This would closely mirror the PC model where the manufacturer and OS developers are completely separate entities. Projects like LineageOS and others could realistically do a better job without costing the company anything. To be perfectly honest, many in FOSS would find it far preferable that manufacturers not be involved at all! In lieu of maintenance, they should just provide the full source and build environment to the community. Yet, the manufacturers now have to provide OS updates for many years, and are scolded if they cut corners. I don’t think this is a good thing though, and would have preferred if Microsoft just sold “Window XP SP2” for a $25 fee instead.
That is why, I think “once and done” sales models will eventually fade away, and we will own less things over time. With a subscription (or ad monetized) model, they can keep the cashflow constant, and continue to fund the development of the OS, or invest in other projects (like Xbox or the Cloud). But they still need to maintain all those Windows versions at the same time, and someone who purchased Windows XP 15 years ago would still be a “free rider”. When Microsoft used to have a roughly 4-5 years cycle between Windows versions (3.1, 95, 2000, XP) they could afford to send updates (service packs), as long as people were willing to upgrade en masse.īut after XP, it became “good enough”, and there was little incentive to move onto Vista, 7, 8, or later 10.
Yet, the manufacturers now have to provide OS updates for many years, and are scolded if they cut corners.Īnd there is a fundamental issue at the core: who pays for software maintenance? But that changed, with “unlocked” being common. But it is not straightforward.įor example, phones used to come with a two-year contract, and a renewal at the end. I would say everything is moving towards a subscription model.
0 kommentar(er)
