GFWL shutdown so nice Microsoft did it twice: MS e-book DRM servers to go offline, refunds will be offered

[Delicieuxz]

 

Microsoft is about to shut off its ebook DRM servers: "The books will stop working"

Quote

"The books will stop working": That's the substance of the reminder that Microsoft sent to customers for their ebook store, reminding them that, as announced in April, the company is getting out of the ebook business because it wasn't profitable enough for them, and when they do, they're going to shut off their DRM servers, which will make the books stop working.

 

Microsoft stops selling ebooks and will refund customers for previous purchases

Quote

Starting today, Microsoft is ending all ebook sales in its Microsoft Store for Windows PCs. Previously purchased ebooks will be removed from users’ libraries in early July. Even free ones will be deleted. The company will offer full refunds to users for any books they’ve purchased or preordered.

 

Microsoft’s “official reason,” according to ZDNet, is that this move is part of a strategy to help streamline the focus of the Microsoft Store. It seems that the company no longer has an interest in trying to compete with Amazon, Apple Books, and Google Play Books. It’s a bit hard to imagine why anyone would go with Microsoft over those options anyway.

 

It's nice that refunds are being issued. However, the lesson is the same over, and over: Don't buy products from Microsoft service because Microsoft has no commitment to its actions other than to make lots of money through them, and doesn't care about customer interests. We've seen this result in abandoned project and service, one after the other. Notable cases include:

 

• The shuttering of GFWL, which left people who purchased games either through the GFWL store or purchased games with GFWL in them out of luck for playing those games. Some developers patched their games to remove the GFWL component, but other games simply became unplayable (though work-arounds were found by gaming communities for some other GFWL games). More recently, and to coincide with the launch of Microsoft Store, Microsoft restored GFWL servers, I guess to curry favour with resentful and remembering gamers to entice them to use Microsoft's new digital retail store.
   
• Abandoning Windows Phone.
   
• Shuttering popular game studios and their projects, such as with Ensemble and Lionhead, and many others. Other studios, like Rare, were reduced from what they represented before being purchased by Microsoft.
   
• Arbitrarily unilaterally revoking free OneDrive storage space after it was given to people.
   
• Reneging on the promise to officially support all released hardware for Windows 7 until it reaches EoL.
   
• And now Microsoft's e-book reader.

 

When it comes to track-records for posterity of access, Microsoft has the worst one that I can immediately think of. And I think that the situation is pretty much that when you buy from Microsoft you can count on losing what you're purchased, and sooner rather than later.

 

Because of that, I think it's all the more good that Microsoft recently announced a whole slew of about-face turns in their PC gaming practices:

 

 

And the cancelling of Microsoft's e-book reader business after all the positive changes announced for Microsoft's gaming sector also demonstrates that just because Microsoft has completely overhauled their gaming department's operational philosophy doesn't necessarily mean that the company's philosophies as a whole have undergone a change.

 

Maybe head of Microsoft's Xbox / gaming division Phil Spector got tried of Microsoft's unmet promises making him and his branch of the company look bad in the gaming industry and finally pulled some serious weight or made a great case to Microsoft higher-ups to get approved an operational redesign over just that sector. Of course, the refunds being offered for Microsoft e-book customers is positive improvement over when GFWL originally was shut down with no refunds offered and with no recourse for people to continue playing their GFWL games.

[Guest]

I wasn't even aware MS had an e-book service, let alone be affected by it. 

[mr moose]

55 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

 

It's nice that refunds are being issued. However, the lesson is the same over, and over: Don't buy products from Microsoft service because Microsoft has no commitment to its actions other than to make lots of money through them

 

  which one is it?

 

 

People bought e books and read them then got a refund.  Essentially a library service.   If they want the book they can buy it again from other places, if not the consumer wins.

 

 

[rawrdaysgoby]

They had an E-Book service?! how come I wasn't even remotely aware of this...

[Derangel]

I don't think the e-book service shutting down shows that MS hasn't changed. I'm surprised they even kept it open this long. The e-book market was really only strong for a short time and now its pretty much Amazon's show, and possibly Apple. I don't even know if MS' service ever got that much attention. At some point, a company isn't going to keep a failed service around forever.

[Delicieuxz]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

  which one is it?

I suspect that the former is a part of the latter. Microsoft would have calculated the potential cost to their overall business and brand if they did or didn't issue refunds, and chose what would protect Microsoft's greater profits. It's also possible that Microsoft's e-book service performed so poorly that it isn't a huge loss to Microsoft to offer those refunds - while the potential consumer goodwill or risk of media condemnation could be more substantial.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

I suspect that the former is a part of the latter. Microsoft would have calculated the potential cost to their overall business and brand if they did or didn't issue refunds, and chose what would protect Microsoft's greater profits. It's also possible that Microsoft's e-book service performed so poorly that it isn't a huge loss to Microsoft to offer those refunds - while the potential consumer goodwill or risk of media condemnation could be more substantial.

I meant which is it as only one statement can be true.

 

If they offered refunds, then this statement can't be true:

 

Quote

Microsoft has no commitment to its actions other than to make lots of money through them

 

 

I mean the act of refunding everyone when you shut down an operation is the opposite of only being concerned about making lots of money.

 

[Delicieuxz]

On 6/30/2019 at 2:23 PM, mr moose said:

I meant which is it as only one statement can be true.

 

If they offered refunds, then this statement can't be true:

 

I mean the act of refunding everyone when you shut down an operation is the opposite of only being concerned about making lots of money.

I see what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that the act of doing refunds for a low-profitability part of the business to protect Microsoft's reputation and customer goodwill so that long-term profits will not be hurt in other more profitable sectors of the business is still a business-oriented decision and not necessarily one done out of concern for the customers. If refunds are issued only because it is prudent for the purpose of not harming the long-term profitability of the rest of the company, then the commitment is to making more money.

 

Microsoft could be concerned for the customers' interests. But, if benefiting them is merely coincidental to doing what protects the company's profits the most, then I don't see that as a commitment to their customers.

[Arika]

7 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Microsoft could be concerned with the customers, but if benefiting them is merely coincidental to doing what protects the company's profits the most, then I don't see that as a commitment to their customers.

Are you saying that Microsoft refunding customers and caring about their reputation is a bad thing? 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Are you saying that Microsoft refunding customers and caring about their reputation is a bad thing? 

Apparently doing the right thing by your customers is now also a bad thing because the motive is more money from happier customers.  As apposed to making more money from unhappy customers which they didn't actually engage in.  

 

Lets just forget that all companies only exist to make money, therefore all actions are guided by what will make them the most money.  Because by doing so, we can accuse the companies who doing the right thing as being just as anti consumer as those who do the wrong thing.

 

 

Or maybe there is no news here?

[Delicieuxz]

32 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Are you saying that Microsoft refunding customers and caring about their reputation is a bad thing? 

No. I said it's a positive thing.

 

That doesn't mean it shows a commitment to customer interest for the sake of caring for the customer. A commitment isn't a coincidental happenstance, it's a choice of dedication.

 

The choice to refund customers because it protects the profits of the larger business and the choice to refund customers because it's unfair to have taken their money for goods that are being revoked are separate choices. They can be simultaneous, but they are not exclusively simultaneous. It is possible to choose to do refunds to protect the company's reputation and profit while not caring about whether it benefits customers. And when both choices are taken into account, it's possible that one is the leading concern while the other is a lesser one.

[Arika]

3 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That doesn't mean it shows a commitment to customer interest for the sake of caring for the customer. A commitment isn't a coincidental happenstance, it's a choice of dedication.

To be fair the only people who will actually care will be a small fraction of users of the platform and people looking for things to hate on them about. The rest of the users will likely be ecstatic about getting a refund, everyone else likely didn't even know they had an ebook store. 

 

If a product or service is no long making money and is actually costing you more than any benefit you get out of it then it's time to cut it off. That's not a commitment problem, that's basic business practice in every single industry. 

[Delicieuxz]

13 minutes ago, Arika S said:

To be fair the only people who will actually care will be a small fraction of users of the platform and people looking for things to hate on them about. The rest of the users will likely be ecstatic about getting a refund, everyone else likely didn't even know they had an ebook store. 

 

If a product or service is no long making money and is actually costing you more than any benefit you get out of it then it's time to cut it off. That's not a commitment problem, that's basic business practice in every single industry. 

I agree with that. However, there is a lengthy record of Microsoft abandoning projects and support, and not always because they weren't making money but because they weren't making the amount of money Microsoft wanted, and Microsoft only took its own corporate interests into account.

 

An example is shutting down the GFWL activation servers: It wouldn't have cost Microsoft much money to keep them running just so people can activate their games and play them. Microsoft didn't even support them for any particular length of time after deciding PC gaming wasn't a venture Microsoft was interested in anymore - they just pulled the plug. And if money was the issue, then why did Microsoft re-activate those servers when Microsoft Store launched? Because Microsoft made its decision not out of commitment to the customer, but to entice gamers to not hold it against Microsoft and so avoid making Microsoft Store purchases as a result. Those decisions, to first take away GFWL activation servers and then to restore them years later, which benefited GFWL game owners, wasn't done out of commitment to the customer, but calculation of what will make Microsoft the most money.

 

Another casualty of Microsoft's decision to not participate in PC gaming at that time was Ensemble Studios - a very profitable and reputable development studio. But, Microsoft just one day decided they weren't going to do PC gaming and so shuttered the entire studio. That came as a shock to Ensemble Studios, themselves.

 

The point is that there is a difference between a company doing something because it profits the company and doing something with consideration for the customer interest, and the difference is something for customers to take into consideration when they choose where to purchase their goods because, with Microsoft's record being the example, it makes all the difference for the posterity of their access to their goods in the long-term.

[justpoet]

Yet another reminder that DRM is just plain bad.  Even if you buy it, it isn't yours if it has DRM on it.  This is the same reason I still buy CDs/DVDs/BlueRays and other such things, then make electronic copies myself if I want them.  As the original article says "The books will stop working."…that just shouldn't be possible, and is a great way to stifle both free speech/expression and history.

 

It should be noted that "documents in the cloud" are just as bad in most cases, where they'll vanish once the cloud copy is gone.

[Delicieuxz]

8 hours ago, justpoet said:

Yet another reminder that DRM is just plain bad.  Even if you buy it, it isn't yours if it has DRM on it.  This is the same reason I still buy CDs/DVDs/BlueRays and other such things, then make electronic copies myself if I want them.  As the original article says "The books will stop working."…that just shouldn't be possible, and is a great way to stifle both free speech/expression and history.

I agree that DRM should never interfere with using a purchased product. It could be that Microsoft is issuing refunds also out of a concern to avoid lawsuits over people losing access to their goods.

 

An alternative to issuing refunds could be that Microsoft removes the DRM from all their sold e-books and gives people time to download them before the servers go down. Microsoft might not be able to do that due to agreements with book publishers, and might not want to do that out of concern they would upset business partners who would see the move as facilitating piracy of their IPs.

 

Quote

It should be noted that "documents in the cloud" are just as bad in most cases, where they'll vanish once the cloud copy is gone.

However, I think when people pay for cloud hosting they enter into a contract for length of service. Cloud service hosts possibly couldn't just say they aren't going to fulfill those terms and offer a refund in the same manner. When people purchase digital goods though digital retailers, they typically don't enter into a contract guaranteeing access to the delivery service.

[Arika]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

The point is that there is a difference between a company doing something because it profits the company and doing something with consideration for the customer interest, and the difference is something for customers to take into consideration when they choose where to purchase their goods because, with Microsoft's record being the example, it makes all the difference for the posterity of their access to their goods in the long-term.

Same an be said for any company. Look at the list of products and services that used to be offered by the likes of AMD, Intel, Apple, Google, all Android phone manufacturers and are no longer being supported or offered. Why should I ever buy anything from these companies given their record of dropping support for their products? 

 

You're essentially asking Microsoft (and by extension, every company) that every service they offer must be supported forever regardless of how much money they have to spend to keep it running. 

 

The servers and resources were likely reallocated else where for something that actually gets used

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

Same an be said for any company.

And the result is that some companies are more trusted and regarded more favourably than others. There are reasons why I feel confident buying products from some manufacturers or digital retailers and not from others.

 

Quote

Look at the list of products and services that used to be offered by the likes of AMD, Intel, Apple, Google, all Android phone manufacturers and are no longer being supported or offered. Why should I ever buy anything from these companies given their record of dropping support for their products?

If a company establishes a consistent bad track record, why should you depend on them, and specifically regarding things which you know they aren't dependable for?

 

Quote

You're essentially asking Microsoft (and by extension, every company) that every service they offer must be supported forever regardless of how much money they have to spend to keep it running.

I'm not asking Microsoft to do anything. I'm noting what they have done, and taking it into account to assess that, relative to other companies, Microsoft is unreliable and a bad bet when it comes to posterity of access for purchased goods.

 

Quote

The servers and resources were likely reallocated else where for something that actually gets used

They were surely allocated elsewhere. However, Microsoft can add servers when they need or want to. 

[imreloadin]

And in the same breath Microsoft execs are running around saying how bad pirating is.

You know who doesn't have their shit turned off later on down the road by the company they bought it from? People who pirate stuff...just saying...

 

EDIT:

This isn't condoning piracy, I'm simply stating that this is Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot because they are only harming those who play by the rules.

Apparently I have to add this disclaimer because a select few members with poor reading comprehension are busy connecting dots that aren't there...

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

And in the same breath Microsoft execs are running around saying how bad pirating is.

You know who doesn't have their shit turned off later on down the road by the company they bought it from? People who pirate stuff...just saying...

So you think because long term support isn't always a good proposition people should just use the product and not pay for it at all? 

[Drak3]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you think because long term support isn't always a good proposition people should just use the product and not pay for it at all? 

Thieves justifying theft isn't surprising.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, imreloadin said:

And in the same breath Microsoft execs are running around saying how bad pirating is.

You know who doesn't have their shit turned off later on down the road by the company they bought it from? People who pirate stuff...just saying...

 

If you pirate ebooks you are an asshole. Its hard enough for most authors to make money in these days without self-righteous jackasses stealing their work.

[Nowak]

On the subject of piracy, while I do believe that it's wrong to pirate, especially when the creator of that thing worked so damn hard to get it out there (I told several friends who wanted to pirate Cuphead to buy it instead, because buying it supported the Moldenhauer Brothers far more than pirating it did), Gabe Newell defined it as a "service issue". That is, make it inconvenient and hard for people to get your product, and they will look at piracy as an alternative means to get that thing.

 

That isn't to say that it absolutely is morally justified to do, because it isn't, but the idea that it's because of availability (or a lack thereof) is a big part of why people pirate. It's not always people being self-righteous jackasses.

 

That being said, if you absolutely can avoid it, don't pirate anything. Support creators instead by buying their things. Anyway, I digress.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Nowak said:

On the subject of piracy, while I do believe that it's wrong to pirate, especially when the creator of that thing worked so damn hard to get it out there (I told several friends who wanted to pirate Cuphead to buy it instead, because buying it supported the Moldenhauer Brothers far more than pirating it did), Gabe Newell defined it as a "service issue". That is, make it inconvenient and hard for people to get your product, and they will look at piracy as an alternative means to get that thing.

 

That isn't to say that it absolutely is morally justified to do, because it isn't, but the idea that it's because of availability (or a lack thereof) is a big part of why people pirate. It's not always people being self-righteous jackasses.

 

That being said, if you absolutely can avoid it, don't pirate anything. Support creators instead by buying their things. Anyway, I digress.

The issue I have with many of the of people who use the supply argument is that they are in first world countries with very  minimal they can't get legally.  if you live in china and want access to news then sure,   but  if you live in nth America with decent internet and you think windows is over priced then you have entitlement issues.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Thieves justifying theft isn't surprising.

I buy all my games. But, I see the reason in that argument when it's brought up in forums of developers who are screwing over paying customers while pirates are having a smoother and more reliable experience. There's a point at which the publisher becomes the pirate. Always-online DRM for single-player games is a case of piracy by the developer who has effectively built an expiry date into their product, which is whenever their servers go offline.

 

If Microsoft didn't give out refunds, there would be many people who rightly felt as though Microsoft had effectively stolen their goods from them. And as I said in a previous post, that could be why Microsoft is giving out refunds in the first place.

[Nowak]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The issue I have with many of the of people who use the supply argument is that they are in first world countries with very  minimal they can't get legally.  if you live in china and want access to news then sure,   but  if you live in nth America with decent internet and you think windows is over priced then you have entitlement issues.

Yeah, it's basically that. Admittedly I didn't pay for Windows but I got a key for it from Microsoft Dreamspark, so even then it's still legal.

 

Also keep in mind that piracy went down because of the rise of Netflix and how convenient it made watching people's favorite shows, and now that it's a huge thing and corporations are splitting their content from it and putting it onto their own subscription-based streaming service, people are starting to look at piracy as an alternative to having to pay $10/month several times for several streaming services just so they can watch their favorite shows. It can absolutely be an entitlement issue, but it can also be a service issue, especially in PC gaming circles, where everyone jerks themselves off to everything that Gabe Newell says and hates the idea of storefronts that aren't Steam.

 

Sweeney bad, praise GabeN. And Geraldo.