No worries, you already don't own a copy of windows anymore, you are only given the right to use it until Microsoft decides otherwise.

I think Microsoft makes enough directly on Windows right now that they don't want to try and fight that battle and see a lot of it go to Linux and other tools (and maybe also lose Office, SQL Server, etc. sales). And the companies that make most of the hardware don't have any stake in the software environment, they rely generally on making their profits of the hardware itself rather than future software sales, or on support contracts etc.

The problem with Mac, mobile and console devices is they control the entire ecosystem, and they basically subsidise the device (and the OS, support, future updates, etc.) to make a lot of their profits off of “taxing” future software sales. While other companies make Android devices, I understand Google makes Android available to them basically for free, unlike Microsoft that wants money for every OEM Windows licence. Which I don't have any particular problem with personally, and I get that having done that they feel justified in then refusing people to bypass that revenue stream.

I just wish they were more open about it, “Want an iPhone? That will be $xxx and 30% of all any software you buy for it”. Put it on the payment for every software item as an added fee the same way VAT is so the average consumer knows that is Apple money before they go complain to the developer the Windows/whatever version is cheaper (and don't disallow that either).

Maybe they could then explore an option where the consumer can willingly pay some amount extra upfront or a subscription fee to waive future individual charges.

What some developers seem to almost want to do is basically put a free app on the store (which makes Apple, Google etc. nothing) then sell content for that app directly (also making Apple, Google etc. nothing). Which just undermines the entire model, they would have to cut the % fees charged to other apps to remain competitive, and basically be forced to charge everyone that higher upfront cost. Which is maybe OK, but I don't think people can expect the best of both.

Alberth said:

No worries, you already don't own a copy of windows anymore, you are only given the right to use it until Microsoft decides otherwise.

Well, Linux then. I'm sure there's still something to work with for now, but the development on mobile devices is worrisome.

Alberth said:

No worries, you already don't own a copy of windows anymore, you are only given the right to use it until Microsoft decides otherwise.

What do you mean “anymore”? That's always been the case with any licensed software from any vendor.

21st Century Moose said:

Alberth said:

No worries, you already don't own a copy of windows anymore, you are only given the right to use it until Microsoft decides otherwise.

What do you mean “anymore”? That's always been the case with any licensed software from any vendor.

I'm sure there would be issues with this and consumer rights in some countries, though…

21st Century Moose said:

What do you mean “anymore”? That's always been the case with any licensed software from any vendor.

With most software, the license you buy (or a granted for free) is permanent and irrevocable. Or at least it used to be.

Latest Epic court filing.

This is mostly Epic arguing that Apple exceeded their authority in proposing to terminate Epic's developer accounts for Apple's SDK over the dispute over IOS billing. Epic points out that the Apple developer SDK agreement is not only a separate contract, but paid for separately.

21st Century Moose said:
What do you mean “anymore”? That's always been the case with any licensed software from any vendor.

Nope, you could buy a W95/98 copy back in 1995/98 that was truly yours. At some point Microsoft switched to the current licensed software model.

Microsoft head of game dev statement backing Epic.

It has always been just a matter of time.

I like how the Motley Fool article put the two items side by side: They testify before congress about how benevolent they are in the market and would never, ever abuse the position, pinky promise. Then they do exactly what they testified they would never do, exactly what they said they don't need to be regulated for because they definitely don't do it. Epic baited a trap, and Apple fell for it even more spectacularly than Epic could have predicted, they were expecting them to go after Fortnite, Apple hit everything including UE4.

Part of me hopes they succeed and shut off Epic completely, following through on their threats against UE4. That's the part that is drawn to watching impending train wrecks.

The ban would in turn bring in nearly every major player on the platform. Disney+ would be kicked from Apple, as they're Unreal based. Microsoft, Ubisoft, Activision/Blizzard, EA, Disney Games, all use UE4. Looking at the top store rank items, most (all?) are UE4 games. A high percent, maybe a third, of all small games, and many non-games as well. The ripple effect is vast.

Shutting down UE4 impacts perhaps a third of their total Store catalog and a tremendous amount of revenue.

The more action Apple takes, the stronger they make the Anti-Competition lawsuit against them. In that regard Epic couldn't have had a better option. Most of the laws around it are written in general terms about impacting the market, not about specific acts. As an example of one of those laws, looking for “a pattern of restraint in trade”, comes with the broad guidance to review “the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied”. Even companies that are meticulous about following rules and contracts can be shut down by the laws, the excuse “we were following the contract in shutting them down, we remove all apps that violate the policy” may be true, but only further establishes the claim.