Microsoft Targeting OnLive over Windows Remote Virtualization Licensing

[flux73]

At first, I thought OnLive was a Microsoft owned company. When I found out they weren't, I wondered how they got around the licensing issue. I'm surprised it took this long for Microsoft to say something.

Though, if I were Microsoft, I would just keep quiet about it for now. It's promoting the usage of Office and Windows without really eating into their revenue. No one would seriously use their iPad with OnLive as a replacement for a PC with Office if that's what they needed. In fact, it would be a great way for them to allow people to preview Windows 8.

 

[Swift]

Software-only businesses

This is what happens to them. They have the Xbox, okay, for the kids. And what other platform? Windows. Office. They have to get people to pay the max for their software. They've conned the money out of businesses. That little Windows Genuine Advantage that says, "You may have been the victim of software piracy," and gives you x days to straighten it out. Pay. Like it or don't like it, just pay for it dammit.

What? OnLive demotes Windows to a game streaming from a server? This mustn't be. Of course, it CAN be, as long as you pay, pay, pay, pay for the software. And get the software fixes. And the updates. And pay for the new version next year.

Whereas, if there was a common feeling yesterday, it was everyone saying, "Damn it, Apple, take my money!!!"

 

[mrelwood]

An alternative method allowing for full remote hosting would require that the end user hold a license with Microsoft for the software and that the remote hardware used to host the Windows installation be dedicated to that specific customer.

That sounds like a PC in a library should have licenses for each user. That is not the case, nor should it be. The OnLive Desktop is very limited in it's functionality, and can by no means be considered as "full remote hosting".

I hope they come up with a fair public license deal, be it Win7, Server, or XP. OnLive's service is quite handy.

And for those bitching about using Windows on a iPad/Mac, Office documents are way too popular. Important ones definitely must be checked with Office for Windows for layout, fonts etc.

You cant just let people use somebody elses product for free and not pay that company.

We don't know what they currently pay or don't pay, nor what their current license is. Besides, the service is very limited for a OS, it's not like they're "giving Windows away for free".

 

[SamuelW]

Just another feature on the iPad

Must be galling, too, for MS to see Office work as just another "feature" app on Apple's device.

 

[Eidorian]

NYU offers us virtual access to Microsoft Office and Adobe applications on any computer or iOS device (powered by Citrix) and we are required to log in with our university issued account so they can monitor exactly who is using it.

MS Academic agreements are vastly different from agreements in any other sector. A lot of schools/university systems have an agreement to do exactly this currently.

A similar situation at my university. Believe me they have licenses, licenses everywhere.

 

[isoMorpheus]

iWork.

 

[faroZ06]

Microsoft should just let it slip for their own interest. OnLive would damage iOS.

Think about it, Apple could build WINE into Mac OS with all of the required drivers and stuff already installed. This would make it so you could just double-click an EXE and run it. However, it would discourage developers from making Mac builds of their software.

The same goes for "running" Windows (and also Mac) applications on your iPad.

----------

iWork.

Totally, but they need to beef up Numbers. Currently, the only Microsoft thing I really use is Excel because it has so many more features than Numbers.

Numbers is easy to use and has a better interface than Excel by far, but it has barely any features, so you can't really use it for school/work.

 

[seyss]

MS is a joke. Always eating dirt from the competitors ahead and trying to catch them by using patents, lawyers, releasing a major Win version which could be only an UI app, or simply copying competitors like you did with iCloud.

Bill Gates should feel ashamed of MS.

 

[faroZ06]

MS is a joke. Always eating dirt from the competitors ahead and trying to catch them by using patents, lawyers, releasing a major Win version which could be only an UI app, or simply copying competitors like you did with iCloud.

Bill Gates should feel ashamed of MS.

The thing I hate about MS is that they promote the horrible standards such as USB and use anti-competitive strategies to get ahead (such as using retarded standards like DirectX for their software so that the IT fools go 100% Microsoft to increase compatibility).

iOS is the example of Apple taking Microsoft out before it's too late. With Mac OS, MS just copied them, and Apple went down the drain. With iOS, they finally had a chance to seize a new market. Now, winning the PC market share will be extremely difficult for Apple.

----------

Must be galling, too, for MS to see Office work as just another "feature" app on Apple's device.

I think they have the right to sue in this case, actually. OnLive essentially renting Windows to other people. This is a rare case where Microsoft sues for a good reason.

 

[Database]

You guys area all such fanboys...

It's OK if Apple sues everyone for using a feature that acts like something they have a patent for...

But Microsoft can't be concerned with thousands of people using their software that wasn't paid for... NOT A FEATURE, THE ENTIRE THING.

Ok.... idiots.

 

[Renzatic]

MS is a joke. Always eating dirt from the competitors ahead and trying to catch them by using patents, lawyers, releasing a major Win version which could be only an UI app, or simply copying competitors like you did with iCloud.

Bill Gates should feel ashamed of MS.

"Hey guys! Apple is suing Android over making phone numbers a link that you press to automatically dial"!

"Well, Apple should protect their innovations vigorously. Their attempts to sue everyone is completely justifiable"!

"Hey guys! Guess what? Microsoft is a little ticked that Onlive is streaming their OS and Office applications over the internet without paying any licensing fees"!

"BLARARARARARARAR MICROSOFT IS DUMB AND I HATE THEM SO MUCH"!

Sup, Double Standards. How it goin?

Also Skydrive has been out a goodly bit longer than iCloud. I dunno if you're a troll or not, but MY GOD! IS IT THAT HARD TO READ UP ON A SUBJECT TO SAVE YOURSELF FROM SAYING SOMETHING STUPID? Like this...

The thing I hate about MS is that they promote the horrible standards such as USB...

...wuh? What's so horrible about it? That it's not Firewire or Thunderbolt?

 

[Rennir]

MS is a joke. Always eating dirt from the competitors ahead and trying to catch them by using patents, lawyers, releasing a major Win version which could be only an UI app, or simply copying competitors like you did with iCloud.

Bill Gates should feel ashamed of MS.

To add onto the previous comment about iCloud, iCloud actually runs on Microsoft's Azure cloud services

 

[Renzatic]

To add onto the previous comment about iCloud, iCloud actually runs on Microsoft's Azure cloud services

Ha! I forgot all about that little tidbit of information. All the people calling out MS for copying iCloud, which uses the very same server infrastructure as Skydrive...wow. That's gone beyond ignorance and started edging into ironic statement territory right there.

 

[jdale77]

I'm not surprised OnLive is targeted because there is no way they are in compliance.

dinCloud (www.dincloud.com) has been providing a full Windows 7 Hosted Virtual Desktop with Office for over a year now that can be used on an iPad. dinCloud is a Microsoft Service Provider an affiliate of En Pointe Technologies which is 1 of 12 Microsoft Large Account Resellers in the US. dinCloud is able to provide businesses Microsoft products on a per user per month basis but the service is for businesses only, not consumers. Their solution is totally legit compliance wise though.

http://www.youtube.com/user/dinCloud?ob=0&feature=results_main

 

[gotluck]

Bitchplease. If this was Apple instead of Microsoft they'd be suing onlive's ass off.

And you'd be cheering them on.

Apple has become the king of giant corporation suing machines.

Quoted for truth!

 

[Jynto]

Why doesn't this use the Metro interface, the thing that Microsoft designed for touchscreens?

 

[Renzatic]

Probably because Windows 8 is still in beta. I doubt Onlive would charge a monthly subscription for untested, still in development software, nor would I expect anyone to pay for it.

 

[RalfTheDog]

This is a cute toy, and well worth the price of free. If they were to serve Linux and Open Office or OS-X and Neo Office, I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. They should drop Windows, and put Linux on their VNC boxes. No licensing and people would get a better user experience.

At a minimum, I think they should start offering Linux as an option.

 

[flynndean]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

OnLive is uncompliant as a Hosted Provider, Microsoft is giving them every opportunity to get compliant by purchasing the appropriate licenses or by helping them ensure their end users have the correct licenses to allow virtual instances of those products.

...Or OnLive cease their service before Microsoft resort to audit. I see it all the time in my line of work and feel like MS are (as always) being incredibly reasonable (I essentially help customers self-audit before MS sends in the dogs)

Surely SOMEBODY at OnLive understood Microsoft Product Use Rights & the responsibilities of Hosted Service Providors?!

The service is theft, plain & simple.

 

[bogg]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.7; sv-se; HTC Vision Build/GRI40; CyanogenMod-7) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

If onlive only offers one user at a time access to one instance of licensed windows 7/office install at the time I don't really see the difference between that and a library or other entity putting up a publically available computer and announcing 'free for anyone, one at a time. The line starts here!'.

The same license should still be valid by my morals, I don't get why virtualized and physical software should be treated any differently from each other. Now I know that is not the case, but I'm just expressing my viewpoint...

 

[cryingrobot]

My main problem with Onlive..a little laggy, I just needed the Office apps and could care less about W8...but most importantly, no security so no one in their right mind is going to do anything sensitive.

Cloud on is better since it uses dropbox but Office apps are still a bit clunky to use on a tablet.

 

[pacalis]

Onlive is violating the terms of use and giving another companies product away for a fee. They are to productivity software what megaupload was to content. If anything, MS should come down on them harder.

But I think there are two things going on here.

First, MS may be interested in OnLive's data for some hints of what's going on with Office adoption/use on Apple.

Second, Onlive is a small fry. They'll get killed by a dedicated MS app in the space. But also, their business model is crappy. It's hard for a large corporate IT group to support a monthy service fee - it's much easier for them to by site licenses. So again, no love for Onlive as a business.

 

[isoMorpheus]

Microsoft should just let it slip for their own interest. OnLive would damage iOS.

Think about it, Apple could build WINE into Mac OS with all of the required drivers and stuff already installed. This would make it so you could just double-click an EXE and run it. However, it would discourage developers from making Mac builds of their software.

The same goes for "running" Windows (and also Mac) applications on your iPad.

----------


Totally, but they need to beef up Numbers. Currently, the only Microsoft thing I really use is Excel because it has so many more features than Numbers.

Numbers is easy to use and has a better interface than Excel by far, but it has barely any features, so you can't really use it for school/work.

Have you explored (or shall I say exhausted) all the features of Numbers?

 

[LordJohnWhorfin]

I don't even understand how M$ gets away with such ridiculously restrictive licenses, or why so many M$ fanbois here defend them. It's as if GM charged Hertz 10 times the price they charge an individual for the same car, just because they will rent it to many people. Outrageous.

 

[flynndean]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.7; sv-se; HTC Vision Build/GRI40; CyanogenMod-7) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

If onlive only offers one user at a time access to one instance of licensed windows 7/office install at the time I don't really see the difference between that and a library or other entity putting up a publically available computer and announcing 'free for anyone, one at a time. The line starts here!'.

The same license should still be valid by my morals, I don't get why virtualized and physical software should be treated any differently from each other. Now I know that is not the case, but I'm just expressing my viewpoint...

Simple Answer: It's a question of CALs (or SALs under SPLA) and User Licensing vs. Device Licensing

I'm going to ignore the fact that the Library likely qualifies for Charity/Education Licenses/Pricing and likely isn't delivering Virtual Remote Desktops.

The Library has a theoretical maximum usage of one Desktop per terminal. Say a Library has x15 Networked Windows Desktops connected to a Single Windows Server. In this Scenario, The Library needs Windows Licenses for each machine, Office Licenses for each machine, The appropriate Windows Server License for the Server, Windows Server CALs (Likely Device) for each machine in the Cluster, plus additional CALs and Server Licenses depending on additional services being accessed (eg. Exchange). Don't worry...MS gets paid, particularly if this were a Commercial Licensing Scenario ;-)

The Device is Licensed for use by multiple people and not to the User. This is also useful in companies that employ telesales staff or shift workers as it allows for multiple people to use the same terminals at different times. You could have 30 Employees and only 15 Desks. In that Scenario...you only need 15 Licenses (as in the Library). Under User Licensing, you'd need to License every User individually (so x30).

OnLive's service is VERY different. Ignoring the fact that we are individuals and not businesses, which is a BIG issue, it serves up Copyrighted Virtualised Software on-demand for whoever wants it...and doesn't pay the developer and holder of the Copyright (Microsoft) correctly at all (allegedly). If they have a need for another user...they just serve up another VM. I believe the allegation is that they don't then stump-up for the correct Windows, Office and in this case SAL under SPLA for every user that accesses the service as a Hosted Service Provider should.

Naughty OnLive! Comply or Die!!