...and just like that he pulls out of the rat race. going as swiftly as he came, and leaving absolutely nothing of value. I personally liked how he cherry picks points out of my argument, but fails to comprehend the broader context of what I was saying. Perhaps you can answer my question of how a company is to make money, from an ever shrinking customer base, when your traditional business model is being pushed out of relevance? By mentioning "free" I wasn't saying Microsoft is making it's OS free, they aren't, but they are being forced to offer more and more free services because no one wants to outright buy software and services anymore. So while they can, why not try and shift some of the user base they still have into a position they can still survive with. You do realise Microsoft is a business with a mandate to make MONEY, don't you? So it would be incredibly blind of them to not take market conditions and trajectory into consideration when planning their future, and unfortunately with the masses of zeolots out there clamouring for more "free" stuff (by free I do refer to free but ad supported). People want "free" stuff, but when a company claims they will give it to you free, they cant survive off the good will of the world, its MONEY that makes it happen. So you want your "free" stuff, but when a company gives it to you but says they will include adverts, you go ahead and block them. My point with this rant is that the more you block them, the more they will try and circumvent the blockers and the sneakier they become all in an effort to SURVIVE. So yes, it is you and everyone else out there that's making the push to "free but ad supported" and easy choice for these companies. With the rise of Google, this kind of business model grew popular by the same zeolots now complaining about Microsoft trying to do the same thing and SURVIVE so they can pay their employees. I know you will come back and say, but Microsoft still sells their OS. That's a weak argument, and I encourage you to re-read what I said above as many times as it takes for it to dawn on you that their market position is deteriorating because of the rise of mobile, so while they can they must capitalise on what they have now to stay relevant. Unfortunately quality software costs money to write, but since mobile is all about how much you can fit into it for free where else do you want them to make the money? You probably have an Android devices, and even if you don't, hundreds of millions of others do. Google has their spying, advertising claws all over that OS like its a bad case of cancer and arguably a personal mobile device has far more personal information on it than a PC would, but yet I don't see people boycotting Android. So its more likely less of a case of, "oh my privacy", and more a case of misdirected anger about change, and that change however was forced by people who want "free" stuff.
</rant>
and with that I am now done on this topic. As it is most likely you or someone else will in all likelihood have some weak argument to try and dispute what I'm saying, but I will thus encourage you to re-read and digest what I am saying and think about it...