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."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-02
The goal is to make Windows easy enough that no one should need support. We aren't there yet, but if we just charged for support then anyone else could come along and support the software too. And any improvements in usability would have a negative impact on the bottom line.
The Windows software has value, and the value has increased over time as features are added. The price has also decreased over time due to inflation (the numerical value of the price has not changed much since the beginning).
Member since:2005-07-06
Its true that Windows does have good value.
However this modular way of thinking is not new for Microsoft. In Windows 98 Second Edition you could chose components to be installed. And making things optional again should not come at the extra price and hassle of time based subscriptions.
That is why a more frequent release schedule for example Microsoft office seems better to me.
I'm not bashing Windows (With the exception of Windows ME). I just think that to further fragment Windows will be painful for us all.
Member since:2005-07-07
Microsoft cannot release Windows more often; if it were to do so, they would have one hell of a time getting businesses to upgrade.
Consumers would also have trouble with this. The products would be much less polished (Vista was likely rushed).
As for price, they could use a reduction there, but I do not know what drives its price.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I'm not a fan of this subscription based Windows.
Windows Product Activation is perfect for enforcing subscriptions but in my opinion its just opening the way for...
1. More activation issues. (For Windows XP I had to use the call centre to activate my legally bought retail copy of XP after a mother bored failing).
2. More expensive in the long run.
3. Why upgrade Windows when users will have to renew the subscription each year.
Why don't Microsoft take one of the following options...
1. Make windows cheaper and release a new version more often.
2. Make Windows free and charge for support.
Edited 2008-04-06 10:53 UTC