3 ms·

There's some key part of this equation I'm missing. The premise is that Microsoft wants to focus on Windows 10 but developing security fixes for Windows 7 isn'

There's some key part of this equation I'm missing. The premise is that Microsoft wants to focus on Windows 10 but developing security fixes for Windows 7 isn't any cheaper now than it was when Windows 7 was 90% of the userbase, therefore Microsoft wants to stop developing W7 security fixes. But they'll let you pay them to keep developing security fixes for your devices and only your devices. If W7 security fix development is so expensive, how can these fees cover it? Once the fixes exist, why couldn't they be applied to everyone else's Windows 7 PCs? Would it take only a single person with access to the new post-sunset security fixes to distribute them to the rest of the internet in a form of piracy?

Silhouette 7y ago
Assuming this is a genuine offer from Microsoft, the strategy could be as simple as assuming there are going to be very many small businesses reluctant to move from 7 to 10 by January because of the well-documented concerns about 10, but still wanting to keep a responsible level of security updates applied on their machines. Businesses in that position seem unlikely to resort to dubious sources for their security updates. It's just not worth the risk, or frankly even the time, assuming the costs for getting the updates legitimately as quoted in the article are accurate.
xen2xen1 7y ago
My read was that they would be getting money on a regular basis for Windows 7 this way. MS is pushing for Windows as SaaS hard, this pushes Windows 7 towards SaaS, aka the subscription model. For them it's the best of both worlds. Some stubborn places keep Win7, MS gets regular money from them, and then some day when they actually move to Windows 10 they keep selling them their "managment" features they're selling now. If not, they still replace the Windows Store $ and advertizing $ they get from Windows 10. Where's the downside for them? And in reality, they keep doing patches for YEARS anyway for big customers (US NAVY?) anyway, why not monetize it AND give a clear path to all future things they want to ell you? And all the while saying "You have to leave Windows 7" and washing their hands of lots of things, like WHQL for drivers, software testing, etc...

Silhouette 7y ago

Assuming this is a genuine offer from Microsoft, the strategy could be as simple as assuming there are going to be very many small businesses reluctant to move from 7 to 10 by January because of the well-documented concerns about 10, but still wanting to keep a responsible level of security updates applied on their machines. Businesses in that position seem unlikely to resort to dubious sources for their security updates. It's just not worth the risk, or frankly even the time, assuming the costs for getting the updates legitimately as quoted in the article are accurate.

xen2xen1 7y ago

My read was that they would be getting money on a regular basis for Windows 7 this way. MS is pushing for Windows as SaaS hard, this pushes Windows 7 towards SaaS, aka the subscription model. For them it's the best of both worlds. Some stubborn places keep Win7, MS gets regular money from them, and then some day when they actually move to Windows 10 they keep selling them their "managment" features they're selling now. If not, they still replace the Windows Store $ and advertizing $ they get from Windows 10. Where's the downside for them? And in reality, they keep doing patches for YEARS anyway for big customers (US NAVY?) anyway, why not monetize it AND give a clear path to all future things they want to ell you? And all the while saying "You have to leave Windows 7" and washing their hands of lots of things, like WHQL for drivers, software testing, etc...