Windows 10: Free or Freemium?

Hurrah!

Finally, Microsoft has come to their senses and Windows will be free from now to evermore...

Kinda...

Ok, so the bottom line is this.   The way we'll get a new version of Windows will forever be changed once Windows 10 launches this summer.  From now on Windows should cost you nothing more than a bit of time and a slight hit on your bandwidth cap.

Maybe...

Sometime in the near future you're going to find a very large update in your monthly batch of Windows patches.  It will be Windows 10 and it's coming free of charge to anyone with Windows 7 and above. 

Better yet, it's been suggested that Microsoft doesn't even care if you've got a pirated version.  Could this possibly mean the scourge of "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" will finally be ending?  That would be nice but considering the huge investment Microsoft has put into licensing technologies it's hard to believe that they'd completely abandon them.

Originally, Microsoft claimed that upgrades to 10 would come free to users of all "consumer" versions of Windows 7 and above except for Enterprise versions (labeled Enterprise or Enterprise N.)  That means everything from Windows "Home" to "Ultimate" should be eligible.  In case you don't know, "Enterprise" versions are only available via a volume license agreement offering the rough equivalent of a stripped down  "Pro" version.

What we don't know is if that word "consumer" is just an adjective or a label.  For one thing, will you suddenly find your "Professional" version downgraded to some anemic "Home" version of 10 that can barely browse a web page or will you get the equivalent to what you have now?

If, for example, I suddenly can't connect to my home NAS box or my small office's domain services then we're going to have a serious problem.  I don't say this often but it's true nonetheless.  I'd rather install Linux on an end user's work PC than any combination of the words "Windows" and "Home."

It seems to me there's a hole in Microsoft's strategy in the way its segregating the "enterprise" and "consumer" versions of Windows.  Most small to mid-sized businesses are not running "enterprise" versions meaning whatever it is they are running is considered a "consumer" version.

If Windows 10 is going to be free to "consumers" then what's to stop the next round of hardware upgrades in someone's "enterprise" (as in Fortune 500) just being a bunch of Dell's with free versions of Windows 10 Pro? 

I don't believe Microsoft is going to let that happen since they still make the bulk of their money off corporate volume licensing programs and Windows is a big part of that.

Which makes the use of the word "consumer" suspicious.  Are we going to again fork Windows versions much like the days before Windows XP so that Enterprise grade tools like SCCM can no longer manage a "consumer" version?  Not likely unless the enterprise is getting left out of the whole "unified desktop" thing.

Right now I can push an SCCM package to Windows (7 or 8) Pro and Ultimate.  If I try to do the same to  our theoretical "home" version of Windows 10 I'd have to believe it would fail.   In short, a crippled version of 10 would be little more than a refresh of the much hated Windows Starter Edition. 

With current available information, I don't see how Microsoft could protect the corporate honey pot any other way. That is, unless they really do believe that they can get by on Office 365 license revenues or they're going to be like Red Hat Enterprise Linux and charge for "premium" support.

Regardless of whatever conspiracies are floating around my head, the goal is obvious.  Where Windows 8 was Microsoft's initial attempt to push the idea of "one OS to rule them all."  This next iteration is meant to finally bring that goal to fruition on any device.  The best way to do that is to literally give it away and make your money off services and support. 

While still being closed source, giving away Windows is a very Linux way of getting an operating system into the hands of users.  However, that begs the question of whether the giveaway is really just another revenue stream.  Even Linux can cost you dearly if you can't find the answer in a support forum.

Let's also remember that Microsoft is about making money not social change.

Back in the 90's there was a PC maker called Free-PC who built their business by literally giving away computers. They did that by encapsulating the entire user experience in a horrific advertising shell (or Hell) that you couldn't escape.  You were forced to look at ads, participate in surveys and consent to have your every action monitored.

What price freedom indeed.  Thankfully that model died as quickly as the low grade hardware in those machines.  The question is, much like free apps on smartphones could we find something similar in the form of spontaneous ads or diminished functionality unless we subscribe to "premium" functionality?

So as consumers we have to ask ourselves if "free" is worth a diminished experience if that's indeed what Windows 10 turns out to be.  Unfortunately, we won't know till the OS is launched.  Yes, there are millions of preview builds out there right now but that doesn't really mean much.  Preview builds are generally unrestricted versions analogous to a "Pro" or "Ultimate" retail product. 

Meaning we really don't know what we're going to get for free and Microsoft is apparently content to  keep us all guessing.

Of course all of this grows out of a history of bad faith with Microsoft.  From legitimate copies of Windows being bricked by an update or Genuine Advantage running amok, it's hard to take anything the company says at face value. 

But we are in the age of subscriptions aren't we.  Paying for an operating system is akin to buying a new car and being charged an extra $500 for the ignition key.  Making money off platforms goes against all marketing principles.  

Nobody buys products anymore, they buy an experience.  It's why people pay twice as much for an Iphone when its hardware is frequently inferior to even the cheapest Android phone.

Most normal people could care less about how advanced your operating system is.  They're far more interested in what kind of software can run on it.  If you're proprietary, like Microsoft, you'd rather sell 100 Office 365 licenses than 1000 copies of Windows.  Mostly because you'll sell the Office licenses faster and be back in a year when it's time to "renew."  Nobody is going to pay to renew an OS.  In fact it's amazing that anyone ever paid upwards of $200 for an operating system in the first place.

In a freemium world a "free" OS is de rigeur.  The question is how far does that philosophy seep into Windows 10.

Ballmer's on the way out....so what

Amidst the cheers on the trading room floor that sent Microsoft shares 9% higher on Friday, the tech world seems to have gotten its wish.  Steve Ballmer will leave Microsoft's CEO chair within the next 12 months.

As one of the tech world's longest sitting  CEO's and target for all things evil about Microsoft it's easy to misread today's news. 

Yes, he's leaving and yes he's been the guiding hand of Microsoft through 3 major versions of windows, two game consoles and a cloud strategy.  But Microsoft CEO's don't operate in a vacuum  anymore and the company's reigns are firmly held in check by a board of which Bill Gates is still the chairman.

There have been calls for a younger, more hip CEO who will drive Microsoft's new devices and services strategy and put Microsoft on par with the Facebook's of the world. 

The problem is, nobody relies on Facebook to run their business applications.  Social networks are a just a tool in a larger business strategy.  One that Microsoft has admittedly been slow to adopt just like its haphazard cloud strategy that was late to the game and confusing to its market.

Ballmer's evangelism for Microsoft often bordered on the fanatical even in the face of opposition from the market but he never acted alone.  The departure of a number of Microsoft execs and the recent reorganization of the company's business units didn't happen without the board's blessing.

Microsoft may not be the lean, hip company it was back in the days of Gate's tenure but it really can't be.  Most business runs at least in part on Microsoft products.   That the company has been able to  maintain itself as the standard by which all others (including open source) are judged is no accident.

If Ballmer can be blamed for anything it's an ever changing mixed message and desperate bid to monetize anything even remotely connected with Microsoft.  In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter who sits in the CEO chair. 

Microsoft now is what IBM was in the 1980's.  Decent products but not very sexy. 

In a recent conversation with a friend of mine, he suggested a possible solution for Microsoft's stodgy, un-hip image.

Be like Toyota...

Toyota's Scion brand is specifically targeted at young hipsters with a lineup of products no Camry owner would be caught dead in.  That's smart.  The brand has successfully preserved the parent company's traditional market share while attracting a younger demographic they wouldn't have otherwise.

That's the direction Microsoft needs to move in.  Let's face it, You aren't going to sell many Cadillac's to the twenty something demographic.  Microsoft needs to separate itself from the consumer markets by placing its consumer strategy in an abstraction.   

Only then can Microsoft concentrate on its core business  customers while successfully engaging consumer markets.  You can't have the same message for both but if you separate the businesses you can have your cake and eat it too.