<post not quoted for space conservation>
I can understand the reasons behind why MS would want to kill Desktop so badly on Windows and insist on forcing always-on DRM on their XBox. I don't agree with nor accept them though.
To start with the Xbox, it's basically MS and whoever other software vendors board ship profitting at the expense of the consumers: You can't transfer your software to others, legally or otherwise, and you are required to have resources previously unneccesary. Assuming that users don't jump ship, the prohibition of software transfer means a forced increase in sales if more people want a piece of software and those people cannot give/sell to and/or receive that software from friends or "used games" sellers. The requirement for internet means that ISPs will profit because, again assuming everyone wants to use their XBox, they will need an internet connection.
The only problem with MS's vision here is that people obviously do not want, and in some cases don't have the physical and/or financial means of, having a permanent internet connection everywhere they go. I was in Japan recently for family vacation, and even in the country that can boast one of the most advanced internet infrastructures in the world, the connections I had at my disposal were relatively slow and very unstable for anything beyond basic email and chatting. In addition, people want to share; the internet's philosophy of "information distribution for free" is a shining example of this human trait. Needlessly prohibiting sharing will only serve to antagonize and alienate any potential customers.
----
Moving on to the Desktop and why MS would want to axe it so badly, the answer is simple: Win32. Win32 is the API behind all Windows programs since the days of Windows 95, it is the core API that drives all of the Windows programs (both free and commercial, open- and closed-source) that we use daily and appreciate. Win32 is an integral part of what makes Windows 7 and prior an open ecosystem for development and use.
MS's notion is that because Win32 has been developed for so many years, it is now deprecated, obsolete, inefficient, and a general mess to work with (let me make it clear that I at least don't agree with this notion!). MS has made no secrets about wanting to kill off Win32 for at least a decade now, if not longer. The only things that stood in MS's way was that they had no comparable API to replace Win32 with, and killing off Win32 would mean also killing off
every single Windows desktop program that have been created to date. The arrival of Metro and WinRT, in MS's eyes, was the answer to that problem.
Metro, at least as far as I can pick up from MS's recent change in attitude, is the replacement and successor to the Desktop, and WinRT which is the accompanying API to Metro is the replacement and successor to Win32. The introduction of Metro/WinRT placed MS in a position where they can afford to take a gamble and kill off Desktop/Win32 because software vendors like Adobe will
have to port their software over to Metro/WinRT to keep benefitting from Windows market share (this also indirectly psuedo-addresses the problem of killing Win32 programs) assuming that market share doesn't tank. The introduction of Metro/WinRT also places MS in a far more authoritative position overall because Metro/WinRT run on the "app store" business model not unlike the Apple App Store, where MS is in direct command of what goes in and runs on Windows 8/RT and what does not; MS also directly benefits by being able to siphon off money from all software sales on their Windows Store.
Basically, Metro/WinRT serves to place administrative command of users' computers in the hands of MS as well as directly empower MS via a what I'd call "MS Sales Tax" on Windows Store, while also validating (in MS's twisted theory) that Desktop/Win32 is obsolete and outdated and needs to be replaced with the brand spanking new Metro/WinRT.
What can possibly turn MS's grand scheme upside down is smart/informed people not buying into the notion that Metro/WinRT is the next Windows 95. Indeed, Metro has a great GUI to use on mobile devices, but it is absolutely impossible to use in any serious way on desktop computers, and more importantly the baggage that Metro/WinRT brings to the table (that many do not seem to yet realize the dire implications of) does not serve to benefit the end-user in any possible way.
Right now, I am happy that Windows 8 is suffering from lagging sales and acceptance because market refusal is the most effective way to answer MS's attitude. I am glad that some people, if not many, realize bullshit when they're given it and responding to MS's attitude in kind. I am also dismayed that MS does not realize their folly and continues to press forward on Metro, while also taking no heed of an end-user's needs as implied by the recent comments from Adam Orth regarding always-on DRM. If MS keeps going down the road they're currently walking, they'll just become irrelevant in several years' time when effective successors/replacements for Windows 7/XP and Xbox inevitably come around; already the PS4 looks to be becoming the de facto replacement to the next Xbox.
