I don't get it. Why would Forbes be so confused? Granted, 'supported lifetime of the device' is not 'lifetime of the device', but there's nothing to suggest that -- whatever that means -- that somehow MSFT will be charging after the period ends. If anything, the suggestion would be that no more support would be provided. So? That ends up being the same as 5 years now. Frankly, I think it's too generous. I actually believe in paying an annual subscription, but MSFT won't do that for consumers. Only for Enterprise. License,,not subscription, has and so far as I know, remains its policy. I would LIKE to see it go to subcription. Nadella's maiden speech sounded like MSFT would be going in that direction, but Office 365 is as far as it has gone.
Subscription for the OS would mean no support if no payment. It couldn't mean lockdown, since the OS is on your machine. But it would end support. And it should. Unpaid support is the problem. I don't believe in free updates. People deserve to be paid. Oh well. Forbes of all 'entities', lives on subscription, so should know that. When your Forbes subscription ends, do you have to return all the magazines issues you got? NO. You just stop getting new ones. Seriously, this shouldn't even be an issue (pun very intended, I'm trying to type as much as possible and get used to my new keyboard).
Forbes should know the difference between allocating revenue and actual services promised to a customer. The former is an accounting convention which attempts to amortize (spread) COSTS of service over a certain period. The actual costs are something else. Dang, I do this for a living and am but a little brainout. I know better, why would Forbes be so dumb? IF IF IF IF it's Forbes being dumb. Maybe sensationalistic.
Let me illustrate (excuse to type, but also to help). I do pension plans for a living. The Government allows huge tax deductions to companies willing to deposit large sums in retirement plans. There are deduction limits, and the limits, partly involve 'amortizing' the expected future cost of those benefits. But over how long? If I amortize ALL the cost over say 2 years, then the deduction is HUGE. But if over 30, then the needed contribution is small, and the plan actually might not have enough money in it.
See the point? It's an ASSUMPTION about COSTS in the FUTURE. With a pretty wide range. Historically, 1-30 or even 1-40 years can be used. So then you have to have good REASON for picking one number over another, or can be accused of just picking a number to get the deduction/deposit you want. See the point?
Same for MSFT: if it writes off all its expense in one year, that saves it more in taxes. So they have to justify a longer period, so what period do they use? 2-4 years, is their answer right now. Might change.
But just as a company's deposit to a retirement plan doesn't have anything to do with what it will actually cost or how long that employee will be paid (analogous to how long your 'free' updates last), so too the period over which writeoffs are used has nothing to do with how long the costs will last.
TMI? Did I make it clear? If not, yell at me.
Edited by brainout, 13 July 2015 - 05:45 PM.