The Future Of Microsoft Depends On Windows Being Free

Meh I don't mind paying for windows as long as it's sub $100 for personal use.
 
rudy said:
How else would you license the OS? In all the times you have ranted about this you have never offered a better solution.

Oh and before you say as subscription everyone here seems to hate that as seen by their reactions to office 365.
Click to expand...
I'd be the last person to suggest subscription. :)

I never offered a "better solution" only because I thought it was self-evident: MS should license their OS's the exact same way they licensed every version of Windows ever released, prior to XP.

Another question that has gone unanswered so far on this site: why did MS feel it necessary to implement WPA, online authorization for updates and security updates etc, draconian per machine requirements etc, only after they had acquired their monopoly position? Courts in three different countries have found the company guilty of illegally maintaining their monopoly and it's not difficult to understand why. And yet all Americans can rant about is saving MS's profit margins and how to make Steve Ballmer worth $20 billion instead of $15. And Bill Gates $90 billion instead of $80. Simply astonishing imo.
 
elzeus said:
Make it $15 retail and $5 to oem's free for mobile devices.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that? Most people don't install an OS. They buy a PC and it comes with an OS. They're not going to move to Linux. We're not far from 20 years of Linux is going to take over the desktop and it hasn't happened.

Is it going to be Apple? Only if they start selling cheap computers (and there's no sign of that either).

I can see making it cheap (or perhaps free) for mobile devices if it comes with lots of ads and tracking, but otherwise, it makes no sense. Apple can give it away, because they've sold you the H/W. MS isn't selling a ton of PCs and they make nothing on the H/W from Dell, HP, ASUS et. al.

They might go cheap in the developing countries (if they haven't already), but in the developed world, there's not a prayer. Personally, I don't want a free OS. I don't want to everything I do tracked by MS (one of the reasons I wouldn't use W10 Beta as my main OS).
 
JeffDC said:
Here we go again with the let's shed tears for MS's monopoly routine. It makes me want to vomit.

I would never claim MS or any company should give its flagship product away free of charge, but I've asked this question three or four times now on this site and nobody has offered an answer yet: Can you please explain why MS is justified in licensing Windows per machine, when OEM licensing legally absolves them from any support or other expense liabilities associated with that licensing? After 12 years of asking the only responses I've gotten have been "because they can" and "because they're greedy".
Click to expand...

Because the license for the OEM is much less. If you do what you want, then I can buy one copy of windows and build 1000000000000 machines and sell them with MS's OS.

That was never allowed. I'm not sure that buying a copy of DOS and putting it on 10 of your home machines was legal either. They didn't stop it, but that doesn't mean the license allowed it.

As far as support goes, who calls MS for support? I've had Windows for 20 years, and I've never talked to MS support. I suspect well over 90% of users get their OEM copy from a company that builds computers and if they have a problem, they call that company.

If you think this is unfair, then switch to Linux. It's free and you can install it on as many machines as you want.
 
If it goes free, it will have tons of ads. No thank you.

I'd rather pay than have ads.
 
JeffDC said:
Another question that has gone unanswered so far on this site: why did MS feel it necessary to implement WPA, online authorization for updates and security updates etc, draconian per machine requirements etc, only after they had acquired their monopoly position?
Click to expand...

You keep saying that questions go unanswered that keep getting answered. The reason for WPA, to deal with causal copying and counterfeiting. Indeed just last week you said you'd never seen a counterfeit copy of Windows and at least one other poster also mentioned that it was a problem.

If you don't like or accept answers to your questions that's fine. But there's no point in constantly saying no one on this forum has bothered to answer when that's demonstrably false.
 
nilepez said:
Because the license for the OEM is much less. If you do what you want, then I can buy one copy of windows and build 1000000000000 machines and sell them with MS's OS.
Click to expand...
Please explain what costs MS incurs as a result, when OEM licensing legally absolves them of all support requirements for all 1000000000000 of those machines. You are very correct that Microsoft doesn't so much provide support as they allow it to exist as a separate profit center.

Your answer isn't.
 
JeffDC said:
Please explain what costs MS incurs as a result, when OEM licensing legally absolves them of all support requirements for all 1000000000000 of those machines.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. Please show an OEM contract that says that Microsoft has no legal responsibly to support OEM hardware in any way, shape or form.
 
I love how people say "Premium" for Windows....

How?

Do people realize what it is the OS lets you do with your computer.. what is $120-$150 for an OS that can last you 1-5 years depending on how much you want o upgrade?

Yes people will run out and spend $500 on a video card.. or $60 for a game...

MS makes money from Businesses, THAT is their bread and butter.
 
heatlesssun said:
You keep saying that questions go unanswered that keep getting answered. The reason for WPA, to deal with causal copying and counterfeiting. Indeed just last week you said you'd never seen a counterfeit copy of Windows and at least one other poster also mentioned that it was a problem.
Click to expand...
WPA has and has never had any regard for whether an OS is "counterfeit" or simply unactivated, so I don't consider it any kind of answer to the question. My biggest gripe is that WPA makes everyone else (all legal owners) suffer with perpetually infected networks. I mean billions of people every day are dealing with this crap, and if a 90% market share on desktops isn't illegal in our country, the least MS can do is spring for the damned fixes that help keep their LEGAL OWNERS free of malware. Are you guys seriously claiming it would eat too much into their profits to make this policy change? I'll repeat the question: how many pirates do you know who buy their software? What makes them pirates in the first place is that they don't buy it, and if studies have been consistent about anything in the past 30 years it's that they will never, ever, EVER buy it. Nor will 1.5 billion Chinese Communists, virtually none of whom understand even the concept of personal rights including copyrights. Again it raises the question of what's the damned point for MS.

We should assume MS has the ability to distinguish actual third-party counterfeit software from Windows installations that are simply unregistered, oops I mean "unactivated", and dispense updates accordingly. Nobody has ever explained how unregistered software is "counterfeit", and the errant lumping of the two into one category serves nobody's purposes other than MS.
 
elzeus said:
Make it $15 retail and $5 to oem's free for mobile devices.
Click to expand...

It could be done if it wasn't for them spending so much on re-writing the whole thing from scratch. A ton of money went into Vista, 7 and 8. Compounding this, for most users Windows got to the "good enough" level with XP, so besides strong arming the user base with planned obsolescence there's really no reason to upgrade.
 
depends on becoming free because they've botched it enough with Windows 8 :D
 
heatlesssun said:
And that's just not true.
Click to expand...
Practically it is, to the end-user, because MS doesn't provide security and essential updates in either case.

Did you know 65% of China still runs XP? Ever wonder why the major portion of malware comes from China? Well it's one reason. :)
 
heatlesssun said:
But that's not the case today with free OEM versions which tend to be very clean installs as they are typically for resource constrained devices.
Click to expand...

Clean installs on resource constrained devices? What reality are you living in? Every 'free' Windows/Linux/Android install on an OEM device was far from a very clean install. Even devices that should have been clean (and run better when all that crap is uninstalled) haven't been.
 
JeffDC said:
Here we go again with the let's shed tears for MS's monopoly routine. It makes me want to vomit.

I would never claim MS or any company should give its flagship product away free of charge, but I've asked this question three or four times now on this site and nobody has offered an answer yet: Can you please explain why MS is justified in licensing Windows per machine, when OEM licensing legally absolves them from any support or other expense liabilities associated with that licensing? After 12 years of asking the only responses I've gotten have been "because they can" and "because they're greedy".
Click to expand...

OEM simply means it is extra, extra cheap. You get what you pay for, and in the OEM instance, since you paid almost nothing for it, one of the things you *don't* get at the OEM price is support. You can, alternatively, pay more and buy retail software, or you can buy OEM software and opt for a service contract. The reason they don't give away the farm with OEM pricing is because they shouldn't. Somewhere all that logic just has to ring a bell...;)

Besides, if you buy Windows and you need Microsoft to help you with it you are definitely a n00b of the highest order and Microsoft support is the least of your worries. I've been entitled to Microsoft support since I started computing--never actually crossed my mind to use it, though. If you need help there are umpteen million support forums all across the web and they charge nothing for participation.

I very much doubt the only answer you've been given is "because they are greedy"--rather, it's the only answer you want to hear, so it's the one you prefer to remember. If Apple didn't tie OS X to the purchase of an Apple Mac (if you don't buy a Mac from Apple it is no good to you at all), they'd not be giving it away, either. And judging by some of the premiums people pay to buy Apple hardware, some of them are paying > $1k for that "free" copy of OS X. It's true...there's a sucker born every minute...;) Apple's continued, lamentable existence as a tech company proves it...!
 
Ur_Mom said:
Clean installs on resource constrained devices? What reality are you living in? Every 'free' Windows/Linux/Android install on an OEM device was far from a very clean install. Even devices that should have been clean (and run better when all that crap is uninstalled) haven't been.
Click to expand...

The installs on the four Windows 8.x Atom tablets I've purchased were very clean. No Norton or this or that or much beyond the OEM update apps and which are very light. One thing Microsoft has done well in the Windows 8.x disaster is get Windows running well on low resource devices and not have these low resourced devices clogged up with things that can't handle.
 
WaltC said:
OEM simply means it is extra, extra cheap. You get what you pay for, and in the OEM instance, since you paid almost nothing for it, one of the things you *don't* get at the OEM price is support. You can, alternatively, pay more and buy retail software, or you can buy OEM software and opt for a service contract. The reason they don't give away the farm with OEM pricing is because they shouldn't. Somewhere all that logic just has to ring a bell...;)
Click to expand...
My main problems with MS are their reselling of the same kernel over and over as different operating systems (from a recent story it sounds like even they are tired of slapping USB support on Windows 95 and selling it as Windows 98), and in particular their policies of making available, supporting and even mandating specific Windows versions on new PC systems. The policies are designed to result in artificially short product lifespans, and it literally removes MS from the realm of the free market and makes them absolute masters of their own profit destiny and perpetual monopoly. It'll never change as long as they hold this kind of domination and control over the world's desktops.
 
heatlesssun said:
This is nonsense. Please show an OEM contract that says that Microsoft has no legal responsibly to support OEM hardware in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood my claim. Please show me an OEM contract that requires MS to provide support to end-users. That's my point.

Obviously MS incur support costs from its actual OEM sales, it's got zilch to do with their legal liability to end-users. When you buy an "OEM" copy of Windows online from Amazon or wherever (in fact MS doesn't even sell retail Win7 anymore), who exactly is the OEM, and what equipment did they manufacture? "OEM" is simply MS vernacular for endless sales to end-users with zero legal obligations for support. It's pure gravy on top of the profit they're getting on sales to actual OEMs.
 
JeffDC said:
You misunderstood my claim. Please show me an OEM contract that requires MS to provide support to end-users. That's my point.

Obviously MS incur support costs from its actual OEM sales, it's got zilch to do with their legal liability to end-users. When you buy an "OEM" copy of Windows online from Amazon or wherever (in fact MS doesn't even sell retail Win7 anymore), who exactly is the OEM, and what equipment did they manufacture? "OEM" is simply MS vernacular for endless sales to end-users with zero legal obligations for support. It's pure gravy on top of the profit they're getting on sales to actual OEMs.
Click to expand...

OEMs (the proper users of OEM licenses) do have support through their contracts with MS ... because users (who are not OEMs) choose to buy the OEM licenses to save money rather than buying the full price Windows upgrades or full installs (which are supported by MS) is not MS's problem and they are under no legal obligation to support those people ... if people received the OEM license through the OEM that sold their computer then they are expected to receive service from the OEM (and not MS)

As to MS selling a previous version of Windows (Win 7), there are few companies that continue to sell previous versions of their products once they have launched the new version and depleted their supply channels of the older model ... MS is no different
 
The value of OS upgrades has been entirely lost in a time where we’re accustomed to receiving free updates to mobile devices as long as they can continue to handle the software. Why does this same model not apply to the PC yet? Microsoft has adopted free upgrades for Windows Phone already, so why not for the PC?
Click to expand...

That is just wrong. People get new phones every two years, many get them as soon as the new model comes out, but Desktop user hold onto computers for a lot longer and pay for hardware and software upgrades to keep up with the pace but still save money. Mobile phones are cheap or free if u get in on a contract, and people expect updates and apps to be free because thats how the market evolved. Thats the main problem, mobile is cheap and quickly changing, desktops are a tool and even with new OS and hardware offerings, people hold on to there PCs as long as they can, but cannot wait to dump there 6 month old phone.
 
JeffDC said:
You misunderstood my claim. Please show me an OEM contract that requires MS to provide support to end-users. That's my point.
Click to expand...

Ultimately Microsoft provides end user support to every Windows user in the form of patches, bugs, security issues, etc. Just because one isn't directly talking to Microsoft doesn't mean that they aren't being supported by them.
 
The first OS I've ever paid for on it's own (without the purchase of a computer) was Windows 8 for $15 back when the deal was going on. Couldn't bring myself to pay $100 or $200 for an OS.
 
Nothing wrong with a paid operating system, if they can continue to persuade people that it is worth paying for.

It does bother me though that the licenses cost so very different amounts of money depending on who you are.

Individual buyer? ~$100/per license

Major OEM? Pennies per license.

Sure, everything has volume discounts, but volume dicounts usually drop the price a few percent, not over two orders of magnitude.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041163272 said:
Nothing wrong with a paid operating system, if they can continue to persuade people that it is worth paying for.

It does bother me though that the licenses cost so very different amounts of money depending on who you are.

Individual buyer? ~$100/per license

Major OEM? Pennies per license.

Sure, everything has volume discounts, but volume dicounts usually drop the price a few percent, not over two orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

Many of the OEMs are going to have support contracts and other ways that MS can monetize them ... users are just a flat purchase price ... that might account for some of the differences ;)
 
Zarathustra[H];1041163272 said:
Sure, everything has volume discounts, but volume dicounts usually drop the price a few percent, not over two orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

On software this can definitely be the case, especially when dealing with huge enterprise deployments. At a previous employer, I saw more than one deal where they got thousands of copies of software for $2-5 that would have been $50-75 for a single license.
 
People really do not understand OEM or what it is it seems here..

Home user or the family computer guy does not compare to OEM's such as Dell, HP and the like who buy tens or thousands of copies / licenses a month / weekly even world wide.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Free means Microsoft has to go to Google levels of creepdom and privacy invasion by doing stuff like recording every keystroke you make, site you visit, and all the sound + video the microphone and cam pickup in order to earn monies to continue development. I'd like to not see that kind of Microsoft exist so I'm all for them asking for moolahs. If I want free, I'll download a copy of Mint, Ubuntu, Puppy, or whatever.
Click to expand...

MS already has. Its called UEFI and its on damn near every new Windows 8+ pc out there.
UEFI gives a huge backdoor and remote control to whoever holds the key, but we're told its only an extension of the BIOS, booting sequence and an added security measure.
 
elzeus said:
Make it $15 retail and $5 to oem's free for mobile devices.
Click to expand...

I liked the retail 3 pack/upgrade that was available fro Windows 7.
Bought one when it was $100. Thought $33/system was a good deal.

I'd likely upgrade to Windows 10 if they had a similar deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top