>>>>>https://ca.news.yahoo.com/microsoft-says-windows-10-free-upgrade-recent-buyers-173239279--finance.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Does that mean we'll become (even more) the product?
>>>>
>>>>Well, it confirms what I have heard before from other Msft employees, namely that the cost of developing a new Windows version after Win10 is too high to justify it, so it simply won't happen. In other words, Win10 will be the last version of Windows ever, only updates will be provided after its release. And since VFP9 will run on Win10 as long as the processor is Intel compatible, VFP9 will continue to work for many, many years still.
>>>
>>>I'm surprised you persist with this idea that a new OS will be too costly to develop. That has nothing to do with this move. This move is entirely to do with converting from a revenue model based on once-off new product sales to a recurring subscription model. This is not a technical issue at all, regardless that the PR BS people may like you to believe that. This is a money issue and it really is very obvious.
>>
>>Well if there's a serious list of technical breakthroughs (like they had for the Vista, at least in form of promise and abandoned features list), then perhaps it is serious. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think it's just makeup - cosmetic change in the behavior of the desktop and what have you, with not much changing under the hood. Unless if it's plugging in the last holes in the areas where users could still configure something for themselves (like get rid of the homepage in Skype 7.0 - just change a single character in the config.xml and it claims it's 6.3 and forces you to install 7.0 within 24 hours which then reverts whatever you tried to change).
>
>The annuity subscription model is far preferred (by MSFT, Apple, and the like) over trying to sell a new copy every few years. The latter takes far more effort in marketing, technical upgrade support, and opens the possibility of users not bothering to upgrade (since there is rarely a truly compelling reason to do so anyway). By tying users into annual payments, probably automated against a credit/debit card, they can generate an enormous, predictable revenue stream, and release "updates" of totally questionable real value. It removes the need to re-sell users and effectively prevents anyone from skipping an O/S release/upgrade. This is the reason they are offering everyone a free upgrade for a year. They want as many people on the band wagon as possible, convince as many people to give up their "old" O/S as soon as possible, and get onto that subscription. I do not want to make that move but will probably have to have a few licenses for test machines nonetheless.

Going to a subscription model takes away a certain amount of incentive for MS to improve the product. I see this with some web comics I follow. Not long ago Patreon turned up which I'm sure has been a godsend for a lot of struggling artists. For some it's made no difference to their output, others seem to view it as their reward for years of unpaid work and are reducing their output, taking sabbaticals etc. A few previously marginal ones have gotten better, because they can now commit more time.

A lot of people who remember the old days when packaged/pay once software was the only game in town are viscerally opposed to the subscription model. I'm not, as long as I get recurring value-added as well as recurring costs. But that's more difficult to evaluate in a subscription model. There's the danger that MS will make no significant improvements at all, and simply say using Windows as-is is worth $XX per renewal, if you don't like it use something else. But you can be sure they'll put full effort into locking users into the platform.