That's why, IMO, Microsoft should go the Google route. They should make Windows free (maybe even Libre), and try to make their money from server software and services. Charge for Office 365, including MS Office, Storage for OneDrive, InTune, Exchange, etc. Create a consumer-focused version of InTune/Office 365-- sort of like iCloud. Continue charging for Windows Server, Exchange, and Sharepoint for business use. Use Windows for desktops/laptops/tablets/mobile as a loss-leader platform that enables them to deliver those services.

It's a bit risky, but I think it's they'll be forced into it within a few more years anyway, and they'd be smart to go that direction before they're dragged in that direction.

Well I think they actually would be very smart to have a rolling release, or somehow encouraging everyone to go up to Windows 10 ASAP. Yes, some of the reason for that would be so that they can give users the features they want, and promote services they'd like to support. The bigger issue is support. I think one of the smartest things that Apple has done in recent years is to make OSX upgrades free. It means that unless you have legacy hardware that's unsupported, there's no reason not to move to the most recent version. That means you don't have to spend as much time and money supporting those old versions. If everyone running Windows XP could have upgraded to Windows 7 at no cost (and without a significant slowdown on the system), then you would have heard a lot less bitching and moaning when Microsoft discontinued support for a 12 year-old operating system.

The problem is, if Microsoft wants to achieve this rolling release by way of subscriptions, they're going to make a lot of people pretty angry. So personally, I think free is a smarter move.

Also-- and I've made this argument many times before-- the OS shouldn't be something that expires. The "subscription" that you're talking about, IIRC, was "Software Assurance" which includes support and free upgrades, but Windows XP wouldn't suddenly stop working if you chose not to renew your subscription.

The rumor regarding this is that Microsoft has been planning a subscription version of Windows where, if you stop paying, your computer stops working. To my mind, that's unacceptable. Next thing you know, HP is going to start shipping subscription printer drivers that stop working if you don't pay their $5/month ransom, or your Smart TV will require a $5 subscription to keep the OS working. If you buy a hardware product, and the hardware vendor includes software because, in their opinion, without that software, your hardware will be useless, then that software should not expire.

Yeah, that's very much in line with what I'm pointing out.

I don't have a problem with a private contractor being used to actually build and maintain the road. I would be very uneasy allowing the private company to then "own" vital sections of road and charging whatever tolls they like. It would be so much worse if they could block some vehicles, charge different tolls for different vehicles, and set different speed limits for different vehicles, without even needing to provide a reason or rationale.

So imagine that I own a company called "Road America Inc." and we own the roads going in and out of your town. Imagine I'm allowed to say, "Tolls for Ford cars are $1, and Ford cars can go 70 MPH. Tolls for Dodge are $20, and Dodge cars have a speed limit of 35 MPH." You see, I'm not owned by Ford, but I've made a deal with Ford where I get a payoff to promote their brand.

I do, however, own some of the grocery stores in your town, and I'm charging very high tolls on any vehicles that carry groceries. Somehow, all of my grocery stores have cheaper goods. Maybe it's because I use the tolls on groceries to fund those grocery stores. I've outright blocked any incoming shipments of electronics, so my electronics stores are doing very well.

Now does that seem fair?

No, the current mess is mostly due to the fact that we've been treating the Internet like a private entertainment service rather than public telecommunication infrastructure. You're never going to get real "free market" competition out of infrastructure. By its nature, public infrastructure needs to be treated as... well, public infrastructure.

I don't think that's a concern for this discussion. They're not making it any easier or more allowed for ISPs to mess with illegal content. The ISPs are already allowed to block illegal content, and will always be allowed to do that. The news here is that they aren't allowed to block or throttle anything else.

So yes, I would be concerned if they were talking about increasing the ability of ISPs to monitor and restrict questionable content, or if they were talking about expanding the definition of "unlawful content" to include other things. However, that doesn't seem to be relevant here. They're basically saying, "You're not allowed to throttle or block anything anymore. The only exception is if it's child pornography or something equally illegal, in which case, yes, we'll still let you block that."

Why would people bother to pirate music anymore? You can use Spotify for free, and get it ad-free and even with downloads allowed for a few dollars a month. There's no point.

Some might argue that this is a serious problem-- that the music industry is in a shambles and it's not clear this is all sustainable. Others might argue that this is evidence of where the problem was all along-- that piracy is the result of high prices and poor service, and when people are provided a cheap and convenient product, they're often willing to pay for it in some way. Either way, I don't see much of a reason to pirate music anymore unless it's somehow unavailable through legal channels.

... like the other applications on that platform. It's really not a hard concept. Go look at other professional applications that were built specifically for each platform. Your product should look like *that* on each particular platform.

Ideally, on Gnome, it should look like it was written to run on Gnome. On KDE, like it was designed for KDE. On OSX, like it was made by Apple to run on OSX, and yes, on Windows, it should ideally feel like it was made by Microsoft for that particular version of Windows. Obviously that's an ideal that won't be met perfectly on all platforms. There will be compromises. But I don't think the concept is hard to understand.

My perception is that Google is fairly open, more so than the others, not locking down the Nexus devices. But on the other hand, their Android partners are really locking things down, and the most generous view of Google is that they're simply powerless to stop it. Often enough, it seems like there are people within Google who favor openness, but the company as a whole is happy to let users' freedoms be restricted so long as it pushes them farther into the Google ecosystem.

That's my perception, not that Microsoft or Apple, or even Blackberry are any better. Google is the most freedom-loving of the bunch, but still not exactly the rebel freedom-fighting bunch that their fans would sometimes like to paint them as.

That's my perception, anyway, as an outsider who follows things relatively well.

You are business? Do you mean like, Lord Business? Or are you the embodiment of business?

Look, you may be business, but I'm IT, and when you decide to install LibreOffice on everyone's computers, I'm the one who has to support those people in figuring out how to use it. I can tell you right now, looking non-native is going to kill it on a lot of businesses.

And I happened to be working on an OSX machine last night, but I'm working on a Windows 8 computer this morning, because I'm not so much a "MacOS user" as I am "smart enough to use whichever computer you put in front of me." I've been fixing Windows professionally since the Windows 3.11 days. So run along and be business, and let the computer nerds talk shop.

Oh, drinkypoo. Always being antagonistic for no reason. I'm not a big Cyanogen fan praising them for making Android perfectly free. I'm only saying that I believe the intention of calling them "rogue" is supposed to be good, in the sense of 'freedom fighter' as opposed to 'criminal'.

Ironically, those apps (Firefox and Chrome) do a relatively good job of appearing native on both Windows and Mac OSX.

I think this is right. They're making more investments in getting their apps on iOS and Android. I think this investment is an indication that they're interested in having their own Android distribution (or one that they can at least partner with) which will allow them control while maintaining application compatibility.

And if so, I'd say that's a smart move. It's probably not a full plan yet, but more of a hedge while they try to push mobile application development by decreasing the barriers between development for Windows desktop, Windows Tablet, and Windows Phone. One way or another, they need a mobile platform with apps.

I think the idea is that Google, Samsung, Motorola, and HTC have all made themselves into a sort of cartel that don't allow the "open source project" to actually be a source of freedom for consumers. Cyanogen is "rogue" because it bucks that system and restores freedom to the project.

One of my problems with LibreOffice (and OpenOffice, and some other FOSS apps) is that it doesn't fit with native UI conventions. It doesn't look like a native application, it doesn't feel like a native application, and it doesn't behave like a native application. Although it may seem like a very superficial thing, it makes it much harder to sell in a business setting. First, because a lot of business users (including "decision makers") are pretty superficial, and using a non-native UI makes it look cheap and unfinished. Second, because if it doesn't feel or behave like the applications that users are familiar with, then it's going to be jarring and confusing, requiring more training and resulting in more help desk trouble calls.

So when I read that LibreOffice "has got a lot of UX and design love", I was hoping that some of the incongruences were fixed. Looking at the OSX version, it seems that it's gotten worse. It looks distinctly like an application written for Linux that was hastily ported to OSX.

And as an IT professional working in NYC, I'll tell you that the Internet here is... not so great. I'll grant you, it's better than the parts of the country that are stuck on dial-up and DSL, but you can't get FIOS in most places. A lot of people (individuals and businesses) are stuck with TWC as their only viable source of broadband. Sure, you can run a bunch of bonded T1s and get 10mbps for something like $1k/month, but if you want something cheaper than that, you're stuck with TWC.

The problem with that is (a) TWC has slow upload speeds; and (b) TWC is unreliable and will often go offline for a few hours for no apparent reason.

NYC gave Verizon some kind of deal on the requirement that they run fiber everywhere by Q2 2014. Guess what? Didn't happen.