Pay for Automatic Updates Automatically

[Guest]

:

No Yves, Vista is a whole new animal. It is not being billed as just a
service pack update, it is totally new. If you looked at things that way,
you could say XP was just an update for Windows NT.

Actually, XP was an update of Windows 2000 Professional, but it was a step
backwards at that...

There will still be patches and upgrades for Vista, there will always be
updates to every system that is ever made. So why not charge for them. I
think that this will and should be the wave of the future and I trust
Microsoft will implement something similar to what I am saying eventually.

They could, if they really want their Windows sales to go into the toilet.
The Linux guys would have a field day competing with that.

You can rest assured that my silly little post here in this group will have
nothing to do with it, but it has already been mulled over. You could
probably bet on it. Microsoft and the people who run the company are no
dummies, if you constantly get updates from them like we all do, it is just
too great of a possible revenue source to pass up for too much longer.

There is an angle you are missing. Guess why Microsoft has elected to
continue to provide security patches for Windows 98, an OS that they haven't
sold for about 6 years, Windows NT/Me and Windows 2000 professional. Answer:
to try to prevent Windows from bringing the internet to its knees due to
worm/virus infections. Microsoft's reputation for security has already
suffrered so many black eyes that they have no choice but to provide the
security updates for free.

Recent data has it that a full 75% of email is spam, and most of it comes
from infected Windows machines connected to the internet. Spammers hire
malware writers to plant bots on unsuspecting users' machines and then
instruct them via remote control to pump out the spam. Almost every Windows
machine that comes into our shop is missing updates and is infected with some
kind of crapware that uses vulnerabilities in Windows and Internet Exploder
to get its hooks into the system. Since so few machines are up to date as it
is, with the updates being free, how many folks do you think would be up to
date if they had to pay for it?

Bottom line: if Microsoft only provided updates to those that were willing
to pay, they would be shooting themselves in the foot, with an Uzi.

 

[jt3]

If I take you seriously, and not as just a stringer--(?), then are you
talking about 'good' from MS's point of view, or the users?

If the first, then, as someone has already said, 'Wow, what a business
model!' Linux here we come.

If the second, please explain how it would encourage MS to improve their
product initially, or even successively, if they get profit from errors or
short-sightedness? I can see no mechanism behind this proposal to *improve*
what is often only, and sometimes less than, adequate, with occasional
lapses into inspired.

The only thing I can see to say in its favor is that it *might* tend to slow
down the replacement cycle, which is at the root of all of this. Only
occasionally does starting with a 'clean sheet' produce significant
improvement overall; refinement has much to be said for it.

They already have used the 'pay for improvement' model: 95--98--98SE--ME;
NT--2K--XP and it has generated a lot of income, as well as, arguably, some
improvements, as well as things like WPA, WGA, and such. Perhaps you ought
to leave it at that?

Joe

 

[\(Del¤+/Ctrl+¤/Alt¤+\)]

Okay, some of you sound reasonable and make some valid points. Some of you,
of course, drop down in the gutter because that is what some people just do
and call me an idiot and this and that.

So, let me see if I can reasonably describe the position of the majority of
others who responded to my original post.

When I buy a product from Microsoft, no matter what happens, what
unforseeable events pop up, no matter the time period elasped since I bought
the product, could be twenty or thirty years, I want free updates and
patches.

I demand that it all be free because that is how everything should be in my
1993 world of the Web and every utility and program, etc... should always be
free and if it isn't the people distributing it are evil and out to kill the
Internet.

I think that no matter what the people do that have evil intentions do to
try to destabilize MS products, no matter how many times MS has to fix
things that people will always find a way to foul up for the rest of us, I
think MS should bear the brunt of costs for all these patches and updates.
I refuse to pay money to fix things that are screwed up by people who just
want to wreak havoc because I expect everything to always be free because I
paid for it once upon a time and it should always be free.

Whatever you may think or may want or may wish for, it will all change soon
enough. I think the more forward thinking among us can already see that and
know what is coming.

Alt

 

[kurttrail]

Okay, some of you sound reasonable and make some valid points. Some
of you, of course, drop down in the gutter because that is what some
people just do and call me an idiot and this and that.

So, let me see if I can reasonably describe the position of the
majority of others who responded to my original post.

When I buy a product from Microsoft, no matter what happens, what
unforseeable events pop up, no matter the time period elasped since I
bought the product, could be twenty or thirty years, I want free
updates and patches.

I demand that it all be free because that is how everything should be
in my 1993 world of the Web and every utility and program, etc...
should always be free and if it isn't the people distributing it are
evil and out to kill the Internet.

I think that no matter what the people do that have evil intentions
do to try to destabilize MS products, no matter how many times MS has
to fix things that people will always find a way to foul up for the
rest of us, I think MS should bear the brunt of costs for all these
patches and updates. I refuse to pay money to fix things that are
screwed up by people who just want to wreak havoc because I expect
everything to always be free because I paid for it once upon a time
and it should always be free.
Whatever you may think or may want or may wish for, it will all
change soon enough. I think the more forward thinking among us can
already see that and know what is coming.

Alt

I almost answered your post seriously, then I remembered that you are
just the new village idiot in this neck of the virtual woods.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Jonny]

"Poor Microsoft employee"? Do you have any clue how much Uncle Bill's
employees are paid along with fringe benefits?
Think they oughta be paying us for keeping them employed. Or perhaps the
types that write code to attack MS XP, script kiddies, and virus writers who
keep all the update stuff for XP and AV software going should be getting
funded. Not that I doubt that is happening anyway in some fashion.

 

[Sharkman]

sorta like creating a virus and forming a whole industry around it.

 

[Steve N.]

Okay, some of you sound reasonable and make some valid points. Some of you,
of course, drop down in the gutter because that is what some people just do
and call me an idiot and this and that.

Ok. Sorry for calling you an idiot.

All software vendors issue updates and patches for free. It's an
industry standard and a very good one.

What you propose will never happen. It would be counter productive and
customers would not stand for it.

Steve N.

 

[capitan]

Hello,

I think it would be a great idea for Microsoft to charge a fee each time a
user has to download an update from their site. What in the world would be
keeping them from doing it? You should have to pay a fee, something like 2
or 3 dollars each time an update or a patch for a Windows operating system
is issued, that is if you want to download it. If not, you take your own
chances.

Just think of all the poor Microsoft employee's who have to constantly work
on patches and updates and the such. These employees could all be given a
raise if a fee was imposed for updates and patches.

I guess I am writing this post in the hopes that someone that could help do
something about it is reading. That way, at least they will know that there
is a wide support base that would whole-heartedly pay anything that needed
to be paid in order to keep up to date.

It never hurts to let the employees of a company know that regular,
everyday, work hard for their money Joe's and Jane's, will gladly part with
some of that money each month when the updates and patches come out, just to
stay current and feel secure.

Altie

You want to _PAY_ to download windows updates over a dialup
connection?!? What kind of a masochist are you?!

 

[Plato]

"Poor Microsoft employee"? Do you have any clue how much Uncle Bill's
employees are paid along with fringe benefits?

To get the best you have to pay the best. Basic supply and demand.

 

[Jonny]

You want to _PAY_ to download windows updates over a dialup
connection?!? What kind of a masochist are you?!

Believe he's the pay you to hurt him kind. Doesn't tolerate short term pain
as is not his style.

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

From: "Jonny" <[email protected]>

"Poor Microsoft employee"? Do you have any clue how much Uncle Bill's
employees are paid along with fringe benefits?

Neither do I, but I have known from years back (before I became an
MVP, so this isn't NDA) that there can be quite a range of benefits.

At that time, there was conflict caused by long-term "temporary"
workers who were excluded from stock options and other benefits of
full employment. These folks were doing a lot of heavy lifting for
years on end, and were fed up that they weren't being pulled on board
as full employees. I haven't heard anything further on that for
several years, so the problems may be over, but what I've since seen
suggests overall MS costs may not due to high salaries per worker, but
rather a large number of workers.

"(Del¤+/Ctrl+¤/Alt¤+)" <Alt-Ctrl-Del@________------------{{{{ }}}}.net>

I would reject this very, very strongly indeed.

Remember WHY we have to pull down these updates (at our own expense,
note - not a trivial matter when you are paying per second for local
phone calls to use dial-up modem access); it is because a product that
was shipped as fit for use, has found to need repair to make it safe.

In any other industry, that would *really* hurt the manufacturer,
who'd have to bankroll a formal product recall and replacement, or get
stomped on if they reneged on their warranty obligations.

But sware vendors have it easier. They have to develop a fix - which
is a fixed expense that does not scale up per unit sold - and they
have to host the fix on a server, which may scale up somewhat
according to the number of users trying to get the fix. All other
costs and hazards are borne entirely by the user victims.

We have allowed the sware industry to define thier own laws via EULAs,
and lull us into accepting the need for constant vendor-foisted
repairs. The EULA even allows the vendor to stealth in new
user-hostile functionalities as part of these "upgrades", such as DRM.

So as it is, fixing defective products is not only cheaper for
large-volume sware vendors, it allows them to force users to accept a
stronger dependency on their "services". No longer do you buy a
product (or rather, the use of a product; the first right to be eroded
by the EULA) and walk way, with no obligation to return.

Now, you have to effectively leave your house unlocked so that the
vendor can walk straight in whenever they feel the need to "fix"
something. Leaving the system open to vendor-pushed "updates" flies
in the face of controlling all changes to the code base.

The next thing we will hear is, "software is a service, so please pay
an annual subscription fee even if you see no value in our further
product development". No more buying Windows once and using it for
the natural life of the PC, extended to 10 years or more if your
hardware holds up and you see no value in later versions.

I refer to this scenario as "rental slavery", and here's the
worst-case... if you were to buy a 10-year-old PC for next to nothing,
you'd be obliged to pay the same annual subscription fee as someone
with a new PC. Further, if the new vendor-pushed version of the sware
was too bloated to run on that old PC, you'd be obliged to throw it
away and get a new one.

That's great for artificially stimulating demand for crony business
partners, but it slams the door for poor communities trying to build
skills and catch up with the IT world. It also removes all pressure
on the vendor to create true new sware value; you'd be paying the same
annual fee to use a Windows computer, whether you liked the new
versions enough to want to buy in, or didn't.

This is a good escape route to maintain share value when a share has
grown so far that it can longer be seen as offering such growth in the
future, and needs to reposition itself as a failure-proof "blue chip".

I think you can see where those dots are heading?

What in the world would be keeping them from doing it?

Hopefully, a robust judiciary that would curb such exploitation.

--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

First, the good Customer feedback has
been clear and unambiguous.

 

[\(Del¤+/Ctrl+¤/Alt¤+\)]

cquirke,

I have absolutely nothing to say about all that you said but I believe that
you are right. I see exactly what you mean and can understand now what I
did not before. You have opened my eyes to another way of thinking about
this matter.

Thanks,

Alt