Here's my take on it (if I understand what they're doing correctly).
They know that PC hardware is too specific and prone to variations and that its lifetime may be limited given that there are increasing users of Mac, Linux, consoles and other operating systems. Microsoft probably wants a way to detach Windows from hardware dependency so that, for the most part, they don't need to `run windows on windows`. They probably would rather that ALL users everywhere have access to `Windows` as a kind of service that they can access through standard web browsers or whatever. Imagine Windows running in a browser on a Playstation 3 for example.
Secondly I think they are aiming to try to `take over the internet` by trying to turn Windows into a distributed/networked/grid-computing platform that's abstracted away from any specific hardware and embedded into the internet for maximum world-wide accessibility. It's obviously going to not care so much about hardware capabilities and more about abstract software. This way it can transcend the challenges posed by other platforms whose software is locked into the hardware, and thus effectively soak up the users from those platforms as well - ie Mac and Linux users for example would also be able to access Windows from their machines. They are trying to make Windows as capable of `being anywhere` as they can so that it remains bigger than all other platforms and potentially inclusive of them. More customers.
Thirdly by having their o/s be a service over a network they can have 100% absolute control over what the user has access to. Total shutdown. It would allow them to completely limit anything and everything and the user would be an entirely passive ongoing customer who would not `own` anything to do with their computer other than perhaps the hardware itself, and would not be able to pirate anything or hack anything etc. And if they don't like you, they can pull the plug and shut you out. You just know some people are going to get quite paranoid about that. This would be their answer to all security issues, since viruses would not be able to get to the server machines and nothing could happen without Microsoft's say-so. This isn't necessarily `bad` but it IS open to gross misuse.
Fourthly I'm sure it hasn't escaped their notice that by being internet based and being able to control anything means they can now offer subscription services and pay-per-hour access to not only Windows but also applications within it. Microtransactions and all that, which would probably make them even more money. They also see companies like Adobe jumping to internet applications and probably want to make sure they they get a piece of the pie by having Adobe depend on an internet-based Windows platform (just an example).
Some of this makes `business sense` but some of it is also potentially an even greater threat to freedom.
They know that PC hardware is too specific and prone to variations and that its lifetime may be limited given that there are increasing users of Mac, Linux, consoles and other operating systems. Microsoft probably wants a way to detach Windows from hardware dependency so that, for the most part, they don't need to `run windows on windows`. They probably would rather that ALL users everywhere have access to `Windows` as a kind of service that they can access through standard web browsers or whatever. Imagine Windows running in a browser on a Playstation 3 for example.
Secondly I think they are aiming to try to `take over the internet` by trying to turn Windows into a distributed/networked/grid-computing platform that's abstracted away from any specific hardware and embedded into the internet for maximum world-wide accessibility. It's obviously going to not care so much about hardware capabilities and more about abstract software. This way it can transcend the challenges posed by other platforms whose software is locked into the hardware, and thus effectively soak up the users from those platforms as well - ie Mac and Linux users for example would also be able to access Windows from their machines. They are trying to make Windows as capable of `being anywhere` as they can so that it remains bigger than all other platforms and potentially inclusive of them. More customers.
Thirdly by having their o/s be a service over a network they can have 100% absolute control over what the user has access to. Total shutdown. It would allow them to completely limit anything and everything and the user would be an entirely passive ongoing customer who would not `own` anything to do with their computer other than perhaps the hardware itself, and would not be able to pirate anything or hack anything etc. And if they don't like you, they can pull the plug and shut you out. You just know some people are going to get quite paranoid about that. This would be their answer to all security issues, since viruses would not be able to get to the server machines and nothing could happen without Microsoft's say-so. This isn't necessarily `bad` but it IS open to gross misuse.
Fourthly I'm sure it hasn't escaped their notice that by being internet based and being able to control anything means they can now offer subscription services and pay-per-hour access to not only Windows but also applications within it. Microtransactions and all that, which would probably make them even more money. They also see companies like Adobe jumping to internet applications and probably want to make sure they they get a piece of the pie by having Adobe depend on an internet-based Windows platform (just an example).
Some of this makes `business sense` but some of it is also potentially an even greater threat to freedom.