Reply to post: Windows 10 Sales: (Off Topic)

Microsoft will explain only 'significant' Windows 10 updates

Gatehellian

Windows 10 Sales: (Off Topic)

In my opinion, Windows 10 wasn't FREE, as much as it was a stepping stone to encourage more sales of Win 8.x (required for the FREE Win10 upgrade). If Microsoft considers Win8.x dead in the water, and many Win7 installs to be pirated (and with Win7 nearing its dead end as well), then Microsoft can disquise millions of Win10 sales under the sales of Win7/Win8.x required for upgrading to the Win10 in the first place.

If Win10 was a FREE upgrade, then anyone and everyone would be able to upgrade. That's not the case. Only those with a valid windows license are permitted. This suggests to me that Microsoft was targeting the non-licensed installs. At the time of the FREE offer to the public, only about 15% of the computer users globally were using Win8 and Win8.1 combined. I can only guess at how many pirated Win7 installs exist(ed). What could be a "small number" of people getting it for FREE, as compared to the, what could be, "large number" of people who now needs to finally purchase a registered version of Windows to get Win10, just may be the very reason why Win10 is (illusionally) FREE.

What concerns me about Windows 10 is it's data collection habits. The first thing that comes to mind is "Intellectual Property Rights", defined by Google as: "Intellectual Property Rights are the Rights given to the persons over the creations of their minds."

Now if we were talking about music files, rather than email/file/voice content, then the term "Royalty Fee" would be sounded. I find it interesting how Microsoft has set itself up to earn money from the global public's personal data, without being required/forced under the law to pay a Royalty Fee on those collected revenues.

I've seen the agruments many times so far that, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc, are collecting and selling public data, so what's wrong with Microsoft getting in on the data-collecting train as well?

Personally, I don't see all these platforms as being an equal argument to make. Facebook, for example, only has the data a Facebook member gives it (via manual posts/uploads). Facebook doesn't scan people's computers for extra data to sell. I wonder when the last time Facebook, or Twitter, checked out your private folders or emails for info? Google works much in the same way, with the exception of it's own email. But then again, even Yahoo would have that same ability to check its own email server data. All of these platforms have a very simple "opt out" option. Simply don't sign up to Facebook, or don't use Google services. Problem solved. So whether or not these companies are spying on you is somewhat irrelevant being that it really doesn't have to affect you or your personal computer space/data. Apple would be (IMO) a fair comparison, and fair argument.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019