Misleading title.It's speculation based entirely on inferences made by the COO talking with investors, and stems from this article, which also makes COLLOSAL speculations, too. (they cannot even get the way Office works now right, let alone being able to make predictions about the future).
None of these speculations- which come from April- are supported by anything in the currently available WIndows 10.
Because it would be making you pay periodically for a product as though it's a service. Same deal with the new Adobe Creative Cloud BS. They try to frame a product as a service by loaning it out to you and then threatening to take it back if you don't continue paying for it periodically. But what they're selling you still isn't a service, just a whole lot of dishonesty.
It is speculation, in that MSFT is slowing moving most services into the Azure platform. At one point in time, Azure was supposed to be a "Cloud OS" replacement for a standard Windows, and eventually Azure would replace Windows entirely. This didn't happened. Azure is a web platform and not an operating system, and Windows 8 came out in about the same timeline the subscription based Cloud OS was supposed to be released. Windows 8 made great strides to attempt to bridge the desktop with a more online-integrated experience with the Start Screen.
Currently, they have available the SaaS Office 365, but adoption is not great. If there comes a time when standard Office is no longer available, then you can fear that a consumer based "Azure" will show up. Even so, they would likely trial it, as in make it available as a separate product for a few years to determine whether it would be adopted... which is what they are doing with Office right now.
It is speculation, in that MSFT is slowing moving most services into the Azure platform. At one point in time, Azure was supposed to be a "Cloud OS" replacement for a standard Windows, and eventually Azure would replace Windows entirely. This didn't happened. Azure is a web platform and not an operating system, and Windows 8 came out in about the same timeline the subscription based Cloud OS was supposed to be released. Windows 8 made great strides to attempt to bridge the desktop with a more online-integrated experience with the Start Screen.
Currently, they have available the SaaS Office 365, but adoption is not great. If there comes a time when standard Office is no longer available, then you can fear that a consumer based "Azure" will show up. Even so, they would likely trial it, as in make it available as a separate product for a few years to determine whether it would be adopted... which is what they are doing with Office right now.
Azure was, is, and ever since inception has been designed as a cloud platform that can be used by companies and other developers to host Virtual Machines for web servers and mobile back-end development. I'm fairly certain it was never intended to or supposed to "replace" the desktop OS (That sounds more like the fabled WinFS and Longhorn). That is why it was announced at PDC- a developer conference- in 2008- it was and has always been considered a cloud-based platform tool that can be used by developers and companies, not something intended to replace windows on the desktop (how would that work? Would you boot into a Azure VM?).
Azure is essentially a Platform-as-a-service provided by Microsoft for developers to create products that are Software as a Service. The fact that Microsoft is dog-fooding Azure and has moved services such as Showcase and Microsoft.com and live social features to Azure is just good business. Would you trust a company's product to do A if that company does A using something else?
Because it would be making you pay periodically for a product as though it's a service. Same deal with the new Adobe Creative Cloud BS. They try to frame a product as a service by loaning it out to you and then threatening to take it back if you don't continue paying for it periodically. But what they're selling you still isn't a service, just a whole lot of dishonesty.
You are still getting updates it is more then a single product like a chair or a cup you might buy. They are also providing technical support.
It is speculation, in that MSFT is slowing moving most services into the Azure platform. At one point in time, Azure was supposed to be a "Cloud OS" replacement for a standard Windows, and eventually Azure would replace Windows entirely. This didn't happened. Azure is a web platform and not an operating system, and Windows 8 came out in about the same timeline the subscription based Cloud OS was supposed to be released. Windows 8 made great strides to attempt to bridge the desktop with a more online-integrated experience with the Start Screen.
Currently, they have available the SaaS Office 365, but adoption is not great. If there comes a time when standard Office is no longer available, then you can fear that a consumer based "Azure" will show up. Even so, they would likely trial it, as in make it available as a separate product for a few years to determine whether it would be adopted... which is what they are doing with Office right now.
Azure is a pretty great solution we host some of our servers on it. Canonical has been working with MS to make sure Ubuntu support is solid. It is just another cloud service.
Office 365 hosting exchange sucks having Microsoft handle that nonsense is much better.
Cisco for its Meraki line of products does a subscription based licensing and most people don't really have a problem with it.
Updates can be free or paid (generally free if they're patches and paid if they're major version upgrades, unless you're a really cool company like Image-Line), but either way it has nothing to do with any rationale for making someone pay by the month to use a piece of software. And a suite of products is subject to the same common sense as an individual product, especially when many software products blur the line quite a bit between the two. Also, technical support is not what I'm paying for when I buy a product, or when I pay for a service for that matter, so it's a completely moot point. Even disregarding that, bundling a service with a product still doesn't make it okay to charge periodically for the product.
Updates can be free or paid (generally free if they're patches and paid if they're major version upgrades, unless you're a really cool company like Image-Line), but either way it has nothing to do with any rationale for making someone pay by the month to use a piece of software. And a suite of products is subject to the same common sense as an individual product, especially when many software products blur the line quite a bit between the two. Also, technical support is not what I'm paying for when I buy a product, or when I pay for a service for that matter, so it's a completely moot point. Even disregarding that, bundling a service with a product still doesn't make it okay to charge periodically for the product.
Office 365 is mostly useful for companies. It's a lot easier to "deploy" because there really isn't any deployment; it's a lot easier to manage because you don't need a fancy tool to track software license usage, and it makes it easier to provide the software for those working from home without violating licenses.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/195592-with-windows-10-microsoft-could-move-to-a-subscription-based-model
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/12/microsoft-makes-a-nod-to-subscriptions-for-windows-10/
If this comes true, RIP Windows
None of these speculations- which come from April- are supported by anything in the currently available WIndows 10.
Hue hue hue,
they are- C.C.
Explain to me why this is such a terrible thing?
Currently, they have available the SaaS Office 365, but adoption is not great. If there comes a time when standard Office is no longer available, then you can fear that a consumer based "Azure" will show up. Even so, they would likely trial it, as in make it available as a separate product for a few years to determine whether it would be adopted... which is what they are doing with Office right now.
Azure was, is, and ever since inception has been designed as a cloud platform that can be used by companies and other developers to host Virtual Machines for web servers and mobile back-end development. I'm fairly certain it was never intended to or supposed to "replace" the desktop OS (That sounds more like the fabled WinFS and Longhorn). That is why it was announced at PDC- a developer conference- in 2008- it was and has always been considered a cloud-based platform tool that can be used by developers and companies, not something intended to replace windows on the desktop (how would that work? Would you boot into a Azure VM?).
Azure is essentially a Platform-as-a-service provided by Microsoft for developers to create products that are Software as a Service. The fact that Microsoft is dog-fooding Azure and has moved services such as Showcase and Microsoft.com and live social features to Azure is just good business. Would you trust a company's product to do A if that company does A using something else?
You are still getting updates it is more then a single product like a chair or a cup you might buy. They are also providing technical support.
Azure is a pretty great solution we host some of our servers on it. Canonical has been working with MS to make sure Ubuntu support is solid. It is just another cloud service.
Office 365 hosting exchange sucks having Microsoft handle that nonsense is much better.
Cisco for its Meraki line of products does a subscription based licensing and most people don't really have a problem with it.
Office 365 is mostly useful for companies. It's a lot easier to "deploy" because there really isn't any deployment; it's a lot easier to manage because you don't need a fancy tool to track software license usage, and it makes it easier to provide the software for those working from home without violating licenses.