pirated version is truer to the original contract than the official version. What a time to be alive.

by thunfischtoast

5/31/2026 at 12:24:21 AM

When buying isn't owning, pirating isn't stealing.

by CamperBob2

5/31/2026 at 12:10:24 AM

Could be as little as a one-byte difference to patch out the expiry check.

by userbinator

5/31/2026 at 12:17:23 AM

Damn, you could create an illegal number by sharing an offset+value.

by teaearlgraycold

5/31/2026 at 12:19:18 AM

Or indeed an illegal LLM prompt: "/goal locate and patch out the licensing check"

by Retr0id

5/31/2026 at 12:23:53 AM

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.

by angry_octet

5/31/2026 at 2:06:55 AM

It would be amusingly ironic if someone used Copilot to do it.

by userbinator

5/31/2026 at 4:43:24 AM

Pretty sure this is beyond copilots abilities... It's really bad at any kind of binary analysis.

by londons_explore

5/31/2026 at 6:35:59 PM

It is absolutely great at binary analysis, as long as you give it a decompiler.

by MatejKafka

5/31/2026 at 9:48:58 AM

Really? It's been pretty good with a Ghidra MCP at signature scanning for extremely niche undocumented software.

by ZeWaka

5/31/2026 at 12:16:46 AM

Sometimes one bit.

by varispeed

5/31/2026 at 1:04:54 AM

[dead]

by huflungdung

5/31/2026 at 2:44:21 AM

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.

by kopirgan

5/31/2026 at 4:01:46 AM

Which commercial Excel addons do you depend on currently?

by edg5000

6/1/2026 at 3:00:40 PM

Vena is one of the most popular enterprise budgeting/forecasting packages. It ships as a new-style Excel extension making Excel the UI for department heads contributing to a rolled up enterprise budget

by tatersolid

5/31/2026 at 3:32:56 PM

Not me but my customers so that affects me as well. Mainly Oracle

by kopirgan

5/31/2026 at 3:18:49 AM

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.

by letmeinhere

5/31/2026 at 2:19:24 AM

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.

by jmward01

5/31/2026 at 3:15:56 AM

> 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.

by pmontra

5/31/2026 at 3:27:14 AM

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.

by nine_k

5/31/2026 at 3:34:08 AM

That's why anything that goes against the long-established corporate culture aren't likely to stay around for long.

by hotstickyballs

5/31/2026 at 5:06:25 AM

Visual Studio Code has been around over a decade and there is zero indication it's going anywhere.

by emodendroket

5/31/2026 at 3:05:31 PM

Apart from academics, who are forced to stay away from ai, i feel vs code will regress to a code reader as the models improve.

by adithyassekhar

5/31/2026 at 4:19:40 AM

Why are we acting like VS Code is nothing but a way to stop independent developers from selling their tools? Things like VS Code literally destroy the cottage industry and likely has held back our industry by several decades.

MSFT needs to be at least six separate companies: Windows, Office, GitHub, Visual Studio, Xbox, and Azure. That would kneecap the company and destroy its parasitic blight on our industry for several decades and if luck we with us indefinitely.

by shimman

5/31/2026 at 4:42:30 AM

> Things like VS Code literally destroy the cottage industry and likely has held back our industry by several decades.

VS Code was released in 2015, so even if its initial release somehow completely stopped the entire software industry, it would still not have held the industry back by several decades.

> MSFT needs to be at least six separate companies: Windows, Office, GitHub, Visual Studio, Xbox, and Azure. That would kneecap the company

I'm pretty sure that all of those (aside from Xbox) are profitable on their own, so I don't think that them becoming independent would kneecap them at all.

by gucci-on-fleek

5/31/2026 at 4:59:42 AM

They said cottage industry, not software industry.

Edit: s/he/they/woops sorry

by jayceekay

5/31/2026 at 5:07:14 AM

OK but is that even true? Lots of people buy IntelliJ licenses (or if they've stopped I'm guessing it has more to do with Claude Code than VS Code).

by emodendroket

5/31/2026 at 6:49:02 AM

By the way, Claude Code works well from inside emacs.

by pmontra

5/31/2026 at 4:55:33 AM

Is GitHub really profitable, considering how much Actions credits are given away to open source projects as well as free users? Same goes for Copilot.

by watermelon0

5/31/2026 at 5:20:27 AM

> Is GitHub really profitable

Well I had assumed that GitHub was profitable, since it used to be independent, and it feels like it should be profitable right now. But I tried Googling "is GitHub profitable" just now, and the first few results seem to suggest that either it's still losing money or that nobody knows. So I was likely incorrect about that point, sorry.

> considering how much Actions credits are given away to open source projects as well as free users?

GitLab does the same thing, and they are definitely profitable [0], so that on its own isn't necessarily a barrier.

[0]: https://ir.gitlab.com/news/news-details/2026/GitLab-Reports-...

by gucci-on-fleek

5/31/2026 at 6:34:27 AM

> VS Code was released in 2015, so even if its initial release somehow completely stopped the entire software industry, it would still not have held the industry back by several decades.

Why not? That’s 11 years, times (say) 5 potential independent editors or IDE that didn’t exist because of VSCode in that time is over 50 years worth of software innovation.

by ornornor

5/31/2026 at 7:05:59 AM

How does the existence of VSCode stop the creation of other editors? The existence of other editors clearly didn't prevent VSCode from being created, so what's different?

by Rohansi

5/31/2026 at 4:20:25 PM

Oh easy, you can't compete with a trillion dollar corporation that can subsidize loss leaders. We know there is a substantial market in this space if Zed is able to raised $30mil, but only letting VC or big tech dictate the direction of tooling is extremely troublesome.

I, along with every other person in tech I know, would love to start a company but the biggest risk is lack of health insurance; which is why things like medicare for all are sorely needed if we want to improve the space by introducing more competition.

Which is why you also need to specifically tax companies like MSFT to publicly subsidize alternatives.

I mean how much would something like neovim or emacs or helix or neovide improve if they could hire a team of full time developers? Why should economic value both be dictated and captured by a small set of people? I rather have this be guided by a consortium of developers in the form of open source grants.

by shimman

5/31/2026 at 10:31:05 PM

Still doesn't make any sense. Visual Studio (not Code) has been available since the 90s. The free Community edition has existed since 2014. Sublime Text, Atom, etc. came during that time and did just fine.

> I mean how much would something like neovim or emacs or helix or neovide improve if they could hire a team of full time developers?

I don't think a lack of developers is holding them back. They just don't appeal to most people because they run in a terminal or are vim/emacs-focused.

> I rather have this be guided by a consortium of developers in the form of open source grants.

You'd likely end up with the same result. That grant money would come from a finite pool of money, how much money do you think would go to editors targeting niche users vs. editors with broad appeal?

by Rohansi

5/31/2026 at 5:08:23 AM

Have releases of other open-source tools destroyed cottage industries? Certainly they have, to an extent.

Would it be better if most tools you use were proprietary, built by cottage industries? I doubt it. Especially if we notice that cottage industries tend to consolidate, and the few remaining players are rarely very community-oriented.

by nine_k

5/31/2026 at 6:42:50 AM

No, what would be better is creating a VAT against big tech and VC investments so that the public can decide what technology is worth developing.

If the VAT amounted to $10,000,000,000 of tax revenue annually (something that is quite easy to do against an industry that has several trillion dollar corporations) that is enough to 100,000 open source projects with $100,000 grants.

This would literally unleash to much economic value that would be truly controlled by the public.

That is the future I want to build towards, anything that gives people more power against corporations and in the software world that means funding open source.

I can't think of a single open source dev that wouldn't mind a $100,000 grant for the likely millions they provide in economic value.

by shimman

5/31/2026 at 5:30:10 AM

I started migrating away for VSCode, piece by piece.

But if you need it:

Theia/Positron/VSCodium

For Python/Julia? Many alternatives. For C family? Similar Java/Go? Similar.

by fithisux

5/31/2026 at 9:32:51 AM

I keep VSCode because their seamless SSH integration (remote files editing) is so damn good.

by WesolyKubeczek

5/31/2026 at 3:17:26 PM

Filezilla Portable for me. I never use SSH through VSCode. Most of the people I work with, do.

VSCode is a binary product and therefore it is dangerous.

by fithisux

6/1/2026 at 12:04:46 AM

I don't want to have high friction from having to copy files to my host then back. I also don't want to experience latency from editing remotely. Thus, this.

by WesolyKubeczek

5/31/2026 at 10:56:58 PM

Emacs had it first ;-D (And still does.)

by nine_k

5/31/2026 at 7:58:41 AM

A lot of developers (and thereby most on HN, I guess) see Microsoft only from the perspective of a private consumer. From the perspective of a normal non-technical company though, Microsoft is this giant that has spread its products throughout your organisation like a cancer and you can never free yourself from it. For Microsoft's main business it's irrelevant if VSCode is mostly open source or not. That is why these gestures never meant anything in the first place.

It doesn't matter if some Microsoft trinkets are open sourced while AD is not and while you still can't connect your open source DNS and DHCP server to a Microsoft domain controller. Or have your open source email client be 100% compatible with the proprietary Exchange protocol.

by AnonymousPlanet

5/31/2026 at 3:36:02 PM

There's also business value in "good enough" that Microsoft satisfies for enterprises. You get a lot of stuff "for free" with something like an E5 license: EDR, DLP, MDM, a full cloud IAM system, and a ton of cross app magic for the lowest common denominator of non-technical employees that you just aren't going to get without spending considerable developer effort to piece together a stack yourself.

What looks like cancer to us looks like a massive reduction in operational risk to a CFO/CIO.

This is especially true if your core business has nothing to do with software or tech. Much easier to cut a check to Redmond. Microsoft is basically a utility company for enterprise now, it's commoditized IT. "Do what you do best, outsource the rest."

by thewebguyd

5/31/2026 at 5:06:05 AM

I think Microsoft stopped being the "darling" in 1994 when they got sued by Stacker and had to pay $120 million for stealing their source code and using it in their own product.

by jijji

5/31/2026 at 4:29:35 AM

They're open-sourcing things either because they get no value from them anymore, or just want more unpaid "community" labour.

by userbinator

5/31/2026 at 5:05:52 AM

OK well that's the whole "open source" model. It's not some Microsoft perversion of it. The reason they moved from "free software" to "open source" was specifically rejecting the ideological stuff that would prevent business exploitation

by emodendroket

5/31/2026 at 6:39:06 AM

> I remember when Microsoft was the new darling not many years ago, because of VS Code and WSL

I was genuinely puzzled by that, actually. I thought it quite obvious from the start that Nadella is no longer interested in Windows and other Microsoft software as products and will be moving them to thin cloud wrappers, but for some reason people were really optimistic about the "New Microsoft".

by mppm

5/31/2026 at 6:53:03 AM

I remember going to Linuxfest NW some years ago. Microsoft had a big booth there... "MICROSOFT <3 LINUX"

I couldn't believe how many people sucked that shit up.

by olyjohn

5/31/2026 at 3:35:33 AM

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...

by guidedlight

5/31/2026 at 3:50:22 AM

It's good legislation. I would love to see this extended to "Stop Killing Software" in general, with the same provisions.

by throwawayk7h

5/31/2026 at 6:10:45 AM

Hopefully SKG can serve as a precedent to help consumer rights expand.

by Akronymus

5/31/2026 at 4:38:06 AM

This is much worse. The Crew was always framed as an 'always online' game, even if that was technically a farce. This would be more like if Bethesda rolled out an update to cripple Skyrim after releasing a new Elder Scrolls game to lackluster sales.

by somenameforme

5/31/2026 at 3:57:49 AM

[flagged]

by wilg

5/31/2026 at 5:28:54 AM

If this removes people’s access to products (software licenses count as products here) someone payed fir once. Then you should only be allowed to do that if you enable people to continue using the product.

Releasing the server code should be a requirement. Software updates shouldn’t be required. Unless the product has a moment where it will stop functioning on the hardware it was build for built in (such as an expiring certificate).

by rocqua

5/31/2026 at 4:05:08 AM

> I think you should be allowed to stop supporting software or shut down your servers.

That has nothing to do with Stop Killing Games.

by DrammBA

5/31/2026 at 5:29:47 AM

At least the servers bit seems very related no? I’d love to know more though.

by rocqua

5/31/2026 at 6:13:47 AM

The movement explicitly DOESNT want to force companies to keep their servers running. It is singularily concerned with keeping games playable in some form after shutdown. Be it via patching out the requirement on a server, providing a way to host it yourself or any other option, really.

by Akronymus

5/31/2026 at 4:05:14 AM

You should not be able to shut down the ability to play a game if it cost money to buy.

by platevoltage

5/31/2026 at 4:38:40 AM

You should at least have to refund customers when you take away the ability to use a product they purchased.

by ryandrake

5/31/2026 at 7:12:26 AM

This is fair for some reasonable time window after purchase. But I think it's okay for things to have a lifespan even if they cost money.

by wilg

5/31/2026 at 5:17:07 PM

As long as the life span is clearly spelled out when you purchase, so you know that you are actually buying a 10 year subscription, and not a game.

by ryandrake

6/1/2026 at 8:17:27 PM

This would be a much preferable law to the one actually proposed.

by wilg

5/31/2026 at 11:14:59 PM

No. It's not a physical good that is subject to wear and tear. There is no excuse for a single player game to have a lifespan because it has some pointless online verification component.

by platevoltage

6/1/2026 at 8:14:34 PM

I think it should be legal to sell something with a pointless online verification component.

by wilg

5/31/2026 at 7:04:56 AM

Yes you should!

by wilg

5/31/2026 at 11:12:30 PM

Give me one good reason why.

by platevoltage

6/1/2026 at 8:20:36 PM

Because I think it's good for software developers and consumers for people to have the flexibility to sell something that depends on online services which may become unavailable at some point in the future. This is more valuable than requiring indefinite support, public pluggable backends, or required open sourcing or backend redistribution, which imposes onerous technical or business limitations for an extremely minor consumer benefit all things considered.

by wilg

5/31/2026 at 5:11:11 AM

If you consider that profit is a function of price and cost, and price is a function of scarcity (i.e. demand relative to supply), then over time, logic dictates that a strategy of profit maximization will work to create scarcity as soon as the profit curve plateaus. In economic orthodoxy, the only defense against this is the hope that there is more than one supplier and that they will remain adversarial, which is not an equilibrium state if you consider that a strategy of cooperative pricing and supply curtailment can at times maximize profits more effectively than competitive oversupply. Perhaps we've been judging the benefits of unregulated free markets based solely on our observations of the first half of the profit curve. Perhaps we're now seeing many of the world's markets moving to the latter half.

by hliyan

5/31/2026 at 5:48:37 AM

This is a rather strong analysis. And especially the point on behaviour change once market growth plateaus was new to me. Thanks!

I do want to nitpick on “unregulated free markets”. Because it’s almost an oxymoron. At least if one wants to rely on the theorems that prove free markets are best.

Those theorems assume a bit more than just a lack of regulation. They assume no information imbalance between parties. No ways outside of competition to keep out market entrants, and no collusion between market parties. All of those assumptions, in order to approach them in the real world, really require some strong regulation.

Hence I would argue that the problem isn’t just the growth curve flattening, but also a US (and EU) halt to Trust busting. Massive weakening of consumer protection agencies, and a general weakening of regulatory agencies by e.g. court cases.

It’s not just that we need stronger regulation because tech companies reached a point in their lifecycle where they wish to exploit more, as you so clearly argued. On top of that, regulatory power has been pulled back.

by rocqua

5/31/2026 at 5:57:07 AM

Agreed. I would define a market as a mutual social contract that favours voluntary estimation of resource value, and exchange thereof, over violent competition for resources. Such a contact must necessarily be enforced, since voluntary compliance among humans is never 100%. So yes, some form of regulation is built into the very definition of a free market. I'm fond of saying that, as rules approach zero, competition approaches war.

by hliyan

6/3/2026 at 2:26:46 PM

[flagged]

by NitiX

6/3/2026 at 2:37:55 PM

[flagged]

by NitiX

5/31/2026 at 3:06:55 AM

You didn't start using libreoffice.org like 15 years ago?

by radium3d

5/31/2026 at 3:42:46 AM

I did. SunOffice, then OpenOffice, then LibreOffice. It still isn't very good, though.

by Animats

6/3/2026 at 1:27:30 AM

Recent year or two LibreOffice has improved greatly as far as the UX goes and I haven't had to use Word/Excel in decades. When I have to use it for work I use the online app and office online apps are also garbage, especially compared to Google Docs / Sheets stability and performance.

by radium3d

5/31/2026 at 5:10:21 AM

I think you mean "StarOffice" which later forked into OpenOffice, then LibreOffice.

by jijji

5/31/2026 at 5:31:37 AM

There is OnlyOffice

by fithisux

5/31/2026 at 3:12:39 AM

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.)

by exmadscientist

5/31/2026 at 3:28:45 AM

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.

by isityettime

5/31/2026 at 3:42:05 AM

> 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.

by jmward01

5/31/2026 at 4:41:45 AM

The span in which it would make sense to be keen on jumping to the latest OS pretty narrow.

by ribosometronome

5/31/2026 at 3:28:56 PM

I dunno what you're talking about. Even the "creation" of MS-DOS wasn't like that. When was Microsoft making the best stuff? When they were selling their version of Basic, before MS-DOS?

by isityettime

5/31/2026 at 6:57:04 AM

XP was their first OS that required an activation code. Ever since then it's been downhill and things have only gotten worse.

by olyjohn

5/31/2026 at 4:46:41 AM

> 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.

Microsoft has lots of crappy software, and I personally find MS Office rather irritating, but I'd still argue that it's the best office suite currently available. Like yes, it has lots of bugs and weird misfeatures, but all its competitors are either buggier or only have less than a tenth of the features that MS Office does.

by gucci-on-fleek

5/31/2026 at 5:08:21 AM

[dead]

by emodendroket

5/31/2026 at 2:50:47 AM

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.

by appplication

5/31/2026 at 3:05:25 AM

> 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.

by walrus01

5/31/2026 at 3:29:00 AM

> 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.

by lenerdenator

5/31/2026 at 3:40:23 AM

100%. One of my crazy ideas (but a good one) is to invite all of pakistan to america in order to fix it all

by kyleee

5/31/2026 at 5:13:05 AM

Instead, we’re shoving out people who had already chosen America, and scaring a bunch of others off.

by MandieD

5/31/2026 at 6:06:00 AM

No, I think we do need legal protection. We have so many high quality protections when it comes to real-world items -- they could be better, but if companies are going to move everything on line, and put tech in everything, they can goddamn give us the same level of protections.

by CJefferson

5/31/2026 at 5:13:29 AM

As this is only a problem for people/companies who have willingly decided to be customers of Microsoft, I'm having a hard time getting outraged over this.

This is how they've always behaved, and anyone who is surprised by this hasn't been paying attention for the last 30 years.

by tjwebbnorfolk

5/31/2026 at 4:42:56 AM

> 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.

I'm surprised that going through the legal system is already seen as completely useless, but calling for a consumer mass boycott would totally work...

by xg15

5/31/2026 at 5:03:59 AM

I think it's a vanishingly small number of consumers buying Office compared to businesses.

by emodendroket

5/31/2026 at 4:13:23 AM

"Their lawyers will win" is plainly wrong assumption if something is clearly illegal.

by rockskon

5/31/2026 at 5:22:07 AM

Sadly that only works when all parties agree on the "clearly" part. They will lose, but only if you can endure years of squabbling in court and have unlimited funds for your legal team to prove that the aforementioned clearly really is clear. More likely they'll bleed you dry and force a settlement with an NDA bolt on. For a company like MS, pissing a few million down the drain on making life hell for litigants turns into a sound investment: no one looks at it and thinks "I want what they're having". This is where you would ideally have a government-backed consumer rights agency step in and take up the battle.

by andwur

5/31/2026 at 5:08:53 AM

Yeah. But it seems unlikely that that's the caes here.

by emodendroket

5/31/2026 at 5:49:42 AM

I never used anything by Microsoft since I bailed to Macs after Windows 8.. and with Nintendo, PlayStation and CrossOver etc for games I never even felt the need to.

Every time I took a look at Windows once every few years it still reeked of shit.

A happy 10~ years ..until they bought GitHub. Then they crippled the Visual Studio Code Extensions Marketplace so VSCodium users couldn't easily install some extensions.

Coincidentally I was just in a YouTube rabbit hole of old operating systems and computing platforms in the 1980s and 90s and how Microsoft killed them with scummy tactics, like sending suited thugs to Japanese PC manufacturers and threatening to pull the Windows license if they even OFFERED users an OPTION for alternative OSes!

Fuck Microsoft. Bill Gates deserves a few more pies in his face.

by Razengan

5/31/2026 at 6:47:15 AM

Bill Gates also deserves a criminal investigation into what he did on Pedo Island.

by tjpnz

5/31/2026 at 5:19:16 AM

I agree. Take what ya can, give nothing back!

by nepthar

5/31/2026 at 5:19:56 AM

I gave you an upvote. How many downvotes did you get?

by fithisux

5/31/2026 at 1:12:34 AM

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.

by ok_computer

5/31/2026 at 1:34:23 AM

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.

by ashton314

5/31/2026 at 1:28:24 AM

Use libreoffice, its good for the occasions you need actual office software instead of latex

by mghackerlady

5/31/2026 at 2:35:04 AM

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.

by cwnyth

5/31/2026 at 3:18:29 AM

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.

by garciansmith

5/31/2026 at 1:23:59 AM

>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?

by Suppafly

5/31/2026 at 1:30:35 AM

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.

by ok_computer

5/31/2026 at 1:39:39 AM

How quickly certs went from "securing your software" to "securing our business model".

by mrandish

5/31/2026 at 2:45:23 AM

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.

by canyp

5/31/2026 at 12:26:55 AM

The best company to do Microsoft in is Microsoft.

They are responsible for awesome sales of MacBook Neo.

by IFC_LLC

5/31/2026 at 1:44:04 AM

As the old adage goes, "the day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be the day they start making vacuum cleaners"

by deaton

5/31/2026 at 11:57:44 AM

But a vacuum cleaner that doesn't suck... still sucks.

by theandrewbailey

5/31/2026 at 3:14:48 AM

This is so true! I've never seen a software company more disgusting than MS.

by coliveira

5/31/2026 at 5:20:46 AM

[dead]

by d4lt4

5/31/2026 at 7:20:43 AM

I disagree. I suspect the vast majority of Neo sales are simply driven by the ability to get Apple-quality laptop hardware for such a low price. As such, the people driving the Neo sales are competing manufacturers who offer cheap nasty plastic underpowered Windows laptops around that price point.

A small minority of buyers may be primarily buying the Neo to escape Windows; but I would argue that if someone is this sophisticated, then they would also be aware that Apple is slowly taking a similar enshittified path with MacOS.

by mft_

5/31/2026 at 2:15:29 PM

I think you severely underestimate the power of Copilot. It's the absolute worst thing for windows.

(I've been using Microsoft since Windows 3.11, till Windows 10. Windows 11 was the last drop for me.)

by IFC_LLC

6/1/2026 at 11:02:15 AM

> I think you severely underestimate the power of Copilot. It's the absolute worst thing for windows.

I agree with you, but I think you've overestimating the level of technical sophistication of the typical Neo buyer.

> (I've been using Microsoft since Windows 3.11, till Windows 10. Windows 11 was the last drop for me.)

Kind of proves my point. I can think of plenty of people who use computers successfully every day who would unlikely to confidently state the name let alone the generation of their operating system, if asked.

Just by being on HN, you're probably multiple standard deviations from the mean.

by mft_

5/31/2026 at 3:29:02 PM

I would buy a Neo to escape Windows but it's not like macOS is a pleasant experience either.

My next mobile workstation will probably be an arm laptop with Linux for great battery life.

by bel8

5/31/2026 at 2:02:56 AM

MS hates him! Find out this one trick they don't want you to know!

$ sudo pacman -S libreoffice

by 0x59

5/31/2026 at 12:06:31 AM

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 …

by nytesky

5/31/2026 at 12:20:33 AM

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.

by jdswain

5/31/2026 at 12:42:12 AM

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.

by philistine

5/31/2026 at 6:36:34 AM

The only reason I pay for M365 family is for the 1 TB per member storage. Excel is a bonus, and Word and Powerpoint are basically not needed any more.

If a better storage deal comes along, I'll happily cancel.

by sometimes_all

6/1/2026 at 11:46:15 AM

I agree the 1TB is a good deal. But our phones are Apple and our email is Google, so it’s all wonky sync via OneDrive (and when you have a lot of OneDrive the forced syncs to your windows login takes a lot of cache space).

Wish there was an open interface to use cloud storage, like a mount point, so Gmail or iPhotos could just write there rather than the hand carrying of data. But probably vendor lock-in is too compelling

by nytesky

5/31/2026 at 4:42:29 AM

This actually isn't that far-fetched, once Microsoft saw that the bundled competing suite went subscription, they were free to drop their "perpetual" support.

I would occasionally see the standalone MS for Mac on sale for ~$30 and considered getting a copy just in case I needed it for some compatibility reason, but I just knew there was a catch. So I just kept running Libre. Glad I didn't waste the money.

by yborg

5/31/2026 at 3:06:26 PM

People keep saying that Microsoft invested in Apple to defeat anti-trust measures. They did not. They lost the Video for Windows lawsuit (Apple v San Francisco Canyon Company, Microsoft, Intel). Buying the non-voting stock was part of the remedy. Microsoft would gladly become a monopoly if they could get away with it.

by baruz

5/31/2026 at 12:31:39 AM

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.

by dmitrygr

5/31/2026 at 12:09:34 AM

Interesting that the deadline is checks notes one day before the Nightmare deadline. Definitely not a coincidence, right?

by bastawhiz

5/31/2026 at 12:52:53 AM

What’s the Nightmare deadline? I’m out of the loop on Microsoft news.

by kstrauser

5/31/2026 at 1:14:19 AM

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.

by bastawhiz

5/31/2026 at 12:51:52 AM

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

by VanTheBrand

5/31/2026 at 1:59:27 AM

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.

by cheschire

5/31/2026 at 2:03:23 AM

What's the nightmare deadline? I'm guessing it's October 14, but what happens then?

by verandaguy

5/31/2026 at 3:25:43 AM

Time to get cracking I guess...

https://massgrave.dev/

by glitchc

5/31/2026 at 8:10:39 AM

Is that the right product though? I use office 2019 and that says to activate but mine's activated - I need something to stop the remotely bricking.

Maybe deleting the updater will work? (as in https://osxdaily.com/2019/07/20/how-delete-microsoft-autoupd...)

by tim333

5/31/2026 at 5:53:55 PM

It won't help, sadly.

Your Office has a license file - you could have bought it or pirated it, doesn't matter. This license file is signed by Microsoft, and Office determines if the signature is correct based on the certificate that is embedded in the Office instance. If the signature is correct, Office trusts the contents of the license file to determine what you can and cannot do.

Starting July 14th, the certificate itself that provides a public key for license signature verification will be no longer valid. So when Office will try to validate the license signature, it will no longer find any matching trusted certificate that is still valid, and conclude that it's not licensed anymore.

Indeed Microsoft can issue a newer certificate with an expiration date set in 2099s, but they wouldn't. So far pirates relied basically on an official method of activation (not a crack). Now we need an actual crack that would either make Office think its certificate didn't expire yet, or skip the signature verification altogether.

by toriningen

5/31/2026 at 3:37:43 AM

Ironically my pirated copy of Office Mac will work perpetually. Arrr for the win.

by vachina

5/31/2026 at 5:29:28 PM

If your pirated copy is using "serializer", you're actually using the official Microsoft's way of volume-activating Office, you just obtained it in a yarr-harr-harr way. So it will brick just like official copies would.

We need an actual crack that would patch out the license verification code or at least make it ignore the expiration date or at least make it think it's Jan 1st, 2026 for the whole eternity.

by toriningen

6/2/2026 at 12:25:34 AM

Updater service has been disabled since day 1.

by vachina

5/31/2026 at 12:50:00 AM

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.

by themadturk

5/31/2026 at 12:00:33 AM

Yarr, this be thievery.

by notamario

5/31/2026 at 12:05:25 AM

You don't ask to talk to Microsoft representatives anymore, you invoke the code for the right of parley.

by gchamonlive

5/31/2026 at 12:32:04 AM

Aye, but the Pirates' Code is more what ye call guidelines than actual rules.

by bitwize

5/31/2026 at 12:53:29 PM

By the time you are made aware of it though, you are already part of the crew.

by gchamonlive

5/31/2026 at 1:42:53 AM

Fine, I'll continue with LibreOffice if Satya insists.

by tobadzistsini

5/31/2026 at 12:15:53 AM

When did "hate the customer" become a thing?

by g023

5/31/2026 at 3:20:13 AM

Microsoft always hated their customers. And their competitors. And their suppliers too. The only people they don't hate really are their shareholders.

by coliveira

5/31/2026 at 12:20:16 AM

Your satisfaction is your margin is their opportunity.

by cm11

5/31/2026 at 12:54:39 AM

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.

by anigbrowl

5/31/2026 at 1:02:35 AM

When Google beat their antitrust suit

by jordanb

5/30/2026 at 11:58:25 PM

I’m shocked I say. Shocked.

by ronbenton

5/30/2026 at 11:59:25 PM

Utterly flabbergasted

by gchamonlive

5/31/2026 at 12:13:09 AM

Well. Not that shocked.

by Ygg2

5/31/2026 at 12:36:16 AM

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.

by 866-RON-0-FEZ

5/31/2026 at 5:13:35 AM

They have the nerve to degrade and call it now a view-only?!!! This is the reason why pirtacy is justified; it was a perpetual license. I hope Europe is watching and governments walk away

by gbraad

5/30/2026 at 11:56:12 PM

This should be treated as an organised crime syndicate stealing the purchase price from every customer.

by crest

5/31/2026 at 5:25:06 AM

They do this to Office 2021 routinely if your computer is offline more than about 30 days at a time. I run LittleSnitch to keep Microsoft blocked; my copy of Excel periodically goes into "read-only" mode. So I unblock Microsoft, let Excel talk to the license server, and then block Microsoft again.

Now Microsoft says my Excel will never work again. I'm pissed. Time for an FTC complaint.

by dreamcompiler

5/31/2026 at 4:14:01 PM

I don't like the fact that a company can literally steal purchased product back from its users but I don't see how any company can realistically support a product for a long period of time, especially if it is a B2C perpetual license product

If Office 2019 got a zero day RCE just by opening a Word documents, the optics would be tremendously bad for Microsoft and they had to patch it, which cost money and time. We're on a day where zero day can be found using AI, and it's getting better at it every iterations. No, saying that it is EOL and "yeah not my problem" wouldn't fly at their scale, just see XP and how long they have to extend the support period

I'm not saying "but think of the multi-billion dollar company", I'm sure they can support it indefinitely, I'm just not sure if doing that is a good use of engineer's time

by BetterThanSober

5/31/2026 at 2:48:47 AM

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"

by Bratmon

5/31/2026 at 4:15:54 AM

Hundreds of millions of businesses (and individuals) transacted $83 billion to Microsoft just last quarter, so clearly they're doing something right.

Any "big enough" organisation will eventually do something stupid, disgraceful, or even illegal. Once you have over a hundred thousand staff, there's just no way to guarantee that they all row in the same direction and nobody gives in to the temptation to cut corners or outright cheat.

If you think you can judge the entire rest of an organisation by a few bad actors within it, you'll be perpetually disappointed.

by jiggawatts

5/31/2026 at 4:30:18 AM

Yet not as disappointed as the people who actually believed Microsoft would give them a perpetual license for something just because they paid for it.

by Bratmon

5/31/2026 at 8:23:31 AM

They provided some good products. I use Office 2019 daily and I used Windows for a decade or two. They do seem to have become more cash grabby in recent years.

by tim333

5/31/2026 at 11:52:01 PM

Okay, things were different back then but right now you only use Microsoft products if you agree to never own it.

Microsoft Office?? LibreOffice is opensource, has everything from Word to PowerPoint, it is free, and just works.

Microsoft Windows?? Linux is free, the majority of folks use their Windows PC to Watch Netlix, YouTube, social media, write a thing or two.

Distro Linux such as Mint Cinnamon is lightweight, fast, stable, I can use it to 3D design, 3D print, coding, video edition, playing, you name it, it all just works.

The main problem I see is folks following hype like CachyOS, Ubuntu (dead dsitro harvesting users data), Arch, then have bad experience and blame Linux.

You do not need Microsoft in 2026, full stop.

by h4kunamata

5/31/2026 at 12:58:26 AM

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.

by skeledrew

5/31/2026 at 1:26:29 AM

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.

by Minor49er

5/31/2026 at 1:56:13 AM

> 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.

by skeledrew

6/3/2026 at 3:05:10 PM

Techically, the OS should be able to isolate an application -- stop it being modified, and put it into 'Groundhog day' mode (at midnight, the date seen by the application rolls back to the previous day). This would 'keep' Office for Mac, won't it? The only loss would be the smart tag and functions that insert or refer to the current date in Word or Excel documents.

by sonamchauhan

5/31/2026 at 3:12:05 AM

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).

by LorenDB

5/31/2026 at 1:04:12 AM

I have a purchased copy of Office 2013 and they can pry it off my cold dead hands.

by reenorap

5/31/2026 at 5:43:23 AM

If you only need to keep Office around to occasionally edit a file while preserving formatting, there’s now another option in 2026 - get a coding agent to do it for you. I’ve had Codex make substantial edits to financial model spreadsheets a few times, and it knows enough about how to modify office XML files to do that work correctly. Occasionally Excel didn’t like some of the files at first, but the view-only version of Office for Mac works well enough to allow Codex to discover and fix any incompatibility. Between agents and LibreOffice, no need for Office anymore.

by telotortium

5/31/2026 at 5:26:02 AM

There are many open source alternatives/upgrades to M$$$ products.

No reason to keep using them. Literally none.

I have been a happy exclusive only user of OO/LibeOffice since 2004. Some times I needed to use MSOffice for a paper. It was always problematic.

I haven't use VS since 2007. I migrated to gcc. Never had a problem.

SQLServer? Only for demo and at work just to pull or save data. Postgres always saved the day. Windows Media Player? MPClassic or VLC worked fine.

There maybe other alternatives I use without knowing. Always without problems.

by fithisux

5/31/2026 at 11:09:24 AM

I think you are missing the point.

It’s about software preservation and abiding by the implied expectations at the time of sale.

by guidedlight

5/31/2026 at 3:18:52 PM

M$$$ and other companies don't give a damn for software preservation.

We do as a community.

Many open source Windows deserve preservation. Even if they are abandoned.

But blobs? No way.

by fithisux

5/31/2026 at 1:17:02 AM

This could be class action worthy..

by kopirgan

5/31/2026 at 1:49:01 AM

Ah, sadly the license forbids that, or even individual suit. Only arbitration.

by Tostino

5/31/2026 at 1:59:40 AM

Isn't that itself challenge-able?

by kopirgan

5/31/2026 at 3:08:19 AM

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.

by JumpCrisscross

5/31/2026 at 12:36:08 PM

There is a reason why EU is leaving Microsoft ecosystem...

by lousken

5/31/2026 at 12:58:30 PM

But isn't Satya supposed to be the second coming of MSFT if you listen to all the pods....

by boringg

5/30/2026 at 11:59:56 PM

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.

by dangus

5/31/2026 at 12:07:12 AM

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.

by amluto

5/31/2026 at 12:15:50 AM

The general mechanism is lawsuits; in this case class action lawsuits.

by wmf

5/31/2026 at 1:00:15 AM

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.

by thayne

5/31/2026 at 12:55:37 AM

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.

by anigbrowl

5/31/2026 at 2:40:33 AM

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.

by amluto

5/31/2026 at 1:55:20 AM

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

by codedokode

5/31/2026 at 2:36:05 AM

> 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.

by simoncion

5/31/2026 at 3:33:52 PM

Another option is to actually take them to arbitration. There are starting to be law firms that specialize in mass-filing multiple arbitration suits instead of class actions and they are pretty interesting because some companies are finding it more difficult to deal with than class action lawsuits.

That said, EULAs are also often written in ways that are unenforceable. Just because a company says they get something doesn’t mean the law agrees.

Does the judge in my small claims case give a shit about the EULA if the defendant fails to show up?

by dangus

6/1/2026 at 1:20:21 AM

No surprise there. I'm not sure how binding that is, though; it strikes me as more of an assertion than a hard and fast rule. Contracts that require an individual to enter arbitration prior to litigation are one thing, seeking to foreclose a legal remedy for a whole cohort of potentially injured consumers strikes me as more of a reach.

by anigbrowl

5/31/2026 at 3:36:28 AM

Not even as a deterrence?

by mohamedkoubaa

5/31/2026 at 3:56:42 AM

Go find some class action settlements. There’s a good chance the total damages (substantially) less than the profits from whatever behavior generated the lawsuit, and that’s not even accounting for interest.

So, no.

by amluto

5/31/2026 at 4:48:32 AM

And also not accounting for the other big factor: the probability of getting caught and reaching such a settlement/verdict. If the consequence is a thirty percent chance of paying thirty percent of the gains back in thirty years, malfeasance is just good business, not a credible risk. It needs to be unprofitable and pierce the corporate veil.

by thfuran

5/31/2026 at 12:31:57 AM

But you most likely signed a binding arbitration clause in the TOS

by r-johnv

5/31/2026 at 12:45:22 AM

Same result and then Microsoft would be paying for arbitration

by abigail95

5/31/2026 at 3:36:09 PM

Did I sign anything? EULAs aren’t necessarily 100% enforceable.

What would a reasonable person expect out of the transaction?

Which promises and verbiage in the marketing material contradict the EULA?

by dangus

5/31/2026 at 12:02:41 AM

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.

by harry8

5/31/2026 at 12:09:42 AM

If you’re cooked because of Microsoft’s willful destruction of property, that just means it’s not a small claim anymore.

by thfuran

6/1/2026 at 7:51:59 AM

Destruction of property is a crime, and criminal cases are not in the scope of arbitration.

by anticensor

5/31/2026 at 12:05:50 AM

I actually have a retiree in mind to whom I’ll have to recommend LibreOffice https://libreoffice.org

by Barbing

5/31/2026 at 12:06:24 AM

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.

by dangus

5/31/2026 at 8:17:44 AM

In Australia, the ACCC. They made Apple change their warranties.

by rswail

5/31/2026 at 12:44:36 AM

s/perpetual/permanent

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

by nullhole

5/31/2026 at 11:33:46 AM

I haven't read California's "Stop Killing Games" bill but I wonder how close this comes up against it or similar laws?

by ethagnawl

5/31/2026 at 5:37:59 AM

I am so glad that I am not forced to use Office. I know for some that they can't escape, but I would hope your workplace would cover it if so.

I personally get by just fine with the built in converter tools in Apple Pages and Keynote, they seem just as robust as the Microsoft counterpoints. To be fair, I don't have those super complex and advanced word processing needs.

by inventor7777

5/31/2026 at 11:49:50 AM

After Stop Killing Games [0] has been doing some big steps forward lately, plus movement in the same vein has been showing up in California, we now need to start working on a more general Stop Killing Software act.

[0]: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

by j1elo

5/31/2026 at 12:54:41 PM

It's clear they don't want stand-alone Office anymore. One gets the feeling, given how Windows has devolved, that they'd like to rid themselves of all desktop software so they can focus on the backroom, perhaps because the data they could acquire is tastier.

by flenserboy

5/31/2026 at 3:47:19 AM

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.

by DavidPiper

5/31/2026 at 6:38:55 AM

Companies might need Microsoft, but why are people panicking who could replace ms office with other office suites? Why aren’t they abandoning Microsoft products? From office suites to windows?

by submeta

5/31/2026 at 7:18:43 AM

If digital purchases are not ownership then piracy isn't stealing.

by behringer

5/31/2026 at 12:08:11 AM

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.

by userbinator

5/31/2026 at 3:24:52 AM

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.

by daft_pink

5/31/2026 at 3:48:41 AM

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.

by wg0

5/31/2026 at 3:27:27 AM

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.

by BobbyTables2

5/31/2026 at 9:25:09 AM

I guess that means they are fine with users ignoring their rights too? Just crack their software until something better comes along?

by crest

5/31/2026 at 8:58:51 AM

You can always trust Microslop to screw you over despite any past promises to the contrary.

by classified

5/31/2026 at 4:59:51 AM

Anyone who has paid any $ to MS in the last 25 years will get exactly what they deserve.

by lokar

5/31/2026 at 5:40:53 AM

Explains why sites like stackcommerce have been selling discounted keys for Office.

by SanjayMehta

5/31/2026 at 12:08:09 AM

So, do I just disable updates?

How do I do that?

by ____tom____

5/31/2026 at 12:18:53 AM

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.

by jandrese

5/31/2026 at 12:15:55 AM

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.

by altairprime

5/31/2026 at 7:31:26 AM

Presumably this will happen to Offica 2021 in two years, too, so it's actually worse than you say.

by avazhi

5/31/2026 at 5:03:19 PM

Possibly, yes?

by altairprime

5/31/2026 at 7:50:41 AM

Meanwhile 2016 is still working fine…. Until Rosetta support is dropped.

by Angostura

5/31/2026 at 1:25:50 AM

More users for LibreOffice.

by pdonis

5/31/2026 at 5:05:21 AM

Just a few days before the release of EuroOffice, what a timing.

by kuerbel

5/31/2026 at 2:17:49 PM

I should’ve pirated instead of buying Office 2021..

by adithyassekhar

5/31/2026 at 5:10:02 AM

wow ... this has got to be illegal, right, right ??

by realaaa

5/31/2026 at 3:12:35 PM

This is why TXT and MD and RTF exist. This is why CSV exists. This is (some of) why some governments are moving away from this junk.

But microsoft's incompetence keeps a lot of people employed.

by timnetworks

5/31/2026 at 12:14:37 AM

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.

by jefecoon

5/31/2026 at 12:21:09 AM

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.

by drnick1

5/31/2026 at 12:24:47 AM

The problem is when your counterparty sends and expects MSO documents with latest advanced features.

by nine_k

5/31/2026 at 1:19:40 AM

This is software I paid for specifically because I didn’t want a subscription. If I wanted to use Libreoffice instead, I would have.

by chorizo

5/31/2026 at 2:25:34 AM

> 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.

by matheusmoreira

5/31/2026 at 2:21:59 AM

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.

by yoyohello13

5/31/2026 at 4:04:09 AM

The forced restarts pushed me over the edge; I dropped MS in 2021

by edg5000

5/30/2026 at 11:52:53 PM

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.

by superkuh

5/30/2026 at 11:55:23 PM

you're acting like this wasn't intentional

by Kapura

5/31/2026 at 12:01:11 AM

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.

by gchamonlive

5/31/2026 at 12:10:24 AM

do you like, not understand how capitalism does to tech

by Kapura

5/31/2026 at 7:30:16 AM

Plenty of tech companies operate capitalistically without intentionally defrauding their customers.

by avazhi

5/31/2026 at 12:15:59 AM

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

by gchamonlive

5/30/2026 at 11:58:56 PM

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.

by superkuh

5/31/2026 at 12:09:11 AM

“ 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?

by harry8

5/31/2026 at 1:51:30 AM

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.

by II2II

5/31/2026 at 12:38:30 AM

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.

by superkuh

5/31/2026 at 1:39:23 AM

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.

by Lammy

5/31/2026 at 4:45:57 AM

the faux outrage is maddening; you knew they were snakes when you bought the product and you bought it anyway

by nacozarina

5/31/2026 at 5:10:16 AM

Because there is not a full replacement for the product. Come on. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

by emodendroket

5/31/2026 at 1:07:29 AM

another tick in the "never ever have a partnership with Microsoft" column...

by dminvs

5/31/2026 at 4:36:39 AM

[flagged]

by Hypathia

5/31/2026 at 11:53:08 AM

[flagged]

by tokenfaucet

5/31/2026 at 4:44:46 AM

[flagged]

by hbwang2076

5/31/2026 at 2:47:31 AM

[dead]

by selectively

5/31/2026 at 3:19:50 AM

[dead]

by JMiao

5/31/2026 at 6:22:50 AM

[dead]

by startpage_com

5/31/2026 at 3:05:15 AM

Remember when we used to revoke corporate charters for anti-social behavior?

/s

by Henchman21

5/31/2026 at 3:33:56 AM

[dead]

by yulia_dev_la

5/31/2026 at 1:59:34 AM

[dead]

by sieabahlpark

5/31/2026 at 12:34:24 AM

[flagged]

by systemBuilder

5/31/2026 at 12:43:02 AM

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.

by witheredspirit

5/31/2026 at 1:42:49 AM

> 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.

by Hizonner