Apple will replace old iPhone batteries for $29 through 2018

[spacein_vader]

regardless of whether it's subscription or you buy it outright, get it free or steal it or whatever, the T&C's of most modern tech products that have an ability to upgrade the software/firmware will give the creators the right to amend products if you agree to install it and/or update it

back in the 80s and before then you may have bought a product and it couldn't be upgraded without buying physical parts, but now people regularly buy products than can be upgraded by connecting online, and the T&C's allow the creators to make changes. usually however the consumer can opt out of upgrading and keep the item the same as it was when they first bought it, so you could install windows from the cd/dvd and just never update it. in the current world, few people are going to want to buy a new tech product and never ever updated it. most people want the latest upgrades, whether it's good bad or indifferent to them, and unless it's a hassle or they don't know how to do it, they will usually upgrade as long as they don't need to pay more money for it

looking at the bigger picture of the market, i can't see MS surviving indefinitely in the OS market anywhere near as successfully as they do if they move to a fully subscribed market. they may offer a particular version that is, but as the majority of users will be regular home consumers rather than businesses, i can't see many people going for this, especially in poorer countries. it's certainly not something that's going to happen in the short term, and it definitely isn't the norm at the moment. they aren't going to stop any current versions of consumer windows from working unless people pay a sub

regarding phone contracts, in the uk at least you typically just get one contract and one price for both phone and airtime/service btw

Just because not many people will want to reject the updates doesn't mean they should have the right to force them. As it is those who do are voting with their feet like Saracen and simply not purchasing it.

I also think you're wrong in your 3rd paragraph. The majority of MS customers are businesses, NOT individuals. Businesses tend to like subscriptions because a low predictable monthly cost is much easier on the budget line than a huge (and unpredictable,) upgrade cost every 3/4/5 years. Individuals will push back, which is why I don't think MS will go the full subscription route for home versions. I think it's more likely they'll provide a basic OS on the current basis but additional features (which may include things as basic as DirectX or 32 bit support,) will cost an extra monthly/annual fee.

[peterb]

My point was that buying an MS OS is NOT subscribing to a service - it's buying a product. I then install that OS on hardware I bought, note not MS bought, and I use it to run MY choice of software for MY purposes. MS do NOT have any right to subsequently mess around with it, even resulting in things that I rely on and that used to work no longer doing so.

VM and Sky are different. You are supplied hardware as part of a subscription to a service. Hardware cost is built-in to the cost which is why you have a minimum contract period.

Phones are a hybrid, but even where a phone is supplied with the service, that being the provision of the airtime service, you'll usually vind two contracts, one for the hardware, and one for airtime.

In either the case of VM/Sky, or phone, outside of very limited situations you are committed to monthly payments, for that minimum term. For MS OS's, and in my case for Application software too, I pay a one-off charge, up-front

Technically though you aren’t buying a product, you are buying a license which gives you the right to use their product. You accept the conditions of the licence, which includes the right of the organisation to cease support after a given length of time. At present that license is open ended, but Microsoft could ( and might) grant that licence for a given period of time, with the implication that if you don’t pay a renewal fee, they will disable all or some of the OS features. In return you would (presumably get updates as long as the licence is valid.

In practical terms of course it makes no difference to your argument, and it’s not an option I would choose, but (as was pointed out earlier) it could be attractive for some business uses as it becomes an operating cost rather than a capital outlay.

Whether businesses would accept accept a moot point though. There were rumours that XP was to be a subscription model for businesses, but the idea was badly received and MS backed down. Sadly I can find no references to this - iirc, it was a comment by an industry insider to me, given the changes MS introduced with XP.

[3dcandy]

Office 365, Adobe licenses....all the same nowadays. You are paying a monthly fee and are tied into quite a lot of specific causes. Hell even Lightroom has gone to a monthly licence now

[Unique]

Just because not many people will want to reject the updates doesn't mean they should have the right to force them. As it is those who do are voting with their feet like Saracen and simply not purchasing it.

I also think you're wrong in your 3rd paragraph. The majority of MS customers are businesses, NOT individuals. Businesses tend to like subscriptions because a low predictable monthly cost is much easier on the budget line than a huge (and unpredictable,) upgrade cost every 3/4/5 years. Individuals will push back, which is why I don't think MS will go the full subscription route for home versions. I think it's more likely they'll provide a basic OS on the current basis but additional features (which may include things as basic as DirectX or 32 bit support,) will cost an extra monthly/annual fee.

apple don't force updates through. it's up to the user to update or not, and that is the case for both IOS and the individual apps. they aren't forced at all. and as apple are one of the biggest businesses in the world, i don't think the choices they make concern them too much in regards to those who don't like such choices, as whilst you can try and keep the majority happy, you can't keep everyone happy all the time, you have to make decisions as to what you want to offer

personally i'd imagine most windows users are individuals with home computers, rather than businesses, and i'd imagine most individuals will get windows on a computer they've bought, and won't make any further payments for the OS and wouldn't be interested in doing so as long as there are alternate options. think of spotify, many people will pay for the monthly sub, but considerably more will use the free service, such as kids and people in poorer countries than the UK/US, or the millions more that watch freeview as opposed to paying for sky/VM. i think if anything, there would be a free version but additional features may need a sub or additional payment, but i think that's still a while off if it would happen

[Corky34]

if you have a google you will see a number of sites showing stats, and windows is by far the most popular OS, with more users of windows than all other OS's combined for desktops

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_...rating_systems

If you're intention was to say it's the most popular desktop OS then perhaps you should have said so in the first place, however IIRC you said "they want to maintain the market share as most popular OS." <-- Fullstop, so you'll have to forgive me for taking what you said literally and pointing out the inaccuracy of your statement.

[FromUSA]

I have 2 phones that can go back for new batteries ...told my friends that if they have shut down issues they can replace theirs too...if it makes the phone speedy again then $29 is well worth it...they said they would do it