win 10 really is free NO catches

BlueFireIce said:
Why do you want to sell to poor people when you can sell highend to people who can buy your product with a much higher profit margin?
Click to expand...

Business wise it does make sense but on the other hand Apple will never gain a dominant market position that way. Perhaps it's for the best so OSX won't get targeted so much.
 
B00nie said:
Business wise it does make sense but on the other hand Apple will never gain a dominant market position that way. Perhaps it's for the best so OSX won't get targeted so much.
Click to expand...

They do have dominate market positions in terms of profit such as 93% of all smartphone profits. That's tough to improve on.
 
It's Free for a reason they probably wanted it be universally adapted to everyone and quality or people pleasing the idiots who complained about the Start Menu in Win 8.
 
So, if I don't have an OS already - how do I get Win 10 for free, or is this not possible?
 
aol-1996-vs_-microsoft-windows-8.jpg
 
ManofGod said:
This upgrade path has been clear since January of this year. There are no catches.
Click to expand...

It's been pretty clear since September of last year. If you are and consumer and have a legal copy of Windows 7 or 8.1 (8 as well but that requires an upgrade to 8.1 first) then for the first year of Windows 10's general availability, you get a free upgrade to 10.

There have been legitimate questions about details about transferability, the meaning of "the life of the device", etc. but these questions have little impact of the vast majority of typical consumer Windows users that got Windows with their PC.

Then there's been a bit of FUD about baiting and switching and charging after the first year which is not going to be the case.
 
HvyMtl said:
Apparently, I need to clarify. Microsoft waited to come out with the Marketplace, until AFTER Google had proven you could give away the OS, and make huge bank via selling apps thru an app store.
In addition, Microsoft waited until after Apple had proven you can have the OS paid for, and STILL make huge bank by setting up an app store.

Both Apple and Android had their app stores up and running long before Marketplace hit Windows.
Another event where Microsoft allowed others to go thru the expense of figuring out what worked, and then copying.

Considering the personal identifying data you have to give to Microsoft during the set up of the 8/8.1 OS - (If you set up the OS as Microsoft wants you to: Live account with Name, DOB, Sex, Cellphone #, 2nd Email Address, Picture of Yourself as your Avatar/Icon, and GPS locator turned on.) That is a SECOND Revenue Stream, as this info is used identify you, while getting your surfing habits, and use habits of your PC, all the while knowing where you are located while using the PC. Which can be used to tailor what you see on the Marketplace, and on Microsoft Websites, as well as sold to Microsoft's Partners.

Yeah, so if 10 is set up in anyway like 8/8.1 - it is about present revenue, and creating future revenue streams, independent of selling the OS... So, Microsoft will not have to rely on an ever tightening revenue stream, which was dependent mostly on the Average Joe, the High End User, Academia, small, medium, and large Corporations, and Businesses updating their hardware.
Click to expand...

Hey, nothing wrong with being an imitator. Heck, Microsoft has done that for decades now. Apple did a successful GUI first. Anyone here remember Quarterdeck? But there is nothing wrong with copying, and making a LOT more money than the "innovator." That's a classic business strategy.

As for Win 10, how much money is Microsoft really losing by not charging for Win 10? Bupkis. (look it up.) Most consumers don't upgrade the OS. Companies do. But people "upgrade" their OS when they buy a new system.
 
Microsofts biggest problem will be that with its reputation with security, nobody's going to trust their credit card information to their store lol. I know I wouldn't!

Any random malware would get access to your pay information instead of just popping some popups on your screen.
 
B00nie said:
Microsofts biggest problem will be that with its reputation with security, nobody's going to trust their credit card information to their store lol. I know I wouldn't!

Any random malware would get access to your pay information instead of just popping some popups on your screen.
Click to expand...

Example?

Many people buy things from MS, from OS upgrades, services, phones, computers etc etc myself included and I don't recall ever hearing about a financial breach.

Also, how does malware on your local machine have anything to do with MS? That is user fault and it would gain access to the information any time you used the computer, not just the app store.
 
heatlesssun said:
Obviously computing hardware wouldn't be of much use without software but Apple makes pretty much all of its money by selling hardware. That's just a statement of fact. And clearly it's been a business model that's worked spectacularly well for them so I'm not criticizing them over a extraordinarily successful business model. It certainly beats the hell out of Microsoft's software selling business that's clearly not sustainable particularly in the consumer world.
Click to expand...


You didn't watch or it went completely over your head.

The hardware is s commodity, the software is what adds value. Apple was a software company under jobs, maybe not so much anymore under cook.

MS is just using a business model that's 15 years old. I imagine many MS fanboys will be pissed at the new saas model once the freebies drop off.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Example?

Many people buy things from MS, from OS upgrades, services, phones, computers etc etc myself included and I don't recall ever hearing about a financial breach.

Also, how does malware on your local machine have anything to do with MS? That is user fault and it would gain access to the information any time you used the computer, not just the app store.
Click to expand...

Local malware can fish out your account information. Simple as that. And you can't seriously blame USERS for windows infections. LOL!

If users were to blame, the user instructions for Windows would be: At no condition plug it to internet and at no condition plug any USB devices into it.
 
Verge said:
You didn't watch or it went completely over your head.

The hardware is s commodity, the software is what adds value. Apple was a software company under jobs, maybe not so much anymore under cook.

MS is just using a business model that's 15 years old. I imagine many MS fanboys will be pissed at the new saas model once the freebies drop off.
Click to expand...

You're over thinking this. People buy iPhones and iPads and Macs, not iOS and OS X devices.
 
B00nie said:
Local malware can fish out your account information. Simple as that. And you can't seriously blame USERS for windows infections. LOL!

If users were to blame, the user instructions for Windows would be: At no condition plug it to internet and at no condition plug any USB devices into it.
Click to expand...

Local malware can "fish out" your information from anything, so again, what does this have to do with the app store?

Infections ARE to blame on the user, simple as that, a file needs to be downloaded and executed to get infected, or you need to have auto-run set for removable drives. Windows does not just get infected, a user has to do so. I am really starting to think you are just a simple troll or have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Verge said:
You didn't watch or it went completely over your head.

The hardware is s commodity, the software is what adds value. Apple was a software company under jobs, maybe not so much anymore under cook.

MS is just using a business model that's 15 years old. I imagine many MS fanboys will be pissed at the new saas model once the freebies drop off.
Click to expand...

Oh great, another one of those Windows is going to be a subscription based model. :rolleyes: It is not happening, not ever, deal with it. (Assuming I actually understood what you typed here correctly.)
 
B00nie said:
Local malware can fish out your account information. Simple as that. And you can't seriously blame USERS for windows infections. LOL!

If users were to blame, the user instructions for Windows would be: At no condition plug it to internet and at no condition plug any USB devices into it.
Click to expand...

Very few malware infections to that. Most require that you actually give it to them directly, like those that try to trick you into calling an 800 number.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Local malware can "fish out" your information from anything, so again, what does this have to do with the app store?

Infections ARE to blame on the user, simple as that, a file needs to be downloaded and executed to get infected, or you need to have auto-run set for removable drives. Windows does not just get infected, a user has to do so. I am really starting to think you are just a simple troll or have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Or just someone with a Linux agenda. Notice in nearly every thread on the OS subforum, he will talk about how Linux is superior to Windows, and that people should be "getting with the times" and go to Linux.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Local malware can "fish out" your information from anything, so again, what does this have to do with the app store?

Infections ARE to blame on the user, simple as that, a file needs to be downloaded and executed to get infected, or you need to have auto-run set for removable drives. Windows does not just get infected, a user has to do so. I am really starting to think you are just a simple troll or have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

If the app store contains sensitive information, you're at risk. Of course if you do any payments using windows you're at risk. But increasingly so if the info is permanently stored in Windows.

Windows does just get infected through multiple routes, fly-by browser attacks, ethernet worms, usb, image, font embedded attacks... the list is endless. So what you're saying is that Windows is totally safe with a small catch: You can't use it at all in order to remain so.
 
Tsumi said:
Or just someone with a Linux agenda. Notice in nearly every thread on the OS subforum, he will talk about how Linux is superior to Windows, and that people should be "getting with the times" and go to Linux.
Click to expand...

Notice how in nearly every thread on the OS subforum people have Windows related problems, some of which relate to the windows activation hindering peoples ability to do stuff on their computer. It's only logical to remind that there are free and excellent alternatives around which skip those problems.
 
ManofGod said:
Oh great, another one of those Windows is going to be a subscription based model. :rolleyes: It is not happening, not ever, deal with it. (Assuming I actually understood what you typed here correctly.)
Click to expand...

I think sometimes people like to go off on these tangents and sometimes Microsoft can unfortunately say something that legitimizes the conversation. Such as the desktop going away when 8 came out. And it wasn't such a kooky idea give the new UI and app store and IT bloggers and even Microsoft dropping the idea around of the end of the desktop.

And then there's this thing called reality. It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle that for Microsoft to get rid of the desktop, probably anywhere in out lifetimes. Indeed it would make no sense for Microsoft to get rid of an important if declining computer technology that it still dominates. And the same is true of a subscription fee for native Windows clients. Charging users to simply be able to turn on their devices is simply not a feasible business model at this time if ever.
 
B00nie said:
Notice how in nearly every thread on the OS subforum people have Windows related problems, some of which relate to the windows activation hindering peoples ability to do stuff on their computer. It's only logical to remind that there are free and excellent alternatives around which skip those problems.
Click to expand...

The average user that buys a Windows device will get Windows on it and never even have to think of activation.
 
B00nie said:
Notice how in nearly every thread on the OS subforum people have Windows related problems, some of which relate to the windows activation hindering peoples ability to do stuff on their computer. It's only logical to remind that there are free and excellent alternatives around which skip those problems.
Click to expand...

And those "free and excellent" alternatives come with their own set of problems, whether you like to admit it or not.
 
B00nie said:
If the app store contains sensitive information, you're at risk. Of course if you do any payments using windows you're at risk. But increasingly so if the info is permanently stored in Windows.

Windows does just get infected through multiple routes, fly-by browser attacks, ethernet worms, usb, image, font embedded attacks... the list is endless. So what you're saying is that Windows is totally safe with a small catch: You can't use it at all in order to remain so.
Click to expand...

And there's risk swiping your card at Target or Wal-mart, too. Or saving your credit card information in your Google Wallet/Pay Chrome extension of your Ubuntu or Debian system. For all your sky-is-falling bellowing about how awful Windows is, I really don't have that many virus issues across hundreds of users now that XP is gone.

B00nie said:
Notice how in nearly every thread on the OS subforum people have Windows related problems, some of which relate to the windows activation hindering peoples ability to do stuff on their computer. It's only logical to remind that there are free and excellent alternatives around which skip those problems.
Click to expand...

Because most people are running Windows across diverse hardware. Free and excellent alternatives are neither free nor excellent if I can't run the apps I need on them. Yeah, yeah, I know, according to you I'm stuck in the past or just stuck up. Reality dictates the need for applications that are NOT AVAILABLE on your so-called alternatives.

No one here agrees with you and you're not going change anyone's mind. Stop with your fucking trolling.
 
B00nie said:
Notice how in nearly every thread on the OS subforum people have Windows related problems, some of which relate to the windows activation hindering peoples ability to do stuff on their computer. It's only logical to remind that there are free and excellent alternatives around which skip those problems.
Click to expand...

Not to mention driver support of these "free and excellent alternatives." I just built up a rig w/ an MSI gaming mobo and an AMD APU to act as a home server. New-ish chipset but nothing fancy. About 6 hours later there wasn't a single "NAS" distro I successfully got up and running. No freenas, no OMV, no nothing.

After giving up I had a Windows setup up and running in minutes.
 
mope54 said:
Please don't speak for us...we buy iOS and OS X and that necessarily entails iPhones and Macs.
Click to expand...

So how many times have you heard a person say they wanted an OS X laptop versus saying they wanted a MacBook? I don't understand what's the issue with saying that Apple makes its money selling hardware. The fact that they don't license their OSes to 3rd parties precludes them from making money directly from those OSes.

This is simply fact. It's how Apple reports its income. To make more of it than that is just that.
 
heatlesssun said:
So how many times have you heard a person say they wanted an OS X laptop versus saying they wanted a MacBook? I don't understand what's the issue with saying that Apple makes its money selling hardware. The fact that they don't license their OSes to 3rd parties precludes them from making money directly from those OSes.

This is simply fact. It's how Apple reports its income. To make more of it than that is just that.
Click to expand...
The only people that ask about an OS X laptop are people on forums like here that have hate-boners for Apple and/or can't afford a Macbook/Mac but want to build a hackintosh.

Every other person knows that "OS X" and "Macbook/Mac" are synonymous so there's no reason to specify it. Also, some people would prefer *not* to use a Mac but have to because they develop for iOS or OS X.

There isn't an issue with claiming that Apple makes money from selling its hardware. The issue is when people claim that Apple makes it money by selling sub-par hardware to stupid people who can't make their own decisions. Or that they are not a software company first and foremost and spend an inordinate amount of development resources on human interface with their devices.

Apple explicitly claims to want to deliver a consistent user experience to their customer base and decided to control their devices from manufacturing to retail in order to guarantee that experience. The end result is a much more organic experience for the end user that few companies have been able to replicate. The closest would be MS now that they have implemented MS retail stores similar to Apple stores, and Google's Nexus line (although I'm surprised they didn't use Motorola much more extensively to further this goal).

This whole sub-discussion occurred because someone asked a genuine question whether iOS and OS X cost money. I responded that they no longer do. You and others claim that the cost of the software is embedded in the hardware costs. However, this fails the test of scrutiny since the cost of the hardware has gone down since those softwares became free.
 
How does it fail the test of scrutiny? The cost of the software is embedded in the hardware. There is no way to dispute that, unless Apple outsources its OS development for free. You're paying for it through the hardware, and you're also probably paying for it through the app store.

Hardware prices come down over time. That has always been the case. To say that that trend is proof that the OS's don't cost money is naïve at best.
 
Tsumi said:
How does it fail the test of scrutiny? The cost of the software is embedded in the hardware. There is no way to dispute that, unless Apple outsources its OS development for free. You're paying for it through the hardware, and you're also probably paying for it through the app store.

Hardware prices come down over time. That has always been the case. To say that that trend is proof that the OS's don't cost money is naïve at best.
Click to expand...
A macbook air costs $999 and OS X costs $120. Then a month later the cost of OS X dropped to $20 but the same air still costs $999 indicating that the $100 dollars was not part of the macbook air price.

Then a few years later the then current macbook air price was still $999 while OS X was $20. A month later OS X became free, as did a whole slew of software titles that used to cost money, but the air remained $999.

So your argument that the cost of those titles were absorbed by the cost of the hardware fail simple logic tests.
If the software costs were embedded in the hardware costs then the cost of the same hardware would have changed when the software price changed.

The trend I'm talking about, which you seem to be unaware of or deliberately obtuse about, is that Apple's trend is to offer hardware *upgrades* for less money over time and removing the old hardware rather than discounting it.
 
mope54 said:
You and others claim that the cost of the software is embedded in the hardware costs. However, this fails the test of scrutiny since the cost of the hardware has gone down since those softwares became free.
Click to expand...

Take one moment and just think about what you said here. If the software is free the cost of that software HAS to be supported outside the income from that software. Apple makes the vast majority of its money from the sale of hardware and that's how the free software is supported. A simple statement of fact.
 
heatlesssun said:
Take one moment and just think about what you said here. If the software is free the cost of that software HAS to be supported outside the income from that software. Apple makes the vast majority of its money from the sale of hardware and that's how the free software is supported. A simple statement of fact.
Click to expand...
Obviously. That's a different claim, however, than stating "Apple is a hardware company," which is what you initially stated.
It's also distinctly different from others' claims in this thread that Apple makes its money by selling substandard hardware at exorbitant costs while bamboozling its customers.
 
mope54 said:
Obviously. That's a different claim, however, than stating "Apple is a hardware company," which is what you initially stated.
It's also distinctly different from others' claims in this thread that Apple makes its money by selling substandard hardware at exorbitant costs while bamboozling its customers.
Click to expand...

I said that Apple is a hardware company and that's how it makes its money. Microsoft is a software company and that's how it makes its money. And I'm posting this from a Surface Pro 3 running Windows 10 Build 10240.

You're making far more out of simple statements of fact that come out corporate financial statements and reading things that aren't there.
 
heatlesssun said:
I said that Apple is a hardware company and that's how it makes its money. Microsoft is a software company and that's how it makes its money. And I'm posting this from a Surface Pro 3 running Windows 10 Build 10240.
Click to expand...
You're wrong.

Apple makes its money through the App store. The devices it sells comprise a small fraction of its overall profits. The introduction of free OS X also coincided with the chaining of OS X to the App Store (technically the initial move into the app store costs $20 bucks but that's a pittance compared to the previous pricetag of $120).

You both were wrong to argue that the costs of Apple software are embedded in its hardware and I demonstrated the evidence for that. It makes more sense to understand Apple as willing to loss lead its valuable software interfaces with desirable hardware.


Google manufactures various hardware devices yet no reasonable person argues that Google is a "hardware company." Samsung uses Android to sell its flagship phones yet no reasonable person considers Samsung a "software company."

Interesting that you use Microsoft as an example of a "software company" and then specifically point out that you're posting from a tablet running windows 10! Just like an iPad running iOS doesn't relegate Apple to a hardware company :rolleyes:

I'm surprised you got so many things wrong in your earlier posts but I didn't want to go through one of your notorious tit for tat conversations...yet here we are you having successfully drug the conversation into the gutter despite my best efforts not to participate.

WindowsCE upgrades *did* cost money.
iOS upgrades *did* cost money.
Android upgrades did *not* cost money.

The difference in decisions to charge for mobile OS upgrades was not contingent on the hardware, but rather whether companies believed they could successfully migrate their customer base to cloud based services.

That was Google's plan from the beginning and made explicit to its user base so it's not surprising they were first to successfully manage that transition.

Someone also incorrectly claimed that linux variations cost money. He apparently isn't aware that even those companies have to provide the source to such software if it's under GPL license. The "cost" of RedHat is *not* linux but rather the support infrastructure.

Microsoft's corporate licensing terms have also been based on subscription services for as long as I can remember.

Microsoft's retail user base (as distinct from its corporate user base) was not accustomed to this type of service so it's not surprising they are the last OS to transition to it as Windows 10 moves into "Windows."
 
mope54 said:
You're wrong.

Apple makes its money through the App store. The devices it sells comprise a small fraction of its overall profits.
Click to expand...

You're not arguing with me but with Apple's own financial statements, this is from their latest:

Code: 
Product Summary        Units        Revenue
iPhone                  47,534      $31,368 
iPad                    10,931        4,538 
Mac                     4,796         6,030 
Services                              5,028
Other Products                        2,641     
Total                               $49,605
 
heatlesssun said:
You're over thinking this. People buy iPhones and iPads and Macs, not iOS and OS X devices.
Click to expand...

Overthinking a 700 billion dollar company?


Sorry, slingin iPods doesn't conquer the global economy, this isn't a lemonade stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top