Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's New Windows Monetization Methods Could Mean 'Subscriptions'
SmartAboutThings writes Since the first version of Windows, Microsoft has offered the operating system on a initial fee purchase. But under new management, it seems that this strategy could shift into new monetization methods, a subscription-based model being the most probable one. At the recent Credit Suisse Technology Conference from last week, Chief Operating Officer Kevin Turner was speaking (transcript in Microsoft Word format) to investors about the fact that Microsoft is interested in exploring new monetization methods for its Windows line of products. The company might adopt a new pricing model for the upcoming operating system, as it looks to shift away from the one-time initial purchase to an ongoing-revenue basis.
I'm sorry, I don't rent my operating systems. Or my applications for that matter. Now get off my lawn. :)
Maybe they should focus on reducing logging and fragmentation. I won't pay for such poorly written software again:
http://i.imgur.com/Ulem4sP.png
Now? Soon? Maybe? No. Not even if Micro$oft rents the OS. Sadly.
There goes all those torrents of 'WINDOWS 8 ULTIMATE X64 TIMMY EDITION FULLY ACTIVATED'.
It's as if they are trying to boost linux downloads.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
>> The company might adopt a new pricing model for the upcoming operating system, as it looks to shift away from the one-time initial purchase to an ongoing-revenue basis.
This certainly follows what we've seen out of the Office and Azure product lines already, what developers are used to with MSDN subscriptions and what many enterprise customers are used to with "true-ups" with large CAL and desktop/laptop counts. However, the coming squeeze on customers locked into Microsoft is why I love the fact that my company has gone all in on a multi-year "if it's not open source (or our own customizations), we don't need it" approach to software.
Consumers are cheap - this is evidenced by the number of consumers who never install a new version of Windows on their computers. How will Microsoft get people to subscribe when they buy a new computer?
Buy this new laptop for only $499!*
*Plus recurring $10/moy payments for the remainder of the computer's life
Yeah, that will sell like hotcakes....
So the trend seems to be to give the OS away for free as Apple, Google, Linux (for the most part) are doing. Microsoft decides to be different any make people constantly pay for the OS instead of just paying up front. Sounds like a great plan, and I really hope it stays in the rumor realm.
Oddly enough this actually became common with Linux before Windows. Many big companies that use Linux pay for an annual RHEL subscription, even though you could use a gratis version of Linux. The current prices: without support, it's $50/yr for desktops, $180/yr for workstations, $350/yr for servers. With support, $300/yr for workstations, $800/yr for servers.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I find it highly unlikely that Microsoft would switch solely to a subscription model. There are any number of deployment contexts where machines spend their life not connected to the Internet. Not only would offline renewal be a customer service nightmare, the expense of operating it would negate any merit. Even if connected, many (most?) consumers, as well as many businesses would be highly adverse to switching from a capital purchase to a lease of their PCs.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Sounds like... Technet. They essentially had this. Maybe the price points were wrong for them, or they didn't like some of the details, but they effectively had a subscription service. They shut it down. I loved it when it was available - $250 a year for essentially 3-5 licenses of every OS version, plus tools, plus applications, plus 1-3 server licenses of each version of the server. Heck, at $350 a year I wouldn't have even blinked. But for some reason they couldn't just shut up and take my money.
Death Spiral
This is how it starts (or at least continues).
I'm sorry, I don't rent my operating systems. Or my applications for that matter.
Neither do I. Ticking timebombs are a complete deal-breaker for me.
However, I would seriously consider paying a reasonable recurring fee to fund continued updates for an OS that works well for me after some sensible initial period of free support, so that OS can remain useful for a very long time and continue to support backward-compatible functionality while still keeping up with necessary compatibility and security changes as the environment around it evolves.
Personally, I value stability more than random changes in user interfaces, and nowhere more so than in my operating system. I hate the modern trend of pushing out unreliable compulsory updates every five minutes, which don't just fix bugs or close security holes but also introduce regressions, maybe completely change the UI, or even remove functionality.
Windows has traditionally been a shining contrast to that, and Microsoft have put in a huge amount of effort over the years to support their software for much longer than most projects do. However, it was never really commercially sensible to expect the kind of effort to be made indefinitely by Microsoft when no-one is paying them anything extra for it. The result is turkeys like Vista and Windows 8, when apparently a lot of us were much happier sticking with XP or Windows 7.
So, I'd rather see some open, transparent arrangement where you know how long you get free updates for with the purchase and then there is a straightforward arrangement for funding more, instead of moving to some sort of lock-in/subscription model as promoted by the likes of Adobe or the "your software is more than five minutes old so we won't support you any more" model as promoted by the likes of Apple, Google and Mozilla.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Adobe went subscription, and I'm done with them. If Microsoft does it, I'm done with them too.
The next killer app is 3d printing & CNC milling software for the masses. If open-source takes that high ground, the dinosaurs are screwed.
But with a core operating system, I could just seeing it being a major problem. Though even if they do it, at least provide a rent or buy option.
Back in the 70's, businesses used terminals hooked to servers using leased software with maintenance contracts. This was clearly a scam that generated unjustified profits for some corporate titans who were then free to be mediocre and not innovative.
Along came guys like Jobs, Wozniak and Gates who took on that old system and trashed it by saying to small business "you can own your system, have full control of your data, and pay for your software only once". Using this model, they defeated to old corporate giants while competing against eachother and bringing the consumer innovation and value. Now that they have become the corporate titans with near a monoply grip on the market, they have seen what the old titans saw: to keep growing your profits and keep your shareholders happy when you already have essentially all the available customers, you must find a way to get more cash out of your existing customer base. SHAZAM! The old server/data model is re-marketed as a big white fluffy "cloud", and the old abusive customer-wallet-milking billing model is a "subscription". They are just counting on newer, younger useres not noticing that this is all the vary same rip-off that they once insisted was evil.
Time for somebody new to come along and repeat the 70's with "you can own your hardware, control your data, and only pay once for your innovative software..."
This would be great news for Linux and BSD if only their developers would stop trying to re-create Windows2000, stop trying to adopt every crazy new fad before first fixing the most basic usability hurdles that keep these things from taking over the desktop: Linux printing? (still a crappy joke most users cannot make work) Linux audio? (still a screw-up without a single standard LINUX API) Linux desktop use of files on a server or NAS? (still a mess with things like Nautilus not able to reliably do it, when it SHOULD be totally plug-and-play and access to such files from all apps should be just as if they were local). As long as it takes a "guru" to make LINUX or BSD do ANY thing a normal user would want to do, it's a mistake to be adding sugary glossy eye candy and new features no matter how much deveopers would prefer to be doing this.
With the crazy UI shifts, the security debacles, the hunger for hardware resources, and the generally inconsistent (read: shitty) performance of the various Windows releases, Microsoft has made a lot more enemies than friends over the years. What's worse is that it took their Board of Directors so long to oust Steve Ballmer, who was at the helm during their "screw the customers" years.
So now nobody likes Microsoft, nobody trusts them. The end users merely tolerate them, and even that has its limits. Such a transparent attempt to wring even more cash from their remaining customers is going to do nothing to win back former allies, while at the same time vindicating their critics.
There were once those who cried "break up Microsoft!" during the anti-trust sentencing. If Microsoft decides to go with subscriptions, it may end up bringing about its own break-up with very little outside effort.
Sure am glad I've moved all of my families systems over to Linux. I spent from about 1991 till 2010 cleaning up behind Microsoft's crap, at various companies, all the way from Windows 3.1 to XP.. Last company I worked for in 2010 before retiring is *just* now finishing up moving to Windows 7 from XP. They hadn't even started when I left in 2010. There is no way in hell I'd pay MS per month to use their crap... Linux does what we need (and more) and Linus doesn't have his hand out for $$$ nor do I have to call and talk to a robot to "authorize" Linux... THOSE two features alone are worth using Linux vs Windows...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
...the way they price their OS upgrades make a lot of sense. Small yearly upgrade - small price.
Apple can do that because they own their hardware market. Microsoft can't even manage to own a decent-sized piece of a free-for-all hardware market, much less create their own viable hardware ecosystem.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Perhaps the sole reason I use Windows is to use Adobe software. I do not have a choice in the matter, work/school requires that I run that software. Now I need an operating system to run that software. I cannot afford Mac, so Windows it is. But wait, Windows is not stable. I have to get antivirus, defrag, software/driver updaters and registry correction software on top of that. It costs a lot, but still cheaper than Mac. Forget the fact that there is a l o n g list of people asking Adobe to open a port to Linux. So I have to pay a premium for what is probably the worst, most unstable operating systems out there. Mind you, Adobe is just as bad. You have Adobe taking gigs of space for their software and it crashes like a drunken, overweight sailor in a china shop. I used GNU/Linux for years before I suddenly had to get Adobe and it is night and day. You can get GNU/Linux and a tonne of software for a mere tiny fraction of hard drive space that runs secure and rock solid. Well, serves me right for making a compromise. I went the Adobe route and get shafted every which way. If Windows wants us to pay more, start making something stable, secure and operational.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
I have had several clients go partway though the install of the new office versions with the Microsoft account required, and get very frustrated. Then ask to see Libre Office again. And then give up on MS Office. If these new policies will switch someone to open source AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID, it is a very bad sign for MS.
The web config on a Cisco switch...
Apple's system is better, and it is worse in a number of ways. A Mac only will get a certain number of OS X releases, and after that, if you want major security fixes, updates for applications, or other items, you have to replace your hardware. So, OS X is "free" in one sense... but if one factors in the fact that the hardware only will work with new releases for a certain amount of time (for example, six years and counting for my late 2008 aluminum MacBook), Apple does get its due.
With MS, even the latest edition of Windows can run on some pretty ancient hardware, so MS earns their cash by the OS and revisions. If MS got a chunk of change for every PC made, the model might be different.
Windows version upgrades will need to be made a lot smoother if they're gonna expect hundreds of millions of users to apply them every year.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Look at the sales numbers of Office 365 and then fire whoever's idea this was. I'm not paying $1000 a seat over 10 years for MS fucking Office.
Write endurance is not an issue for desktop SSDs, even in power user setups. Slashdot had an article on it just a few days ago. Seriously, writing logs is not an issue, at all, with regards to the endurance of your drive.
It is called Software Assurance. Been doing it for quite some time.
How exactly, is Microsoft going to get the end consumer (who just gave a bunch of money to Dell, HP, or Lenovo) to continually pay for an operating system and applications when Google and Apple are giving theirs away for free?
I guess we will finally find out how much people really like Windows and Office. Do they like it enough to pay forever?
Maybe future Winblows will include a credit card swiper.
Is that "swipe" as in "steal"? There ae SO many with prior art on stealing credit cards under Windows.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The only way I'd do a subscription for Windows is if I could stop paying without my current version self-destructing. Honestly, I'd prefer they did away with "product activation" and "Windows Genuine Advantage" (or whatever they're calling it now) in favor of a simple subscription for updates.
I think Microsoft would be smart to offer something like, "Pay $100/year, and get an always-up-to-date version of Windows, Office, antivirus updates, some basic MDM functionality, and 100 GB of OneDrive storage. Cancel at any time, and keep your current version of Windows and Office, but you won't get any updates or patches beyond critical security updates." If that were the deal, I'd probably go with it. Make it $150-$200/year for business accounts that offer Office 365 and some additional bells and whistles, and I think you have a business model.
I'm finally making the switch to Linux.
Thanks for the push, fuckos!
Reading the article and the source, they seem to just be guessing at this new strategy. Not news.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
but isn't this a very stupid thing to do? I mean, one of the reasons MS can get away with windows is by hiding the actual cost to the consumer, since it's mostly bundled with the brand desktop or laptop you buy. At the end, most regular users really see windows as being free. Then in comes MS and starts waving invoices in front of their faces? People are going to start wondering if there's an actually-free alternative...
In most things I'm as against the subscription model as everyone else but I want a legal copy of Windows for doing occasional testing on. By occasional I mean really rare. I kind of need it but at the same time couldn't possibly justify the price of a Windows license for the tiny amount of use it would actually get in my home. I suspect that paying by the minute I would actually come out ahead! How much will about 30 minutes to an hour per year cost me?
Currently I end up using my office's PCs to test things that are side work. I don't think anyone really cares but I don't like doing that.
I'm just about done with Windows anyway.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
CLIPPY: I see you're writing a letter. Would you like help? Please enter a valid credit card number.
This, exactly. I'm currently taking care of a house for a guy in Costa Rica. Included with the house is a Generation 1 iPhone. He never installed any apps on it when he first got it, and when I went to try to put some one, it's impossible. All the apps currently available will only work with newer OS/hardware versions than the phone has. There's no way to make it compatible with the new store at all, so I'm stuck with it being just a phone. Not that I care (PC guy here) but if I'd bought an Gen-1 iPhone at the original insane price, and I'd managed to keep it alive all these years (what with the non-replaceable battery) I'd be pissed as hell that I couldn't actually use it with any of the currently available software. (note: this came up because my wife wanted to use the Kindle Reader app on the iPhone - not a spec-hod application in any way, and yet totally not backwards compatible.)
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
The death of Windows. I won't pay subscription for an operating system. In fact I run Ubuntu so there's no need for me to ever use Windows again.
Since when /. pay for windows?
Do you think MS would go with buying a $299 laptop with a $10/month subscription? They may go with 2 year subscription free. After that, your computer would stop getting updates. But if you pay $x (either a monthly or annual fee), you are getting windows as well as onedrive, skype, ms office, etc. I think this model works. I never paid a penny to MS directly until I saw the offer on office 365. I couldn't resist even it does not worth the money for MS office alone, but combined with unlimited onedrive, skype, etc, I bit.
that article reads more like... they are thinking about it, but nothing is decided yet
I have a high end application that is simply mandatory for work in my field and it only runs on Windows. It is bad enough if the application goes to a new version I don't want or need, but the force me to pay for & do it anyway or lose contact for needed files and support, but Microsoft can now make it worse with Monitization.
If I don't pay a recurring fee for Windows, then I could be in jeopardy of being suddenly held hostage if someone hacks the MS servers and my version of Windows goes down.
Sorry, but I just don't trust Microsoft, at all.
I'm continuing to post comments & write letters pleading with the makers of the key applications I need to support Mac OS X.
The only, I mean *only* reason I put up with Windows is to run Lightroom and the Adobe CS suite. I started using Photoshop on a Mac (G4), switched to Windows because Apple and Adobe were feuding and I got tired of paying a premium for what was basically a generic Intel box.
But Microsoft, not being content to leave a good thing alone when the got they bugs out of Win7 and concentrate on incremental improvements, royally screwed Windows as an OS, partially recovered from that (Win10, if it lives up to the hype) and then appears to be deliberately screwing the pooch with OS rental.
The small glimmer of hope is that incremental pricing means that they could incrementally maintain the OS, breaking the cycle of some new potentially disastrous complete rewrite every 2-3 years. In fact, this gives Windows an opportunity to do continuous development on the OS like their competitors currently do.
But I don't have any faith at all that Microsoft will get this right. It'll just be another revenue stream with no user benefit whatsoever.
So... It looks like Windows is becoming unviable, Macs are too expensive and I dislike being associated with the glassy-eyed user base, and the Adobe tools don't work on any other platform. (Don't even bring up Carousel. It's a toy, for dressing up party photos taken with the ipad.)
In the old days I really tried to switch to Gimp, and it just wasn't all there at the time. But some googling this morning reveals a variety of photographic tools for Linux, including what looks like a fairly complete Lightroom works-alike. If Adobe won't port to Linux, perhaps it's time to look at other tools. I guess you could call this collateral damage.
Sorry, Adobe.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Why would you care about the log files being fragmented? Do you even know what file fragmentation is, and why that image and complaints are pretty silly?
Their Software Assurance program has done almost exactly this for businesses for years. Bringing it to consumers seems perfectly logical to me.
In my career, I have seen Microsoft try 4 times to get a subscription model for Office working. Failed miserably every time. No-one wants to buy software that locks you into paying forever.
So if Microsoft go down the subscription route for the operating system, they will kill themselves stone cold dead.
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
I can't speak for MS's plan but Adobe CC is far from "wringing even more cash" from their user base.
That depends on your point of view.
We use various parts of Creative Suite occasionally for work, but not as everyday software. We bought a copy of one of the bundle versions more than four years ago, for a one-time price of about £1,250 at the time.
Today, it looks like the closest equivalent UK pricing on Creative Cloud is about £560/year. It would have cost us approximately twice as much so far under the new pricing model, and we'd still be locked into paying forever.
Defenders of the model talk about the benefits of paying a small fee monthly being more manageable, but I'm running a business and can add up, so accounting over the course of a year is hardly a burden.
Defenders of the model also talk about all the improvements Adobe make and the benefits of having the latest software, but if their improvements were worth much to us then we'd have bought an upgrade to CS6 and we never saw anything to justify the cost. I haven't seen much to got me excited in any of the applications we use ever since the move to Creative Cloud either; there's plenty that we would pay for, but either Adobe aren't doing those things or they aren't very good at advertising when they have.
The thing is, even if they did those things now, while we'd have happily paid for the upgrades on a one-time basis, there is zero chance that we're going to commit to unregulated rent-seeking on software we rely on to do our business. We have seriously considered spending significantly more money to get a high-spec Mac just so we can run some of the generation of graphics software that is emerging on that platform, sometimes costing less for a permanent licence that CC does for a single month, yet with a reputation that suggests it would be at least as good for the kind of work we do if not better.
I think our attitude to Windows payments would be similar. Give us decent optional upgrades at sensible intervals and we'll happily pay a reasonable price for that support. Try to lock us in so something we already paid for switches off if we don't keep paying, and we'll never buy Windows again, and just stick with our existing Win7 licenses until we move entirely to Mac and Linux machines.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And a legal license to use them only for development or testing, and not to be used as your main computer OS. Guess you forgot that part.
I've been buying the same Windows operating system over and over again for more than a decade.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
I bought a Surface, and I've been playing with some of the little built-in "free" games. (Solitaire, Mah Jong, etc.) There's an option to pay a small amount to remove the ads from them, and not being a fan of ads (and really not minding paying the microtransaction amount), I clicked the option. It took me to the store where, for $1.99, I could remove the ads for a month. Or for something like $10, I could remove them for a year. No option to remove them permanently.
Um... Seriously?
No thanks.
This may mean that Windows finally has the maturity that updating to a new version all the time is not necessary anymore. It also means that security fixes will be available long-term. While many do not like this model, for a commercial OS, maintenance fees are the norm and Windows is/was the exception. Continued improvement has a price, either to be paid by the users (commercial OS) or by the community (FOSS OS). While I use Windows only for gaming and the relatively rare cases where I need to write Word documents (for all other things I use Linux), I would welcome a model where Windows finally gets a stable feature set.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
it will only accelerate the adoption of OSX and Chromebooks. Windows 8 home version costs about $100. It should be good for about 5 years before having to upgrade it. That works out to $20/year. Anything more than that does not make sense - unless they are going to offer some sort of extended support beyond the 5 years.
I've always poo-pooed the "The Linux desktop is here" calls...for decades.
Well, this could do it. Even for me.
From the COO's talk to investors:
But, we're able to have coopetition, a new word that we're continuing to learn the exactly what it means and how we are able to create swim lane clarity around.
Zero-royalty on nine-inch and below devices . . . You're seeing $99 Windows tablets, embracing and extending the ecosystem by lighting up some of these new business model scenarios, allowing us to monetize the lifetime of that customer through services and different add-ons that we're able to be able to incorporate with that solution.
Office and .NET going cross-platform, very important for us, again, to embrace and extend and I'm excited about those changes, being able to run on iOS and Android, as well as our own platform.
So, what you'll get is the "Embrace & Extend" treatment.
Extinguish is on hold for now, I guess, until they see how Embrace & Extend goes.
If you were subscribing, 7 wouldn't have been available anymore.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Generation 1 iPhone didn't support applications at all. You need to upgrade the phone to iOS 2.0 to use the app store. I don't know if the 2.0 app store still exists or not but at the very least when he bought the phone it didn't have application capacity, nor at the time was it every hinted at so arguing that its a terrible situation for him not to have it now is a bit odd.
It's the return of MS Squeegee Guy, only it's not a joke this time.
Finally some Clue (TM) out of the Redmond mothership!
In a subscription model, M$ does NOT have to tempt the users with "new features" to get you to buy their software, so there's no impetus to "change everything for the sake of change" and the abominations that are Me, Vista, "ribbons" and 8 should not happen anymore.
The initial cost of Windows drops to zero: Why would the mothership bother charging for it up front? The first hit is always free!
Since M$ is getting paid for every Windows system running, they can actually FIX the security problems in Windows instead of insisting that we all have to upgrade so they can make money. They will be able AND motivated to keep supporting older versions for much longer. Less retraining and hassle for the end users, and more stable and reliable systems for users and businesses to depend on.
Businesses have been doing it this way for years now, and they like it.
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
... the EXIT strategy. Starting with Windows 8, M$ seems to have had a strategy to drive its OS customer base away. Subscriptions are just part of that strategy.
I thought I'd seen this before. Here's the Slashdot story saying windows 7 would be subscription based.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
Fair enough. I had no idea.
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
"But, we're able to have coopetition, a new word that we're continuing to learn the exactly what it means and how we are able to create swim lane clarity around."
I'm sorry, but my buzzword bingo card just shit it's pants over that sentence. Coopetition and Swim Lane Clarity. That makes Synergy seem quaint.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It will be the opposite like the Microsoft deals from the mid 1990s. Agree to a 3 year subscription and you get a $499 computer, far better than the $299 computer your friend bought for free with the subscription.
I have to get antivirus, defrag, software/driver updaters and registry correction software on top of that.
You may need to run Windows, but that doesn't mean you have to run an ancient version of it. Win7 doesn't actually need defragging unless you use a spinning drive and tend to fill up the entire capacity of the disk *and* do a lot of random writes (you do have a dedicated scratch disk like Adobe recommends, right?), comes with antivirus built in, software and driver updates are automatic (unless the vendor doesn't support them). As to registry correction software...wtf are you doing with your PC? I've used the registry since NT v3.1 and have never needed "correction software" for the registry hives.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
My wife has a $100 color HP printer; each ink refill costs $60 but she's become attached to it. The printer won't print unless it's a "genuine HP cartridge" with DoD level 5 DRM and ink that costs more than Zafrio Anejo tequila laced with polonium 210. It should be spraying powdered rubies, emeralds, and sapphire, not marked-up food coloring. And when their overpriced black cartridge runs out, they trick you into wasting all your remaining cartridges by combining all three to make black.
I ended up pulling my ten year old laser printer out of the closet (tucked next to a ten year old Win XP laptop), got a third party drum cartridge for $15, and now I can print things without having to decide whether it's worth the ink.
Carly Fiorina left HP's reputation lying in pieces on a seafloor before she switched to a more appropriate career. Now we have Satya Nadella who is synergistically pumping Microsoft's reputation down a fracking well. After Microsoft fully transitions its business model from software to cable compary fuckery,, he'll change careers and become a Senator.
Free OS X upgrades "now" is the least Apple can do, since they charge a developer fee and require you be absolutely current with their OS if you want to access their latest SDKs. 10.8 and sooner were not free. I preferred it when they did not upgrade their OS on such short turn around, as these updates tend to break things. My version of Logic is completely hosed on Yosemite -- I skipped Maverick. If I want a working version of Logic, it's going to cost me $199.
I'm not feeling the free part with OS X.
I am NOT getting locked into a subscription model and allowing ANY vendor to hold me hostage. NOT happening.
I'd rather unplug than get sucked into an extortion ring like that.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
10.9 was the first free version of OS X and it was released in Oct 2013 -- so about a 'year' ago. Not sure where you're getting years?
Prior to these new free updates, I've always paid about the same for each new version of OS X -- which I've been using since version 1, and about the same for each new version of System OS.
And given how much Apple charges for upgrades on their hardware -- which are now soldered on in most cases -- and for their Macs in general, which now have a shorter support life than before, I can't see how they're loosing money on their OS...
This could work, but it would involve MS, you know, actually listening to its customers and actually working to deliver what they want. Maybe take a class in Business 101 and learn to actually give your customers what the want? Stop laughing, I'm being crazy, I know, I know..
MS's track record of "listening to customer feedback" generally has boiled down to shoving some new half-baked OS up their user's asses and wondering months later why they are still moaning and groaning so loudly.
Paying a monthly subscription for the honor of trying to recover my former levels of productivity after MS fucks up the GUI for the Nth time? No. Fuck no.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
I've just done a few manual installs of Office 2013 and I did not have to set up a Microsoft account during the install procedure, but I actually install media and a volume license. When I installed it manually it doesn't even ask for a license, I had to add it afterwards.
You can disable First Run via GPO, and you can block signing into office online with a GPO. You can also disable prompting to sign in online while saving.
Install the Office 2013 GPO Templates and use:
User Configuration->Policies->Administrative Templates->Microsoft Office 2013->Miscellaneous
Set "Show OneDrive Sign In" to Disabled
Set "Block signing into Office" to Enabled, choose "None allowed" from the dropdown
I've tested this, it completely removes saving to the cloud as an option from the Save As dialog.
For the First Run Wizard, use:
User Configuration->Policies->Administrative Templates->Microsoft Office 2013->Privacy->Trust Center
Set "Disable Opt-in Wizard on first run" to Enabled.
This will not give the user the option to change update settings, presumably you'd have update policies set up using group policy anyway.
If this is for a standalone user, I would imagine there's no option to do this (unless you went in through the UI and disabled it manually.)
Users are becoming increasingly OS agnostic. They use OSX, Android, iOS, Chrome OS, Windows and (some) true Linux. Enterprise might subscribe, but will consumers? "You mean I have to pay an annual subscription to keep this box working? Sorry, dude but I see that Mint model over there advertising no subscription and machine life updates. Can I do my Internet on that?"
There is one possible exception to my mind: Guaranteed security and stability. If MS says it new Windows will be self contained. That one won't need add ons like subscription AV, anti Malware, or tweakware to keep it running smoothly and safely. And that MS commits to doing all the work to keep its OS in optimal shape, then perhaps, but only perhaps, would an annual fee be acceptable to some. But really they pretty much do that now for free with weekly patches and Security Essentials etc. Moreover, let's remember that Chrome OS does the same hidden maintenance thing for free, too. And better IMHO. Granted Chrome OS is pretty limited, but more and more applications are on tap to work on the platform within Chrome OS and the browser. I also think hardware vendors would see a MS subscription OS as a drug on their market.
The world is moving the other way as the OS is becoming increasingly less prominent. Heck, many people use two or three different OSs and don't even realize it. MS is practically giving 8.1 away to sell its hardware -- as well as that of its partners' -- and to keep market share. Chrome is a giveaway as is Android. I am sure MS would love to get subs for an OS. But it would be a hard sell in today's world of computing appliances. If they couldn't do subs earlier they won't manage now when the rest of the space is in giveaway mode.. And to try would probably hurt their business. What they have to do is make a disruptively cool, kick-ass OS that people have to have to make their new computers do new and wondrous things in the real world (deep learning, AI, robots and smart homes anyone?). They have the resources to do it. Do they still have the vision?
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
You are right. But its been since 10.5 in 2007 that I paid $129. I was thinking "free" when in reality it was just cheap. Point taken.
How did you do that?
I don't know if wild Slashdot speculation that Microsoft might fundamentally change their business model to something word that everybody would hate is enough of a reason for them to move to an entirely new OS.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Yeah, I have an iPhone 3GS I still use, but it's getting more and more difficult. Support for this generation of phone stopped with iOS 6, and a lot of newer apps, or newer versions of some of my existing apps, require iOS 7 or 8. I'll be forced to buy a new phone soon...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
You can not make money charging people for their computer to boot up and open a web browser. MacOSX, iOS, ChromeOS and Android are all free with purchase of the device, including any updates which are offered for that model.
It is, however, completely sane and profitable to offer an OS with only default web browser and app store. Let people choose what they want to use for e-mail, calendar, word processing, games or even terminals. Many will get free apps from app store or sideload them from browser/USB/DVD. But some will choose paid or freemium ones, and then you start making money.
In fact, if subscriptions are what you are after, why not app subscriptions? I am gladly paying for Amazon's Freetime Unlimited, as I can just give a tablet to my daughter and let her choose whatever apps/books/videos she wants, knowing that costs will be under control. I see app "channels" for different types of users doing well, and nobody is doing it yet except this one example.
Eventually, OS vendors may well pay device renders and even share a percentage of app store and web ad revenue for the privilege of user's attention.
I've just done a few manual installs of Office 2013 and I did not have to set up a Microsoft account during the install procedure, but I actually install media and a volume license.
I'm guessing that "own" or "have" was supposed to go between "actually" and "install" - and that, good sir/madam, is the difference.
Volume licensed copies operate the same as Office always(ish) has - burn/extract ISO, run installer, agree to the EULA, pick your stuff if you want, let it sit, run an app, add your key via the 'account' menu, let the app activate, and restart. No muss, no fuss, and no internet needed at all except for the activation server (even that depending on whether you have a MAK or KLS).
Everyone else gets the crappy version...
Once you fork over your details, you then download a stub installer. The stub installer asks for the e-mail address and password used when making the purchase. That e-mail is now a part of your Microsoft account, which is now required to allow the software to operate. The stub then downloads everything. Don't want Access or Publisher? sucks to be you. The download will hopefully not-fail, because if it does, it fails spectacularly, and you're flushing temp files and obscure %programdata% directories to give the stub the "fresh meat" signal to try again. The download takes about half an hour on a 15/2 cable modem, but it's better left an overnight ordeal if you have suboptimal DSL. You can't store anything more than the stub, and a service runs in the background to auto-install any updates that come along.
Now, in Microsoft's defense, the SSO function between Win8 and Office 2013 is actually kinda cool, and the account also unlocks the mobile titles (also preferable than entering a product key on a phone). Also, since the license terms are just a smidge different on the consumer versions than the volume editions, the 'streaming installer' enforces the rental terms - it's essentially the only way to enforce a software subscription.
tl;dr - MS treats Volume Licenses like actual software, and retail licenses more like Netflix, so the difference is almost a given.
Currently, I do shell out for an annual security subscription -- three seats. (I just tired of all the nagging and hoop jumping needed to perpetuate free AV accounts.) In my experience MS Security Essentials etc. is just not enough.
Here is the thing: If Microsoft offered top-flight security baked into the OS for a reasonable annual fee I might spring and drop the after-market application. Perhaps a two-tier sub or no sub : Windows option A would include bare-bones security and updates, basically the status quo (no sub). Option B would include a deluxe annual security package with good native utilities and maybe a little free support (with sub). You would have a choice between A or B when you activated your OS, with the subscription offered at a steep discount. Later you could still buy into the security, but at a higher price.
I mean many of us pay for some security anyway, Why not pay the OS developer? Especially if the security suite caused fewer problems since it was native. My current AV vendor currently gives me a free seat for my Android phone. Maybe the MS sub could throw in some phone security as well if you had a Windows phone. If MS could do this -- and do this right -- then they might get on the subscription gravy train. But again Microsoft's competition is doing much of this gratis. This makes the growing success of the Chrome OS internet appliances pretty understandable. MS has a pretty tough row to hoe.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
If you're still using a 3GS, rather than paying for something newer, the odds are that you're not interested in spending much money on your phone. Moreover, you're in a small minority by now, so you're really in an unprofitable niche market. It's also in Apple's best financial interest to induce you to buy a new phone, since they make most of their money by selling hardware.
And, yes, I've been in this situation before with other stuff, so I know it's frustrating.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'll be able to buy a PC with no more Windoze tax!
"Insert coin here to activate Windows for 30 minutes" Hahahahahahahahahahahh !!!!! (That was a penguin laughing)
This is theft, they want to rob us continuously, down with microsoft!!!
Not the steam, its "MARKETING" You make people believe that its worth $4, people used to even buy pet stones, i mean "pet stones" americans really ? pet stones ? thanks to marketing though!
This feels like a troll, but I'll respond anyway.
There is no standard and free audio API on Linux.
Wrong on both accounts. Both ALSA and Pulseaudio are available on pretty much every Linux distro. Pulseaudio is generally regarded as the standard these days, but you can target ALSA if you really care about supporting the minority of Arch and Gentoo users without Pulseaudio.
Both of these are free (both libre and gratis), with the GPL family of licenses being the FSF's gold standard.
As for your claim about the LGPL, I am not aware of any evidence that supports your interpretation. In fact, the existence of Linux ports for numerous AAA games indicates that many large companies do not consider the risk significant. Furthermore, courts are generally quite conservative, and prefer to avoid disrupting existing arrangements where possible. The idea that the LGPL was explicitly designed to enable the use of libraries by non-GPL'd programs, combined with the number of companies relying on it, means that regardless of ambiguities in the actual wording, the chances of the LGPL being turned into a regular GPL are slim to none.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Why shouldn't Microsoft steal that too?
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.