Microsoft might offer Windows 10 as a subscription

#5618323 Posted on: 12/17/2018 07:19 PM

---

Dear Microsoft you're drunk please go home...

#5618327 Posted on: 12/17/2018 07:29 PM

---

I don't understand folks. Every one here willingly subscribes to a bazillion services they pay for..but for some reason Windows is exempt from the normal ways of thinking and exists in it's own special protected (for some) user bubble... Too an extent, I get this, it is not a perfect analog between being captive to your cable subscription and captive to your OS because of limited options. But there is validity to that concern. However, there ARE options to Windows. I don't think I read one single critique to Windows as a subscription versus one time buy, past emotion.

#5618328 Posted on: 12/17/2018 07:30 PM

---

eh no thanks I not paying a subscription to use there OS we been beta test from them years now. now IF i sub and it wasnt some ridiculous price , 50$ year? and it allowed me to put windows 10 on any PC i build with out have to need a new key i, long as i disable the last pc I might think about but even then. I think my answer would be no.

seeing as MS has monopoly on PC which pretty much all use windows OS we might have no choice, less it blow up in there face, and only time that really happen that I remeber was when they said they were gona lock all games phiscal and digital to the system and account on it, and kill off used game sales in process 24 hours later after the announcement they backtracked and removed that feature. Sadly I think the only reason that happen was cause they didnt have monopoly on consoles systems so they reversed it, I dont see same happen on PC and OS monopoly they have there



It would be q good way for Microsoft to get rid of all those pesky customers that have been bugging them all this time....
Seriously, if they do this, they will lose market share hand over fist.
Its been in the pipeline for years, and it seems they never buried it, just waiting for the right time to announce it....

We can only hope they dont do this or they do this, and backlash is so bad they reverse like they did with the above announcement when they first announced the xbox one


I don't understand folks. Every one here willingly subscribes to a bazillion services they pay for..but for some reason Windows is exempt from the normal ways of thinking and exists in it's own special protected (for some) user bubble... Too an extent, I get this, it is not a perfect analog between being captive to your cable subscription and captive to your OS because of limited options. But there is validity to that concern. However, there ARE options to Windows. I don't think I read one single critique to Windows as a subscription versus one time buy, past emotion.

what happen when one stop paying for the sub? and MS say you can no long use the OS and locks it? general when stop subing to something you lose access to what you were subing too, stop subbing from OS we could lose all access to our pc cause they would have balls to do something like that, cause again they have monopoly on PC OS and can get away with it

I guarantee I would cease having PC of any kind if they pull something like that and so would many others. and at that point I will never OWN or touch MS product again including consoles when I refuse anyway.

And I will be Consoles Only from then on

Much rather buy key and have it for the life of system NO MATTER how long it is used VS paying sub for each PC i own pay 100 once for life of system is better then yearly sub of something like 50+ cause it MS it would not be cheap.

#5618337 Posted on: 12/17/2018 08:04 PM

---

Then I would stop PC gaming. No extra lives for them from mine. Enough. PC master race could suck Nadella's fingers. I would play only on consoles and android after that.

EDIT: I respect that microsoft could profit hundred millions more, but do they really need that money? Greedy bastards.

#5618339 Posted on: 12/17/2018 08:08 PM

---

Subscription fees make sense when you regularly get access to new content that you're explicitly seeking. The vast majority of the time Windows has new content, it either took them 10 years to figure out people wanted it, or, it's something nobody asked for.

In another way of looking at it, think of it compared to tools vs utilities. It doesn't make sense to pay a monthly fee to own a wrench, and it doesn't make sense to pay a 1-time fee for X amount of liters of water that comes out of your facet. Windows is like a wrench. You don't buy a computer with Windows because it has Windows, you buy it because you want to use software that is only compatible with Windows. Despite what MS thinks, Windows is not the main attraction to owning a PC.

#5618343 Posted on: 12/17/2018 08:17 PM

---

(Windows 10 as a subscription)

"The nose always knows"

- I just threw up a little in my mouth...

P.S. - I read the whole article.

#5618349 Posted on: 12/17/2018 08:52 PM

---

I'm not sure about that. I don't know about you, but when I subscribe to a service I am doing it for features/content that exists right now, not ones that will exist later. I have a subscription to Netflix so I can watch the movies/shows whenever I want, and I have a subscription to Google Music so I can listen to music whenever I want. With regard to new content, the only thing that I expect is that I will be able to readily access it when it's released (won't have to pay extra for it).

Windows subscriptions would be like Office 365 subscriptions, and similar to password managers or cloud storage services. You are paying for continued access to your software/services.

#5618350 Posted on: 12/17/2018 08:52 PM

---

Subscription fees make sense when you regularly get access to new content that you're explicitly seeking. The vast majority of the time Windows has new content, it either took them 10 years to figure out people wanted it, or, it's something nobody asked for.

In another way of looking at it, think of it compared to tools vs utilities. It doesn't make sense to pay a monthly fee to own a wrench, and it doesn't make sense to pay a 1-time fee for X amount of liters of water that comes out of your facet. Windows is like a wrench. You don't buy a computer with Windows because it has Windows, you buy it because you want to use software that is only compatible with Windows. Despite what MS thinks, Windows is not the main attraction to owning a PC.

I'm sorry, but a wrench has one use, so it does not make sense as an analog to an OS. An OS would be a collection of utilities in your example, right? And again, you did not actually give a reason. Your 'new content' is your opinion or a feeling. Not a metric. Your claims of what others want, is again, based on your feelings. Fundamentally there's no difference between needing to upgrade (purchase) versus subscribe, other than the mental pardigm of 'ownership'. What would be the difference in a subscription model that took you from Windows 3.1 to Windows 10 versus the existing paradigm of purchasing new versions? Are you saying WAITING to purchase a NEW VERSION gets you NEW FEATURES quicker than a subscription model? I'd like to see you explain that. I don't have a problem with either a purchase model or a subscription model. The devil is in the DETAILS...of which not a one of us has despite all the 'facts' being thrown around. Those are my thoughts. Fundamentally I believe it is more or less an issue with perception of ownership. If you're a subscriber, you don't really 'own it'. If you read the EULA, you don't own a single bit of MS software either...so....the devil is in the details.

#5618355 Posted on: 12/17/2018 09:25 PM

---

Do you know user base in 3.1 times? In times of XP? And now in times of W10? Well, I do not. It is not important. It is several magnitudes larger over time. Just look at statistics for sales of prebuilt PCs and notebooks. MS sells large amount of licenses every year. And only minority of them are separated from actual HW.

Do they need additional funding from subscription? Not in the smallest. In the end, they have already quite different revenue structure than they had in times of XP.
They do not even need Windows income. They do keep making OS because they want You, Me and everyone else. Every corp. wants their little Lifelog.

So, no. It does not matter which pay model there is, it does not affect development of new features in any way. Reason why there is no DX12 in W7 is simple. MS wants people on W10. Any and all features could have been given to W7 and there was no need to make W10. Because number of licenses they sell are not affected by release of new OS version.
It is only affected by demand for new machines Windows OS comes with. (Remember free upgrade periods, their extensions and so on? They did not gave a rat's ass about getting people to pay for new license, they simply wanted them on W10.)

#5618356 Posted on: 12/17/2018 09:26 PM

---

I think you're missing my point...
You're not subscribed to Netflix because there are X amount of movies and shows you intend to watch and nothing more. Otherwise, you'd have just bought the DVDs and called it a day. You will at some point want to watch more content that has yet to be released. I'm sure some of these shows you watch haven't ended yet, so you'll want to stick around for more. You are paying for the subscription to watch what is currently available but you keep your subscription alive to watch what hasn't yet been released.

And why would you want to do that? Let's look at the wrench example again:
Unless it's corroding, the wrench doesn't gain or lose function. It retains its function indefinitely. Why would you pay a monthly subscription for it?
Office 365 is hardly any different. You could argue "I get security patches and bug fixes" and to that I say "so you're willing to continuously pay for an incomplete/faulty product?". You could argue "sometimes I get a new feature here and there, like support for " and to that I say "you're willing to spend $5 for this month for a feature you're probably never going to use? What about each month where no new features are added? Are you willing to pay $5 for no added benefits?"
Here's the crux of the matter:
Windows 10 is already a complete product and has existed since mid 2015. If you were to pay $5 a month to use Windows 10 since its release date, you would be paying more than a one-time-payment license. How does that make sense? Despite W10 not having a subscription, they still managed to release major updates with new features.

I'm sorry, but a wrench has one use, so it does not make sense as an analog to an OS. An OS would be a collection of utilities in your example, right?

*sigh* fine, let's compare it to the whole toolbox, or the contents of the whole shed if that makes you happier. My point still remains.

And again, you did not actually give a reason. Your 'new content' is your opinion or a feeling. Not a metric. Your claims of what others want, is again, based on your feelings.

Um... no? When a new episode of a TV show comes out, that is objectively new content that people are seeking...
Feelings are not relevant here. You've seen me around here long enough to know I disregard feelings as a means of establishing a point.

Fundamentally there's no difference between needing to upgrade (purchase) versus subscribe, other than the mental pardigm of 'ownership'.

Seeing as Windows, an operating system, is a necessity to run your software and hardware, that paradigm is objectively crucial.
Fundamentally, the difference with a subscription is you will end up paying more in the end for finite access to your hardware and software. When it comes to stuff like media, nobody cares. No sane person watches the same movie every single day, and anyone who does care about watching a movie frequently goes out and buys it... to watch whenever they want... without subscription. See a pattern here?

What would be the difference in a subscription model that took you from Windows 3.1 to Windows 10 versus the existing paradigm of purchasing new versions? Are you saying WAITING to purchase a NEW VERSION gets you NEW FEATURES quicker than a subscription model?

The difference is I didn't use Windows 95, 2000, Vista, or 8. Of the OSes I did use, I paid a 1-time-fee and still got those "NEW FEATURES" anyway. So, that's a lot of money I would've wasted on a subscription.

The devil is in the DETAILS...of which not a one of us has despite all the 'facts' being thrown around.

Indeed it is. Though, just because you don't agree with the facts, that doesn't make them false.

If you're a subscriber, you don't really 'own it'. If you read the EULA, you don't own a single bit of MS software either...so....the devil is in the details.

This is a great point, however, it doesn't detract anything from mine. I never said anything about ownership of the OS.

EDIT:
Another way of looking at it:
Subscriptions are appealing as new content comes in and old content is phased out. Some people might not like it when old content is gone, but when you pay a subscription fee, you understand it's all temporary anyway, and that you don't actually own anything. As soon as you cancel your subscription, your access to everything is dropped. That model is "sufficient" for something like MS Office (it's stupid but it makes sense) since you can still keep your documents and access them elsewhere, and it usually isn't an emergency if your license runs out. But it's a downright terrible idea for an OS, where literally your entire PC (and let's not forget, that includes things that you do actually own) is held hostage.

#5618371 Posted on: 12/17/2018 10:34 PM

---

Lol, it's only for new customers, they aren't going to take your paid licence key and dump it. I imagine the worst they could do is stop feature updates and demand payment to get to newer versions of Windows but then they'd be silly not to call it Windows 11/One etc. Life is a subscription...

#5618380 Posted on: 12/17/2018 10:44 PM

---

So I purchase a new desktop or laptop or I build one I install windows 10 and after a year my computer no longer works until I pay to update my subscription? Good luck with that Microsoft. Your O.S has sucked as of late give people another excuse to dump it for Mac or Linux.

#5618383 Posted on: 12/17/2018 10:50 PM

---

I agree that this is not a good business decision if aimed at people who just have their gaming, editing, whatever PC lying around home. On the other hand, this might be an epic super marvellous advantage for many timelined projects some companies may have, if they update their hardware quite often, since today I assume the licences are tied to the hardware.

Required to always buy a new license with many new laptops or such costs a long penny, so subscribtion model would cost less in the end when OEMs sell hardware to companies without a tied in Windows license. Same goes for schools and many other industries. This could also clear out some customer support related problems if Microsoft decides to take care of issues directly with the subscribed customers.

For a home user like me, who may not even move to the next big Windows version in a while without a big discount, it is better to sell licenses that cover one computer and lasts forever. I happily paid 120 euros for my Windows 10 Home license and I'm still very satisfied, so no need for changes if you already make loads of money and the customer is satisfied. Improvement is the only goal you should aim for if you are already succesful and this new model may be exactly that for different industries.

#5618384 Posted on: 12/17/2018 10:52 PM

---

Also, everyone who's saying "I own Windows outright" obviously never read the EULA. While I don't think MS is going to invalidate keys retroactively (specifically the cheap grey market ones), I do think those are going to go away if/when they decide to go through with this.

#5618388 Posted on: 12/17/2018 11:11 PM

---

I think you're missing my point...
You're not subscribed to Netflix because there are X amount of movies and shows you intend to watch and nothing more. Otherwise, you'd have just bought the DVDs and called it a day. You will at some point want to watch more content that has yet to be released. I'm sure some of these shows you watch haven't ended yet, so you'll want to stick around for more. You are paying for the subscription to watch what is currently available but you keep your subscription alive to watch what hasn't yet been released.
As I said, I have a Netflix subscription so I can watch any show on Netflix whenever I want. In no way is my subscription status dependent on future releases or exclusives. Buying DVDs would be an extremely costly and inconvenient alternative, especially since I tend to binge watch related content on a particular genre that I fancy at the time (the only time that I rent or buy a movie is when it's not available on Netflix, and I only buy digitally via Play Movies). The same goes for my subscription to Play Music. I could just outright buy each song or album, but I decided it would be easier to get a subscription so I can access the entire library of songs and play them whenever I want.

I used to buy DVD and Blu-ray movies, as well as maintaining a huge list of MP3s for my music library. I've gradually found that a subscription model is more convenient so I transitioned over. If Steam offered a subscription service, where you pay a monthly fee and access any game you want, I'd sign up in a heartbeat (assuming the price is reasonable of course).

And why would you want to do that? Let's look at the wrench example again:
Unless it's corroding, the wrench doesn't gain or lose function. It retains its function indefinitely. Why would you pay a monthly subscription for it?
Office 365 is hardly any different. You could argue "I get security patches and bug fixes" and to that I say "so you're willing to continuously pay for an incomplete/faulty product?". You could argue "sometimes I get a new feature here and there, like support for " and to that I say "you're willing to spend $5 for this month for a feature you're probably never going to use? What about each month where no new features are added? Are you willing to pay $5 for no added benefits?"
Here's the crux of the matter:
Windows 10 is already a complete product and has existed since mid 2015. If you were to pay $5 a month to use Windows 10 since its release date, you would be paying more than a one-time-payment license. How does that make sense? Despite W10 not having a subscription, they still managed to release major updates with new features.
Again, you are paying to access the service, like Dropbox or Lastpass or a VPN. These subscription services all operate under the same model and a Windows subscription would be no different. Furthermore, if Office 365 is anything to go by, they will most likely offer it as an alternative to an outright purchase (you will most likely still be able to buy a license). At any rate, the success of Office 365 shows that this model is viable so I wouldn't be surprised to see it being used for Windows.

These subscription services are also great for multiple devices or users. Office 365 Home supports up to six users and five devices per user, with each user also getting access to 1 TB of cloud storage. Microsoft could offer something similar for a Windows subscription, meaning a single subscription could be enough for your entire extended family and each family member will get a ton of cloud space. I maintain multiple PCs at home so a Windows subscription would be helpful (it's one of the reasons why I have a Office 365 subscription). A subscription is a nice option if you want to share a service - I currently share my Netflix subscription with my sister, father and sister-in-law (who all live apart from me).