Whether you trust microsoft or not, the fact remains that trying to push the "you need to buy it every year" line as a fact is in direct opposition to what Microsoft is publicly stating at this point.
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
Perhaps I came off a little too brashly in my comment. I wasn't intended as a specific criticism of the GP per se, more a commentary on the repeated "MS will go back on this, you just wait, it's 100% assured" type comments that I've seen on
At some point we'll know whether or not they're serious beyond the first year, but then the narrative will just switch to "just wait, any time now" sword-of-damocles type stuff.
I honestly think Microsoft took a long, hard look at Windows and decided to take the plunge and emulate the OS X model. Now I know that the cost of development for OS X is rolled into the hardware for Apple (as do MS I have to assume), but I am also assuming that MS have figured that they'll be better off by making Windows a one time purchase with lifetime updates and then drawing revenue and money to develop it from other areas like Office, Xbox, cloud services etc, Any other stream that generates revenue for them.
Having the majority of your user base on the most current version of Windows because it's free to continually update as long as you bought it once has to outweigh the scenario where MS would love everyone to be on the latest version but that means people buying a copy.