this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
664 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
10 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Microsoft is the only company that charges for an operating system so frankly I don’t understand why they feel entitled to that income anyway
Google and Apple are definitely charging for that software development. In the case of Apple, it is being folded into hardware prices or used as a loss leader for pricy subscriptions / apps.
Google is also making a buck on subscriptions / apps, but instead of hardware, they’re also making money from licensing software to 3rd party Android manufacturers, and because Google gonna Google, they want that ad revenue.
And I would also argue that a lot of Linux distros make money from professional services and what not.
Most of the big boys aren’t doing the work for free
It's effectively bundled with Apple hardware (which also dramatically lowers their development costs; they don't support anything they don't ship and are perfectly willing to abandon hardware once it no longer supports the level of hardware features they feel the new OS version needs). I'm not sure it's that different.
Android is free (maybe? Do phone manufacturers pay for Google play branding?), but they make their money by having the lions share of software going through their storefront. Microsoft is never going to do that with Windows.
Back in the 90s Apple charge for OS upgrades. I saved my allowance money to get OS 8 and was super happy when I got OS X 10.2 for Christmas. Once they could reliably deliver upgrades over the Internet they stopped charging for it.
The story I always heard was that there were some weird accounting rules that were, if not codified legally, common practice at the time, that made the book keeping on free updates sketchier. But I don't know about the validity of that.
I definitely don't think "free" justifies any of Windows bullshit. I did pay for 10 (pro) for gaming several years back, but with the real emergence of proton the steam deck accelerated, I wouldn't install windows on any of my systems for free now. They're super hostile to users and are just assuming that inertia is good enough that they can get away with it.
You could say that about any product or service. “They don’t charge for a steering wheel on your car it’s bundled in.” But that’s not a useful or meaningful distinction.
The issue here is windows famously charged until very recently (and still sort of does) which distinguishes it from those that don’t charge.
But Windows is the product. Hardware is a small part of their revenue, and most of their install base is hardware that isn't theirs.
MacOS is also part of Apple's product, but they pretty much only sell higher margin premium hardware that both pays for and streamlines the OS development process.
Windows OS is not the product.
Yes, it absolutely is.