Windows 10 as an Internet service?

[40hz]

This from Iain Thomson over at The Register.

If correct as reported here, Microsoft has finally admitted what many have been saying about where Microsoft plans on going (while taking you along for the ride) for the last three years.

Here's what Iain has to say(emphasis added):

21 Jan 2015 at 17:46, Iain Thomson

Microsoft is planning a big push for Windows 10 and will be giving away the new operating system to Windows 7, 8.1 and Windows Phone 8 users in the first year of release.

"With Windows 10 we think of the operating system as 'Windows as a service,'" said Terry Myerson, VP of operating systems at Redmond. "In next few years could think of Windows as one of the largest internet services on the planet. The question of 'what version are you running' will cease to make sense,"

The upgrade will only be free in the first 12 months after release and will last for the "supported lifetime of the device." Microsoft said the new OS will run on PCS, tablets, phones, and a new device to be announced later today.

The result for developers will be a single platform to sell apps on. "Developers are always thinking of the next million sales, now we can open them to the next billion,"

This will involved "universal apps," software that works equally well on the phone, tablet, and PC. The Office applications will be included in this, but developers will be encouraged to do the same with their own code.

The idea is to have an operating system that can run on any device and when the user puts one piece of hardware down they can pick up another Windows device that they are signed in on and carry on where they left off. <more>

Bad. Very bad. Yet another massive walled garden looming just ahead.

(Once this gets rolling, can Microsoft's long threatened multi-pronged IP lawsuit against Linux and GNU/FOSS be far behind? )

[Vurbal]

Well that's good news! As long as the problem is getting people to the app store, the solution will never be fixing (as in replacing) Windows.

What could possibly go wrong? 

[superboyac]

I was about to say "and my postponed transition to the LInux world edges closer" until I read your last line!  So the linux world is threatened as well?  Is there any hope for the computer hobbyists?? 

[40hz]

Well that's good news! As long as the problem is getting people to the app store, the solution will never be fixing (as in replacing) Windows.

What could possibly go wrong? 

Ah! You're right. What could I possibly have to worry about?

[40hz]

I was about to say "and my postponed transition to the LInux world edges closer" until I read your last line!  So the linux world is threatened as well?  Is there any hope for the computer hobbyists?? 

Some. But the war on general purpose open computing platforms is in progress. This is just the latest bid to up the ante. Microsoft has yet to play its nuclear option card. But I have no doubt they will when they think the time is ripe.

[dr_andus]

21 Jan 2015 at 17:46, Iain Thomson
The upgrade will only be free in the first 12 months after release and will last for the "supported lifetime of the device." Microsoft said the new OS will run on PCS, tablets, phones, and a new device to be announced later today.

What does this mean? Do they mean for the lifetime of my current Win7 PC that will give up the ghost one day, or do they mean until the day they decide they no longer want to support my device, at which point it becomes unusable, forcing me to buy a new device?

21 Jan 2015 at 17:46, Iain Thomson

This will involved "universal apps," software that works equally well on the phone, tablet, and PC. The Office applications will be included in this, but developers will be encouraged to do the same with their own code.

I thought the whole Metro, RT etc. fiasco had shown that it's a bad idea to try to run the same OS on very different devices (which is why Apple doesn't do it)??

[40hz]

I thought the whole Metro, RT etc. fiasco had shown that it's a bad idea to try to run the same OS on very different devices (which is why Apple doesn't do it)??

Yeah...noticed that too did ya?

They never learn.

[dr_andus]

21 Jan 2015 at 17:46, Iain Thomson
The upgrade will only be free in the first 12 months after release and will last for the "supported lifetime of the device."

I looked around a bit and it seems I'm not the only one confused by the phrasing of this new policy. There are some very different interpretations out there, and none of them good.

So this could either mean that I wouldn't be able to move my license to a new machine (Win10 will be free for that upgraded device but a new device will require a new subscription?) or that the new business model is based on planned obsolescence, i.e. MS can decide to stop supporting a type of device, at which point it becomes obsolete or at least much impaired?

My iPad 1 experience is a case study of how the latter would work. Apple decided not to update the OS at some point, after which gradually more and more developers stopped supporting the apps for that OS version, which in many cases meant that apps I've paid for stopped working altogether.

That's very different from having your device and the apps you paid for and using them until the hardware wears out. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with my iPad 1 hardware. It's the OS that has been abandoned.

[40hz]

I'm guessing (since you can't do much else when it comes to Microsoft licensing) that they mean it in the same way OEM licenses work. Which is to say it's non-transferable to another PC. It's only licensed for the original machine it's installed on. Otherwise, everyone and their cousin would claim a freebie and use it on everything else they buy until Windows 12 comes out.

I suspect they're mostly trying to speed up adoption by the Windows 7 users (remember XP?) without making the Windows 8 users feel like they got taken for a ride like the Vista users did. It's clever too in that because it's free for the first year, corporate IT departments will have a huge amount of trouble justifying to their upper management any decision to stick with 7 if they let the opportunity for that freebie to slip by.

Microsoft certainly isn't doing any of this out of kindness, that's for sure. This is a typical Redmond squeeze play they're making. Just like the hardball offer they tried with Windows 8 - except that upgrade wasn't free. And the early adopter discount offer only lasted a very short time in comparison.
'
I don't like any of what I'm seeing. It feels like the a major 'set-up' is about to go down. And I just hope I end up being wrong about that.

[TaoPhoenix]

I don't know what I think of this. I'm sure it will be all over the tech news as the months roll on. So I'll have to revisit it when I am not tired!

[superboyac]

I'm guessing (since you can't do much else when it comes to Microsoft licensing) that they mean it in the same way OEM licenses work. Which is to say it's non-transferable to another PC. It's only licensed for the original machine it's installed on. Otherwise, everyone and their cousin would claim a freebie and use it on everything else they buy until Windows 12 comes out.

I suspect they're mostly trying to speed up adoption by the Windows 7 users (remember XP?) without making the Windows 8 users feel like they got taken for a ride like the Vista users did. It's clever too in that because it's free for the first year, corporate IT departments will have a huge amount of trouble justifying to their upper management any decision to stick with 7 if they let the opportunity for that freebie to slip by.

Microsoft certainly isn't doing any of this out of kindness, that's for sure. This is a typical Redmond squeeze play they're making. Just like the hardball offer they tried with Windows 8 - except that upgrade wasn't free. And the early adopter discount offer only lasted a very short time in comparison.
'
I don't like any of what I'm seeing. It feels like the a major 'set-up' is about to go down. And I just hope I end up being wrong about that.

It does feel that way.  I'm confused as well.  For the last few years, all of microsofts products and innovations seem to be underwhelming, from an end-user standpoint.  They have been criticized and it's clear they have lost a lot of market share to smartphones and tablets.  Yet, most of the news about microsoft from the business end is very positive.  Which could be just strategic marketing...BUT, the moves microsoft is making also seems to indicate that they are quite brazenly confident about the future.  So it's a weird situation (in my eyes at least) where MS is very confident as a business, but all their products are kind of sucking.

And furthermore, I feel the zeitgeist of today is prematurely pushing for the eradication of the desktop pc.  I don't understand why we are so eager to get rid of them as a society.  For the longest time, desktop pc's were the territory of the super nerds and geeks...like from the 80s until the iphone era.  With the smartphones, all these people that were not computer people all of a sudden had their eyes opened up to the possibilities they present.  And now we're all over apps and phones and internet of things...but they all still pale in comparison to the desktop.  And the other weird thing is that despite how little talk there is for the desktop and the fascination with the mobile stuff, most people still have a desktop in their home somewhere.

[dr_andus]

Thanks for the clarification (shouldn't MS be doing that, though?)

I suspect they're mostly trying to speed up adoption by the Windows 7 users (remember XP?) without making the Windows 8 users feel like they got taken for a ride like the Vista users did. It's clever too in that because it's free for the first year, corporate IT departments will have a huge amount of trouble justifying to their upper management any decision to stick with 7 if they let the opportunity for that freebie to slip by.

I imagine that many of the 'corporates' sticking with XP and Win7 are small businesses, one-man bands, and then consumers. There must be good reasons probably why they stuck with those OS's (e.g. that they run well on their ageing machines). It would make sense to try to get the maximum return on investment on the licenses and hardware. So they might not be that easily fooled by one year of free subscription, especially if it's then not transferable to replacement hardware. The big question is how much the subscription is going to cost afterwards, and whether your current hardware can handle Win10.

[dr_andus]

And furthermore, I feel the zeitgeist of today is prematurely pushing for the eradication of the desktop pc.  I don't understand why we are so eager to get rid of them as a society.  For the longest time, desktop pc's were the territory of the super nerds and geeks...like from the 80s until the iphone era.  With the smartphones, all these people that were not computer people all of a sudden had their eyes opened up to the possibilities they present.  And now we're all over apps and phones and internet of things...but they all still pale in comparison to the desktop.  And the other weird thing is that despite how little talk there is for the desktop and the fascination with the mobile stuff, most people still have a desktop in their home somewhere.

I empathise with what you're saying. But the trend seems to suggest that businesses (such as Apple, MS, Google etc.) had figured out that much more money can be made out of uninformed users who can be continuously milked, than from savvy power users. The tablets and other gadgets are perfect for monetising clueless consumers, while power users are hard to please. Just give Chromebooks and their Windows lite equivalents a bit more time to iron out the hickups (like printing and PDF support), and pretty soon there will be fewer reasons to have a PC at the average home. Let's face it: the readership of DC is a niche audience. I wonder if the price of full-on desktops will start to climb at one point, once they're not subsidised by the mass market....

[rgdot]

@40hz
Can you please explain further what leads you to the Linux line you posted? How it relates to today's news?
Serious question, I am not trying to be funny, may be I should read again but don't see the actual connection to something MS said today.

[TaoPhoenix]

I imagine that many of the 'corporates' sticking with XP and Win7 are small businesses, one-man bands, and then consumers. There must be good reasons probably why they stuck with those OS's (e.g. that they run well on their ageing machines). It would make sense to try to get the maximum return on investment on the licenses and hardware. So they might not be that easily fooled by one year of free subscription, especially if it's then not transferable to replacement hardware. The big question is how much the subscription is going to cost afterwards, and whether your current hardware can handle Win10.

I'll re-iterate the stall power of fear of the computing future. In particular, it seems to take over a year for the "what do we as mid rank tech people think of ____ OS release from MS". MS gets there first with their 10 paid blogs which are then echoed by the 100 news outlets. So for example, we "sorta know" what we think of Win 7, then 8 - and - 8.1

But while a few people on the advanced places (maybe here!) are beginning to scout the Win10 landscape, it still feels really early.

XP isn't running well at all on my DevilComp. And that fan still needs to be replaced. I'm just trying to hold on until we get closer to the real rollout of 10, then the "second line" people will begin posting their news.

I def don't want OS-as-Service. And I don't plan to need to change my hardware more than once. If I have to change my hardware more than once, then I did it wrong. If I do it right, it will sit there until it too decays, just like I am doing now with XP.

[40hz]

@40hz
Can you please explain further what leads you to the Linux line you posted? How it relates to today's news?
Serious question, I am not trying to be funny, may be I should read again but don't see the actual connection to something MS said today.

It's not in the statement from Microsoft I quoted.

But many times in the past Microsoft has alleged that Linux/GNU violates in excess of 200 of its software patents. And although the company has waffled around acting upon it (and refused to say exactly what those patents are) no person in a position of authority at Microsoft has ever ruled out a future lawsuit or series of lawsuits. At this point in time, Microsoft seems to have contented itself with spreading enough FUD that many companies (and a few big Linux distros such as Redhat and Suse) have purchased licenses from Microsoft for supposedly infringing their IP. Unfortunately, those licenses are (by contractual agreement) a secret between Microsoft and those who signed them. So nobody in the broader FOSS community knows what the specific claimed IP violations are, or is able to re-code or change things in order to be non-infringing. Assuming they actually are. Cute move huh? It's basically saying: "You're infringing - but we're not going to do anything to let you know what or where."

When Linux began to look like it had a shot at becoming the next dominant desktop OS, Microsoft upped it's posturing and threatening. Including threatening corporations that adopted Linux. It's true that once Windows 7 became the success it became, and some major players in the FOSS community caved in and bought questionable licenses, Microsoft ramped their threats back down. But again. they never ruled out legal action in the future.

From Microsoft's past rhetoric and behavior, I suspect if they get a lot of pushback on where Windows 10 seems to be going - and Linux again starts looking like a good replacement - they'll start up their legal bullying and FUD machine again. Or possibly invoke the nuclear option and actually file a lawsuit against someone. Most likely Linux (i.e. the kernal) itself, which they claim has something like 65 infringing pieces in it.

Hope that clarifies. It's a long story. And it's been going on for the last 10 or so years. This is an older article that gets into the nitty -gritty of the thing. It'll give you some background as to what it's all about.

[40hz]

So they might not be that easily fooled by one year of free subscription,

It's not a one year subscription. It's a one year window to claim a free upgrade.

I don't think Microsoft is going over to an Adobe subscription model just yet. But they have implied that updates may someday no longer be offered for free. Updates could eventually require a "maintenance" agreement in order for Windows users to receive them after a certain interval. Say one year from purchase?

[rgdot]

@40hz
Can you please explain further what leads you to the Linux line you posted? How it relates to today's news?
Serious question, I am not trying to be funny, may be I should read again but don't see the actual connection to something MS said today.

It's not in the statement from Microsoft I quoted.

But many times in the past Microsoft has alleged that Linux/GNU violates in excess of 200 of its software patents. And although the company has waffled around acting upon it (and refused to say exactly what those patents are) no person in a position of authority at Microsoft has ever ruled out a future lawsuit or series of lawsuits. At this point in time, Microsoft seems to have contented itself with spreading enough FUD that many companies (and a few big Linux distros such as Redhat and Suse) have purchased licenses from Microsoft for supposedly infringing their IP. Unfortunately, those licenses are (by contractual agreement) a secret between Microsoft and those who signed them. So nobody in the broader FOSS community knows what the specific claimed IP violations are, or is able to re-code or change things in order to be non-infringing. Assuming they actually are. Cute move huh? It's basically saying: "You're infringing - but we're not going to do anything to let you know what or where."

When Linux began to look like it had a shot at becoming the next dominant desktop OS, Microsoft upped it's posturing and threatening. Including threatening corporations that adopted Linux. It's true that once Windows 7 became the success it became, and some major players in the FOSS community caved in and bought questionable licenses, Microsoft ramped their threats back down. But again. they never ruled out legal action in the future.

From Microsoft's past rhetoric and behavior, I suspect if they get a lot of pushback on where Windows 10 seems to be going - and Linux again starts looking like a good replacement - they'll start up their legal bullying and FUD machine again. Or possibly invoke the nuclear option and actually file a lawsuit against someone. Most likely Linux (i.e. the kernal) itself, which they claim has something like 65 infringing pieces in it.

Hope that clarifies. It's a long story. And it's been going on for the last 10 or so years. This is an older article that gets into the nitty -gritty of the thing. It'll give you some background as to what it's all about.

Thanks. The lesson from back in the day of SCO Linux suits is I think it became clear that enough big names want/need Linux that I think we are almost certainly not reaching the place you allude to soon. Now if MS does more "buying into" Linux (patents, etc.) and then kill it from the inside ... probably still unlikely.

Linux for the desktop is far from a real threat anyway, over the years I have listed a few reasons here and elsewhere. Many big and small quirks...

[superboyac]

@40hz
Can you please explain further what leads you to the Linux line you posted? How it relates to today's news?
Serious question, I am not trying to be funny, may be I should read again but don't see the actual connection to something MS said today.

It's not in the statement from Microsoft I quoted.

But many times in the past Microsoft has alleged that Linux/GNU violates in excess of 200 of its software patents. And although the company has waffled around acting upon it (and refused to say exactly what those patents are) no person in a position of authority at Microsoft has ever ruled out a future lawsuit or series of lawsuits. At this point in time, Microsoft seems to have contented itself with spreading enough FUD that many companies (and a few big Linux distros such as Redhat and Suse) have purchased licenses from Microsoft for supposedly infringing their IP. Unfortunately, those licenses are (by contractual agreement) a secret between Microsoft and those who signed them. So nobody in the broader FOSS community knows what the specific claimed IP violations are, or is able to re-code or change things in order to be non-infringing. Assuming they actually are. Cute move huh? It's basically saying: "You're infringing - but we're not going to do anything to let you know what or where."

When Linux began to look like it had a shot at becoming the next dominant desktop OS, Microsoft upped it's posturing and threatening. Including threatening corporations that adopted Linux. It's true that once Windows 7 became the success it became, and some major players in the FOSS community caved in and bought questionable licenses, Microsoft ramped their threats back down. But again. they never ruled out legal action in the future.

From Microsoft's past rhetoric and behavior, I suspect if they get a lot of pushback on where Windows 10 seems to be going - and Linux again starts looking like a good replacement - they'll start up their legal bullying and FUD machine again. Or possibly invoke the nuclear option and actually file a lawsuit against someone. Most likely Linux (i.e. the kernal) itself, which they claim has something like 65 infringing pieces in it.

Hope that clarifies. It's a long story. And it's been going on for the last 10 or so years. This is an older article that gets into the nitty -gritty of the thing. It'll give you some background as to what it's all about.

You amaze me...often.  That was a damn fine read.

[Renegade]

Ooooooh! This is going to end well.

[40hz]

^ Yup. It's just another rehash of what they tried to do with Windows 8 AFAIC.

App store lock-in like Apple is doing can't be far behind.

Funny thing... for a few years now Microsoft has been implying you don't really need floppy or disk drives now that there's a cloud and all these online services you can avail yourself of. Some PCs now ship without any removable media drives at all. Disk drives are just soooo 90s, right?

Right.

Unless you might actually want to load your own software. Or have books, music, or movies that can't suddenly be whisked away because the publisher is caught up in some ridiculous copyright or licensing dispute. Or if you want to store something without having the entire corporate and government world able to rummage through it whenever your back is turned.

And yeah, we still have USB keys and portable hard drives. But you're never sure just how erased they can be made. And they cost enough that most people are somewhat reluctant to take a hammer to them, or run them through a chipper just to be sure.

Nope. I'm not a conspiracy buff. But I did watch James Burke's Connection series. And I'm seeing confluences and trends that seem to be converging to create a place I don't want to be taken to.

[40hz]

Thanks. The lesson from back in the day of SCO Linux suits is I think it became clear that enough big names want/need Linux that I think we are almost certainly not reaching the place you allude to soon. Now if MS does more "buying into" Linux (patents, etc.) and then kill it from the inside ... probably still unlikely.

Microsoft isn't openly trying to kill Linux. At least not just yet. In fact Microsoft does believe Linux has a "role" in the broader computing framework...

And that role is: only if running as a virtual machine under Hyper-V.

Microsoft doesn't care what else you use so long as you're mostly using Microsoft too.

[40hz]

Gavin Clarke over at The register puts his two cents in. Read it here.

tl:dr - Microsoft is releasing Win 10 free for one year to speed adoption because (a) it can't afford another marketing disaster like it had with Windows 8; and (b) it needs to force people off Windows 7 - because Win7 can't use Microsoft's App Store.


------------------------------------

Bottom line: Microsoft is playing what it feels is the long game. Even if it means kicking it's partners and the entire PC industry under the bus to do so. Like a punch-drunk prizefighter, they know it isn't always a matter of being the best competitor. It's sometimes just being the one who is able to absorb the most punishment and remain standing the longest.

Microsoft’s deep coffers may ultimately be the thing that ends up getting them where they want to be. And too bad for about any collateral damage that occurs along the way.

[attach]

[dr_andus]

Gavin Clarke over at The register puts his two cents in. Read it

Interesting article, thanks for this. One thing I don't get it why MS thinks being so cryptic about their plan is a good thing. Their event raised more questions than answers, and now everyone out there is reading the tea leaves and trying to make sense of stupid things like what did MS mean by a "device". They could have just spelled out the plan, rather than allow for all these speculations to proliferate (and most of them seem to draw negative conclusions).

Could they be really so bad at marketing? What is that about? Or maybe they haven't actually agreed on a plan yet (which is not a good sign either)? Or maybe the plan (the truth) is even more negative than the speculations? I just can't see how it could be a good thing to leave millions of customers out there scratching their heads.

As for the free upgrade, I will probably wait until the last week of the 11th month to see all the feedback on the bugs and issues etc., whether it's really worth it or better to stick with Win7 (unless the early feedback will be really amazing). But to be honest, all I heard so far is that they bring back features for which there are already better 3rd party tools anyway (like the Start menu), so I'm not seeing yet the fabulous benefits of upgrading.

[wraith808]

As for the free upgrade, I will probably wait until the last week of the 11th month to see all the feedback on the bugs and issues etc., whether it's really worth it or better to stick with Win7 (unless the early feedback will be really amazing). But to be honest, all I heard so far is that they bring back features for which there are already better 3rd party tools anyway (like the Start menu), so I'm not seeing yet the fabulous benefits of upgrading.

I wouldn't think you'd have to install it to get the upgrade, nor have zero media.  Why not get the upgrade, and just not install it?

I did it with the free Windows 8 upgrade that I received....