Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
General Apps
Office, email and business apps
Microsoft Office 2024 Preview - Part of M365 and non-subscription options
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bazang" data-source="post: 1103180" data-attributes="member: 114717"><p>What Microsoft said in 2016 is that it will NEVER charge for support (security updates). Not ever. Not at the end of life (EOL) included.</p><p></p><p>You did not bother to what I posted earlier. One of the models that Microsoft has adopted is to make users pay for updates after X years. It is a form of a subscription model or, more accurately, it is a fee-for-service\feature model. There are those within Microsoft that have been advocating that Windows be moved to the Chrome\Android model of free updates for a limited number of years (e.g. 5 years). After that period of time expires - anyone that wishes to continue to use that Windows version will have to pay for updates and feature upgrades.</p><p></p><p>Others have advocated for Microsoft to adopt the Red Had model. To keep Windows Home "free" but charge fees for the dependencies. Make it such that Windows Home users have to pay for those dependencies.</p><p></p><p>You can use semantics and word logic to say that Microsoft is not really charging a subscription, but that is irrelevant. Microsoft's objective is to get first-world home users and everyone else in those societies to pay for the OS - whether it is in the form of an annual subscription or a fee-for-service\feature scheme.</p><p></p><p>Microsoft shrewdly treats first-world markets differently than second- and third-world markets. As the years pass, more and more people in first-world markets are fully OK with paying for software that traditionally has not required a subscription or fee-for-service. That willingness has been fostered to a large extent by the way that Microsoft has slowly introduced all these payment schemes over the years.</p><p></p><p>Either you see it or you don't. Tomorrow Microsoft can make Windows 100% subscription and there will not be a mass exodus of users to Linux. Only a small percentage of the population would do it. For everyone else, they are so dependent upon Windows and the things that run on it, that they would have no choice because there is no effective alternative.</p><p></p><p>Until home users start paying more for Windows, Microsoft is going to treat Windows Home version as the unwanted hand-me-down version that Microsoft would get rid of if it were not for its mandate and obligations to investors to generate profits. It is not what Microsoft says. It is what investors want. There are activist investors that have been advocating for a Windows OS subscription model for years. Slowly that objective is being developed and users are being indoctrinated (the same as other large tech companies such as Google and Apple manipulate their userbase and extract revenues from them).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bazang, post: 1103180, member: 114717"] What Microsoft said in 2016 is that it will NEVER charge for support (security updates). Not ever. Not at the end of life (EOL) included. You did not bother to what I posted earlier. One of the models that Microsoft has adopted is to make users pay for updates after X years. It is a form of a subscription model or, more accurately, it is a fee-for-service\feature model. There are those within Microsoft that have been advocating that Windows be moved to the Chrome\Android model of free updates for a limited number of years (e.g. 5 years). After that period of time expires - anyone that wishes to continue to use that Windows version will have to pay for updates and feature upgrades. Others have advocated for Microsoft to adopt the Red Had model. To keep Windows Home "free" but charge fees for the dependencies. Make it such that Windows Home users have to pay for those dependencies. You can use semantics and word logic to say that Microsoft is not really charging a subscription, but that is irrelevant. Microsoft's objective is to get first-world home users and everyone else in those societies to pay for the OS - whether it is in the form of an annual subscription or a fee-for-service\feature scheme. Microsoft shrewdly treats first-world markets differently than second- and third-world markets. As the years pass, more and more people in first-world markets are fully OK with paying for software that traditionally has not required a subscription or fee-for-service. That willingness has been fostered to a large extent by the way that Microsoft has slowly introduced all these payment schemes over the years. Either you see it or you don't. Tomorrow Microsoft can make Windows 100% subscription and there will not be a mass exodus of users to Linux. Only a small percentage of the population would do it. For everyone else, they are so dependent upon Windows and the things that run on it, that they would have no choice because there is no effective alternative. Until home users start paying more for Windows, Microsoft is going to treat Windows Home version as the unwanted hand-me-down version that Microsoft would get rid of if it were not for its mandate and obligations to investors to generate profits. It is not what Microsoft says. It is what investors want. There are activist investors that have been advocating for a Windows OS subscription model for years. Slowly that objective is being developed and users are being indoctrinated (the same as other large tech companies such as Google and Apple manipulate their userbase and extract revenues from them). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
