11–20 of 92 posts
That's not what security updates are. They are fixes for errors in the original software. They are product recalls for dangerous product faults. You can't charge the customer because the product you shipped them was faulty.
The question is can Microsoft extend that support for a cost?
Note they did provide a decade of updates.
That's not what security updates are. They are fixes for errors in the original software. They are product recalls for dangerous product faults. You can't charge the customer because the product you shipped them was faulty.
Cost to consumer, incentivizes companies to adopt new technology and avoid relying on specific OS versions. Seems like a good policy.
That's not what security updates are. They are fixes for errors in the original software. They are product recalls for dangerous product faults. You can't charge the customer because the product you shipped them was faulty.
Despite the legal system depending almost exclusively on analogies like this when it comes to tech, I feel that I have read very few legal opinions that make them.
If you find a manufacturer defect in a five year old item that has a two year warranty they don't have to fix it. It doesn't matter if it was their fault they don't need to maintain it forever.
That's not what security updates are. They are fixes for errors in the original software. They are product recalls for dangerous product faults. You can't charge the customer because the product you shipped them was faulty.
When W10 finally stops getting updates, I'm almost certainly going to have to jump back to Linux on my gaming PC. Nothing on this Earth could make me use Windows 11. I highly doubt Windows 12 will be any better.
Cost to consumer, incentivizes companies to adopt new technology and avoid relying on specific OS versions. Seems like a good policy.
Or force you (the consumer) to upgrade to newer versions with hostile terms of service and/or applications. It works both ways.
Or is this hypothetical?
That's not what security updates are. They are fixes for errors in the original software. They are product recalls for dangerous product faults. You can't charge the customer because the product you shipped them was faulty.
1. Included with the base purchase price you get a predefined period of support.
2. You can pay more to get longer support.
This way users that value longer product lifetime are the ones paying the cost, not the ones who are happy to update to the new version every few years.
Whether or not the specific prices are fair is a different (and much more complex issue). But I think the model makes sense.
Cost to consumer, incentivizes companies to adopt new technology and avoid relying on specific OS versions. Seems like a good policy.
Another way to incentivize companies to stop relying on specific OS versions is to stop making every successive version ever more user-hostile and jammed with adware, spyware, and dark patterns.