Free Windows upgrades?

Micro$haft?

I dont think so.

do you know how much money Bill Gates has? Yes, not enough!

It would be nice if we got a "Mac" type deal $29 upgrade , etc.

DarkSeL said:

I thought Bill Gates retired.. Oh well..
And I wouldn't set Apple as a model for pricing.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

I second that brother... And I think some people have not even the slightest idea about the philanthropy Bill Gates is involved in... Plus, if PC OSes are upgraded freely then we would be at mercy of hardware providers to determine whether our hardware deserves an OS upgrade or not (as it is in the case of all smartphones today)...

android is a bad example given that the money is made through advertising and selling your info.

a more reliable comparison is Apple and iOS. WP7 and the iPhone are limited use devices,

OSx and Windows on there respective hardware are computers with a significant use attached to them, the same can be said for Windows Tablets, however they are different from Apples ipad offerings which is just a bumped up iphone OS, the tablet is (at least we believe. x86 - yes, ARM - ?) its a fully functional computer

So to your question, a Windows Tablet, is a computer (probably), and thus will likely follow computer upgrade cycles. and ipad is an extension of its iphone and would follow the phone update model.

As to how much it should cost, well that's up to MS, but before folk start raving about Apples "cheap" updates, its worth pointing out that developing an OS with a fixed hardware design will be much easier (cheaper) to do than for an almost infinite number of hardware designs

Lets be clear on something, NOTHING is done without there being money to be made in one form or another, Googles model is not as transparent as Microsofts but it still makes a mint, and whilst it doesn't do that by charging you directly it does use you as its *****

Its a nice though but not going to happen.

Sent from my MB860 using XDA

chrisrotolo said:

Micro$haft?

I dont think so.

do you know how much money Bill Gates has? Yes, not enough!

It would be nice if we got a "Mac" type deal $29 upgrade , etc.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Apple already ripped you off with their expensive hardware so they can afford it to upgrade the OS for 29$.

Microsoft needs to get their profits from software only, that's why it's a bit more expensive than OSX upgrades.

DarkSeL said:

Hello everyone.

I've always wondered why tablets/phones get free software upgrades (Android 3 to 4), while Computer OS's do not. (Windows Vista to 7).

Considering Windows 8 will be both a tablet and a desktop OS, will updates to windows 9 (or whatever they decide to call it) be free, for tablets at least?

It does not sound possible, but if Microsoft phones got free upgrades, why not their tablets?

Please share your thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

no they wont be, in the same way that OSx updates are chargable

you need to remember that everyone needs to make money, even the beloved Android "free" OS, android makers and OEMs make their money by selling your soul to anyone who has the money to pay for it, MS makes money by charging you directly, both are valid business models but one is more "open" than the other, the irony is that the "open" OS is actually the least open when it comes to the business modelm both have good points both have bad points.

The Windows phone portion will remain "free" to a point, but tablets and desktop versions are very much computer OSs, not a phone OS unlike its android and iOS cousins

edit, Boom! 1700 posts

Donny1987 said:

The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Apple already ripped you off with their expensive hardware so they can afford it to upgrade the OS for 29$.

Microsoft needs to get their profits from software only, that's why it's a bit more expensive than OSX upgrades.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

Everyone looks at Mirosoft thinks that they are cheating big arse sum of marney from you guys.
Microsoft just ended their support for XP like few months ago, which was release about 10years ago.
For just $29, Apple only provide 11 updates on that whatever cat OS and then just kiss your old cat goodbye on support on your whatever latest iPhones or Pads.
So Apple OS = cheap????

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk 2

DarkSeL said:

Hello everyone.

I've always wondered why tablets/phones get free software upgrades (Android 3 to 4), while Computer OS's do not. (Windows Vista to 7).

Considering Windows 8 will be both a tablet and a desktop OS, will updates to windows 9 (or whatever they decide to call it) be free, for tablets at least?

It does not sound possible, but if Microsoft phones got free upgrades, why not their tablets?

Please share your thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

It's a good point, and potentially a future issue for Microsoft. Apple can afford to give software updates away for free because they make so much money off hardware sales, iTunes and the App Store. The updates for the iPod Touch weren't always free though, I remember paying for a few. Google can afford to give the OS away for free because the OS is just a vehicle for ad revenue etc.

To my mind though, the parallel between PCs and smartphones/tablets isn't an issue yet (maybe one for the Windows 9 launch?). iOS and Android are updated to new versions annually, Windows is more like every 3 years. Windows support continues long after the next version is released. The oldest device to get iOS5 was the iPhone 33GS (now 3 years old) and the oldest device to get the ICS update was likely (I don't actually know the answer) much younger. While iOS and Android contain a limited amount of legacy hardware support, Windows will run on very old computers indeed. Windows 8 will run on hardware less powerful than my smartphone (actually, that could be an interesting experiment at the end of the year; which OS will run well on lower hardware; the latest Android build, or Win8 RT?).

I can see consumer perceptions towards paying for software shifting though, and that could well cause Microsoft issues in the future, especially when Apple inevitably stop charging for OS X upgrades.

chrisrotolo said:

Micro$haft?

I dont think so.

do you know how much money Bill Gates has? Yes, not enough!

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

Bill Gates has been giving his money away as charity for the past 10 years.

satchef1 said:

It's a good point, and potentially a future issue for Microsoft. Apple can afford to give software updates away for free because they make so much money off hardware sales, iTunes and the App Store. The updates for the iPod Touch weren't always free though, I remember paying for a few. Google can afford to give the OS away for free because the OS is just a vehicle for ad revenue etc.

To my mind though, the parallel between PCs and smartphones/tablets isn't an issue yet (maybe one for the Windows 9 launch?). iOS and Android are updated to new versions annually, Windows is more like every 3 years. Windows support continues long after the next version is released. The oldest device to get iOS5 was the iPhone 33GS (now 3 years old) and the oldest device to get the ICS update was likely (I don't actually know the answer) much younger. While iOS and Android contain a limited amount of legacy hardware support, Windows will run on very old computers indeed. Windows 8 will run on hardware less powerful than my smartphone (actually, that could be an interesting experiment at the end of the year; which OS will run well on lower hardware; the latest Android build, or Win8 RT?).

I can see consumer perceptions towards paying for software shifting though, and that could well cause Microsoft issues in the future, especially when Apple inevitably stop charging for OS X upgrades.

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

I don't think desktop OS upgrades will change in the near future, theres too much work within a desktop OS, yes the kernel may be the same or similar but there is an awful lot more to a desktop. which is why paying for upgrades in justified so long as upgrades bring new functionality.

a Phone OS is very different its a limited use function and the revenue stream is from sale of apps and market penetration and adverts. Personally I think if windows RT is similar to the desktop in functionality then it will follow the desktop model, if it is a limited use device then it will more likely follow the phone OS model.

That's because you're paying the lisencing for the product. Microsoft is a software company, they make very little hardware (And most of their hardware is just comprised of peripherals and concept products). They have to make money somehow, so they do this by selling the lisencing to their OS. Mac is exactly the same, $30 and upgrade. Windows just charges more though because their OS upgrades take longer to come around and usually take a bigger step forware (I'm not dissing Mac by saying it's slow to evolve or anything, I'm just saying Mac takes slow and steady steps, while Windows takes a large leep, but only every few years).

iOS used to cost money to upgrade on iPod Touches, but this generated very little revenue, and mostly irritated iPod Touch users, so Apple stopped. As only Apple makes devices that use Apple OS's, there's no licesing fee.

Andriod is 100% open scource and free, meaning anyone, including you, can just go and download it free. They don't charge licesing fees, instead, making money off increased ad traffic.

Windows Phone does charge a liscensing fee, meaning every WinPhone device sold, the manufactor has to pay a small fee to Microsoft. Of course, to stay competitive, they don't charge upgrade fees.

Going back to conventional x86 desktops, when you buy one at a store, the license for that computer has already been paid for by the maker, so if you build your own, you have to pay Microsoft for a license. If you wish to upgrade, you must pay for the right to use that new OS, through the means of paying for a new license or upgrade fee.

I imagine Windows RT/WoA wil follow this same principle, because it's a more full fledged OS (But it can't run legacy programs). Of course, I would imagine the upgrade fee would be much smaller, but we can't know, becuase this will be the first time Windows has ever supported an ARM device.