or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Microsoft challenging licensing of OnLive's Windows 7 virtualization for iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft challenging licensing of OnLive's Windows 7 virtualization for iPad

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
After bringing Windows 7 to iPad as a virtualized desktop, OnLive is facing scrutiny by Microsoft over the legitimacy of its software licensing.

OnLive, which started by offering PC gamers subscription based access to a virtualized session hosted in the cloud (allowing them to play games with graphics rendered by more powerful hardware than they had locally), first brought its technology to the iPhone in late 2009.




In January, OnLive began offering a Desktop app "delivering an instant-response Windows desktop and full-featured Microsoft Office apps to your iPad," followed by a $4.99 per month Plus service that added support for accelerated Adobe Flash, all of which are rendered 'in the cloud' and delivered to a user's iPad over WiFi or fast mobile networks.

The company also said it plans to offer Pro and Enterprise versions with more cloud storage and customized environments and collaborative services, and added an Android client similar to its iPad app.

Interest in OnLive has captured the notice of Microsoft, which posted a blog notice from Joe Matz, the company's Corporate Vice President of Worldwide Licensing and Pricing.

Without ever referencing Apple's iPad by name, Microsoft stated "Some inquiries about these [licensing] scenarios have been raised as a result of recent media coverage related to OnLive’s Desktop and Desktop Plus services." Matz said Microsoft is now "actively engaged with OnLive with the hope of bringing them into a properly licensed scenario, and we are committed to seeing this issue is resolved."

Licensing terms oriented toward conventional PCs

The violation Matz alluded to in general terms states that "customers that want to work with partners to have them host Windows 7 in a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure solution on their behalf, can do so when the customer provides the partner licenses through the customer’s own agreements with Microsoft," and that "the hosting hardware must be dedicated to, and for the benefit of the customer, and may not be shared by or with any other customers of that partner."

OnLive's business would appear to only make sense if it were sharing its server hosting services across all of its free or $5 per month subscribers, and iPad users are not suppling their own licenses for Windows 7 to use the service.

Additionally, Matz wrote, "Microsoft partners who host under the Services Provider License Agreement ('SPLA') may bring some desktop-like functionality as a service by using Windows Server and Remote Desktop Services.

"Under this solution, the partner is free to offer this service to any customer they choose, whether or not they have a direct licensing agreement with Microsoft. However, it is important to note that SPLA does not support delivery of Windows 7 as a hosted client or provide the ability to access Office as a service through Windows 7. Office may only be provided as a service if it is hosted on Windows Server and Remote Desktop Services."

Post PC Licensing

Commenting on Matz' blog posting, reader Simon Bramfitt noted, "You have to acknowledge that it is long past time for Microsoft to address the shortcomings within its current licensing policy with regard to VDI.

"The increasing adoption of mobile technologies coupled with the consumerization of IT and bring your own device programs is increasingly blurring the boundaries between corporate devices and personal devices. Microsoft's licensing policies in this regard have failed to keep up with these trends and needs to be addressed promptly."

Andrew Fidel echoed the same opinion, writing "How about fixing it so that SPLA partners can offer a proper VDI environment? You can offer almost any other piece of Microsoft software through SPLA including stripping down a 2008R2 RDS session to be nearly identical to Windows 7 but for some reason Microsoft is being stubborn on offering what their end customers and partners actually want."




Microsoft is rumored to have developed a version of Office for iPad, but appears to be hesitant to release it, directing interest toward its own Windows 8 tablet plans instead, perhaps hoping to see if its Office software could be leveraged as a differentiating factor to push sales of Windows 8 tablets when the begin to appear at the end of this year or in early 2013.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 13
Office isn't a differentiating product anymore, not with iWork being totally compatible with it. Microsoft, stop being stupid and old.
post #3 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Office isn't a differentiating product anymore, not with iWork being totally compatible with it. Microsoft, stop being stupid and old.

When iWork becomes totally compatible with Office, then your statement will make sense. As it stands

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #4 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Office isn't a differentiating product anymore, not with iWork being totally compatible with it. Microsoft, stop being stupid and old.

I am in a small business, and frequently have to share power points, excel and word documents with many others, many of them working for large corporations. There are too many slight but inconvenient incompatibilities. I HAVE to use office for mac, other wise i will loose business
MS Office remains just not compatible enough, with iWork, and especially with open office
post #5 of 13
I have a proposal to Microsoft and it is very commercial: Microsoft, please charge Internet users for visiting Microsoft web pages.

That would do.
post #6 of 13
I did a search for Microsoft Office for iPad and it there is none. So why doesn't Microsloft (yes Microsloft) make an office for the iPad. Probably because they would have to charge more than Apple would find reasonable and on top of that they would probably make it in such a manner that it would only run on the iPad 3 as it would use so much processor and graphics power.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #7 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

I have a proposal to Microsoft and it is very commercial: Microsoft, please charge Internet users for visiting Microsoft web pages.

That would do.

Umm. How about 1 dollar a min? Or if you are a frequent visitor you can get a package deal. 100 dollars for unlimited downloads and site visits for 30 min.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #8 of 13
I have OnLive Desktop Plus on my iPad 2. It works well when viewing websites with Flash videos and Flash slideshows, etc., as it has the full desktop version of Flash. It never crashes or exhibits any other problems. The built in browser is IE. Text is set in the browser at the smallest possible size, and it can't be resized, and so it isn't the best browser for extended reading. It costs $4.99 a month, but it is well worth it. It includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and cloud storage. Best of all is the extremely fast browsing speed of 350-850 Mbps (that's what I've been getting, although OnLive claims 600-1,000 Mbps). It does not replace your Internet access, as you must already have WiFi or cellular data for it to work and then it boosts that to world class Mbps speed (a Gig per second browsing at its best). I hope that OnLive and Microsoft can work out a satisfactory deal so that I can continue to use it.
post #9 of 13
I knew someone would put an end to these guys sooner or later.
post #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The violation Matz alluded to in general terms states that "customers that want to work with partners to have them host Windows 7 in a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure solution on their behalf, can do so when the customer provides the partner licenses through the customer’s own agreements with Microsoft," and that "the hosting hardware must be dedicated to, and for the benefit of the customer, and may not be shared by or with any other customers of that partner."

Additionally, Matz wrote, "Microsoft partners who host under the Services Provider License Agreement ('SPLA') may bring some desktop-like functionality as a service by using Windows Server and Remote Desktop Services.

"it is important to note that SPLA does not support delivery of Windows 7 as a hosted client or provide the ability to access Office as a service through Windows 7. Office may only be provided as a service if it is hosted on Windows Server and Remote Desktop Services."

Sounds reasonable to me. Imagine if they hosted Mac OS X in the cloud on very few Macs and allowed Android users to experience the Mac without paying Apple. This situation is far worse for Microsoft because they get no money from hardware and they will lose out on much larger Windows and Office licensing fees.

What really surprises me is that this app got through the App Store approval and the Player app didn't. If this is a full desktop then presumably you can download the Windows version of the Player and run it on the iPad anyway along with any number of subscription services. They would just need to implement the overlay controls and bluetooth controller connections for the Windows app. If it's a locked-down VM, that would be different.

Microsoft's terms will effectively put an end to this desktop software. OnLive can't guarantee hosting on non-shared hardware or it won't be cost-effective. Nor can they run the service on Windows Server and RDP - that's the whole point of OnLive, it uses their own proprietary server technology. Nor can they even run Windows 7 client as it's not supported by the license, only Windows Server.

This app has its uses but native Office-type apps are better with their multi-touch and while it does allow Flash content, the native browser is a better experience and it's a long process to go through to load a single Flash page in the app.

I recommend that Apple drop the OnLive desktop app and get the OnLive Player through the approval process already! It's been 2.5 months since Android has had the Player in the store. Supposedly coming soon:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/03/0...r-client-close

It shouldn't take this long to get apps approved. Maybe OnLive should virtualise Android so that iOS users don't have to wait on Apple approving apps and can get all the rejected ones. In fact, Flash is on Linux and it has Open Office too so that's another option.
post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Office isn't a differentiating product anymore, not with iWork being totally compatible with it. Microsoft, stop being stupid and old.

You are only right for home and collegiate users.

In professional world I live in, Office is still very much the standard without question, for better or worse.. It could be different in other countries or even on the west coast of the United States. I am not saying Office is better, but businesses simply do not adjust and change as quickly as home users.
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Office isn't a differentiating product anymore, not with iWork being totally compatible with it. Microsoft, stop being stupid and old.

But... Microsoft being stupid and old.... is all they can really do well... :-)

en
post #13 of 13
Microsoft has changed it's tune with OnLive, saying that they now comply with MS requirements for a virtual desktop.

"OnLive has made the necessary switch. Instead of offering a hosted Windows 7 instance, OnLive apparently now offers one based on Windows Server 2008 R2. Under Microsoft licensing rules, hosted virtual instances of Windows 7 cannot be provided unless each user has a license from Microsoft, and Office can't be provided as a service at all except when it's hosted on Windows Server and Remote Desktop Services."

http://arstechnica.com/business/news...=related_right
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Microsoft challenging licensing of OnLive's Windows 7 virtualization for iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Microsoft challenging licensing of OnLive's Windows 7 virtualization for iPad