WARNING: TL;DR topic ahead !!


Every service you pay for come with a contract of some kind. The companies USED to treat these early EULA's as a contract, in that, w/o prior notification, they could NOT be changed.
Then some group of lawyers or judges, found a loop hole in Contractual Law, in that if they told you in the contract that this contract is subject to change without notice, that they weren't breaking any laws. Which is true, and which we all fell for.

First TV was free...we had about 11 channels and were happy with it. The only thing we didn't like was the commercials.
Then Cable TV came along with their (pay to play) model...aka, you pay us so much per month, no commercials. All were happy again.

That lasted about 3-4 years, then the "subject to change without notice" precedent infected the Cable Companies...so poof...we paid, but got commercials. People complained. So the Cable companies came up with channels like HBO, Showtime etc...you pay us just a little more per month...and we promise...no commercials. Most of the time this still holds true.


Then came Computer, and not long after computer games. At first the folks who wrote the games, sold them for a one time cost, and all was good. Then came the Internet and the chance to play against live people instead of just against the computer. So game companies made servers for free online play, or LAN play (w/o servers), and all was good. Then someone decided, hey we could charge per month to allow access to our servers...they are already addicted, let's try it.

Then WE the consumer, messed up, we SHOULD have just refused to buy those games. But we liked the games and the social end of the games, and FORGOT that if we don't buy it, they can't sell it.
Now that the game companies realized we were in fact too addicted to think clearly, they ALL started jumping on the" pay to play" bandwagon...just like the cable companies did.

As well aas computers and games, there was...Operating Systems. Just like any good drug dealer, the companies who create the OS's, let us play for free till we were so enmeshed in the ease of the OS's that we looked nowhere else for methods to communicate with our computers.


Once again we are at a crux, a major choice is coming our way. Do we, from lessons learned in the past..."just say NO" to pay to play OS's ? Windows 8 is just the first whiff of a new drug...an OS that you don't need to LEARN, to operate, and it IS enticing.

Question is, will we the consumer, by purchasing Windows 8 and it's glorious APP store, send a message to MS and Apple etc etc., that yes we will agree to "pay to play" for our OS's...or will we "just say NO" as we should have done to the Cable Companies, the Game companies the Phone companies, etc etc etc. ?


IMO we should "just say no" to Windows 8 or it will get worse as time goes by. That nasty EULA with it's "subject to change without notice" clause is still there and just waiting to pounce. Every game console has bricked peoples consoles for doing things that were legal, until that "subject to change w/o notice" kicked in.

What will Windows 9 be like? You buy a System32 folder for $250.00 and then spend half a years salary for "apps" to make it a workable OS? We've seen this model repeated a number of times already, will we wise up this time, or just go with the flow.

The above is just what I've SEEN in MY lifetime, but this is a very old scam. As evidence of how long this has been going on, I present this song video for your perusal.

For those of you who don't know the term "Company Store" you can just substitute the phrase App Store in it's place ^^









The old saying: "the Customer is always right" is kinda misleading, or not well understood. It should read, "the customer has the power" .......aka if you don't buy it, they won't sell it ^^

This post was edited by ghot on Apr 17 2012 06:05pm

No offense, but apple made it pretty obvious that selling a glorified app store (iOS) is a very viable model.

I wasn't planning on getting it anyway, I don't need a mobile OS on my desktop. and all that social media app shit worth of fads.

Only the consumer makes the model viable...maybe you should have actually READ all that I wrote.

QQ
old people dont like change and I guess your a pure example
also if you havent notice with each OS you are getting more(useless crap for an experienced user)

just giving ya a hard time, i buy/acquire legit versions of all windows OS anyways cant fix something if I have no clue whats going on

This post was edited by yupitsmeh on Apr 17 2012 06:10pm

I read it all.

I know bro

I just think that we should all finally "just say no" to "pay to x"

What's next, pay to breathe?

/e Hell, we grew the mafia with the "pay to live" model LOL

This post was edited by ghot on Apr 17 2012 06:17pm

WOW, check this out....I pay $106/month for 35/35 FIOS internet and about 400 TV channels (of which only about 40 are worth watching)....that's $1,272/year....let's say Verizon only has 100,000 customers, (very conservative estimate)

That means that they take in... $127.2 million a year...remember that's just for 100,000 customers LOL

I think that NO channel should NEED commercials for Verizon to stay afloat ... LOL

I did read what you wrote. Its just funny that you don't think the market has already decided micro-transactions are acceptable. I just took a flight that I had to pay $25 for my first checked bag, could buy a meal on board for ~$10, and could buy in-flight wi-fi for $5. It wasn't that long ago all of those sans wi-fi were expected and included. One of the most popular video games today (league of legends) survives by $5-10 skins and character purchases. Whether or not windows 8 sells, is not going to stop them from finding how to make it work. They know it is possible, and microsoft is more than willing to lose a product cycle or two trying to get the right fit. Whether its Windows 8, 9, or 10, the era of renting your copy of microsoft word for $1.50/mo, excel for $2, or the whole office package for $5 is closer than anyone really wants, but its there.