| | And, MS wouldn't be doing anything illegal *or* immoral (you pay for
| | minutes on your phone; aren't you paying or a service? isn't your
| | OS providing a service to you??)
| |
| |
| | Then why don't they do it? Why don't they charge by the hour?
|
| They are doing it. Office 365 is subscription by the
| month.
|
| We were talking about the OS, not apps.

I'm talking about both. Linux is not going to
replace Windows if it can't run MS Office and
Photoshop. The software is what people use
the OS for. And there's no reason to assume
charging a subscription for the OS won't happen,
either. It's all just a matter of market. MS could
do something like say, "OK, we're going to keep
Windows free, but patches will be on a yearly
subscription basis." That's essentially what they
already do with business licensing. They rent it
on a multi-year basis.

Personally I never believed Adobe would get
away with charging rent on Photoshop, but people
have signed up in droves. They don't think they
have a choice.
Microsoft will do the same. If they can get
away with it, they'll charge. And apologists like
yourself will undoubtedly be the first to rationalize
why it's reasonable.