Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Trademarks "Windows 365"
jones_supa writes The talks about a subscription-based Windows have begun again. With Windows 10 those ideas did not materialize in the way that many had speculated. Even though Microsoft has not fully detailed its Windows 10 pricing strategy, it is not believed that Microsoft is targeting an annual subscription charge for Windows at this time. However, it turns out that Microsoft has recently filed for a trademark for Windows 365, which adds a bit of fuel to the subscription based version of Windows. As of right now, Microsoft has only claimed this branding right, but as for what they will do with it, only time will tell. Deep inside the company, the idea is clearly still bubbling there.
...Consumers and hobbyists signing on to a perpetual Microsoft tax.
I have my doubts about large customers also. Many stick with a single version of windows for years and years because they want a stable computing environment.
Well, as stable as it can be with Microsoft.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
... but what happens on a leap year? Will Windows be unusable on that day? I mean, more unusable than it already is.
no windows for 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036...
As per July 2014, MS was hauling in $2.5Billion in revenue for Office 365, an increase of 2.5x over the previous year.
http://news.microsoft.com/2014...
"Windows 8 suxxxxxxs, what to do?"
"Windows 8.1 as a stopgap. And rush Windows 9 into production."
"No, we need to give the perception of totally abandoning 8. Skip 9 and call it 10."
"Might not be far enough. How about 360 like X-Box? Release in 2016."
"Nah sounds like a toy. How about Windows 365 -- The everyday computer for the everyman?"
"Everyperson."
"Ok, do it."
2016 rolls around. $2 billion in ads come out.
"Microsoft proudly introduces Windows 365! The everyday computer for the everyperson!"
"Oh my god."
"What?"
"2016 is a leap year."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
On all fronts, the competition has been hurting them by reduced/no OS licensing cost inflicted on the consumer and/or vendor. For Apple, it's to push hardware, for google to push ecosystem. In both their major competitor's cases, they are making inroads by using the OS as a giveaway as a means to a more profitable end.
MS doubling down on charging for the OS would only help their competition. If they are serious about enabling their ecosystem, they need to restructure things so those goals fund the OS development, not require the OS development to pay for itself.
MS also misunderstands another facet. They think a rolling release OS is critical to their success. They think they need the OS to be able to incorporate new function on a whim. They probably feel that way as they are impatient to have Windows 10 come along to fix what they did wrong in Windows 8. The problem is no one was demanding features out of Windows 7. The sin in windows 8 was inflicting undesired features, not being slow to deliver features. A rolling release will mean that MS customers pissed with some major design change are less able to latch on to some MS sanctioned safe haven (e.g. today it is windows 7) and look harder at jumping on OSX, IOS, Android, or a desktop linux depending on the area. Enthusiasts may bitch and moan about not having Lollipop 5 minutes after it releases, but 99% of the world would just as soon have their device work basically the same way day to day.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Registering a trademark is cheap, especially for any outfit that's large enough to have their own lawyers already on staff. So, there isn't much percentage in trying to read anything big into the registering of a trademark. In this case, they would need no greater reason to trademark "Windows 365" than the fact that they already have some related trademarks.
Every computer will come with it and you won't be able to get a game or new hardware without having to check extensively that it supports Linux (or BSD) and find that it doesn't yet.
You won't be able to get older versions.
You won't be allowed on the internet without a "supported OS".
You will have no choice in this matter except not to play at all and give up computers. And then if enough do that, it will be "explained" as being due to piracy or some other guff.
that 365 is an odd number. Even numbered versions of Windows sucked.
Let's see how much longer we can totaly disapoint the customers. I know, let's taint CyanogenMod and make the Xbox,Windows, and Office abnoxious to use. Wait don't go, customers! We are introducing a subscription to the OS that instances partially run on our servers unencrypted and partially on your machine. Please insert credits to continue. It is not riddled with security holes, and we give your data to anyone that asks for it. Why are you leaving? There are 175,000 updates this week, but this is not a beta version sold as complete. Please do not use or power off your machine for the next 40 minutes. Oops, updater crashed in the middle of updates. Please insert credits to continue.
That's actually one of the big challenges Microsoft is facing. They have an internal conflict of interest between their OS division and apps division (mostly Office). From the viewpoint of the apps division, they are best off making Office available for all platforms. From the viewpoint of the OS division, they are best off making Office available only for Windows, so people are forced to buy a Windows license to use Office.
For about 7 years, the OS division won that argument, and Office was only available on Windows and Windows Mobile (plus a slightly out-of-date version for OS X). That changed last year and they're now making Office available on Android, iOS, and the cloud. Basically this means you no longer need to buy Windows to run Office, so Windows will have to sell on its own merits.
If you've been following Microsoft since the monopoly lawsuits in the 1990s, it's ironic. Many of us back then felt the best solution would've been to break up Microsoft into two companies - an OS company and an apps company - to eliminate the conflict of interest created by their near-monopoly position. It didn't happen then, but it looks like after a couple decades the market is pushing them in that direction anyway.
Two things:
1) Many educational institutions already pay yearly for Microsoft products through their Microsoft Consolidated Campus Agreement. While the OSes are generally purchased along with new computers, the upgrades are rolled into the "Desktop Core" package -- so we go and buy a hundred computers with Windows 7 Home (or whatever the cheapest one is outside of Win7 Basic), then we can upgrade them to Windows 8.1 Enterprise for "free" (or Win 7 Enterprise)...and eventually Windows 10 assuming hardware specs out well enough. It isn't cheap -- somewhere around $35/person (there's a nice equation) and that gets upgrades to Windows, new Office, and a few other things. And installs can go anywhere once you've completed the equation -- you might have 200 people in your department, but 500 computers -- and you can install on all 500 computers.
2) Windows comes wrapped up with the new PC usually, so where pricing hits you is with upgrades, or if you're building your own from components. A subscription model makes good business sense -- steadier revenue. But revenue hasn't really been a Microsoft problem since such a high percentage of computers are licensed with Windows.
Want to hasten your own decline for consumers? Try foisting a subscription model on them and then acting like it's not the consumer who owns the computer.
I'd like to believe that, but unfortunately a significant fraction of the customer base for software appears to be quite happy paying up. Adobe show no remorse over moving to subscription-only with Creative Cloud. Games companies show no remorse about requiring always-online DRM schemes, and little sympathy even when the servers fall over and people can't play their new game on Christmas morning. I assume the amount of money they're making from the people who still pay up outweighs the amount they've lost in customers choosing not to buy (rent?) their new software on those terms.
I hope -- and expect -- that this situation will change in time, as the reality of paying or being literally shut off sinks in, and as people get tired of having forced upgrades they didn't want or need that sometimes make things worse than they were before.
Personally, I would never voluntarily rely on software for anything important where it stopped working completely if I stopped paying. This is the so-called "rental model" for software sales, and can be very customer-hostile -- stop paying and you actually lose something you had before.
However, some software -- particularly system software -- naturally becomes less useful over time unless it receives updates to ensure compatibility with newer things and to protect against newer security and privacy risks. So, my take is that big software companies like Microsoft are missing a huge opportunity right now. I would happily pay a reasonable recurring fee to a software company in return for ongoing compatibility and security fixes, if that meant I could keep using the version of software I actually liked and found useful indefinitely, without having to buy into "upgrades" that might break something. Some of the big names have taken some steps in this direction with various corporate licensing schemes, but these are usually the preserve of big business customers, while smaller businesses and private customers are stuck with off-the-shelf, upgrade-when-it-runs-out software.
There's no commercial need for turkeys like Windows 8 to be rushed out if you have a decent product in Windows 7 and your customers are willing to pay you real money to maintain it for the long term. And as a customer, given some reasonable and clearly stated initial period of support with a software purchase, I don't think it's unreasonable to then provide some more money to the developers in return for ongoing support after that time. After all, software doesn't magically grow on trees, and I'd rather pay them for working on something I value than have them to try force/trick me into paying them for something that isn't really what I want.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
they're making no claims concerning 24/7
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."