Windows 10 Subscriptions Aren’t Happening

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
This writer is convinced that Microsoft has no plans for introducing a subscription fee. If that did actually happen, what would your reaction be?

…large enterprises, including corporate customers and government agencies, actually have been paying for Windows subscriptions for many years, thanks to a volume licensing program called Software Assurance. That annual fee gives them a slew of enterprise features and usage rights that consumers and small businesses don't need and certainly won't pay for. I'm not even sure how a Windows 10 subscription for consumers and small businesses would work. What features in the operating system would Microsoft charge extra for?
 
ill believe it when windows 11 comes out... until then i maintain they will do like they did with office a 200 dollar standalone version with a i am going to say 5 dollars a month for windows 365 with a free windows basic.
 
It could work pretty simple.

Keep your subscription current or you do not get to use the most popular and compatible computer operating system on the planet. Your choices are paying a lot more for an Apple, or....and God bless you....try to use Linux.

But Bill Gates is a saint from what I have heard around here and he is going to save planet Earth from a lot of bad things, so I don't think it is possible.
 
Let them offer a subscription.

I'll "subscribe" to Windows in its place via my favorite Linux ISO provider.
 
the biggest issue is linux simply does not have the support that windows does.
 
This whole idiotic rumor fell out of some mention of Windows 10 updates being delivered as a service after the free update Window ended. All that really meant is Microsoft is moving to the OSX style low cost service pack releases. Want 10.1? That will be $40.
 
When people compare a consumer level Windows subscription to Office 365, there's one BIG difference. The overwhelming majority of consumer Windows users have never paid for Windows, at least not directly, it came with the hardware. So however you slice it, this would look like a new cost yo use Windows for consumers. That's an extremely tough sell. Plus Office 365 offers options that the packaged versions didn't, like multiple installs across Windows, OS X, iOS and Android.

Instead of direct monetization, Microsoft like everyone else is using external services outside of the OS, and in the case of Office 365, not even tied to a specific OS. Anything is possible but I just don't see how consumer level OS subscriptions would work and there's better ways to make money.
 
ever day i have win10 makes me want win7 back.
 
westrock2000 said:
But Bill Gates is a saint from what I have heard around here and he is going to save planet Earth from a lot of bad things, so I don't think it is possible.
Click to expand...

While Gates still spends time working there, I doubt the subscription idea came from him, nor the one to make the decision to implement it.
 
ManofGod said:
There will be no subscription. So anymore FUD to spin?
Click to expand...

No one's really explained how a consumer based Windows subscription would work, other than to say "Look at Office 365!" and that's just not the same thing at all. Today's competitive landscape in the consumer makes charging for an OS pretty difficult and I think Microsoft wants to get away from it as much as possible and go the indirect route like others are doing with hardware, services and app sales. A subscription based Windows would in essence be a new fee for most consumer Windows that have never directly paid to use Windows. I have no idea how that would work and it would definitely be an extraordinarily unpopular move, far more so than the grumblings over 8.x and 10. It just doesn't make any business sense for Microsoft that I can see.
 
westrock2000 said:
But Bill Gates is a saint from what I have heard around here and he is going to save planet Earth from a lot of bad things, so I don't think it is possible.
Click to expand...

You know that Bill Gates doesn't run Microsoft anymore right?
 
heatlesssun said:
No one's really explained how a consumer based Windows subscription would work, other than to say "Look at Office 365!" and that's just not the same thing at all. Today's competitive landscape in the consumer makes charging for an OS pretty difficult and I think Microsoft wants to get away from it as much as possible and go the indirect route like others are doing with hardware, services and app sales. A subscription based Windows would in essence be a new fee for most consumer Windows that have never directly paid to use Windows. I have no idea how that would work and it would definitely be an extraordinarily unpopular move, far more so than the grumblings over 8.x and 10. It just doesn't make any business sense for Microsoft that I can see.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think this is so far fetched, Microsoft loves subscriptions. They are already heavily pushing subscriptions of bundled/add-on crap (Office 365, One Drive, ad-free Solitaire, Groove, Minecraft, Xbox Live, etc).

Crippling Windows by removing features or polluting it with more ads that can be removed via subscription is the next logical step. Tricking users into creating Microsoft accounts is the first step of this new business model.
 
Tricking you into an MS account? More like forcing you if you want to use functionality you expected in a product you bought. One note in Win10 on the surface pro 3 for instance. You can buy one note outright or office outright, (the only options that do not require a MS account), or you can use the one the device came installed with for free with a MS account, or buy a office 365 sub, which also requires a MS account.

I do not think they are going to go sub based with the OS just yet. They will ease into that slowly over the next few years maybe, or they will continue to shift their strategy to make money in the same direction as iOS mobile and Android. OS for free, then sell services, and apps in their store, with data mining, and advertising on the side.
 
Kor said:
This whole idiotic rumor fell out of some mention of Windows 10 updates being delivered as a service after the free update Window ended. All that really meant is Microsoft is moving to the OSX style low cost service pack releases. Want 10.1? That will be $40.
Click to expand...

apple hasn't charged for an OS upgrade in many years, think last one was 10.6 and it was $20

all after that have been free updates AFAIK
 
FLECOM said:
apple hasn't charged for an OS upgrade in many years, think last one was 10.6 and it was $20

all after that have been free updates AFAIK
Click to expand...

Which is only available to owners of MAC hardware. Oh, and it requires an Apple Store account to update all your programs or purchase quite a few things. The cost of the OS is built into their hardware cost.
 
I glanced at the article, whatever it says its irrelevant.
The answer is its not a subscription... yet.
There is no critical mass yet to implement the change.
It needs to be several more "free" upgrade cycles, and a much bigger mass of people.
The upgrades need to be perceived essential and be on a routine basis for people to be shafted with subscription service without much opposition.
MS is clearly moving in this direction already.
We can call this period the Vaseline phase.
 
I actually hope it happens. It might spark more activity in the Linux world to make it more viable for business use.

Support is not that big of an issue, there are some companies who do offer support. The biggest issue right now in Linux is the lack of centralized management ex: something equivalant to AD.

Also another big issue is the file permission system blows. It would never work in a business environment, when you get managers who ask for all sorts of complicated permission schemes such as this group of users having read/write but this group only having write and this group can only delete but not add etc.... That and lack of permission inheritance, that is a huge mess in Linux. If I set a folder to belong to user and user2 has access, if user2 writes to it, it should just inherit as user, so that user and everyone else who has access can read too, but in Linux it just takes user2's permission then nobody can see or edit it. It's a mess.

Though in all reality I think what would happen is you'd just see more people switch to mac.

Personally I use Linux at home and it works for me though. But without some super heavy customization I can't see it work in a large corporate environment because of the lack of centralized management and more robust permission system like NTFS. Maybe a more tech oriented environment where everyone manages their own machine, and all the data is centrally located and apps are all web based, then the computer itself is more of a thin client.
 
ManofGod said:
Which is only available to owners of MAC hardware. Oh, and it requires an Apple Store account to update all your programs or purchase quite a few things. The cost of the OS is built into their hardware cost.
Click to expand...

That what I thought.. I remember apple pcs having what amounts to a perpetual yearly fee. Calling that not charging for updates is absurd.. But I remember this from eons ago, so I don't know if you can get the update sans paying apple any money though.
 
Uvaman2 said:
That what I thought.. I remember apple pcs having what amounts to a perpetual yearly fee. Calling that not charging for updates is absurd.. But I remember this from eons ago, so I don't know if you can get the update sans paying apple any money though.
Click to expand...

They do extremely little to prevent you from "forcing" installs. There are zero serial numbers or license keys. And many checks that are in place have been easily defeated (by smart people that is). I have <newer> OSX on a 10 year old Mac Pro, I also have it as a VM on my Windows laptop. And the Hackintosh community is thriving very well.

But, you are correct, the hardware is where they make their money. They do offer a lot of software for "free", so they have to make the money from somewhere. And that money is what gives them the power to get exclusives and so on, which in turn bring back customers.

The only time I got royally burned was when they shifted from PPC to x86 and it did leave a very bitter taste in my mouth for several years.
 
BryanSTG said:
I'm not sure why you think this is so far fetched, Microsoft loves subscriptions. They are already heavily pushing subscriptions of bundled/add-on crap (Office 365, One Drive, ad-free Solitaire, Groove, Minecraft, Xbox Live, etc).

Crippling Windows by removing features or polluting it with more ads that can be removed via subscription is the next logical step. Tricking users into creating Microsoft accounts is the first step of this new business model.
Click to expand...

I just pointed out that the overwhelming majority of Windows users have never directly paid to use Windows, it came with hardware and whatever the price of Windows was for that machine (Windows is free on some hardware) was included in the price.

Getting consumers to pay a sub fee for something that they've never seen a direct charge for, just how is that supposed to work?
 
Hate or love it. How come Apple doesn't charge ridiculous amount for its operating software? I understand they charge premium for the hardware but you can still build a hackintosh.
 
Iching said:
Hate or love it. How come Apple doesn't charge ridiculous amount for its operating software? I understand they charge premium for the hardware but you can still build a hackintosh.
Click to expand...

Hackintosh discussion is not allowed on these boards are far as I remember. (Not legal.)
 
heatlesssun said:
I just pointed out that the overwhelming majority of Windows users have never directly paid to use Windows, it came with hardware and whatever the price of Windows was for that machine (Windows is free on some hardware) was included in the price.

Getting consumers to pay a sub fee for something that they've never seen a direct charge for, just how is that supposed to work?
Click to expand...
For only 99$ a year receive complete special access to the cloud!! Receive all future windows updates as well as (insert some other crap here.. Antivirus whatever). Don't let your system and protection lapse.. Blah blah.
I mean computing is irreversibly changing to a different model altogether..on top of the fact that hardware is not really challenged by software for most Joe six packs... Hence the upgrade cycles are prolonged for desktops (meaning their bread with less butter). So its not farfetched ms will create the pinch to start the billing.. They would be stupid not to. Considering what some antivirus can charge for a license, I think there is no question they will not only do it, but succeed.
 
Lunas said:
the biggest issue is linux simply does not have the support that windows does.
Click to expand...

I would say that is it's third, possibly fourth biggest issue.
1. It isn't user friendly. In order for it to be popular, it has to be stupid simple. Point and click installs, no cmd line bs, no configuring of files to get it to run, etc.
2. The elitist attitude within the community has to go or at least branch off from the main face of support. If Linux ever has any hope, and right now, the entire os community is on the brink of a revolution, Linux has to be welcoming to newbs. This ties directly into #1.
3. There has to be OEM support and pressure. People get their os from an OEM computer. This community is somewhat of an exception, as people here are enthusiasts and thus are willing to discover, explore, tinker and learn something new about computing. The rest of the planet, just wants their computer to work. They want it to be simple. If an OEM would co develop a Linux variant that is dead simple to use and looked enough like windows 7, they would have a huge winner on their hands. The OEM could and should act as a filter, keeping the geek base out of the spotlight, letting them code, etc and putting their marketing and customer service teams out as the PR front.
 
Uvaman2 said:
For only 99$ a year receive complete special access to the cloud!! Receive all future windows updates as well as (insert some other crap here.. Antivirus whatever). Don't let your system and protection lapse.. Blah blah.
Click to expand...

All of this is available today without a direct charge to customers.

Uvaman2 said:
I mean computing is irreversibly changing to a different model altogether..on top of the fact that hardware is not really challenged by software for most Joe six packs... Hence the upgrade cycles are prolonged for desktops (meaning their bread with less butter). So its not farfetched ms will create the pinch to start the billing.. They would be stupid not to. Considering what some antivirus can charge for a license, I think there is no question they will not only do it, but succeed.
Click to expand...

Sure things are changing however there are market constraints. Windows is getting cheaper for consumers because OSes for all other major platforms is essentially free today, with revenue being generated from other avenues. I simply don't see how Microsoft charges a direct fee to use Windows when all other OSes are free, i.e. there at least is no direct fee to use them.
 
People have been saying windows will go to a subscription since the whole .net palladium debacle 15 years ago. Still hasn't happened...

Almost no one upgrades, they buy a new PC. upgraders are typically users like us or they buy it thinking it will solve a problem. going to a subscription won't change that,
 
Ryokurin said:
Almost no one upgrades, they buy a new PC. upgraders are typically users like us or they buy it thinking it will solve a problem. going to a subscription won't change that,
Click to expand...

Exactly. So then how do you get people who bought a PC with no fee, at least no fee they saw directly, for Windows to then go and start paying a subscription fee to use Windows?
 
I don't see there is any reasonable way to charge a subscription. They can't disable an operating system like they do with Office 365 and you don't generally use your computer month to month like Office products for some. If the only impact of the subscription is the updates rather than functionality, I don't see how they can make that work without incurring significant security issues.

This sounds like anti-MS folks trying to stir the pot and create a controversy where none exists.
 
I agree with the line in the article "don't need and won't pay for".

I think 'cable cutting' is a good example of the consumers attitude toward this.
 
... I guess the argument they don't have enough leverage or control to move to subscribtion makes sense in a way...
I suppose they been netscaped by Android.
 
heatlesssun said:
No one's really explained how a consumer based Windows subscription would work, other than to say "Look at Office 365!" and that's just not the same thing at all. Today's competitive landscape in the consumer makes charging for an OS pretty difficult and I think Microsoft wants to get away from it as much as possible and go the indirect route like others are doing with hardware, services and app sales. A subscription based Windows would in essence be a new fee for most consumer Windows that have never directly paid to use Windows. I have no idea how that would work and it would definitely be an extraordinarily unpopular move, far more so than the grumblings over 8.x and 10. It just doesn't make any business sense for Microsoft that I can see.
Click to expand...

If they give me same level integration of a windows subscription into my 365 subscription I'd be down with that.

FLECOM said:
apple hasn't charged for an OS upgrade in many years, think last one was 10.6 and it was $20

all after that have been free updates AFAIK
Click to expand...

Apple is a hardware company. No one pays for Android updates either, although most of them breaks their phoens :D.
 
Ryokurin said:
People have been saying windows will go to a subscription since the whole .net palladium debacle 15 years ago. Still hasn't happened...

Almost no one upgrades, they buy a new PC. upgraders are typically users like us or they buy it thinking it will solve a problem. going to a subscription won't change that,
Click to expand...

Its funny, I know many corporations who could of saved boat loads of money by simply upgrading their ram from 4gb to 8gb when they did t he whole WinXP -> Win7 64bit upgrade. Seeing as their processing needs didn't go above C2Q or C2D they just bought all new machines (sandy/ivy) to "meet" requirements.
 
ManofGod said:
Which is only available to owners of MAC hardware. Oh, and it requires an Apple Store account to update all your programs or purchase quite a few things. The cost of the OS is built into their hardware cost.
Click to expand...

indeed, I was just pointing out to the person I quoted that upgrades do not cost money as he implied... unless you count the cost of eventual obsolescence

Trimlock said:
Apple is a hardware company. No one pays for Android updates either, although most of them breaks their phoens :D.
Click to expand...

but interestingly you don't buy the phone from google... also what do you mean most of them break your phones? ALL of them slowly cripple your device to the point of being completely unusable... at least it sure seems that way! lol
 
If enough people started using Linux, I think development would speed up. SteamOS is kind of like this (I think!). Right now, there are nowhere near as many games and the drivers performance is terrible. If game developers see an ROI, of course they will start to support the platform (and would assume the driver support might improve).
Having used Mint and Ubuntu recently - these seem pretty friendly. I watched my wife open an attachment from an email client, used OpenOffice to edit the document, and sent the modified out via email. My wife is extremely non-technical and had no clue she was using Linux. Heck, I even have one of my printers working (but the other has no driver support...)
Still, I think we are a long ways from Linux getting wide-spread adoption at the home level. I have no idea about corporate use. It would need something like AD, software delivery, etc. I know there are solutions for all of these, but not personal experience using.

Microsoft would totally be blowing off their foot with a shotgun if they went to this model. I know I'd make the jump to Linux at my house. (I also realize I'm in the minority and their stock price would not even notice I did this).

Who knows, could even go to OSX. I use Mac's at work - I'm happy with it and have a good selection of software to choose from. Just on the pricey side.
 
Trimlock said:
Its funny, I know many corporations who could of saved boat loads of money by simply upgrading their ram from 4gb to 8gb when they did t he whole WinXP -> Win7 64bit upgrade. Seeing as their processing needs didn't go above C2Q or C2D they just bought all new machines (sandy/ivy) to "meet" requirements.
Click to expand...

You evidently don't work in a corporate environment.

Yes, the memory would be cheaper, but the added labor cost would likely consume any savings.
1. You have to send a tech to each machine to determine how much memory it has, what speed, and if it can be upgraded.
2. You then need to order the various memory upgrades and make sure it gets to the tech who is going to install it.
3. You then need to pay for Windows 7 upgrade (unless you are paying subscription to Microsoft) and you need to pay a tech to build images for each type of system, or to install fresh on each system. Also download drives, test each system for compatibility issues, etc.
4. You then need to worry about out of warranty service and the cost involved with sending tech/parts to repair the old systems. And yes, 6 year old systems are less reliable than new systems.


Much easier (and in the long run cheaper) to simple buy new systems, and then image them before having a tech install them. New systems, under warranty, all the same model for easier support, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top