With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

http://www.wired.com/business/2014/03/microsoft-turns-into-google/

by jorgecastillo • 12 years ago

125 152 12 years ago

antonius• 12 years ago

As the article mentions, Windows revenues have been important to Microsoft's business for quite some time. It's hard to imagine how positively shareholders would react to this type of business decision.

asdfaoeu• 12 years ago

This isn't to promote Bing this is to stop people from switching older machines to different operating systems.

hughdbrown2• 12 years ago

"Google offers free OSes to computer and phone makers as a way of driving the use of its search engine and countless other web services, and now, Microsoft is at least experimenting with the idea of doing much the same thing. According to the report, its free operating system is known as Windows 8.1 With Bing. As the name implies, the OS is meant to feed the use of Microsoft’s own search engine, as well as other Microsoft cloud services and software applications."

That's not even the start of the problem with Microsoft OSes, from my perspective. I bought a Dell machine this month with great specs and Windows 8.1 on it. I Clonezilla'd the drives with Windows on them and paved over with Mint 16 because (1) it's less painful to maintain and (2) I can script the installation of software I need to develop with. I've done battle with UEFI once and now I have a system I like.

So Microsoft OSes are too expensive even if they were free. And I used MS DOS and Windows for 20 years before moving to Linux. No, something huge would have to happen before I go back, and free is not enough.

EpicEng• 12 years ago

Ok, but you hardly represent a majority of the Windows user base. Few people care about scripting installations.

bifftannen• 12 years ago

You can script the OS and application install with WDS, SCCM, and AD. Just because you can't or won't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

mappu• 12 years ago

Can you script all those common installers that are (a) not an msi, (b) don't have a /SILENT switch or other unattended installation, (c) require license input, or any combination thereof?

I guess you could use AutoHotkey to simulate mouse clicks, or attempt to repackage the software yourself. But when comparing the ability to script installations in general, linux has a major, major advantage.

beagle310• 12 years ago

That's almost funny.

I was too lazy to do things properly (kickstart script, etc.) so I have a bash script with about 10 "apt-get install" lines that set up everything I want on Ubuntu or debian, and a few more "echo" lines that configure 90% of my other preferences.

50 line scripts that contain very little other than the names of the programs I want or the configuration I want.

Let's say I just got a new computer with Windows 7/8, not part of a domain or anything - just a new laptop. Care to list the steps needed to get into your favorite state (list YOUR favorite 10 apps you need to install)

bruce511• 12 years ago

What you are describing here is the cost of changing from an OS you know, to one that you don't. Since this cost greatly exceeds the sticker price of windows, or Mac for that matter, it is the real reason why people tend to stick with the OS they already know how to use.

It's one of the reasons why Linux never got much traction on the desktop. Sure it made a great desktop OS for the technorati but Joe Public knows how to do what he wants in Windows, and saving $50 isnt incentive enough for him to change.

As you say, "free is not enough".

Incidentally the exact same thing plays out with regard to apps. Office may have strong Open Source competition, but free is not enough there either to get most people to switch.

This effect is not limited to the OS itself, but extends to the flavor of the OS as well. Despite what the popular press says, windows 8 is not bad, but it is different. Vista was better than you think, but wasa different to XP and so on. Xp was the gold standard for a long time, so it's easy to forget how much people resisted it at first.

And before you get too smug, look at the division in the Linux market right now over Unity.

Here's the thing. The price of the OS is irrelevant. Free is not an advantage. Windows will exist on the desktop for many years to come, and will likely flop on the phone. But price will have nothing to do with either outcome.

hrjet• 12 years ago

Familiarity is more of a problem for the older generations of people. But they are a receding market share.

And my hunch is that newer generations are more adaptive to new interfaces, having grown into a world where there already many options available.

hughdbrown2• 12 years ago

Well, thanks, but I am not smug about this. I don't care if Windows lives or dies. I've moved on. We are no longer dating.

And here's how it happened: http://www.iwebthereforeiam.com/iwebthereforeiam/2009/10/int...

I was a happy Windows developer (DOS, Windows 3,1, NT, Windows 95, Windows whatever) and found that windows was too annoying to live with.

And I don't pretend this is everyone's situation or even anyone else's. It doesn't matter to me. I've moved on and I'm happy.

kamaal3• 12 years ago

I can script the installation of software I need to develop with. I've d...

This is a serious problem with Linux'es. Seriously, what user base is Linux optimizing for? Nearly 100% of the people using a computer don't have to ever do such a thing ever.

People use computers to get work done, or get some entertainment. Not play with their guts. Imagine if your TV or Washing Machine, or even you Car required you to have deep understanding of Electronics or mechanical engineering to just get them working.

I'm sure we people who call ourselves hackers wouldn't touch such a thing with a 10 foot pole.

10098• 12 years ago

You missed the point completely.

"I can script the installation of software I need to develop with" means he can simply write a script (similar to a windows batch file) that automatically installs whatever software he needs using the package manager. You are not required to do this, and this is simply a convenient method of preparing a freshly installed OS for use. For example, if I install an OS on a new machine, I usually install chrome, openbox, tint2, etc. I have a script that does that for me so that I don't waste time installing every single piece separately. I don't even know how to do anything similar on Windows.

If anything, the way software installation is managed on most linux distros (package managers and software repositories) is superior to the way it's done on Windows today (download setup.exe from god-knows-where and run it, and a constant pain in the ass with updates).

rando2892• 12 years ago

Windows for many years has given out hundreds of millions of copies for free by intentionally limiting the strength of their DRM and licensing enforcement. This makes perfect competitive sense.

panabee• 12 years ago

I believe they recognized piracy was actually an early form of the freemium model. Rather than forcing every consumer to pay up, they concentrated for many years on extracting money from users with deep pockets -- i.e., enterprises and OEM partners.

rando2892• 12 years ago

Yes, thats basically what I meant to say.

zdw• 12 years ago

And I'll bet part of the license will say, "Can't be run in a virtual machine", to prevent people from using it in combination with VirtualBox to run Windows Apps for free.

Because I'd sure as heck do that and replace hundreds of licensing seats worth of RDP as well as old XP VM's.

sliverstorm3• 12 years ago

Well, naturally. Microsoft wants to compete in the consumer space. Windows Apps is not consumer, it is enterprise, and they are doing alright there.

tunap• 12 years ago

Free today, tomorrow it will be subscription based SaaS. What else do you expect from a former VP of MS's Online Services Division?

edit: subscription, not prescription. yet.

cbhl3• 12 years ago

My gut feeling is that this will be them porting Windows RT back onto x86_64, similar in a sense to Windows XP Starter Edition, with options to pay for a "full" license that can run Desktop (i.e. not Metro) apps.

I hope to be proven wrong.

neolefty2• 12 years ago

I don't think that's the plan, because if they want old XP users to upgrade, that would not be sufficient, since old XP users of course want their old XP apps to keep working.

teacup50• 12 years ago

If you want to see what the future of free operating systems looks like, watch free network TV.

This isn't a good trend; who will be the HBO of operating systems?

jebblue• 12 years ago

Lately and for the foreseeable future it's Netflix. Oh Os'es, Linux of course.

veidr• 12 years ago

Superior, industry-leading 'content' that nevertheless has a small slice of the total market, demographically skewed toward rich people?

Complete and and iron-clad control of its distribution?

Pretty sure we already have that. It's Apple.

gizmo686• 12 years ago

Except we know that good free operating systems are possible because I am writing this comment from one.

skrebbel2• 12 years ago

As a Microsoft customer, this alienates me from them. Paid software means that our interests are aligned: I want good software and Microsoft wants to make good software so that I buy it.

Free commercial software means that I'll have to pay through other means, typically means that I'll have less control over.

beagle310• 12 years ago

Your interest and Microsoft's interests haven't been aligned in years.

Your interest is to keep an OS supported. Microsoft's interest is to release Browser and DirectX updates only for the latest-and-greatest, so that you'd updgrade.

Your interest is an open ecosystem. Microsoft's interest is to have a closed garden. (They haven't been successful with that one, but they're trying).

Your interest might be a usable Desktop OS like Win7. Microsoft's interest is to ram their touch interface down your throat so that you'd get used to it, and your next phone may possibly run Windows - regardless of what's good for you.

Your interest is a usable system that just works. Microsoft's interest is providing a "Protected Media Path" that would degrade your experience if your equipment is not xIAA certified.

You already have NO control. You're already paying through other means. You might have had an illusion of control taken away from you - but that's a good thing.

superuser22• 12 years ago

Your interest is to keep an OS supported.

That's not true. It's in your interest to benefit from improvements in software quality. (Certain "upgrades" from Microsoft have been anything but that, but we've certainly come a long way since Windows ME.) A product encumbered by technical debt is going to be weaker.

There are certain well-defined, self-contained systems where never changing makes sense - things that will run for decades, like lab instruments and life-critical industrial automation. General purpose computing isn't one of them.

nivla2• 12 years ago

Your interest is an open ecosystem. Microsoft's interest is to have a closed garden. (They haven't been successful with that one, but they're trying).

I might get some heat for this but I must say Windows is still the OS with the least closed garden or heck even a garden. To get even the legitimate and popular x86 applications you still have to manually browse to websites and download it. You can install whatever you want whether it has a digital signature or not and yes it also includes the plentitude of crapwares and spywares.

Your interest might be a usable Desktop OS like Win7. Microsoft's interest is to ram their touch interface down your throat so that you'd get used to it.

Or maybe some people like a touch OS with their touchscreen laptop and its just MS thinking forward? I don't know what other OS can you recommend that is touch friendly for my Surface pro?

You already have NO control. You're already paying through other means. You might have had an illusion of control taken away from you - but that's a good thing.

No sure what you mean by this. I don't see MS cloud apps and ads preinstalled on my OS. I don't see it being sponsored by Amazon shopping experience either. The only crap that comes pre installed is done by the manufactures but MS can't even do anything about it, thanks to the anti-trust decisions.

csense3• 12 years ago

Microsoft's interest is to ram their touch interface down your throat so that you'd get used to it, and your next phone may possibly run Windows

    s/Microsoft/Canonical/
    s/Windows/Ubuntu/

RyanZAG2• 12 years ago

Microsoft is a business. Their interests and your interests have never and will never be aligned. They may occasionally release products which can solve your needs - but their interest in this case is to extract the maximum amount of money from you in exchange for solving your need. Solving the need has never been an explicit interest in itself.

Moving to an advertising based pricing model doesn't change any alignment. They still need to fulfill your need or you won't use their software which means they won't get paid by advertisers. They still don't have your interests at heart, but will not do anything to directly lose you as a 'customer' if they believe there are methods of extracting revenue from you.

Microsoft's main customer base has never been the end user anyway, you were merely collateral to getting them inroads into the lucrative enterprise markets which requires that employees coming into enterprise positions are already familiar with Microsoft's technology.

sliverstorm3• 12 years ago

Their interests and our interest may not have been aligned, but at least the user was the customer. In an ad supported model, the advertiser is the customer, the users are the product, and the software is the bait. We've already seen where that gets us.

ekianjo6• 12 years ago

Microsoft is a business. Their interests and your interests have never and will never be aligned. They may occasionally release products which can solve your needs - but their interest in this case is to extract the maximum amount of money from you in exchange for solving your need. Solving the need has never been an explicit interest in itself.

You can say the same thing for every business then. I don't think you see it in the proper light. A business is a for profit organization. It does not mean it does not strive to provide valuable services. Actually, you'll see that when companies actually evolve in a relatively free market (i.e. which is not the case of Windows since it's installed by default on most PCs), companies actually compete to provide better service to their customers in order to maximize their profits. There are many cases where consumers interests and companies interests CAN be aligned.

chaostheory3• 12 years ago

I wouldn't fret. Looking at history, MS will probably release several versions of Windows including paid versions. Microsoft's biggest strength and weakness is that they want to cater to everyone at the same time.

aegiso• 12 years ago

End-user Windows licenses haven't been a significant source of income for Microsoft for a very long time. They make their money from their enterprise ecosystem, and end-user Windows serves only to support that ecosystem.

So unfortunately, I hate to break it to you that as an end user the money you're giving Microsoft for their products never gave you control.

But on the bright side, pissing off the end users that provide sustenance and influx for their volume-licenses cash cows doesn't serve Microsoft's bottom line either. So even if you pay nothing, your usage of Microsoft's products is very much something Microsoft would prefer to continue.

Aaronontheweb2• 12 years ago

End-user Windows licenses haven't been a significant source of income for Microsoft for a very long time.

If ~$20b in revenue last year isn't a big business... http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earn...

65% of that $20b comes from OEMs, which is 100% consumer.

edit: the exact quote from the earnings statement I linked:

"Excluding the impact of the Windows Upgrade Offer, OEM revenue decreased 15%, and was approximately 65% of total Windows Division revenue."

Windows Enterprise licenses are managed separately - even if Wells Fargo orders 12,000 new laptops from Dell, Windows licensing is not factored into the price; WF manages that separately through its enterprise relationship directly with Microsoft.

sdegutis2• 12 years ago

Not necessarily. They may be giving away their platform to encourage the ecosystem that surrounds it (to both consumers and developers), which is probably much more valuable than the OS itself.

brudgers• 12 years ago

My take is that Microsoft is shifting its consumer strategy away from expressing core B2B values and toward the you are the product model loved by Wall Street and used by Apple and Google and Facebook and just about everyone else.

It's part of the generational shift and the radical change to ownership and thereby control that is underway. Gates and Ballmer are divesting their shares and that means that the new Microsoft has to make Wall Street analysts happy in a way that a company whose CEO and Chairman are the two largest shareholders doesn't.

The writing was on the wall with Windows 8. It wanted persistent login to Microsoft servers and to produce tailored content via persistent tracking. Whatever doubt I had was gone when Windows 8.1 rolled back my choice of local login without asking and buried the means of changing deeper than before. Topping it off was that 8.1 ignored the fact that the login name I entered as default was the valid local login I had used to start installation.

I've been using MS operating systems since DOS 3.3. The first version of Windows I worked with was 2.0 [only for a customized workflow on an Amiga 2000 with bridgeboard, though]. It's been Windows full time since 3.0 because I've never felt that Microsoft's approach was caveat emptor.

Now I can't say that. I fear they are becoming like everyone else.

malbs• 12 years ago

The worst thing I found with Windows 8. Using any of the metro apps, there was embedded advertising inside of the apps. Upsetting to be advertised to inside of applications running on an O/S that I paid money for.

It's ok though, they fixed it, when I upgraded to Windows 8.1, the upgrade destroyed my ability to run metro style apps at all - I just got some arcane error message when I try to run/launch anything metro related.

I went back to Windows 7.

melling• 12 years ago

Hopefully, this solves the legacy browser problem. Otherwise, IE8 is going need to be supported for years.

Yes, some devs will be stuck because of their industries but many will be able to say IE11+.

belorn• 12 years ago

I really doubt this will have any effect on Microsoft revenues from computer retailers like dell, and windows starter editions has always pushed an IAP for an upgraded version.

The only market they loose is the customers who go to a local store to buy windows starter/basic edition. I think that is a pretty small market, but feel free to correct me.

vishnugupta• 12 years ago

I tend to agree with this. Also, I doubt if big corporations, perhaps locked into multi-year contract, would bother with this free edition. I bought MS Office in a retail outlet but otherwise Windows OS itself has always been prepackaged.

shmerl5• 12 years ago

The fear of Linux took them at last.

acchow2• 12 years ago

If by Linux you mean iPads and Chromebooks.

shmerl5• 12 years ago

No, I mean regular Linux. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7338814

nivla2• 12 years ago

I would say moreover the fear of Google.

shmerl5• 12 years ago

Google doesn't compete with them for the desktop really. But desktop Linux distros do. Especially when it comes to gaming. Note that Valve pushes Linux a lot lately with their whole SteamOS effort especially. I think that's a major threat for MS who for a long time enjoyed an unchallenged position as a platform in PC gaming.

Latest Linux gaming renaissance eats at their confidence. For many gamers Windows is not seen as a requirement anymore, and they simply ditch it and start using better systems (especially because Wine became so good lately). While gamers are a minority amongst Windows users, MS still fears that dynamic because it breaks their network effect and creates the same effect in the Linux world.

neolefty2• 12 years ago

Not even that. The fear of unpatched XP! If they can get all those unlicensed XP users to upgrade, it will be a huge win for everybody.

Microsoft wins because the albatross of XP will be off their PR necks. Every unpatched security hole will still look bad, even if they gave people years of warning.

Users win because (hopefully) they are using a better OS.

shmerl5• 12 years ago

That's not going to help. Many Windows users don't upgrade not because they fear the price of Windows 8, but because they can't stand it and prefer XP, as simple as that. The only way MS can actually help them is not by making Windows 8 free (as in beer), but for example by open sourcing XP. They might do that when they'll get really desperate, but I don't think they are there yet.

zaidf• 12 years ago

I miss the Microsoft that was known for making solid products that could have a 5-10 year shelf life. It is sad that Office 2007 works better for me than Office 2010; Windows 7 better than Windows 8.

sliverstorm3• 12 years ago

Their products get better with age. XP SP2 was a totally different beast from XP. Vista was improved a lot post-launch, and so was Windows 7. I still remember when Office 2007 was "buggy and slow" compared to Office 2003, but today no one runs 2003 anymore and 2007 is the reliable standard. Windows 8.1 has improved on Windows 8. So, give it time.

mseidl• 12 years ago

And using Windows ME, aged 14 years like a nice wine...

kamaal3• 12 years ago

Actually a free Windows OS would actually be great. Here in India, Pirated Windows OS are like as common as mosquitoes. No one but Microsoft was losing in all this. The price of Windows is generally prohibitively high and was by no way affordable to home and even small business users. The only option was to pirate them or use Ubuntu.

People walk in to buy a laptop, check the difference in price for Laptops with Windows OS and Laptops without them. Often the difference is in the range 7 to 8 thousand rupees. The obvious option is Pirate Windows OS or Ubuntu.

Instead of making it totally free. Microsoft can even charge a reasonable price and I can assure you people will pay it. The problem was never with Microsoft or Windows. The problem was always affordability.

If only Microsoft can make Windows affordable, they can kill all competitors instantly.

chaostheory3• 12 years ago

Piracy feels the the same in most of East and South East Asia as well.

usaphp• 12 years ago

Same thing in Russia and all former soviet republics, I don't know any of my friends back there who has ever purchased a licensed copy of windows.

ekianjo6• 12 years ago

If only Microsoft can make Windows affordable, they can kill all competitors instantly.

Yeah maybe for the consumers market, but that's already the case with Piracy anyway. But price is not the only issue, Windows is just horrible in so many ways that there's a number of people who will not come back to it even if it's 100% free. I keep Windows (7) as dual-boot on my desktop PC, where I run OpenSuse most of the time, and whenever I have to boot into Windows the sluggishness of it all (on the very same hardware) makes me want to pull my hair out. The very same application (Firefox) is way less reactive on Windows. And just opening a window (no pun intended) takes way more time, too... the overall experience is just deplorable. I only boot into that environment when I really HAVE to.

stan_rogers• 12 years ago

You may be amazed at how much "really have to" covers for a lot of people. There are not nix-based versions for much of the software that people actually use (unless you stretch things far enough to include OS X in the "well, that's nix" category, ignoring the specific requirement to run OS X). The world isn't all about futzing with code and using browsers.

adamnemecek• 12 years ago

Windows is just horrible in so many ways

Care to enumerate a couple?

nnq3• 12 years ago

Are you trolling? What's the hardware configuration?

(Just to make things clear before what follows, I'm not a Windows fanboy and I use like 70% of the time Windows and the rest Ubuntu or Fedora. And I'd choose Linux over windows anytime. But the current state of Gnome and KDE is deplorable! ...both from a UX/I perspective and from a performance perspective. Actually the only DE that doesn't make me wanna push my fist through the display after ~30min is Xfce and it's what I daily use.)

"Default config" Windows 7 and 8 feel as responsive as KDE, Gnome or Unity to me. If you want more speed, there are lots of things to tweak and trim down, but I never felt the need, not even on very cheap netbooks! The only real performance improvements I got by tweaking were from tweaking individual app's obscure perf settings (like Matlab or Photoshop).

About "just opening a window": admitedly, windows explorer does very weird things from time to time, but just because you're on Windows it doesn't mean you have to stick with the default file manager - find one that suits you (and btw, some third party alternatives are actually faster than explorer).

Also it's a well know fact that some apps have better performance on some OSs than other: Firefox has always been visibly faster on Linux, Opera (the old Presto engine version) has always been visibly faster on Windows etc. Also, since about ~5 versions ago the Firefox devs really got their shit together and got rid of some of what seemed to me like "Windows only memory leaks" and probably did some ui thread optimizations to make things feel more responsive, so the perceived performance feels as if it increased by about ~60% on Windows, even if the actual webpage rendering speed is probably close to the same.

Again, it may seem that I'm a Windows/Microsoft fanboy, but even if feature-wise the Linux DEs are way better, if you compare each feature with its equivalent, you'll see that there are zillions of little details that Linux "failed to learn from Windows." And the current DEs seem to play some stupid iOS/MacOS-copycat-ing game instead of stealing more of the true UI/X innovation that came with Windows 8 for example (and yes, I'm actually one of the people that love the Win 8 hybrid tablet/desktop gui and apps concept - I just think that Microsoft blew it by over-geeking it, as any kind of "hybrid" UI will appeal mostly to "geeks" and much less to "average joes" that prefers a "one-piece uniform experience", even if it's really suboptimal).

balladeer• 12 years ago

Or give away the OS for free and charge for preferential support and even non-security updates on time and certainly not charge a fortune again.

pekru• 12 years ago

Actually a free Windows OS would actually be great. Here in India, Pirated Windows OS are like as common as mosquitoes. No one but Microsoft was losing in all this.

Actually, MS knew all along that piracy is rampant and they let it work for them quite well. With everyone familiarizing themselves with nothing other than MS products, MS knew for a fact that money would eventually come, in sacks that too. It wasn't a loss in the long term.

Markets like China and India are different wherein enforcement is not that easy. Heck, proper enforcement would even make people opt for a hassle free and priceless option like *nix. So MS chose not to bother too much about piracy in domestic installations and thus sorta sent a message like "go on, use it, we don't care" and fueled piracy to an extent, if I may say.

For an average consumer in India, computers are synonymous with Windows products. It's not a choice for them at all, they do not have a choice!

Even the local coke/hash peddler would give out stuff for free to get one hooked. ;)

channikhabra• 12 years ago

Even the local coke/hash peddler would give out stuff for free to get one hooked.

Stole my words.

rukshn• 12 years ago

Well i've to agree with you. It's not just in india in Sri lanka also the price of Windows is just too high for a normal person to afford. The price of a genuine Windows is about 40k. And the price difference of a laptop with Windows and a laptop without windows is around 15k I might be wrong but I don't know why so many people prefer Windows over linux. The unity gnome interface is pretty horrible imo. Plus i don't find good alternatives to my windows software for linux. There are alternatives but not as good as the ones i use on windows.

Also when I used Ubuntu i've update my whole system once in every 6 months. Also if i don't the latest softwares will not support my old ubuntu. After getting a new laptop I switched back to windows.

higherpurpose2• 12 years ago

Yes, but pirated Windows actually works better for Microsoft than free Windows. Why? Because at least they can keep asking $200 with a straight face for a version of Windows, if Windows is just pirated in countries like India or China.

But if they give it for free there - then the whole equation changes in western countries, too, and people will be demanding they get a free version of Windows as well - and then how will Microsoft make money?

Anyway, I don't think Microsoft will do this. At best they will either make it free for OEM's - not consumers - so their devices don't cost more compared to Android devices at the same specs, or they give a free version of Windows that's so crippled people will still prefer the pirated "Pro" edition.

Either way, I truly believe Microsoft will get out of the consumer market within a few short years, because they won't be profitable in it anymore, either because of forces they can't handle, such as simply losing market share and people not wanting Windows anymore, or because they give it for free, and as I said, that will get everyone to not buy Windows anymore anyway, if they truly give it away for free.

Whichever way they go, Windows is getting commoditized, and it's not good for Microsoft. This is a reactionary move, and reactionary moves are never good.

cbhl3• 12 years ago

I actually believe that the opposite makes more sense -- make it free for consumers, but charge the OEMs a small(er) fee, since the OEMs are where all the sales are at.

I'm pretty sure almost all the Windows revenues nowadays come from the OEMs, not from the boxed sales.

josephcooney• 12 years ago

Looks like google has succeeded in comoditizing their ccompliments, which their competitor (Microsoft) used to be able to make money off. If I were MS I'd be trying to figure out how to launch a free competitor to adwords.

sdegutis2• 12 years ago

This seems like a clever move: make the OS free, to encourage developers and consumers to adopt it, and profit from the OS's suddenly-flourishing ecosystem rather than the OS itself.

lstamour• 12 years ago

Why does this article fixate on Google? For the clicks?

We all know that most of Windows won't be free until they've a sure-fire way to make profits on top of that. And the answer lies in iOS and Mavericks more than Google. Give away the OS to build the ecosystem, sure Android also does that. But only Apple's making money at it.

If it goes free, it's going to look a lot more like iOS than Android -- a lot more like Xbox One, in fact, which also gets free updates. Sure, it might look like Office Starter edition, and be ad supported, but for productivity purposes, ads are the enemy and so that model has less chance at success.

Ultimately, Microsoft wants in on this "free-to-play" OS market, and when they do it, you can bet it will be in their interest, and it will exclude businesses and still offer premium add-on packs for home users. Let's not go crazy, this is, after all, Microsoft.

When would they ever release just one SKU of anything?

laumars• 12 years ago

This isn't really as big news as it sounds as MS have often heavily subsidized Windows for OEMs abd such like when they've needed to compete in other markets (Eg when XP was initially losing out to Linux on nettops). And they've shown that they're happy to run flagship consumer products at a loss just to raise adoption (Eg the original Xbox).

So it seems to me to be quite typical for then to drop the cost of a product like this when they're struggling to push said product. And who can blame them, it's a fairly standard practice outside of IT as well, and it's not like MS don't have the funds to do run at a loss for several years either (though I expect they'll easily have this cost offset anyway)

blueskin_• 12 years ago

The google way

Closing popular services? Massive pervasive privacy invasion?

I wonder how crippled the free version of Windows will be. MS made an ultra cheap version of vista and 7, for example, that was so limited it was almost a joke.

If MS want to keep their market share up, they should just keep selling Windows 7 at a lower price, as that is what people really want. Real computers are never going to disappear because phones and tablets are read only devices for passive consumers and completely unusable for any real work, underpowered, and with tiny screens (sure, it's nice to watch a movie on the train, but when you get home, you're probably going to use either a computer or a TV instead).

Paradigma11• 12 years ago

Let's hope not. I want to be the customer and not the product.

chris_wot• 12 years ago

Well this is ironic. Here is Bill Gates' letter to the Homebrew Club, dated February 3, 1976:

To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?

Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.

The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.

What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.

I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.

Bill Gates

General Partner, Micro-Soft

---

48 years later, it turns out that the following response highlighted the answer:

http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_...

Kurtz79• 12 years ago

As an MacOS/Linux user (at home at least) I'll say that this is a welcome decision from Microsoft and that, regardless of the reason for which it was taken, is one that benefits all the consumers.

Could we for once set aside our opinions on MS and agree on that ?

Beltiras• 12 years ago

If this were Windows 7, it would actually be a gift worth receiving. Windows 8 is unusable. The lone machine on my local net is reviled and nobody wants to use it. It's slated for an "upgrade" to Ubuntu 12.04.

rainmaking• 12 years ago

First IBM, now Google.

Microsoft really is the world's greatest number two.

With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

Related Stories