Microsoft Clarifies stance on free upgrades
I really do hate being right so damn often. That sounds potentially fallacious, but it isn't. Usually, my being right is either about something bad, or a result of me needing to tell someone just how idiotic they are. This is the latter. And I've been drawn into a number of debates on this where people basically fling whatever unjustified nonsense at you like a bag of dog shit, and I just can't help but open my yap and tear them apart (not that they care or will even acknowledge the fact that they were wrong). And I really would like to be proven wrong once in a while to give the little guys a chance.
Basically, as the pieces come together and Microsoft nails down the legalese for their upgrade and support plans things start falling in place exactly as I had predicted they would. In fact, I even predicted earlier on that the terminology in use previously was just there as a stopgap until such time as they nail down exactly how they want to word it. Fact is, the way Windows 10 is planned IS actually quite different from how they have operated in the past. And that is an important factor in the bad wording they have been supplying.
So, firstly, the free upgrade is JUST FREE. Not that anything new is required for this point. Several MS officials were quoted as saying just this several months ago. The upgraded version is NOT some gimped license or some temporary license. It is a license of the same caliber as those distributed by OEMs or purchased retail. The 1 year period is just the period during which eligible Windows users can get it for free.
It is not actually a service and won't be sold as a service. This was the dumbest bit. And the 1 year upgrade offer combined with the "as a service" stuff drove people like moths to a flame to conclude that Microsoft would turn around and charge a subscription fee for Windows 10. This debate NEVER had any legs, starting with the technical issue that it actually ISN'T delivered as a service. That verbiage is just an (ironically bad) way of describing their methodology regarding keeping "every" Windows 10 device up to date. Nothing more.
People often tried to say that Microsoft had done the sorts of things they were suggesting would happen in the past with things like Office and Azure. Both arguments are of course totally wrong. Azure IS A SERVICE. And, in fact, it isn't even charged on a subscription basis. It is charged based on usage. And the model is basically the exact same as the one both Amazon and Google use for cloud services. So, you can't really pull Azure into this argument without suggesting Google is planning the same with Android (suggesting which, of course, causes everyone to shit their pants and claim you're a moron).
On the Office 365 front, it also isn't the same at all. Firstly, there was never a "here have Office for free"... "BAM! Subscription-ed!". In fact, Microsoft still offers Office on a perpetual license with the same licensing stipulations it had before they had a subscription version. They simply also have a subscription based version as well. But where Office makes the most sense is in the Enterprise, those versions of Office 365 aren't just about having the latest version, Microsoft actually offers services like email hosting, telephony and IM (both via Skype for Business now), email spam filtering and several other legitimate services to charge a subscription for!
Windows is, in no capacity, an actual service. It is a piece of software installed in its entirety on your local machine. Even the enterprise versions of Windows are no different. Unlike Office 365 where there was an enterprise model that could have passed value along to regular consumers as well, with Windows it simple makes no sense.
The other problem with this of course is that the biggest reason to doubt they would do this was simply because of how ambiguously worded things were. This isn't a small company or a small product. Failure to properly advertise something like that would have lead to a class action lawsuit. Come on people!!!! Microsoft is NOT this stupid.
In so far as upgrades will be free for the "supported lifetime of the device". While I speculated ways that this could be within the lines of what people were (irrationally) thinking it was about, I had long defended it as simply a way of wording support so as to allow MS to save their butts from trying to support hardware they would have otherwise retired support for. And that is what it appears to be. After the supported lifetime of the device, you will still get updates/upgrades. But Microsoft will no longer care about how well those function on your device. Of course, more likely than not, all you'll miss out on is new features that your device can't support.
I had argued that this was most likely necessary, because, if Windows 10 truly ends up being the last version of Windows and goes on indefinitely (or even just a really long time) they couldn't possibly afford to continue to support launch hardware 10+ or even pre-launch hardware (Win7 and 8 machines that took the upgrade) several years into the future. At some point they need to be able to cut the cord to move forwards.
BTW Apple's support cycle for software is about the same. Apple devices within the same 2-4 year range eventually stop receiving iOS updates. Difference is, with an Apple device you won't even be able to upgrade the device if you want features at the cost of performance. With Windows 10 you can still keep the device up to date.
There is again, a very simple reason why Microsoft wouldn't start charging to keep them updated. It makes absolutely no financial sense. While Android may have the worst software fragmentation on the planet, Windows has the most about of hardware fragmentation. Supporting aging hardware would only be financially viable as a paid for service if enough people on each unique piece of hardware were to buy into paying for extending support. And that simply isn't going to happen. Even at free, you can guarantee a number of people won't even take an upgrade. Virtually no one buys a retail Windows disc except ethical computer builders. It simply wouldn't be a profitable enterprise.
And they were always unlikely stop delivering updates after a predetermined time. As I had said before, this is the company that updates hacked copies of Windows KNOWINGLY. If you have a pirated version of Windows you'll be stuck with a watermark and some limitations, but you will still be able to get every update. It wouldn't make any sense to update pirated copies but not legitimate ones which had simply hit the end of their service life.
Sure, they could stop servicing pirated copies as well. But they are fully aware of how bad that would make them look. The reason they update pirated copies is because not all pirated copies are owned by people who intended to pirate Windows. Some shady shops will sell PCs without a valid key or people will get such a computer off a friend or family member. Microsoft knew when they made this decision that denying these people security updates wouldn't make them very popular. So, they decided to turn it into a positive image thing and promised to keep everyone running Windows "safe". Such a move would undermine that goal of keeping all of their users safe. And that is also not a financially viable decision.
Basically, as the pieces come together and Microsoft nails down the legalese for their upgrade and support plans things start falling in place exactly as I had predicted they would. In fact, I even predicted earlier on that the terminology in use previously was just there as a stopgap until such time as they nail down exactly how they want to word it. Fact is, the way Windows 10 is planned IS actually quite different from how they have operated in the past. And that is an important factor in the bad wording they have been supplying.
So, firstly, the free upgrade is JUST FREE. Not that anything new is required for this point. Several MS officials were quoted as saying just this several months ago. The upgraded version is NOT some gimped license or some temporary license. It is a license of the same caliber as those distributed by OEMs or purchased retail. The 1 year period is just the period during which eligible Windows users can get it for free.
It is not actually a service and won't be sold as a service. This was the dumbest bit. And the 1 year upgrade offer combined with the "as a service" stuff drove people like moths to a flame to conclude that Microsoft would turn around and charge a subscription fee for Windows 10. This debate NEVER had any legs, starting with the technical issue that it actually ISN'T delivered as a service. That verbiage is just an (ironically bad) way of describing their methodology regarding keeping "every" Windows 10 device up to date. Nothing more.
People often tried to say that Microsoft had done the sorts of things they were suggesting would happen in the past with things like Office and Azure. Both arguments are of course totally wrong. Azure IS A SERVICE. And, in fact, it isn't even charged on a subscription basis. It is charged based on usage. And the model is basically the exact same as the one both Amazon and Google use for cloud services. So, you can't really pull Azure into this argument without suggesting Google is planning the same with Android (suggesting which, of course, causes everyone to shit their pants and claim you're a moron).
On the Office 365 front, it also isn't the same at all. Firstly, there was never a "here have Office for free"... "BAM! Subscription-ed!". In fact, Microsoft still offers Office on a perpetual license with the same licensing stipulations it had before they had a subscription version. They simply also have a subscription based version as well. But where Office makes the most sense is in the Enterprise, those versions of Office 365 aren't just about having the latest version, Microsoft actually offers services like email hosting, telephony and IM (both via Skype for Business now), email spam filtering and several other legitimate services to charge a subscription for!
Windows is, in no capacity, an actual service. It is a piece of software installed in its entirety on your local machine. Even the enterprise versions of Windows are no different. Unlike Office 365 where there was an enterprise model that could have passed value along to regular consumers as well, with Windows it simple makes no sense.
The other problem with this of course is that the biggest reason to doubt they would do this was simply because of how ambiguously worded things were. This isn't a small company or a small product. Failure to properly advertise something like that would have lead to a class action lawsuit. Come on people!!!! Microsoft is NOT this stupid.
In so far as upgrades will be free for the "supported lifetime of the device". While I speculated ways that this could be within the lines of what people were (irrationally) thinking it was about, I had long defended it as simply a way of wording support so as to allow MS to save their butts from trying to support hardware they would have otherwise retired support for. And that is what it appears to be. After the supported lifetime of the device, you will still get updates/upgrades. But Microsoft will no longer care about how well those function on your device. Of course, more likely than not, all you'll miss out on is new features that your device can't support.
I had argued that this was most likely necessary, because, if Windows 10 truly ends up being the last version of Windows and goes on indefinitely (or even just a really long time) they couldn't possibly afford to continue to support launch hardware 10+ or even pre-launch hardware (Win7 and 8 machines that took the upgrade) several years into the future. At some point they need to be able to cut the cord to move forwards.
BTW Apple's support cycle for software is about the same. Apple devices within the same 2-4 year range eventually stop receiving iOS updates. Difference is, with an Apple device you won't even be able to upgrade the device if you want features at the cost of performance. With Windows 10 you can still keep the device up to date.
There is again, a very simple reason why Microsoft wouldn't start charging to keep them updated. It makes absolutely no financial sense. While Android may have the worst software fragmentation on the planet, Windows has the most about of hardware fragmentation. Supporting aging hardware would only be financially viable as a paid for service if enough people on each unique piece of hardware were to buy into paying for extending support. And that simply isn't going to happen. Even at free, you can guarantee a number of people won't even take an upgrade. Virtually no one buys a retail Windows disc except ethical computer builders. It simply wouldn't be a profitable enterprise.
And they were always unlikely stop delivering updates after a predetermined time. As I had said before, this is the company that updates hacked copies of Windows KNOWINGLY. If you have a pirated version of Windows you'll be stuck with a watermark and some limitations, but you will still be able to get every update. It wouldn't make any sense to update pirated copies but not legitimate ones which had simply hit the end of their service life.
Sure, they could stop servicing pirated copies as well. But they are fully aware of how bad that would make them look. The reason they update pirated copies is because not all pirated copies are owned by people who intended to pirate Windows. Some shady shops will sell PCs without a valid key or people will get such a computer off a friend or family member. Microsoft knew when they made this decision that denying these people security updates wouldn't make them very popular. So, they decided to turn it into a positive image thing and promised to keep everyone running Windows "safe". Such a move would undermine that goal of keeping all of their users safe. And that is also not a financially viable decision.
Comments
Post a Comment