| > 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
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
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:
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
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
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
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:
?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
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.)