When I said that people will have to use the implemented software, I meant that unless the software had some kind of counting system embedded into it so it knows how much to charge, it won't work on Microsoft's system. Microsoft will be forcing developers to add meters to their programs. If the developers don't like it, they'll lose a platform.Of course not. Given you have trouble imagining this system, just pretend it'd be Steam.
You should know how that one works: it's not Valve that does all the work for all the games, but gives a framework the software makers and they guarantee that the software is kept up to date and available through the store.
Steam can pick and choose what it sells. Exactly like microsoft. It can deny developers to sell their program on their platform, which is potentially bad because it weeds out competition. You say that there are already a bunch of monopolies. So what? Does that make it ok? People should be given options less severe than "use our system or go somewhere else."
Your phone analogy states that you buy the phone, and then the service to use it. In some cases, you can get the phone free with the service, but you never specified that, and that would make your analogy much more accurate. If you buy the phone and the service individually (Like you stated) It is the same as buying a computer and the internet service individually. (You can replace the internet service with a software subscription or whatever helps you understand this better). The phone is only partially functional without the service. The computer is only partially functional without internet. But in this case, you buy the phone. Your analogy never said that you make a small payment and then subscribe to the service. It stated that you would buy the phone, and then the service. In Microsoft's system, you would lay down a little money for the setup, and then subscribe, using the services over time. You would not buy the computer (phone), and then subscribe to the contract (service) as stated by your analogy.The analogy is correct, because in both cases, I own the phone (or not at all for the computer). Your comparison is not, because once, you own the computer and the other time not. You're comparing apples to oranges and completely ignoring hidden and long-term costs when buying something.
An open source DVD player? We're talking about software, not hardware. There is no necessary down payment for open source software. And there is no such thing as open source hardware.Very simple counter-example: mind pointing me to an open-source DVD player? There's no such legal thing, as the playback is subject to license payments. It's only one example among many others.
When you're using this plan, why would you get a new computer whenever yours breaks? You would send it in to the shop. They would attempt to repair it, and if that fails, they would give you a new computer. You can get a new, "free computer with a warranty.So, you're also paying for repairs on a rental car if it breaks down due to a hardware issue (let's say electrical problem)? Of course not. You'd get a new one for "free", where free again depends on your subscription (next business day, or rather on-site repairs).
The car customization that you mentioned is the equivalent of changing your desktop wallpaper, or adding a USB drive to your computer. It is not the equivalent of installing new software/hardware. That would be like changing the stereo system, or changing the tires.Easy: car or computer hardware, it's the exact same thing in the subscription. You can install and customize software on the computer or add CDs to the in-car stereo, change the FM radio stations or seat positions.
When I said that microsoft will "force me to switch," I meant that they will make me use the system, or switch platforms. In which case, I would switch platforms.Nobody's being forced to switch. You're generalizing your own view and call it "forced", while you actually decide for yourself to switch to another platform because you don't like the terms of the contract. There's a huge difference here.
No, they don't. Just like Windows, Macs come preloaded with software. If you don't like the default ones, you can install other products, like Firefox, MS Office, ...
* Movie Maker <-> iLife (but it does other things too)
* Internet Explorer <-> Safari
* Media Player <-> iTunes
* Windows Mail (Outlook Express) <-> Mail
Macs basically have a monopoly on their system because almost no software is made for them. If you don't like iLife, you have very little options. In windows, however, if you don't like movie maker you can use any one of these.
I know it's not a bad thing, I'm saying that this is how it will be for Microsoft. "It just works" because there's no variety and virtually nothing can go wrong.That's not necessarily a bad thing, but matches the Apple philosophy "It just works". No driver issues or hardware incompatibilities. Someone else does the thinking nasty work for you, so you send over the money don't have to worry. Not necessarily to the taste of everyone, but the Apple afficiandos seem to like it. I wouldn't, which is why I'd never buy such a thing, my personal dislike of any Apple stuff set aside.
Eactly. Would windows users readily pay? Do you know how overpriced macs are? It's painful to look at the price tags. 50% money for the product. 50% money for the brand.It wouldn't be any different from the current Microsoft topic, except that the Apple worshippers would readily pay.