> What's the difference between using Google and a PC in the 90s? Well, you answered that yourself. Software in the 90s was running locally, and the data it us

> What's the difference between using Google and a PC in the 90s? Well, you answered that yourself. Software in the 90s was running locally, and the data it used was also local. That's an important difference from running software on someone else's computer with data you don't control. That access can be cutoff at any point, and there's nothing you can do about it. With local software and data you would at least have the option to export the data to another format (assuming the software supports it), or to read the data with another software. For the specific case of MS Office formats, even the closed ones prior to the XML formats were readable by 3rd party software. I would qualify this as being in "control of their computing". Vendor lock-in doesn't deprive users of this control. You have exactly the same issue with F/LOSS today. Whether you choose to use PostgreSQL/MySQL or Oracle/Access, you're always locked in to that specific vendor. Hopefully that vendor has good integrations and interoperability features so that you can migrate to something else if you wanted to, but the actual license has no bearing on this. I suppose our disagreement is with what it means to be in "control of computing". If you define it as being able to read, modify and share the source code, then proprietary software doesn't fit that definition. But most users don't practically need this level of control. As long as the software has decent interoperability, and you actually have control over how and where you run it, then proprietary software can qualify. SaaS, OTOH, does not.