| > The insidious thing about this OS is they will start charging you for | > the updates in a year or so. | > W/10 is designed to be s subscription service, that is why it was | > distributed for free. | | Do you have evidence of charging in the future? I've seen | unsubstantiated rumor, no facts.
One might ask that the other way around: What makes you think they won't be charging? Where have you been that you don't know this is Microsoft's longterm plan?
There are ads on the Start Menu. The Win10 version of Solitaire presents with an option to either see ads with each play or to pay a subscription. (A crappy little program like Solitaire, and you can't even buy it. You can only rent!) I know this just from reading news online in the 3 days since Win10s release. Microsoft are gradually phasing out MS Office, to be replaced with the online rental version. So how do you *not* know that rental is their longterm plan?
Microsoft have made very clear, for several years now, that their business has been recast as "devices and services". Here's a quote from 3 years ago:
formatting link
The devices part is all but kaput, given that they've managed to entirely destroy Nokia, which used to make 40% of all cellphones, and that the Windows/Metro smart phones have been a near total failure. Their Surface tablet has seen some success, but in general MS charges too much for their hardware. And they seemed to hint when Surface came out that they were mostly trying to "set an example" for tablet makers.
So it's mostly services. They're not mentioning software anymore. Microsoft used to be the biggest
*software* company in the world, and they no longer advertise that as their product. Shouldn't that tell you something? It's not only their ads. It's also their official stated position to ther media and shareholders.
The Privacy terms now include Windows. I don't know when that started, but I don't remember seeing any privacy terms in XP or Win7. The very idea that one needs a legal privacy document for an operating system is a radical step.
Microsoft started all of this back in 1998. The Active Desktop theme was meant to put ads on the Desktop. Remeber the Channel Bar? It was a billboard with ads for Disney and others, stuck to the Desktop. A number of companies paid to get icons pre-installed on Win98, in hopes that people would "subscribe to their channel", which meant getting a dynamic ad fixed to the Desktop. (There were dozens of such icons from ther likes of Forbes, I think Citibank, etc, in a folder that, if I remember correctly, was Windows\Web\Media\ on win98/ME)
There were also "Internet keyboards". Computing was moving to the Internet, or so all the media crowed. Anyone who wasn't a loser would be throwing away their PC to get a "thin client" -- a tiny, crappy PC for using online services.
Microsoft's Hailstorm mess was another attempt at services. Software as a Service (SaaS) has been a mostly failed, industry-wide fad since the mid-2000s.
It's all based on some simple facts: Computers used to cost a lot of money and buying new gear was always worthwhile. Software was the same. Moving from a 400 MHz CPU to a 450, and from Photoshop 4 to Photoshop 5, was a must for commercial users, despite costing them thousands of dollars. But hardware and software have both matured. That's why phones are the big thing now. That's why the PC era is "dead". That's why rental and services. Not because people stopped using PCs but because there are no longer crazy profit margins. (The development of high speed access has also played a big part. Services simply weren't feasible in 2000, with dial-up.)
Given all of that, there's an industrywide fad that's currently at high heat: rental. Phones are essentially rented. Software is becoming subscription. Since most people won't really need to buy version X+1 of program XYZ, the only way now to make it a steady income source is to rent it.
Rental is also a big factor in the trend toward system restrictions. PCs have been heading toward interactive TV for a long time now. But if you can install all of the free or cheap software that you need then you won't rent it. Options are to charge for the OS and/or make it very difficult for people to use their own software, by manufacturing incompatibility, increasing restrictions, etc. They've already got the average person afraid to touch anything that didn't come from a big, approved corporation. And Metro apps require a license to write, as well as a 30% extortion fee to Microsoft in order to sell through their store. (The double edged sword of security again. The new apps, whether MS or Apple or Google, are increasingly hard to get and use except through the respective, official, rental and sales portal.)
You might think that extortion is a strong word, but I can write Windows software today, put it online, and people can use it. I do that now. I don't need any license or payment to Microsoft. That's not true of Metro apps. They're only allowed to be sandboxed trinkets, with little access to the system, with MS in control. (Ironically, apps are becoming a nasty privacy problem, despite being sandboxed: They often get access to things like location data and then sell that to advertisers running ads in the apps.)
Some might say that all of this is because the public is unwilling to pay for product. Yet the public used to pay $600+ for Photoshop. Now they don't even have that option. Photoshop is still installed on a computer. It's not really online at all. But it pretends to be online and one can only get it as rental software. Either way -- whether we want to assign blame and if so, to whom -- rental is the future, at least for the foreseeable future.
You seem to think all the talk about rental and privacy problems is a lot of negative gossip mongering. Speaking for myself, I write Windows software; I want and need to know what's going on and how the market is moving; I need to know what changes to expect when writing software in the future. I also follow news and technical information about such things as privacy and online security. So I'm uniquely placed to know about things that the general public has no idea of. Microsoft spends billions on marketing. They also get lots of softball reviews from the lapdog media. Look for the business-centric NYT, for instance, to cover only as much of the negative as they absolutely have to in order to maintain a veneer of credibility among the suckers who turn to the NYT for information. The tech media are likely to be worse. If they don't play ball with MS they won't get fast access to press releases and interviews.
So, speaking for myself, I write about this stuff because there is such a dearth of balanced information out there. I figure that people have a right to know the facts and make their own decisions. Wouldn't you want someone to do that in fileds where you have no knowledge or expertise? I'm not telling people not to buy Win10. I'm saying, "Here's what you're in for. Don't walk into it blind". If you want Win10 that's none of my business. Likewise, if people want to know the risks and down sides of Win10 then the fans have no business trying to shout down the people telling them.
Case in point: How many current Facebook addicts would have guessed, back when they started using a free bulletin board, that they'd end up having to see ads and give up privacy just to reach their friends? and every step of the way a few have said, "This is outrageous! I've a good mind to quit Facebook right now!" Then they'd log in again. Now, as Sheryl Snadberg so creepily put it, Facebookies friends
*are* the advertisers:
formatting link
?It enables brands to find their voices? and to have genuine, personal relationships with their customers?
(Brand here is a euphemism for corporate advertisers.)
Windows is going the same way, in very small steps so as not to alienate people. And look at how well MS is doing: They now have a privacy policy for Windows and ads on the Start Menu, yet you think it's merely unsubstantiated rumor that things are changing! (You know the one about cooking frogs? Supposedly if you raise the heat slowly enough they'll never jump out of the pan.)