Read more.Quote:
Trademark could mean Windows subscriptions are coming in the not too distant future.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Trademark could mean Windows subscriptions are coming in the not too distant future.
I think that the promise of free upgrades to Windows 10 for the first year is just that. After the first year everyone who gort the "free" upgrade will be invited to take out a subscription for Windows 365.
I think they will burn in hell if they try and force a subscription on people just to use there PC's and laptops, however if its a secondary way of having windows along side the regular 'pay £75 and its yours' model then they might get away with it.
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by DemonHighwayman
I can't see Microsoft moving to subscription for any of the core elements of the OS, at least not in the foreseeable future. My (completely uninformed) guess would be that 'Windows 365' would be a re-branding exercise combining Office 365, Skype subscription and OneDrive backup subscription under one umbrella (and one payment).
Or am I being blissfully naive?!
Thats what i'm thinking, and by "invited" that will mean 'forced' or the OS will be deliberately crippled.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiloFo
While some people will be flaming the most likely scenario is that there will be a Windows subscription option.
This again? Seriously people, the announcement clearly said that after the upgrade there'd be no charge for the lifetime of the device. MS are not dumb enough to alienate their entire customer base by crippling their devices in some kind of global ransomware heist - not least because the various competition commissions would come down on them like the proverbial tonne of bricks, and they really don't want that much bad publicity.
I think it's fair to assume we'll see a pared back OS, and I strongly suspect they'll incentivise (thought license-fee reductions or waivers) the device makers to reduce on-device storage for certain classes of device to push people towards using one drive. But pretty much anything they try to move to a service will either already have an equivalent available from someone other than MS, or will VERY RAPIDLY have competing services offered by other companies. Look how quickly start menu replacements became available for Win 8, for instance.
Microsoft would love everyone to use their versions of the services they strip out of the core OS, but ultimately if they try to force people to use their services they'll be kicked hard where it hurts by the inevitable anti-trust actions. And I'll say again - they're not dumb enough to invite that kind of trouble. The OS will be bare but functional, and people will be free to get the services they need wherever they want. MS will make it REALLY EASY to use their version of the service, but the choice will be there. It's the only way MS can actually make this work.
I think it all depends on what MS have planned. Several things before this indicate MS is planning to sell Windows differently in the future, and this just supports that perspective.Quote:
What do HEXUS readers think?
It might mean doing an Adobe, and going subscription-only. I doubt it though, and certainly hope not, and the moment it does is the moment I, personally, stop using (new versions of) Windows.
But there are other possibilities, one of which is for base Windows to be "free for 12 months" then charged at a modest level, on a conventional basis, and for "services" to be charged as an add-on, on a subscription basis. If those services are things like those outlined in the presentation slide on HEXUS, then fair enough .... though I won't be subscribing. As long as 'core' Windows remains viable, I'll store my own data and organise my own backup. I'm not relegating either to the cloud, regardless of what MS do.
Or, MS might do as they have with Office, and offer dual paths - traditional licence and '365' subscription.
Personally, I can see why Office 365 might appeal to some users, especially business users, but for me it's an absolute non-starter. And nor, now or in the future, us Windows 365 if it implies a similar "monetization" basis.
If they do that, I'll either simply stick to existing Win7 (or Win8 with MUI castrated), or if I need new or additional OS's, migrate that need to Linux wholesale.
But right now, it seems to me we don't have enough info to be sure where MS are going with this. I don't like the inderences I find myself drawing of the writing on the wall, but only time will tell if I'm drawing the right inferences.
Just a quick idea - Its could be a replacement for volume licensing of OSs? Rather than pay for 10,000 Windows user licenses subscribe your employees to Windows 365 and get the latest OSs with free Skype and Onedrive... I can see the sales pitch now.
I absolutely hate monthly or annual subscriptions!
I liked AutoDesk’s original subscription program, and I have been using it for may years for 3DS Max, as it gave me the choice after I purchased the main application to either continue each year and get the latest release or stop, but be able to continue using the programs you have already purchased, and re-register them on a new system, now AutoDesk have even changed to a monthly or annual plan, without the option to buy the program outright . But its there loss. Yesterday I was going to purchase Mudbox which I have wanted for a long time, only to find that I can no longer buy the complete software package, but have to pay monthly for it. NO WAY.
I don’t know when I will actually have time to sit down and learn Mudbox, as it will be more of a hobby at first, before I can integrate it into my daily workflow, and I have very little time these days because of work.
Same goes for Adobe. I wanted to purchase the new versions of Dreamweaver and Flash pro last year, but again, only monthly subscriptions now, and again I don’t know when I will be able to sit down, learn the new software and work on my website as my work and clients are priority, so went with a different brand, and very happy. Adobes loss!
I’m not going to throw money away every month on something I may not get the chance to use.
An OS is different of course in that you have to use it every day, but I want to just buy the compete retail package, and know that I can reinstall it again a few years down the road if I need to without additional costs.
I want to have the choice to buy and use the software in my way, my time, not have a software developer think they know what’s best for everyone! All they are interested in is making it easier to predict how much capital they will make for their investors, nothing about ease of use, or choice for their customers!
Now someone told me that it doesn’t quite work they way I think, in that if you pay for one month, say in March, you don’t just get to use it from March 1st to the 31st, instead you get one month total use even if its spread out over several months, but this just feels wrong, like having a time card, and I for one, cant feel relaxed about using software in this way.
Totally wrong. If Microsoft go this route, its time to finally move over to Linux.
With all the talk of streamlining windows versions etc. Could it be that basic Win10 will be free (equiv. to Windows home) with subscription fees for additional services/functionality via a single portal (could include e.g. some of the business/power user features from Pro/Ultimate type windows, additional Cortana/mapping features etc. and even additional software like image manipulation/Office 365 etc.) but as something more than just an entry in the app store.
I believe MS volume licensing is already subscription with ability to upgrade to latest versons etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesemp
But again I can't see MS being stupid enough to force people down an OS subscription route. Perhaps give it as an option, free Windows with a subscription or pay up front. That gives extra choice, and choice is nice. If they try and force people though, then that would just make Win7 more popular than ever and I don't think they want that.
Yep, I'd see that one having legs - especially if it was some kind of "pack" arrangement, i.e. where you can "easily buy a Windows365(tm) subscription to cover your entire household in a single, easy to manage, payment from a variety of local stores".Quote:
Originally Posted by CK_1985
Some kind of pay-as-you-use arrangement for businesses would be another possibility - offer them the carrot of potential savings and then stick it to 'em with a services hard-sell.
Other thing that springs to mind - prompted by that slide - is a virtual PC, sorry "cloud PC". So you use an easily obtained client (web browser?) on your Mac, phone, tablet, Chromebook or even obsolete PC to access your Windows365 desktop wherever and whenever. Exactly the kind of thing that Citrix etc have been doing for years. With Microsoft handling all the upgrades etc, so you'd always be on the latest version of OS and apps (bundled Office).
One thing I am pretty sure about though - it definitely won't be a mandatory subscription for base Windows, e.g. like the gamers etc use. To do that would be commercial suicide, and pretty much hand control of the desktop to the pirates and the Linux proponents. Not to say providing much work for anti-trust lawyers no doubt.
It will surely be run in parallel, at least for the foreseeable future. We know that Windows 10 isn't going to incur us costs and we know Office365 is running along side normal Office.
The sky isn't falling (at least yet :p )
This was basically my thought too - it'd be dead easy for them to do a "ChromeOS" type delivery of a lightweight Windows kernel plus browser "shell" for low storage mobile devices (4GB - 8GB) and run the majority of the OS in-browser and in-cloud. They could even do a bare version free, like they already do with Office Online.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Plus, as you say, that could then be accessed from any computer anywhere, so if you didn't have your device on you you could still work in your own "desktop" - a bit like a Windows to Go USB key, but in the cloud.
They're more intelligent than to attempt forcing subscriptions on people, it will be a slow process over many years.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonHighwayman
Get people used to the idea of paying for extras in a free OS, when the majority are paying for a subscription based OS because it's cheaper than paying for all these extras stop development of your free OS because people don't want it, once that's done subscriptions can slowly creep upwards.
One word, yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
What is the lifetime of a device ?
Microsoft are playing the long game, it's going to take time for people to get used to paying subscriptions, give it 10-20 years.
They can 'invite' all they want. If they think they can force me into this I have my windows 7 dvd sitting on my shelf ready to go.
I don't subscribe to operating systems.
A reasonable subscription wouldn't bother me too much is a small amount £10-£20 a year which is what it costs in upgrades anyway.
I suspect this is a reaction to the excessive life of XP. If Microsoft are to continue to offer versions of Windows free and monetise it through applications and services, they would gain by keeping users on a single OS rather than supporting multiple generations.
Perhaps they are looking for a long-term generation-free name for the future, in which case after the "SkyDrive" and "Metro" trademark fiascos, trademarking possible names ahead of time seems obvious.
Hmm, I don't think it's the amount of the subscription that's necessarily the issue. Heck, I'd be quite happy to pay £10-20 to be guaranteed full and free access to some "premium" features and new versions. No, what's getting the goat of people is what happens when you stop paying that subscription. Are you going to fire up Windows only to be greeted with a Guru Meditation type message saying "Subscription expired. Please renew to continue" and that's as far as you get without flashing a credit card? Or, knowing Microsoft, I suspect a "Subscription required" popup, that has to be acknowledged to keep using, every 10-15 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Percy1983
While I see the sense in subscriptions for apps, and for businesses, I'm less convinced that subscription for the base OS is sensible. Now while Microsoft have undoubtedly made some mis-steps, I cannot conceive that they're not aware of this feeling. Heck, look at the general responses here and there's what, about a 90%+ subscription refusal rate?
Hmm, I'm not sure I'm going to care that much in 20 years. After all, less than 20 years ago we were revelling in Windows95, so figure on similar rate of change and where are we going to be at "Windows 2035"? Heck, there might have even been a seismic shift and we'll all be using Linux on the desktop and for gaming. Flap, flap, oink, oink,....Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
While I aagree with most of what you say, don't forget that hexus may (almost certainly) not be representative of the market as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
We are the people who hmm and ahh over buying retail over OEM. The vast majority of the market either will follow what Microsoft says or will be using enterprise activation of some sorts.
I have said this before, but Microsoft were contemplating a subscription model for XP, IIRC. It was dropped after protest from the business sector. However, the "Windows Genuine Advantage" or whatever it was called was the outcome of that.
Now 15 years on, perhaps Microsoft think they have such a stranglehold that a subscription is less expensive than the cost of migrating to an alternative platform. And it could offer some cost savings. Licence servers were all the rage at one point - if you have 200 employees, of which 100 are out of the office at any one time, then it makes some sense to buy (say) 120 licensees and allocate them to machines as required. When the user logs off, the licence goes back into the pool for re-use by someone else in the organisation.
Software maintenance does cost, and Microsoft need to cover that cost, either up front or on an as required basis.
And only paying for services you need does have some appeal. I might want a windows version without Internet Explorer (some hope) for example. So mixing and matching does have some positive aspects - depending on how it is done.
Largely academic for me - I have pretty much jumped ship, Windows 7 does all I need for the foreseeable future, the only thing I might do is run it in a virtual machine for the one or two applications that won't run on anything else.
This will never happen. If it does people will flock back to 7/8.
True enough, but the road to perdition starts with the first step.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
MS have already started down this path, with Office 365.
They have also made noises, suitably ambiguous of course, about changing how they monetise Windows. Then .... they go quiet.
One could almost suspect the whole thing is market research. Raise the spectre of Win10 being subscription, but couched in terms that can either be subsequently interpreted as signalling a subscription, or as not signalling it. And carefully watch feedback and reaction.
After all, they must've watched Adobe carefully. Of course, Windows is not either pro photo or video tools, or web tools, etc. But the Adobe experience is .... suggestive.
All we know right now is that MS are changing how they 'monetise' Windows. In what way, to what extent and at what speed are all up in the air. But if it looks like a duck, etc .... ;)
And 20 years before that, IBM predicted the world wide market for a personal computer was 5, and nobody got fired for buying IBM and they were top of the the mainframe mountain......Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
What you mean you're not one of those "opinion formers" that the PR people like? Shock! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
Joking aside, I've noticed that mainstream media is becoming increasingly good at moving stuff that we'd normally think of as "techie esoterica" into the mainstream. And with something like a move to subscription, you can guarantee that the business slots on the breakfast shows, etc will cover it. Plus we tell folks around us, then they tell their neighbours, etc. Funny how that all gets around. I know that I've certainly said "Well I saw this thing on Hexus that said...", or "Some guy on Hexus told me(/said) that..." to folks who probably haven't (and won't) visit Hexus.
They still sell quite a few zSeries' apparently... Pretty clever piece of kit, in it's own limited niche.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
I'd agree with this. My initial reaction was as negative as most other posters here, but when you think about it, paying £70 for Windows 7 OEM and using it for five years equates to £14 / year. And that's five years without a motherboard upgrade - if you're hoping to reactivate your licence on a new mobo then it needs to be the retail version (taking you up to £20 / year for a £100 licence). So maybe subscription wouldn't be all that bad. Comparable cost without having to worry about reactivation of OEM licence on a new mobo. That being said, I'd certainly prefer to stick to the traditional model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Percy1983
That works for my desktop machine, but I have a laptop which was bought with windows 7 and I don't expect to ever upgrade it because getting updated drivers for laptops can be really hard (it is painful enough to get original Win7 drivers out of HP). So in that case, I bought the laptop, I don't want any extra costs. If MS insisted I start paying to use the OS, then my subscription to Fedora costs zero and Windows simply gets removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spl
In that respect subscription could be lovely for Linux users. Hardware would come without the "Windows tax", you just don't pay the yearly subscription.
I think that takes me back to what I said before, as an option subscription could be nice, but some machines are as utilitarian as buying a fridge and I don't have a subscription for my fridge.
Yeah that aspect did occur to me, for open source OS users it's ideal and in terms of the whole "Windows accounts for too much of the cost of a cheap PC" thing, it would make the initial cost lower. I'd guess though that if Microsoft do as some people have suggested and offer the choice of subscription or lump sum approach, it's the latter that would likely be sold to most laptop manufacturers. Still, for manufacturers inclined to help out the open source bunch, the subscription provides a nice alternative to no OS at all. Use Windows to download and burn your ISO (or do the Unetbooting USB stick thing), then off you go.
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.
I cannot see a reasonable justification to make people pay for a product that has traditionally been Once you buy at retail you own it. I don't see why you would pay a leasing fee.
Sadly many people will flock to this model without thinking about it in the long run. Samne like the Nintendo Partnership Program on Youtube.
The difference being XP is out of support and there is no free upgrade from it to anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Brown_Light
If you had a "Windows 365" subscription, you would upgrade to whatever is newest and have full support.....Or at least that's what the sub should give you if MS don't try and be foolish about it!
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Brown_Light
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
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.
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.
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.
The difference is that the £100 is a known amount, the £20 a year may change.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
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.
So based on what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing by the way, what Microsoft should/could do is something like:Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
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.
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.
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!
Yup. Sure are.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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".Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Someone mention my name? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
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.
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? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
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.
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.