"Once a device is upgraded to WIndows 10, we'll be keeping it current for the supported lifetime of the device," said Terry Myserson, executive vice president of the Operating Systems Group. "With Windows 10, we think of Windows as a service..."
Most of the money that the Windows OS brings in is from corporate sales. Considering how difficult it can be to get these kinds of users to upgrade (think of how many businesses still use the no longer supported Windows XP) I think this might be Microsoft paving the way to convert more corporate users to a subscription based arrangement.
I don't necessarily think this means that home users will be switched over to a subscription to "windows as a service" because Microsoft really isn't losing any money from these customers. The cost of the Windows OS was paid by the computer manufacturer and upgrading windows to the newest version is an easy way to make sure out of date computers show their age and get replaced, aka more oem os sales.
It's good that there's little indication here that Windows is switching to a paid subscription model for home users.
What's not good is that the rest of the subscription rhetoric is still there. I already let Microsoft screw with my system through Windows Update, because it's necessary; a lot of the other behaviors of other subscription systems (creative cloud is a big example) are things I cannot tolerate in an OS. Stuff like shutting off after X days without Internet access, pushing big changes without warning that I didn't ask for, and so on.
To be fair, Microsoft is doubtlessly aware that those kinds of things would be a problem. But even if they get around that, the subscription model crystallizes the developer's leash on proprietary software users in a way that I find difficult. Even if there was no practical difference between Windows 7 and Windows 10 as a result of a subscription-esque model (for home users), I would be uncomfortable with switching.
2 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 15.1 ms ] threadMost of the money that the Windows OS brings in is from corporate sales. Considering how difficult it can be to get these kinds of users to upgrade (think of how many businesses still use the no longer supported Windows XP) I think this might be Microsoft paving the way to convert more corporate users to a subscription based arrangement.
I don't necessarily think this means that home users will be switched over to a subscription to "windows as a service" because Microsoft really isn't losing any money from these customers. The cost of the Windows OS was paid by the computer manufacturer and upgrading windows to the newest version is an easy way to make sure out of date computers show their age and get replaced, aka more oem os sales.
What's not good is that the rest of the subscription rhetoric is still there. I already let Microsoft screw with my system through Windows Update, because it's necessary; a lot of the other behaviors of other subscription systems (creative cloud is a big example) are things I cannot tolerate in an OS. Stuff like shutting off after X days without Internet access, pushing big changes without warning that I didn't ask for, and so on.
To be fair, Microsoft is doubtlessly aware that those kinds of things would be a problem. But even if they get around that, the subscription model crystallizes the developer's leash on proprietary software users in a way that I find difficult. Even if there was no practical difference between Windows 7 and Windows 10 as a result of a subscription-esque model (for home users), I would be uncomfortable with switching.