>>If the change is something MS genuinely thinks consumers will embrace, they could have offered that as an additional option, rather than taking away a previous option.
>>
>>Why didn't they do that?
>
>Probably for the same reasons nobody else offers optional EULAs. Why should Microsoft be different?

They could have been a leader, and chose not to. Maybe not surprising.

>>>I don't necessarily find this a bad thing. The only winner is a class action suit is the lawyers who make huge piles of cash. You don't need an attorney for small claims court. It's a simple process and takes very little time. If you win, you'll probably end up with more money than you would in a class action suit.
>>>
>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/05/25/consumer-product-and-service-agreement-updates.aspx
>>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/no_microsoft_class_actions/
>>>>
>>>>Now, who will hold their feet to the fire?