Stop Charging Admission to a Platform You’re Already Trying to Turn Into a Subscription Service
I work in IT, and one of the things that has increasingly pushed me away from wanting to build and maintain Windows computers for people is surprisingly simple:
Windows itself costs too much for what Microsoft is trying to make Windows become.
If somebody wants me to build a basic home computer for browsing the web, watching media, doing normal productivity work, or playing games, I can build that system and install Linux without adding an operating-system license to the bill.
I can install Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Fedora, Bazzite, or another mature Linux distribution.
I can update it.
I can install the applications they need.
I can configure remote access.
I can set up Steam.
And I can hand them the computer without having to explain why another chunk of money has to go to Microsoft simply because they want an operating system.
The second somebody says, “I want Windows,” the economics change.
Now I have to add the Windows license.
And increasingly, I have to ask a different question:
Why?
Because for a large number of home users, Windows Home is no longer solving a problem that Linux cannot solve.
That should concern Microsoft.
Make Windows Home Free
My proposal is straightforward:
Microsoft should make Windows Home free.
Let anybody download it.
Let anybody activate it.
Let a person building one gaming computer install it.
Let a small computer shop install it.
Let a boutique gaming-PC manufacturer install it.
Let Dell, HP, Lenovo, and every other major manufacturer install it.
For the basic consumer version of Windows, the license cost should be:
Zero.
Then Microsoft can continue charging for Windows Pro and Enterprise, where customers are actually buying additional professional and organizational capabilities.
That distinction makes far more sense in the modern computer market.
Windows Home becomes the platform.
Windows Pro becomes the professional product.
Windows Enterprise remains the corporate product.
The Home Computer Has Changed
What is the average home computer actually being used for today?
Gaming.
Web browsing.
Streaming.
Email.
Social media.
Basic office work.
Video calls.
Media playback.
Maybe some basic content creation.
For an enormous percentage of those workloads, Linux is already perfectly capable.
And gaming, which historically gave Microsoft one of its strongest reasons for keeping people on Windows, has changed dramatically.
Valve has spent years improving Proton and the Linux gaming ecosystem. Devices such as the Steam Deck have introduced Linux gaming to people who may never have knowingly chosen Linux themselves.
Linux gaming still has compatibility problems.
Certain anti-cheat systems can still cause problems.
Some applications remain Windows-only.
Some professional software remains firmly tied to Windows.
But we are long past the era when the answer to “Can I use Linux as my home computer?” was automatically no.
Today, for a lot of people, the answer is:
Yes.
That makes the price of Windows Home far more important than it used to be.
Microsoft Is Creating Its Own Linux Customers
If somebody asks me to build a gaming computer and wants to keep the price down, I can legitimately tell them:
“You can pay for Windows, or I can install Linux for free.”
That is now a real choice.
Twenty years ago, I probably would not have recommended Linux to an ordinary gaming customer.
Today?
Depending on what games and applications they use, absolutely.
And that is a problem Microsoft is creating for itself.
The customer has already purchased:
A motherboard.
A processor.
Memory.
An SSD.
A graphics card.
A case.
A power supply.
Cooling.
A monitor.
A keyboard.
A mouse.
Maybe hundreds or thousands of dollars in hardware.
Then we get to the operating system.
Linux?
Free.
Windows?
Here is another bill.
Microsoft is putting an unnecessary toll booth in front of its own ecosystem.
Windows Pro Is Different
I am not saying every version of Windows should be free.
There are very legitimate reasons to charge for Windows Pro.
I personally need Windows Pro.
One of the simplest examples is remote administration.
Windows Home can connect to another system through Remote Desktop, but Microsoft’s built-in Remote Desktop host functionality is reserved for higher editions of Windows.
For the type of work I do, remote access is not some luxury.
It is part of administering computers.
Meanwhile, if I am working with Linux, remote administration is simply part of the environment.
SSH is readily available.
There are multiple remote desktop systems.
There are numerous management options.
I do not have to purchase a more expensive operating-system edition merely because I want to remotely administer the machine.
So when somebody tells me they need a professional workstation, business integration, advanced management, virtualization, remote administration, or other professional functionality, I have no problem saying:
You should buy Windows Pro.
That person is purchasing additional capability.
That makes sense.
What makes less sense is charging the ordinary gamer or home user simply because they want Windows instead of Linux.
Windows Home Is Already Becoming a Service Platform
This is where Microsoft’s business model starts contradicting itself.
Microsoft increasingly wants Windows users connected to the rest of the Microsoft ecosystem.
Microsoft 365.
OneDrive.
Game Pass.
Xbox services.
Copilot.
Microsoft Store purchases.
Cloud services.
Subscriptions.
Account integration.
Service recommendations.
And increasingly, promotional surfaces inside Windows itself.
Fine.
That is Microsoft’s business model.
But then why is Microsoft also charging the consumer an entrance fee?
If Windows Home is becoming the front door into Microsoft’s ecosystem of subscriptions and services, then Microsoft should treat Windows Home like the front door.
Open it.
Do not charge somebody for the operating system and then use that operating system to continually sell them additional services.
If Microsoft wants recurring revenue from the customer after Windows is installed, then getting Windows installed should be the easiest part of the process.
The OEM Licensing Question
There is another part of Windows licensing that I would genuinely like to see more transparency around:
What are the actual licensing agreements between Microsoft and the major PC manufacturers?
Large manufacturers obviously operate at enormous scale.
Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, and other major OEMs are not buying Windows the same way an individual customer buys a retail key.
Their licensing involves large-scale agreements, activation systems, reporting, commercial terms, and negotiated pricing.
That is understandable.
Buying millions of licenses should not work exactly like buying one.
But that creates another question.
What does the effective Windows Home license cost look like for a company manufacturing millions of computers compared with:
A boutique manufacturer building 10,000 machines?
A regional company building 1,000?
A computer shop building 100?
Or somebody building one custom gaming PC?
If the major manufacturers receive dramatically better effective pricing because of their scale, then Windows licensing becomes another competitive advantage for the companies that already dominate PC manufacturing.
A smaller manufacturer has to buy the same processor.
The same RAM.
The same SSD.
The same graphics card.
The same power supply.
And then potentially has a worse deal on Windows too.
That raises an obvious question:
Why should the operating system itself make it harder for smaller manufacturers to compete?
Free Windows Home Levels That Playing Field
Making Windows Home free eliminates that entire problem.
Dell pays zero.
Lenovo pays zero.
A boutique gaming company pays zero.
The local computer shop pays zero.
The person building one system in their basement pays zero.
Now everybody competes on the computer.
Who has the better hardware?
Who builds it better?
Who provides better support?
Who offers the better warranty?
Who provides the better customer experience?
Microsoft no longer has to be part of that competition through differential consumer licensing costs.
That could make it easier for smaller PC manufacturers to enter the market.
It could make custom-built computers more competitive.
And it would remove one of the economic reasons a small manufacturer might decide:
“We are just going to ship Linux.”
If Windows Home and Linux both cost zero, then the operating systems compete based upon what they actually offer the customer.
That is how it should be.
It Could Also Reduce Legal and Regulatory Exposure
There is another benefit to making Windows Home free:
It simplifies Microsoft’s relationship with the consumer PC manufacturing market.
If everybody pays zero for Windows Home, there is far less reason to argue about whether one manufacturer received a better consumer licensing arrangement than another.
That does not make Microsoft immune from antitrust scrutiny.
A free operating system can still raise competition questions involving browsers, search, cloud services, app distribution, account requirements, or tying Microsoft’s other products into Windows.
But making Windows Home free would remove one category of potential argument:
Whether Microsoft’s control of Windows licensing creates an unfair advantage for some PC manufacturers over others.
It also simplifies the business.
Fewer pricing tiers.
Fewer consumer licensing negotiations.
Less reason for Windows Home itself to become part of a competitive dispute.
Microsoft could focus its commercial licensing effort where commercial licensing actually belongs:
Pro.
Enterprise.
Management.
Security.
Cloud services.
Support.
Professional functionality.
Then There Is the Hardware Upgrade Problem
Microsoft has another recurring problem with Windows:
Every so often, Microsoft raises the hardware requirements.
Sometimes there are legitimate reasons.
Security improves.
Processors change.
Drivers change.
Old technologies become difficult to support.
At some point, an operating-system vendor has to draw a line.
But Microsoft has had controversies around this before.
The Vista era had the infamous questions around what systems were actually “Vista Capable” and what graphics hardware could provide the full experience.
Then Windows 11 introduced requirements involving TPM 2.0, Secure Boot capability, and supported processor generations.
Those requirements had legitimate security arguments behind them.
But they also meant that a large number of perfectly functional Windows 10 systems were not officially supported for Windows 11.
Now look at that from the consumer’s perspective.
Microsoft says:
“Your existing computer does not meet the requirements for the newest supported Windows.”
Fine.
Maybe Microsoft has a legitimate technical reason.
So the customer upgrades.
They buy a new motherboard.
A new processor.
Maybe new RAM.
Maybe an entirely new computer.
And after Microsoft has effectively told them they need newer hardware to remain on the supported platform, Microsoft also wants another Windows license fee for the replacement machine.
That becomes a much harder argument to defend from the consumer’s point of view.
If Microsoft wants to establish a new minimum hardware platform every several years, then making Windows Home free makes that transition easier to accept.
Microsoft could simply say:
“These are the hardware requirements for modern Windows. The operating system itself costs you nothing.”
That is a much cleaner relationship with the customer.
Put Legacy Compatibility Where It Belongs
I would also use this opportunity to rethink some of Windows’ backward compatibility.
Microsoft deserves credit for the amount of old software Windows can still accommodate.
Businesses depend on it.
Factories may have specialized applications connected to expensive equipment.
Companies may still depend on accounting software, custom applications, specialized drivers, or internal systems that were written many years ago.
That compatibility matters.
But does every modern gaming computer need every legacy component installed or available by default?
Probably not.
Microsoft already uses optional Windows components.
Expand that concept.
Build Windows Home around the modern consumer platform.
Then make increasingly old compatibility components downloadable when somebody actually needs them.
Install an old application?
Windows detects the dependency.
“This application requires the Windows Legacy Compatibility Pack.”
Install it.
An old game needs an older runtime?
Install the required component.
A professional workstation needs broad backward compatibility?
Windows Pro can include more of it.
An enterprise needs very old business applications?
Enterprise administrators can deploy and manage those compatibility environments.
And for extremely old applications, Microsoft could increasingly rely on sandboxing or virtualization instead of requiring every historical assumption to remain part of the modern operating system itself.
Backward compatibility is valuable.
That does not mean every consumer computer needs to carry every backward-compatibility requirement forever.
Charge for Capability, Not Participation
That leads to a much cleaner product structure.
Windows Home
Free.
Gaming.
Browsing.
Media.
Basic productivity.
Normal consumer computing.
Modern Windows applications.
Downloadable compatibility components when needed.
Windows Pro
Paid.
Remote Desktop hosting.
Advanced management.
Virtualization.
Professional networking and administrative functionality.
Expanded compatibility.
Features aimed at power users, professionals, and small businesses.
Windows Enterprise
Commercial licensing.
Centralized management.
Security.
Deployment.
Identity integration.
Enterprise support.
Long-term servicing options.
Organizational compatibility requirements.
That makes sense.
You are no longer charging somebody merely because they want to participate in the Windows ecosystem.
You are charging people when they need additional capability.
Microsoft Should Worry About Losing the Home User
A corporation heavily invested in Microsoft infrastructure is not suddenly going to disappear because Linux exists.
If a company depends on Microsoft 365, Entra ID, Intune, SharePoint, Teams, Windows business applications, Azure, and decades of Microsoft integration, migrating away from that ecosystem is a significant project.
Those customers are not Microsoft’s biggest immediate risk.
The home user is.
The gamer.
The teenager getting their first computer.
The person building a PC themselves.
The small computer shop.
The hobbyist.
The person who just needs a browser, Steam, Discord, and some productivity applications.
Those users can switch operating systems much more easily.
And once they switch, something dangerous happens for Microsoft.
They may discover they do not need Windows.
They become familiar with Linux.
Their next computer runs Linux.
They learn Linux administration.
They recommend it to somebody else.
Maybe eventually they start a business.
And when that business begins choosing its technology platform, Windows is no longer automatically the environment they know best.
Microsoft’s greatest danger is not losing the revenue from one Home license.
It is losing the user.
Stop Charging Admission
Microsoft increasingly wants Windows to be a platform through which it sells everything else.
Game Pass.
Microsoft 365.
OneDrive.
Copilot.
Cloud services.
Applications.
Subscriptions.
Fine.
Then treat it like a platform.
Make Windows Home free.
Let people build computers.
Let small manufacturers compete.
Let gamers stay on Windows because Windows is convenient and compatible, not because Microsoft collected another license payment from them.
Charge for Windows Pro when somebody needs professional capabilities.
Charge Enterprise customers for enterprise functionality.
Make older compatibility components available when they are actually needed rather than forcing every consumer installation to carry every historical requirement.
And stop creating an unnecessary reason for home users and small manufacturers to choose Linux solely because Microsoft still wants to collect an operating-system license fee.
If Windows is going to be Microsoft’s gateway to an expanding collection of paid services, there is a very simple way to make that strategy make sense:
Stop charging admission to a platform you’re already trying to turn into a subscription service.