This doesn't appear to have anything to do with how long free updates are provided; rather the issue is how revenue is recognized from sales of Windows 10 which are actually bought. The source presentation doesn't appear to apply to the free upgrades at all -- only new revenue -- so both Forbes and CW are reading too far between the lines here.<p>The majority of consumer Windows licenses are OEM bundled with a a new PC (which cannot be transferred to different hardware).<p>Given the new update model, that Windows purchase is now closer to a "subscription" purchase of indeterminate length, instead of a one-off purchase, so deferred revenue recognition over the expected length of the "subscription" period makes sense. As licenses are tied to the hardware, that "subscription" length is the expected device lifetime, which varies by device type.<p>There's no information there one way or another as to whether Microsoft plans to continue to extract revenue from devices which last longer than expected, or if they will clamp down on transferring non-OEM licenses to new hardware.
The author says that he loves Windows 10, but it is the possibility of having to pay for upgrades in 2 years (home edition) or 4 years (pro edition) that he is complaining about.<p>Since Office 365 is such a good deal ($100/year for a gig of cloud storage, up to date copies of all apps if you want them, and email hosting if you want it) that I am personally inclined to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on how fair they will be to users.
I wonder how this will pan out with people getting an OEM version with their new laptop. I am fairly certain that most people around me are not changing machine every 2-4 years; more like 5-7 years. I can't see how MSFT will explain to then they have been buying a Windows license all along but now, they need to buy a Windows subscription.<p>I can see it having an impact of Chromebook for places where WIFI/4G is omni-present.