Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 6th Apr 2008 09:38 UTC, submitted by Francis Kuntz
Windows Ars analyses the concept of a modular Windows, and concludes: "Modularization - and the discriminatory pricing it permits - might appeal to accountants and economists. But it is bad for consumers, bad for Windows, and ultimately, bad for Microsoft. A modularized Windows, or worse still, a modularized subscription-based Windows, undermines the purpose and value of the Windows OS. If it comes to pass it will surely sound the death knell of the entire Windows platform."
Permalink for comment 308398
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Business model vs. software design
by Larz on Sun 6th Apr 2008 13:29 UTC
Larz
Member since:
2006-01-04

Where should I begin and where should I end?

Firstly, I think the author could have been more attentive to the difference between a more "modular" business model and a more modular approach towards software design (which I think is a good thing in most situations). Developing modular software is not the same as changing the granularity of the software sold.

Secondly, mainly relying on discriminatory pricing to explain the effects, he neglects one thing. Most users (I am not talking about the average OSNEWS or Ars Technica reader) has already been "overshot" by the featureset in modern operating systems. A tendency towards only paying for what you actually use, could in fact result in a downward pressure on pricing - given enough competition of course.

I think it was an interesting, but very flawed article.

Edited 2008-04-06 13:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3