Microsoft trademarks 'Windows 365' name

[Corky34]

Radio Rentals went bust for a reason, even though you could swap your rented TV for the newest model and get it repaired for free people didn't like the idea of paying monthly rental fees when they could buy their own TV and keep it for it's lifetime.

[DanceswithUnix]

I don't see the point in paying for a subscription on a product that has been always been sold at retail for an upfront price and then you have that product for life. A great example is Windows XP. Many have been using that OS for a decade.

OK, using that as an example. Say you paid £70 for an OEM XP license 10 years ago, and I paid £7 per year. By now, we would be almost even. I say almost, because you lost £70 up front whereas I kept most of that in the first year so it was offsetting my mortgage earning me interest. Pennies in it, but technically I would be up.

At £20 a year I would personally just point and laugh and I don't see a single box at home being on Windows. But how about if it was £5? Interested yet? It isn't about the model or ethics, it is about cold hard cash. At £5 most of my home computers would probably end up subscription on their next upgrade compared with the usual £70. Seems too low? I don't think so.

Microsoft are up against falling hardware prices and competition from the likes of ChromeOS and SteamOS that are zero. I think their price has to come down anyway.

Now consider counterfeit licences. You buy a PC, it comes pre-installed with Windows. Most people probably can't spot a fake Windows install. The dodgy PC vendor is pocketing the license money, MS lose out. Consider how that works with a subscription service. If they get it right, there is nothing for the dodgy reseller to pocket. Imagine you install Windows on a PC, it says "thank you for installing Windows, first year is free then a small subscription will be due each year after" then MS might be able to bring lots of people back into the fold and with a payment method in place to make buying stuff in their app store easier.

There are also a lot of airgap installs out there, never ever attached to the Internet. Phone activation still has to work, those people probably will want/need to pay up front.

I don't think they can force this, but they can tempt people. Remember however how Novell were driven out of business, NT 3.51 connections were really cheap compared to Novell because you bought a server license and could connect as many clients to it as you wanted. That lasted until Novell were out of the game, then then prices went up and the client access licenses appeared. Or as someone said at the time "they turned on the gas and started selling gas masks".

I think overall it comes down to a simple Question: Do you trust Microsoft. If you trust them, just buy their cheapest deal. If you don't trust Microsoft, then what the heck are you doing running Windows in the first place?

[Saracen]

OK, using that as an example. Say you paid £70 for an OEM XP license 10 years ago, and I paid £7 per year. By now, we would be almost even. I say almost, because you lost £70 up front whereas I kept most of that in the first year so it was offsetting my mortgage earning me interest. Pennies in it, but technically I would be up.

At £20 a year I would personally just point and laugh and I don't see a single box at home being on Windows. But how about if it was £5? Interested yet? It isn't about the model or ethics, it is about cold hard cash. At £5 most of my home computers would probably end up subscription on their next upgrade compared with the usual £70. Seems too low? I don't think so.


I think overall it comes down to a simple Question: Do you trust Microsoft. If you trust them, just buy their cheapest deal. If you don't trust Microsoft, then what the heck are you doing running Windows in the first place?

Some years ago, friends thought I was mad buying a house and committing to a mortgage. Now, though, I own the house outright, and have no mortgage or rent to pay. And, on top, and asset that I can cash in for a LOT more then I paid.

Is a house and an OS the same? No, of course not. But it's not about either cash or trusting Microsoft. It's about choice of financial planning. For me, anyway.

With an outright licence, I decide right now, is the cost justified? I can do this because the cost is known. £x for y benefit. But, on a subscription basis, it's ongoing cost, ad-infinitum.

And, by the way, I have several XP systems still running that I bougbt licences for in 2001, on XP launch. 14 years, and counting.

In your example, I've paid £70 up-front, and you've paid £98, and will continue to pay. In 6 years, I'll still be at £70, and you'll be at £140. And still counting.

So what it really comes down to, for me, is how long I expect to use a purchase, OS or otherwise, and my financial planning preference.

Personally, I am HIGHLY averse to credit. I paid off the house mortgage early, and have NO other debt. I rarely even use credit card, and when I do, pay it off immediately the bill arrives. And I have zero interest in buying anything else on credit, even at 0% interest. And yes, I know I could put money aside and pay off such a loan from that reserve fund. But, as I say, I'm debt averse, and I also highly value a hassle-free life. My incone is irregular, and I don't want ANY automated payments that I can avoid. I could pay a lot of bills on DD, and get a discount, but don't. Why? Same reason I will not take sn OS on subscription. My choice of financial planning methodology - avoid recurring payments. Pay up front, get it over with.

No doubt this won't suit everybody. But then, most people have a regular, predicable income, hitting their bank every week/month. I don't. I typically get nothing for quite a while, then a large lump. So, I decide if I want to spend £x on whatever it is, be it an OS or new car, when I have the money in my 'disposable' pot. No subscriptions for an OS, and no car loans or HP either. Not now, or ever.

[DanceswithUnix]

In your example, I've paid £70 up-front, and you've paid £98, and will continue to pay. In 6 years, I'll still be at £70, and you'll be at £140. And still counting.

Which is why I can see this being an option to tempt people with, but can't see it being mandatory because it isn't just a case of doesn't fit all people but not all cases for a given person.

My laptop was bought with win7 and will go to the recycling center with win7. I would no more want a subscription on that than I would for use of my fridge.

My desktop? Well that moved on from XP so in that timeframe in outright purchase I am already up to £140. Had I bothered with Win 8 then even with the initial cheap deal I would be up to £165 on OS licenses, but the machine is used for gaming and while the upgrade to 64 bit was necessary to continue being able to play modern games on the machine win 8 wasn't so I didn't bother. The OS is I think a poor value expense on that machine, so let MS tempt me with a better deal.

[peterb]

I can sort of see why a leasing type option might appeal to Corporations.

A purchase is a capital asset that depreciates over time, and while some of that might attrack tax relief, the it is still depreciations and involves up-front expenditure which affects cash flow.

Leasing software though becomes an operating cost, and that attracts tax relief for as long as the lease is in place. It can also be budgeted for in cash flow projections.

That of course doesn't usually apply to individuals, although as was stated earlier, what is the difference between paying £100 upfront for software that is useful for (say) 5 years, or paying£20 a year and getting software that is regularly updated, with the option of unlocking or disabling features as requirements change?

That is simplistic, and individual perceptions and requirements vary. It is also speculation because there has not been any definite announcement, although Office 365 May be an indication.

[abaxas]

When the pirated verison is better than the original, any company has a problem.

Subscription is a great idea for business but not for home users. For one the level of support will have to be much higher or the risk of loss due to error/bugs will be huge. It has to work, or people cna simply get their money back.

[Corky34]

That of course doesn't usually apply to individuals, although as was stated earlier, what is the difference between paying £100 upfront for software that is useful for (say) 5 years, or paying£20 a year and getting software that is regularly updated, with the option of unlocking or disabling features as requirements change?

The difference is that the £100 is a known amount, the £20 a year may change.
It would be great if prices never increased, sadly we all know how companies like to send you a notice each year telling you how it's only going to cost you X amount more for the same service you had last year.

[Saracen]

Which is why I can see this being an option to tempt people with, but can't see it being mandatory because it isn't just a case of doesn't fit all people but not all cases for a given person.

....

Well, we're on the same page on that. Personally, I have no problem with them offering Win-on-a-Sub as well as a perpetual licence, just as I have no problem with Office365 being available provided the full, system-transferable, perpetual retail licence is too.

To that extent, you're also right about it being about trust. Do I trust MS to do what's in the interests of customers? Hell, no. I trust them to do what's the the best interests of MS. The issue is what they will perceive that to be. And only time will tell.

I certainly see MS being willing to try to shove their decisions down user's throats, despite a clear backlash. The PR mess-up over Win8 MUI demonstrated their willingness to do that. They could have avoided that simply by giving users the option of UI. But no, they tried to force their vested interest over strategic direction on users.

So do I trust MS? Hell, no.

Speaking for myself, MS have entirely used up my previous level of trust, and tolerance. I am on the edge of dropping MS OS (and apps) for future OS choices and IF they try to go subscription-only, I will go non-MS. I've already made that decision. I'm also at the point where I don't much care which way MS go.

[crossy]

Which is why I can see this being an option to tempt people with, but can't see it being mandatory because it isn't just a case of doesn't fit all people but not all cases for a given person.

My laptop was bought with win7 and will go to the recycling center with win7. I would no more want a subscription on that than I would for use of my fridge.

My desktop? Well that moved on from XP so in that timeframe in outright purchase I am already up to £140. Had I bothered with Win 8 then even with the initial cheap deal I would be up to £165 on OS licenses, but the machine is used for gaming and while the upgrade to 64 bit was necessary to continue being able to play modern games on the machine win 8 wasn't so I didn't bother. The OS is I think a poor value expense on that machine, so let MS tempt me with a better deal.

So based on what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing by the way, what Microsoft should/could do is something like:

a. Offer a basic OS either as free, or for a nominal sum. Since this is a purchase, it's yours to do with on the hardware it was bought for. License is non-transferable. Think of this as the "Community", "OEM", or even "Netbook" edition. They'd need to strip it quite a bit and perhaps even put in some usage restrictions (e.g. limit to 8GB RAM [or less?], limit the amount of disk you can use) to make it usable while still making a subscription option attractive;
b. First tier subscription, say £10/year gives you "Pro" features but again the OS is non-transferable. Call it "Windows 365 Bronze"?
c. Second tier subscription, £15-20/year. Pro features and you can make multiple hardware changes or move to a new machine. "Windows 365 Silver"?
d. Third tier, approx £50/year. Family pack for Pro features for four systems. "Windows 365 Gold"?
e. Final tier, approx £75/year. Family pack for Pro but with the multiple h/w changes feature. "Windows 365 Platinum"?

Now I'm not saying that this is necessarily the way it should, or even will happen, but it's a possibility in my mind if they (Microsoft) want to "monetize" while still being omnipresent. I've also not said anything about businesses since they have their own requirements and are probably more content with subscriptions etc anyway.

Pure uninformed speculation on my part, but it's nice to have that debate and see what we think Redmond will do next.

[DanceswithUnix]

Something like that, although if you are going subscription I think the idea of transferring to a new machine must be moot. If I have two subscriptions, I should be able to run two machines.

Remember this is all consumer machines only, I expect the bulk of sales will be corporate and they are already on subscription.

I am already forking out over £10 per year on windows licenses though (assuming I get 5 years out of a £70 oem OS license), and subscription means you are giving away:

* Anonymity
* Payment details

and those are biggies and I expect something in return.

For some people those are deal breakers, Google get around that by giving you the OS for free and being just so damned useful. So for me there is some discomfort there, but Google managed it albeit I think with a big dent to their "do no evil" original image. So go on Microsoft, give it your best shot. It has to be really cheap though.

[shaithis]

If I was a standard home user I'd pay a bit more than £10 per year if the license/subscription was transferable to another machine.....but I have 4 physical PCs at home running Windows and a number of VMs.....I would need a decent site license if they wanted me to pay subs for that.l

I still stand by my age-old feelings that those of us who work in I.T. shouldn't have to pay for Microsoft licenses, many of us championed them and kept the damn stuff running for years for them!

[Saracen]

....

* Anonymity
* Payment details

and those are biggies ....

Yup. Sure are.

.... and I expect something in return.

....

I guess we all put a value on that. I can't imagine MS being willing to part with what I'd regard as a suitable "something".

....

For some people those are deal breakers, ....

Someone mention my name?

....

Google get around that by giving you the OS for free and being just so damned useful. ....

Not for me, they didn't. There are NO circumstances under which I'll use either a Google OS or browser on my PCs, free or not. I also never use Google as a search engine. The only Google product I use (other than perhaps receiving emails via GMail, if that's still Google-owned), is an Android tablet, but I NEVER put any personal data (not even an email address that links to me) on it. Nor, for that matter, does the internet connection it uses lead to me. Google are welcome to trawl my 'contacts' on the tablet - there are none. Emails? None. Calendar entries? None. Photo's? Yup, none. GPS data? Permanently turned off. Even the cameras are physically taped over.

There is NOTHING remotely practical and real-world that Google could offer me that would induce me to give up personal info to them, and Google (and to a lesser extent, privacy issues generally) is the single biggest reason I don't have a smartphone.

Anyone that wants to even have some control over their personal info these days pretty much has to adopt ridiculous-seeming precautions or big companies, with Google leading the charge, will trample all over you.

[DanceswithUnix]

I guess we all put a value on that. I can't imagine MS being willing to part with what I'd regard as a suitable "something".

lol! Everyone has a price, but I would *love* to know what yours is. I presume £10M up front would have to be in used untracable bills?

[Saracen]

lol! Everyone has a price, but I would *love* to know what yours is. I presume £10M up front would have to be in used untracable bills?

I caveated that remark quite carefully precisely to try to avoid getting into the realms of arcane "prices".

Truthfully, I don't know what the price would be. See, as I see it, "personal info" is a rather amorphous concept, with very real implications. For instance, getting pestered by people trying to sell me stuff. I seriously dislike adverts, intensely resent targetted adverts, don't want unsolicited marketing phone calls under ANY (zero exceptions) circumstances, and I can get very angry, very quickly, with anyone stupid enough to knock on my door. In that latter case, they'll get ONE polite but curt "not interested", and if the persist, they'll get told, in no uncertain terms to bleep the hell off, right bleeping now.

What I really, REALLY want, is to be left the hell alone by people trying to sell me stuff. Even junk mail is VERY likely to be counter-productive .... unless I've specifically asked for it. A few years ago, when I was looking for a change of car, I ruled one out because the manufacturer, entirely unsolicited, sent me junkmail. That, by the way, was Saab .... though never having really been a fan, I wasn't that likely to have bought anyway.

The relevance to "personal info"?

Well, personal info is what leads to, among other things, all the intrusions that I REALLY object to.

So, if a genie was to pop out of my kettle tonight, and say "okay, okay, stop rattling my home every few hours and I'll grant you three wishes", one of them would be for all my personal info to disappear off every marketing database and to stay off them for all time.

I might also be tempted to add in, for Google and all similar companies (and their senior execs) to vanish into permanent non-existence.

What would my price be? I really don't know, but £1000? No way. Not even close. £100,000? Nope. Seriously, no, I wouldn't. I might be tempted into parting with £100k as a thankyou to that genie, though.

See, it's about quality of life. As a result of some years of VERY careful control of, and rigid disclipline in, restricting what personal info I let lose, I don't get pestered very often. A £100 telephone call blocker/screener ensures I never get pestered on the phone. I NEVER give out my phone number to commercial organisations. Ever. Some companies say it's "mandatory" or they can't process the order. Okay, if it really is mandatory .... I order somewhere else. Or not at all. It usually turns out not to be mandatory if the result is not getting the order. I don't even give my bank my home phone number. Why? Because in the past, despite repeated instructions not to, they kept making telesales calls. Result? Change bank, and don't give new bank a phone number.

When I wanted the whole house double-glazed (and new doors) one company (Zenith, IIRC) wouldn't even make an appointment for a visit without a phone number. Whatever their reasons for that, the result was no appointment, and another company got a fairly large order.

So .... if I'm prepared to blacklist companies over a phone number, and change bank over telesales calls, eliminate a quite expensive car option over junk mail, and many more such examples, it gives you an idea over the value I place on my quality of life and
freedom from emphatically unwanted commercial intrusions, ALL of which are fed by storage, use and marketing of my personal information, very much against my express wishes.

Would £10m be enough? Truly, I don't know. Maybe. But quite possibly, maybe not. Seriously, it may not be. I cannot really say what I'd actually do, unless actually presented with the real-world choice. Which is why I caveated it as I did.

What would do it, price-wise, is a sum big enough to ensure that the blow-back didn't affect my personal life, and freedom from pestering by sales people. So .... enough to buy a Branson-esqe private island, and to live in blissful isolation entirely insulated from phone calls, bangs on the door and junkmail? That'd do it. But .... real world? Not hardly.

So my price would be somewhere well up from £100k and perhaps short of a billionaire lifestyle, but quite where, in-between? Dunno. As it ain't happening, it ain't worth thinking about.

[snaynay]

Thinking just a touch differently here.

Whilst is could be a subscription for normal Windows, I'm actually a bit unsure on that. At least under the Windows 365 branding.

It *could* well be an Azure based, lightweight Windows cloud OS accessible through the browser, such as the web derivatives of say Office. In fact it could house office, your files, and be your computer accessible on chrome books, iOS or whatever. Or possibly Microsoft's own take on the Chomebook concept.

Just to me, the 365 branding is all about accessibility from anywhere, anything. Considering we can RDP into normal Azure VMs with a reasonable response, its so far fetched that MS could actually pull off a Cloud oriented OS now, even if it is as limited as RT.