The Inevitable Arrival Of Subscription-Based Windows

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Inevitable arrival? How many of you think subscription-based Windows would work?

The bigger challenge is on Microsoft's side. The company will have to convince customers that regular updates work well and that subscriptions that provide access to these updates are valuable. To do this, the big thing that the company will need is probably a track record. The Azure team, for example, has shown a proven ability to deliver regular platform updates that add features, fix bugs, and make Azure better for its customers. The operating system team hasn't done that yet.
Click to expand...
 
GRR!!! RAWR!!! CHANGE BAD!!! BEER GOOD!!! RAWR!!!!


Lol, all joking aside, a sub based windows is a better model for Microsoft to deliver quicker on updates to the OS, and allows them to remain agile enough to counter potential challenges in the market by way of features.


From what I read elsewhere, they are actually internally discussing having a very basic version of windows be free for everyone, and the sub model, and what level you choose, would allow you access to more advanced features.

Nothing decided, but that's what they are talking about and batting around in Redmond at the moment.
 
I hope they do it, to spur adoption of Linux and finally break free of this pathetic reliance on Microsoft.
 
I would pay $99/year for Windows and Office. That would be a good deal for me. No more than that though.
 
I would use Windows Server editions. The interface changes are already pushing me that way anyways.
 
I'm all for it at 99 or less as well for both OS and Office. I would also love to see a top 10 feature request list voted by subscribed users to be incorporated in a new release each year, at a minimum.
 
TechLarry said:
I would pay $99/year for Windows and Office. That would be a good deal for me. No more than that though.
Click to expand...

I have 3 desktops, a laptop and a HTPC at home, and would not be happy paying out $500/year.

Looks like I'll sticking with Windows 7 for a very long time.
 
I'm okay if its a good price, especially if its fast release cycles.

My Windows 8 Pro DVDs are already two versions behind almost.
 
TechLarry said:
I would pay $99/year for Windows and Office. That would be a good deal for me. No more than that though.
Click to expand...

Supraman321 said:
I'm all for it at 99 or less as well for both OS and Office. I would also love to see a top 10 feature request list voted by subscribed users to be incorporated in a new release each year, at a minimum.
Click to expand...

Are you guys thinking a $99/year Windows & Office subscription for all the computers and laptops you own or you are will to pay $99/year for each one? I'm a single guy and I have my desktop, laptop, old laptop and 2 HTPC's. Granted I'm running Linux on my HTPC's but some people run Windows on them. That's $495/year just for me. If I had a wife and kids with their own computers I could be spending $1k a year on Windows subscriptions.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Lol, all joking aside, a sub based windows is a better model for Microsoft to deliver quicker on updates to the OS, and allows them to remain agile enough to counter potential challenges in the market by way of features.
Click to expand...
There is nothing about a subscription payment model that allows this at all. MS pretty much already does this now actually.

This is about MS trying to make more money. That is it.

Unless they do something to add value for the end user, and they probably won't since so far rumor mill discussion is they seem to want to find ways to push Windows Store even harder in your face as a feature, a subscription payment model is going to be a worse value for everyone but MS.
 
Depends on the price and features on whether this would be attractive to consumers ... I don't see business embracing this model unless they have control over the implementation of the upgrades or software changes in their local environments
 
TechLarry said:
I would pay $99/year for Windows and Office. That would be a good deal for me. No more than that though.
Click to expand...
I still use Office2k at work and home and paid around $90 a loooong time ago. Paid around the same IIRC for Win7. Also years ago.

The sort of subscription price/time frame you're talking about is piss poor value in comparison and doesn't make sense at all from a end user value stand point.
 
robothunter said:
Are you guys thinking a $99/year Windows & Office subscription for all the computers and laptops you own or you are will to pay $99/year for each one? I'm a single guy and I have my desktop, laptop, old laptop and 2 HTPC's. Granted I'm running Linux on my HTPC's but some people run Windows on them. That's $495/year just for me. If I had a wife and kids with their own computers I could be spending $1k a year on Windows subscriptions.
Click to expand...

Well Office365 Home is like £64 a year for 5 machines so I would guess a 2-3 machine deal or similar would be good.
 
I think anything above $10-$20/year for the home version of the os turns out to be a bad deal for many people.

Some people got 10 years out of a $100 oem xp install. Value = $10/year.
 
The subscription based model will never work in a business environment where stability is the most important factor. Most businesses don't touch a new OS until at least the first service pack and when they find something that works and is supported with updates they tend to stick with it (which is why XP was so popular and support extended multiple times). Constant forced releases and updates just will not fly.

For home use if the price is reasonable ($50 yr per PC with volume discounts available for 2 or more PCs) I would likely jump aboard.
 
It's looking more and more like my copy of Win 7 Pro will be the last OS I get from Microsoft.

Oh well.
 
Even $50/yr is too high.

Most people get their OS with their PC and the price is included in the cost of the machine and paid for by the OEM. Then they'll keep that OS for as long as the machine works. Lets say their PC lasts 5 yr (generous IMO, many people still use WinXP machines that are over 8yr old) that would work out to $250 out of pocket over the life of the PC with a $50yr subscription.

They'd still have to pay for the PC up front too of course.

How does anyone in the world think that is a good value?! Even $10-20yr adds up over the life of the machine. I'd rather be forced to pay upgrade or full version OEM prices up front than deal with this subscription crap since it'd be cheaper in the long run and less hassle too.
 
TechLarry said:
I would pay $99/year for Windows and Office. That would be a good deal for me. No more than that though.
Click to expand...

Are you FING KIDDING ME? I have 3 computers in my household, NO FING way im paying $297 a year just to use windows. Id switch to Ubuntu and never look back if its anything over $15 a month for both windows and office a year for all three of my machines.

At todays prices you can buy Windows 8.1 for $80~ and buy office and use it for a decade. $100 a year is a terrible deal.
 
Adobe did a similar thing to their creative suite and consumer outrage sky rocketed. Some customers claim they are paying as high as 3x the amount they used to spend on Adobe CS when they had the choice to upgrade to a new version when they needed to.

If Microsoft follows this plan, then Linux use (probably Ubuntu) will surge and hopefully get more support from hardware and software providers.
 
all it will do is reinforce people to stick with windows xp or, a few years from now, windows 7.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
GRR!!! RAWR!!! CHANGE BAD!!! BEER GOOD!!! RAWR!!!!


Lol, all joking aside, a sub based windows is a better model for Microsoft to deliver quicker on updates to the OS, and allows them to remain agile enough to counter potential challenges in the market by way of features.


From what I read elsewhere, they are actually internally discussing having a very basic version of windows be free for everyone, and the sub model, and what level you choose, would allow you access to more advanced features.

Nothing decided, but that's what they are talking about and batting around in Redmond at the moment.
Click to expand...

Except they won't.

Subscription modelling is just how near-monopolies on a product are able to continue raking a profit after saturating the market. I don't think Microsoft has any real intention of actually using the model update faster.
 
Well, I have Fedora for fast updates or CentOS 6 Desktop for business-like stability. I love choice.
 
TechLarry said:
I would pay $99/year for Windows and Office. That would be a good deal for me. No more than that though.
Click to expand...

Looks like I'm late to make the point -- but I would also pay $100 annually for Microsoft Windows and Office Suite. Sadly, I doubt they would sell it to me at that price, and instead would rent it to me on a per-device basis. Buying software on a subscription-based, per-device service? I'm not ready for that shit.
 
$99 a year for Windows and Office Home installed on three PCs minimum. That would do me.

Most of us spend far more than that on beer and mobile contracts...
 
it would have to be dirt cheap and be per household and not per seat/device. Right now I'm looking at $10-$20 per year for all of my devices. Why would I go with anything different. If this becomes the only way to get new Microsoft products I will be on windows 7 for a long time and then probably switch to some Linux distro as the adoption for that spreads.
 
Subscription based windows would not work for me. I have 9 computers at home that get used pretty regularly (6 desktops / 3 laptops). There's no way in hell I'd pay $50-100 a year for windows.

Maybe Microsoft should just take a page from the game makers DLC, and start charging for major updates. Windows 9 -$100..... 9.1 upgrade $50 ..... 9.2 upgrade $50......rinse and repeat. Maybe they'll start doing a monthly subscription for minor updates also. Sad thing is I can see that actually happening.
 
daglesj said:
$99 a year for Windows and Office Home installed on three PCs minimum. Most of us spend far more than that on beer and mobile contracts...
Click to expand...
$33/yr per PC is still too high for OS/Office mainly because the cost of beer, mobile contracts, food, college, etc. is so high while wages are generally pretty crappy.
 
To the multiple people raging and have multiple computers:


What if buying the monthly sub allowed you to put it on up to 5 PCs?
 
Assuming $100/yr for OS/Office for a 5 PC license that'd work out to $20 per machine.

Given that I currently don't pay any sort of fees like that, and haven't ever for OS/Office, while MS still made billions of dollars I'd still say its poor value and wouldn't want to pay that price.
 
LOL soon we're going to be subscribing to everyone. A $9.99 fee to login into your Windows. A $1.99 month fee to use Windows Media Center, so on and so forth. Everyone seems to be copying the Adobe model. Soon you wont have to worry about piracy because you'll never own or have the bits on your machine. Just like a mobile device it can be wiped at any given moment with you being powerless.

At this rate I'll be going back to Windows 3.11 and re-imaging what life would be 20 years from then. Who would have thought everyone would embrace subscription based computing? Then again 10 years ago nobody would have ever thought to use their REAL NAME on the Internet and freely give away all their public details that the CIA and NSA could ever ask for, and then some.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
And also, what if Windows was free, but you paid a sub to unlock added feature sets?

Well yeah, expect when they are:
Click to expand...
Subscription based feature unlocks are terrible since that'd mean on top of having worse value you'd also be forced to keep track of what features you need and renew them constantly.

MS has done fast updates in the past before too you know. Win2K, WinXP, and Win98SE all had 'lightning updates'.

Zion Halcyon said:
and
Click to expand...
Version inflation a la Firefox and Chrome? wooooooo :/
 
I kinda felt this was a possible end-game when they wanted to do the faster release cycle.

My guess? It'd work where you can still buy it in stores (and preinstalled), it'd include X months (ie: 24) of free upgrades once activated. After that, you only get security updates. You'd then either have to subscribe for X per month, or you'd need to buy another copy.
 
HELL NO!..
I am SICK of this MONTHLY/YEARLY SHIT!
Shove it all where the sun don't shine.
I ran XP that came with my PC for about 6 years as main PC.. still running not as main what 9 years? so what an 900$ windows on 1000$ PC that would have told me my computing experience is not as good 4 years in?
Hell no screw the cloud, screw subscription-based software.. My computer usage at home has been declining consistently... trust me it can decline even more...
 
Don't think I'd care all that much. I don't play games anymore, I'll probably stick with Windows 7 until I can't stand it anymore, and then probably just use ubuntu. I'm not against a subscription-based windows service, I just don't benefit much from having windows anymore. I wonder with cloud-based services if other people are the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top