Are you sure that a disaster on the coastal infrastructure will have negligible effect on the non-coastal regions of the country? Last I checked our ports are on the coast and our ports are where most of our clothing [1], and non-negligible amount of food [2] come from.

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Business...
[2] http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafi...

Moving towards abandoning something does not generally involve going from not having to having that thing, though.

I do agree with you. Google is moving towards a pay-only model. Apple is moving towards abandoning iTunes. Moving toward is not guarantee of arriving. If in one point in time you are closer to somehwere else, you've moved towards there, even if you never will and don't intend to ever get there.

Please, don't read what I wrote as any stronger than what I have wrote.

I don't trust that what Microsoft says publicly to news organizations and twitter is the same as the reasons behind their decisions as much as you do. I will continue to hold the stance that *I* don't know what they want to accomplish because I don't actually know what they want to accomplish. I only know what they *say* they want to accomplish.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I was asking for primary source material. Would you happen to have a link to internal strategy documents?

The howtogeek.com article had no citations to internal strategy memos and the winbeta.org article reiterated a PR tweet.

My entire point of asking for these memos was that what the PR machine or third-party analysts say is not the same as the actual process Microsoft used to make it's choice. That's what I'm after. Why did Microsoft make the choice, not why do others think they made the choice and not what did Microsoft say to clarify the choice.

I never said it wasn't inflammatory. It was. I don't disagree with the moderators.

What is a founded opinion? One where one uses something, like say Microsoft adding subscription options to Office, to found an opinion, such as they might add subscription options to Windows?

I had not seen these internal strategy memo links. Would you care to provide a citation?

And what does that comment have to do with Windows 10 being free? I don't see the connection.

What I mean is there are here, for the sake of argument, two systems of pricing an application suit, say Office. One way is sell a license to a particular version in perpetuity. Let's call that way L. Another way is to sell a subscription to only the latest version for a limited time. Let's call that way S. In the past Microsoft offered the following set of pricing models {L}. In a potential future, they might offer another set: {S}. The current state is {L, S}. The current state is a step between {L} and {S}.

Does that clarify what I mean by taking a step towards a subscription-only model? I am asserting nothing about the likelihood they will take the next step, only that they have taken *a step* down a path that leads to subscription-only.

As to the iOS platform situation, I do wish they would offer their applications for a one-time fee rather than subscription.

I agree we don't know what will happen. All we have is Microsoft's past behavior to go on, and that's changed over the decades and under different leadership. It would be folly to assume anything about their actions a year from now, regardless what they say, because they are not particularly consistent.

You read and assume an awful lot that neither me nor Zymergy has actually said.

He was not telling anyone it was time to move on. He was saying it was time for him to move on. He is doing that because of his opinion. You are free to disagree with his opinion, of course, but don't put words in his mouth.

You are correct, I do not know why Microsoft is offering Windows 10 for free. I am not privy to their strategy meetings and I rather not assume that my guess as to why they are giving it out for free is the actual reason they've used to make that choice. That said, I didn't bring up Windows 10 in any of my posts and I have not equated that with anything Office related. Please don't put words in *my* mouth either.

He made an opinion and was attacked for misstating "facts", which he did not state. You are free to disagree with his opinion, of course. I, also, do not agree completely with his opinion. We don't know where Microsoft is heading. Or at least, I don't.

I can see, though, how one would feel that they are going towards subscription models for their products. They've taken the first step to do so with Office by offering subscriptions in addition to boxed copies: something they did not do years ago. On some platforms, such as the iPad, a subscription is requirement to have Office be anything other than a viewer only.

Again, no one said Microsoft is guaranteed to move to a subscription model for Windows. We don't know if they will or will not. It is possible, though, to interpret some of their recent moves and past philosophies in such a way such that it's a possible path for them to take.

Yes it is. I did not say it was *only* available in a subscription, but they are *moving* in that direction. As in, years ago, one bought a boxed copy and had it for as long as one wanted to use it, but now they offer both. It's a step in that direction. Maybe they'll take the next step; maybe they won't. We don't know, but they took the first step.

Track record of strong-arming their OEMs, moving towards a subscription model for Office, onerous piracy-prevention mechanism using a central authority to permit their operating system to run.

Yes, that's true, but this whole thread is not about trying to push that as a fact. It was in response to, and I quote, "Seems like this is heading toward a yearly paid subscription model for an OS from Microsoft?" I would emphasis *seems like*. That is an *opinion* and quite a reasonable opinion given Microsoft's track record of

If you think there are not arrangements like that, you are mistaken.

I don't like Ads. I use Mobile Safari. Those need not be mutually exclusive. I don't browse ad-supported websites very often.