Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Apr 2014 23:12 UTC

Peter Bright making the case for subscription-based Windows.

Microsoft has already made Windows free to OEMs for tablets with screens below a certain size. Making it free to everyone but without the desktop would be a logical extension of this. It gives Microsoft the tools to compete with both Android on tablets and Chrome OS on laptops, while still not cutting it out of the revenue loop entirely. Desktop-less Windows should provide Microsoft with some amount of revenue through applications bought in the Store.

To this, add a couple of levels of unlocks: one tier for regular Windows desktop features (offering parity with the feature set of Windows 8.1 today), and a second, higher tier for Windows corporate features (offering parity with Windows 8.1 Pro). These could be both persistent unlocks or periodic subscriptions. Microsoft has already had persistent operating system unlocks since Windows Vista's Anytime Upgrade feature, so none of this would be hugely different from what's gone before.

The facts and rumours do line up, but honestly - free/subscription-based Windows is right up there with a TV from Apple when it comes to long-running, always-returning but never materialising rumours.

Permalink for comment 587517
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No Thanks
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 25th Apr 2014 01:59 UTC
Member since:

Windows subscriptions would be an utter failure if pushed on general home users as a requirement, because it might entail them having to pay just for the privilege of using their computer operating system. Unless upgrading or building a custom PC, few end-users actually buy Windows, rather instead buy a new computer that comes with it pre-loaded and have it freely and permanently accessible as an expectation.

Reply Score: 6