4 ms·

I don't get the "without consent" part. If you have automatic updates on you consent to them automatically downloading things.

melling 11y ago
It's crazy that Microsoft gets so much heat for trying everything it can to get people to its latest OS. By this time next week, a couple hundred million people will be running iOS 9. Within six months they should have 85-90% of their users on it. This makes it better for Apple, developers, and the users. Windows needs a little more of an "onward" mentality.
- Retra 11y ago
  Microsoft is getting heat for trying everything they can because they're supposed to be "trying everything they should," instead of violating their user's expectations. It's great the MS wants everyone on their latest OS. But "latest" doesn't mean "best." Taking away user choice subverts the economic principles that encourage improvement -- that "best" is decided by the consumer, not the producer. It would be ideal for developers if we all just used one OS. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do for the customers, the economy, or society.
  - johnward 11y ago
    Can't users opt out by disabling automatic updates? Microsoft is basically doing what every other modern software company does but taking heat for it.
    - wang_li 11y ago
      Arguably all software vendors who sell a product should be prepared to do two things: 1. continue fixing bugs in their prior products. 2. create new features in new products. People who buy something, e.g. an original iPad, no longer get OS updates even though the item was advertised as being safe to use to access content on the internet. This is provably false and while EULA shenanigans provide a fig leaf of propriety, the reality is what was sold was defective and if it's possible to fix it they should. Opting out of updates means that you don't get fixes. The argument that you agree to these kinds of changes in fundamental behavior because you are receiving new features is B.S. The company sold me a defective product and certain documented behaviors. I'm ok with those behaviors but I want the product to work for the features advertised. I should have to tolerate excessive data collection simply to get a functional product.
      - johnward 11y ago
        Just for the record the iPad2 still updates. Though the hardware can barely handle iOS8. It's almost unusable. It seems crazy to think there would not be an end of support for something that old. Maybe Apple doesn't allow updates because they don't want the original iPad to become completely unusable?
        wang_li 11y ago
        The old devices become effectively unusable as new bugs are discovered and patches are not created, tested and distributed. It should be possible to fix bugs without having to add in new features. E.g. I shouldn't need to upgrade to floating icons with a parallax background to get a fix for PDF parsing problems.
      - johnward 11y ago
        You can also still manually install fixes if you don't allow automatic updates. I can't understand why these people with such low datacaps would allow automatic updates anyway.
    - tim333 11y ago
      Microsoft seems a bit more opaque about it than Apple - I've got pcs, a macbook and an iPhone and with Apple it's always a straight forward so and so is available, do you want to download it? Windows not quite so much.
      - johnward 11y ago
        I use OSX most of the time. It usually prompts me to install things. That doesn't seem like "automatic updates" though.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Chrome auto-updates, but if it auto-updated itself into a completely different program, then I would have a problem with it. A lot of people enabled auto-updates in Windows without being under the expectation that their whole OS would upgrade. It's like how putting "this EULA can change at any time" doesn't allow you to change the EULA to do subversive things. People agree to them under reasonable expectations. Using the terms and settings as a Trojan Horse is not respectful of those expectations.
- tdicola 11y ago
  After the disaster of Windows 8 and 8.1 for the desktop can you blame people for being a little bit gunshy about upgrading?
9872 11y ago
Expecting users to understand how they configured their computers? How naive can you get?
pdabbadabba 11y ago
I'm not sure all the outrage against MS is justified since we're just talking about a large download, not any change to the user's system, or sharing of information, etc. (Though I might feel differently if my bandwidth were metered.) But I also can't fathom how so many on this thread are willing to conclude that users consented to this by enabling automatic updates. Because, of course, you don't just consent to have Windows download any old "thing" when you enable automatic updates. You only consent to have it download updates! While the definition of "update" is surely ambiguous and not set in stone, it should surely be guided (I would think) by the sorts of things Microsoft has called "Windows Updates" in the past. And I don't think there is a good argument that this would include a 6 GB download of an entirely new version of the OS.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  That download is costing people money, and if there is any justice left in the US, it will result in a class action lawsuit. People in Redmond or Silicon Valley with good internet connections need to remember that a lot of people don't have that luxury. Extremely low bandwidth connections are still very common in the US, and metered connections are an unfortunate reality for many people around the world.
  - johnward 11y ago
    This. This is the thing that makes you question the justice system in the US? Maybe they should have a class action suit against ISPs for having shitty caps? I'm in rural Ohio and I don't have a 2gb cap per month. If I did I certainly wouldn't enable automatic updates for any software.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > This is the thing that makes you question the justice system in the US? I never claimed this. > I don't have a 2gb cap. Good. That doesn't mean everybody else does. Stop projecting your situation onto everybody else. > I certainly wouldn't enable automatic updates As you're posting to HN, I can assume you are very familiar with computers and understand how to do that. Everybody else just wanted the small security patches that Windows Update provided for years, with minimal impact on data caps.

melling 11y ago

It's crazy that Microsoft gets so much heat for trying everything it can to get people to its latest OS. By this time next week, a couple hundred million people will be running iOS 9. Within six months they should have 85-90% of their users on it. This makes it better for Apple, developers, and the users. Windows needs a little more of an "onward" mentality.

Retra 11y ago
Microsoft is getting heat for trying everything they can because they're supposed to be "trying everything they should," instead of violating their user's expectations. It's great the MS wants everyone on their latest OS. But "latest" doesn't mean "best." Taking away user choice subverts the economic principles that encourage improvement -- that "best" is decided by the consumer, not the producer. It would be ideal for developers if we all just used one OS. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do for the customers, the economy, or society.
- johnward 11y ago
  Can't users opt out by disabling automatic updates? Microsoft is basically doing what every other modern software company does but taking heat for it.
  - wang_li 11y ago
    Arguably all software vendors who sell a product should be prepared to do two things: 1. continue fixing bugs in their prior products. 2. create new features in new products. People who buy something, e.g. an original iPad, no longer get OS updates even though the item was advertised as being safe to use to access content on the internet. This is provably false and while EULA shenanigans provide a fig leaf of propriety, the reality is what was sold was defective and if it's possible to fix it they should. Opting out of updates means that you don't get fixes. The argument that you agree to these kinds of changes in fundamental behavior because you are receiving new features is B.S. The company sold me a defective product and certain documented behaviors. I'm ok with those behaviors but I want the product to work for the features advertised. I should have to tolerate excessive data collection simply to get a functional product.
    - johnward 11y ago
      Just for the record the iPad2 still updates. Though the hardware can barely handle iOS8. It's almost unusable. It seems crazy to think there would not be an end of support for something that old. Maybe Apple doesn't allow updates because they don't want the original iPad to become completely unusable?
      - wang_li 11y ago
        The old devices become effectively unusable as new bugs are discovered and patches are not created, tested and distributed. It should be possible to fix bugs without having to add in new features. E.g. I shouldn't need to upgrade to floating icons with a parallax background to get a fix for PDF parsing problems.
    - johnward 11y ago
      You can also still manually install fixes if you don't allow automatic updates. I can't understand why these people with such low datacaps would allow automatic updates anyway.
  - tim333 11y ago
    Microsoft seems a bit more opaque about it than Apple - I've got pcs, a macbook and an iPhone and with Apple it's always a straight forward so and so is available, do you want to download it? Windows not quite so much.
    - johnward 11y ago
      I use OSX most of the time. It usually prompts me to install things. That doesn't seem like "automatic updates" though.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Chrome auto-updates, but if it auto-updated itself into a completely different program, then I would have a problem with it. A lot of people enabled auto-updates in Windows without being under the expectation that their whole OS would upgrade. It's like how putting "this EULA can change at any time" doesn't allow you to change the EULA to do subversive things. People agree to them under reasonable expectations. Using the terms and settings as a Trojan Horse is not respectful of those expectations.
tdicola 11y ago
After the disaster of Windows 8 and 8.1 for the desktop can you blame people for being a little bit gunshy about upgrading?

9872 11y ago

Expecting users to understand how they configured their computers? How naive can you get?

pdabbadabba 11y ago

I'm not sure all the outrage against MS is justified since we're just talking about a large download, not any change to the user's system, or sharing of information, etc. (Though I might feel differently if my bandwidth were metered.) But I also can't fathom how so many on this thread are willing to conclude that users consented to this by enabling automatic updates. Because, of course, you don't just consent to have Windows download any old "thing" when you enable automatic updates. You only consent to have it download updates! While the definition of "update" is surely ambiguous and not set in stone, it should surely be guided (I would think) by the sorts of things Microsoft has called "Windows Updates" in the past. And I don't think there is a good argument that this would include a 6 GB download of an entirely new version of the OS.

pdkl95 11y ago
That download is costing people money, and if there is any justice left in the US, it will result in a class action lawsuit. People in Redmond or Silicon Valley with good internet connections need to remember that a lot of people don't have that luxury. Extremely low bandwidth connections are still very common in the US, and metered connections are an unfortunate reality for many people around the world.
- johnward 11y ago
  This. This is the thing that makes you question the justice system in the US? Maybe they should have a class action suit against ISPs for having shitty caps? I'm in rural Ohio and I don't have a 2gb cap per month. If I did I certainly wouldn't enable automatic updates for any software.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > This is the thing that makes you question the justice system in the US? I never claimed this. > I don't have a 2gb cap. Good. That doesn't mean everybody else does. Stop projecting your situation onto everybody else. > I certainly wouldn't enable automatic updates As you're posting to HN, I can assume you are very familiar with computers and understand how to do that. Everybody else just wanted the small security patches that Windows Update provided for years, with minimal impact on data caps.