Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 6th Apr 2008 09:38 UTC, submitted by Francis Kuntz
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."
Thread beginning with comment 308428
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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).