3 ms·

> Windows 10 was marketed with the promise of being the "last version of windows" by microsoft employees It was just that - marketing! To get a load of people

> Windows 10 was marketed with the promise of being the "last version of windows" by microsoft employees It was just that - marketing! To get a load of people to migrate to it, right? "Do it guys, it's the last one you'll need to do, we promise" Trust Microsoft? Not even once

cjbgkagh 1y ago
Microsoft made the announcement through very trusted Microsoft media experts which they have since burned. I remember their emphatic assurances at the time but didn’t believe them.
- vel0city 1y ago
  They made the announcement from one guy saying it once when giving a talk on developing LiveTiles.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    I previously worked at MS so asked friends about it and they agreed that there was an attempt to foster the impression of windows as a SAAS both internally and externally. If that impression gets out and is not countered then it’s a tacit acceptance. MS burns people all the time so we figured it would be another example of that. Just this time it’s more regular people and not just devs and partners. Some people internally and externally legitimately believed that people would pay $100 p.a. to use windows. Had that worked they might have kept the subscription model going. Office 365 is an example of that model working. It was also part of the billion devices push to make the case for the Microsoft App Store which we knew was in trouble, it seemed like a deliberate attempt to sacrifice long term trust for a short term gain.
    - vel0city 1y ago
      > foster the impression of windows as a SAAS both internally and externally Which is a real product they really do sell so yeah that makes sense.
      - cjbgkagh 1y ago
        That did help the make the premise more believable, the problem occurs when a low cost laptop of $500 and lasting 5 years would result in $500 for the cost of the operating system (5 * $100), instead of the OEM cost $20-60 once off. It's difficult to market segment along this axis because the way the low end of the market lowers the cost is by stretching out the upgrades. It's hard to segment on the p.a. cost basis because it causes the people paying the higher rates rightfully want to know why - and there really isn't a good answer beyond they have more money. Allowing forever upgrades without a subscription would mean that Microsoft would basically be giving up most of the money on the low end market segment, which would have been a nice principled thing to do. There are strategic reasons why this could be a good thing to do but it's hard to say no to giant piles of money even if you already have giant piles of money so we were certain Microsoft wasn't going to stick to this principle.

cjbgkagh 1y ago

Microsoft made the announcement through very trusted Microsoft media experts which they have since burned. I remember their emphatic assurances at the time but didn’t believe them.

vel0city 1y ago
They made the announcement from one guy saying it once when giving a talk on developing LiveTiles.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  I previously worked at MS so asked friends about it and they agreed that there was an attempt to foster the impression of windows as a SAAS both internally and externally. If that impression gets out and is not countered then it’s a tacit acceptance. MS burns people all the time so we figured it would be another example of that. Just this time it’s more regular people and not just devs and partners. Some people internally and externally legitimately believed that people would pay $100 p.a. to use windows. Had that worked they might have kept the subscription model going. Office 365 is an example of that model working. It was also part of the billion devices push to make the case for the Microsoft App Store which we knew was in trouble, it seemed like a deliberate attempt to sacrifice long term trust for a short term gain.
  - vel0city 1y ago
    > foster the impression of windows as a SAAS both internally and externally Which is a real product they really do sell so yeah that makes sense.
    - cjbgkagh 1y ago
      That did help the make the premise more believable, the problem occurs when a low cost laptop of $500 and lasting 5 years would result in $500 for the cost of the operating system (5 * $100), instead of the OEM cost $20-60 once off. It's difficult to market segment along this axis because the way the low end of the market lowers the cost is by stretching out the upgrades. It's hard to segment on the p.a. cost basis because it causes the people paying the higher rates rightfully want to know why - and there really isn't a good answer beyond they have more money. Allowing forever upgrades without a subscription would mean that Microsoft would basically be giving up most of the money on the low end market segment, which would have been a nice principled thing to do. There are strategic reasons why this could be a good thing to do but it's hard to say no to giant piles of money even if you already have giant piles of money so we were certain Microsoft wasn't going to stick to this principle.