It sounds so convoluted. Like providing service for customers is not enough. Applications is the reason people use Windows.
Paying customers may be product too.
Paying customers may be product too.
That was implied ever since Microsoft decided to make Windows 10 free or at a very low cost to a majority of users. And, why not, as long as their fee is not outrageous for application developers and they don't restrict the users' ability to install software from other sources.
So paying yet product. And varying price is something I would expect from airlines, not from respectable business.
I question wisdom of the original term. What if "shut up and take money" is not enough? If so was it on purpose or by accident? First time in my life I think of conspiracy theories.
My take on catchy phrases:
- You are a product for for-profit
- You are a product if don't fight for your freedoms
Most people either upgraded for free to a new version (the same operation was paid before), or get Windows through a subsidized OEM version. Subsidized is pretty clear: you pay less, in exchange for something else.
> varying price is something I would expect from airlines, not from respectable business.
Why should we expect a software company to be more ethical, for varying definitions of ethical, than an airline company?