The most relevant part of the article, for me, isn’t that it might become subscription-based (keep paying to use it), but that it would be mostly stored and run from someone else’s computer (“the cloud”).
Neither I would. I’d expect it to be a nightmare on security, privacy, access (offline = shit breaks), and performance. It doesn’t really benefit the end user, as software should.
… of all the ridiculous promises marketers have made for computing-as-a-service, how in the goddamn is an operating system supposed to run from the cloud?
It’s especially stupid when power and storage are comically cheap. Microsoft themselves sell a $300 console that’s a whole-ass computer and runs all modern games okay. Any smartphone is a few weird dongles away from being a shockingly capable desktop. The hacker who was arrested for leaking GTA VI footage, and put on probation with no access to PCs, continued hacking big-name game studios from a goddamn Amazon Firestick. When in the history of home computing has big-iron mainframe time-sharing bullshit made less sense than right now?
It’s theoretically possible; you’d need an offline core that does nothing but dial home and download the rest. However I agree with you that it’s pointless, the only benefit is to give MS an easier time cutting off your access if you don’t pay your subscription.
Add comment