4 ms·

If I buy a computer and/or pay Microsoft money, I think it's reasonable for me to expect my computer to do what I'd like it to do (and only what I'd like it to

by sjm-lbm 10y ago

If I buy a computer and/or pay Microsoft money, I think it's reasonable for me to expect my computer to do what I'd like it to do (and only what I'd like it to do). The problem isn't data-driven design, it's how the data is being collected. I'd be annoyed if my home builder occasionally came through my house while I was gone in an attempt to analyze how I was arranging furniture and using my space. They could, undoubtedly, use that data to better their future work - but I'd still feel violated.

Grishnakh 10y ago
>I'd be annoyed if my home builder occasionally came through my house while I was gone in an attempt to analyze how I was arranging furniture and using my space. They could, undoubtedly, use that data to better their future work - but I'd still feel violated. Too bad. If you sign a contract with your builder allowing him to do this, or you sign a contract allowing him to change your agreement and force new terms on you whenever he wants, then you brought this on yourself. Worse yet, if you willingly buy from a builder who is infamous for a decades-long history of horrible customer service and shoddy house designs and construction, I have zero sympathy for you. Customers have a responsibility to research their purchases beforehand, and avoid patronizing vendors with poor reputations.
- syshum 10y ago
  While true, this also gets into the ethical, moral and legal obligation a company has when for all practical purposes they have a monopoly on a market segment. This type of action is what got MS is legal trouble in the EU and US in the 90's
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    >While true, this also gets into the ethical, moral and legal obligation a company has when for all practical purposes they have a monopoly on a market segment. First off, companies do not have ethical or moral obligations at all. Corporations are purely amoral. It's up to customers to penalize them for unethical or immoral actions by refusing to support them. If the customers refuse to stop throwing money at them, it's the customers that are to blame. Secondly, MS does not have a monopoly, except for having an OS that runs software designed to run on Windows, just like Apple has a monopoly for the market of "OSes that run software designed to run on iOS or OSX". Lots of people run Macs rather than Windows-based PCs, and some run Linux. If you're not happy with Windows, it's your job to look for alternatives, just like if you're not happy driving a Chevy, it's your job to look at Hondas and Subarus instead of whining that Chevy isn't living up to your expectations. MS didn't have any legal trouble in the US, ever. They "lost" an antitrust trial in the 90s and the penalty was absolutely nothing, and that trial was all about their OS forcing the bundling of their browser. Their OS still forces the bundling of their browser, except these days, only clueless morons actually use IE/Edge, and everyone else uses either Firefox or Chrome or some variant (while some use Safari). In fact, last I heard, Chrome had the largest marketshare of all browsers. The lesson here is that if you're hoping for the government to step in and save you, you're hopelessly naïve, as proven by history. The US government in particular is never, ever going to do anything to rein in MS, and really, why should they at this point? As I pointed out above, if you don't like Windows, there are viable alternatives now (the alternatives were much worse in the late 90s, now they're actually much better). If your 3rd-party software vendor doesn't support non-Windows platforms, then maybe you should find a better one.
    - syshum 10y ago
      >>First off, companies do not have ethical or moral obligations at all. Corporations are purely amoral. It's up to customers to penalize them for unethical or immoral actions by refusing to support them. If the customers refuse to stop throwing money at them, it's the customers that are to blame. I completely disagree with this, and believe this type of belief is one of the core problems in society. Corporations are just a social organization of people, and the people of that organization absolutely have ethical and moral obligations. Choosing to join a social organization like a corporation does not absolve you of those obligations. >Secondly, MS does not have a monopoly, except for having an OS that runs software designed to run on Windows, just like Apple has a monopoly for the market of "OSes that run software designed to run on iOS or OSX". Lots of people run Macs rather than Windows-based PCs, and some run Linux. This goes to how you define Monopoly, For most government regulating entities a monopoly is created when a company reaches over 80/90% market share in a given product category, in the 1990's Microsoft was a clear monopoly in the personal computing market. Today that is debatable if you include Smartphones, Tablets and other devices in the Category of "Personal Computers" However simply saying "There is an alternative" does not in fact legally mean there is not a monopoly. For example when Standard Oil was broken up as a Monopoly there were other Oil refinement companies, however their market share was such that they were still considered a monopoly under the legal statues governing monopolies Your analogy to cars is just absurd, Most people do not actively seek an Operating System, they use what ever operating system is supplied by the manufacturer of the devices, one of the MAJOR anti-trust violations MS was charged with was using Vertical Conclusions to lock out alternative operating systems like Linux. Intel was also charged with Anti-Trust violations for attempting use their market dominance to lock out AMD from OEM channels. Car makers did similar things in the early day with Maintenance, accessories and parts. this resulted in MASSIVE regulation of the Automotive manufacturing industry and passage of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act which electronics companies today like to pretend does not exist >MS didn't have any legal trouble in the US, ever. They "lost" an antitrust trial in the 90s and the penalty was absolutely nothing, and that trial was all about their OS forcing the bundling of their browser. While it is true that the FTC, as is usual, failed in their duty to the American people, there was much more to the case than simply IE, that however was the most reported on in the Media, and what MS focused on in the PR efforts after the settlement was announced. Sadly with Windows 10, they have back peddled even on these provisions, no longer are browsers able to automatically set themselves as default, a user must navigate to the Default Applications Settings and manually change these. Even when doing so it asks "are you sure" at least 1 time before actually changing the default. Further users report often updates will revert these settings. >>The lesson here is that if you're hoping for the government to step in and save you, you're hopelessly naïve, as proven by history. I am expecting no such thing, I am a libertarian. Geo-Libertarian to be exact. At no point did I say anything about the government saving anyone. The fact I believe corporations have legal and moral obligations have nothing at all do with government. Having said that, given that corporations are government created entries that can not exist with out the legal framework the government created that allows for their existence, I do believe any evil a corporation does can and should be directly attributed to government as they are ultimately the creators and protectors of ever corporation to have ever existed and ever will exist >As I pointed out above, if you don't like Windows, there are viable alternatives now (the alternatives were much worse in the late 90s, now they're actually much better). I have been using Linux since 1999. > If your 3rd-party software vendor doesn't support non-Windows platforms, then maybe you should find a better one. I normally just write my own
- creshal 10y ago
  > Too bad. If you sign a contract with your builder allowing him to do this Did we? There's a quite a bunch of lawsuits going on right now regarding that topic.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    There's some lawsuits over MS forcing/tricking people into "upgrading" to Windows 10. This is something entirely different; this is MS not providing software updates in the way that some people would prefer. Customers don't have a right to tell their vendors exactly how to provide ongoing services. If you don't like it, find a better vendor. Also, the only successful lawsuit I've heard of against MS recently was the one where some woman sued them in small-claims court over the forced upgrade. $5k or $10k or whatever is a nice little chunk of money for some middle-class person who runs Windows Home for looking at Facebook and cat videos, but it's nothing to some company with dozens of employees or more that relies on their computing systems for running the business. MS just let that one slide because the cost to send a lawyer out wasn't even worth it, and the forced upgrades are pretty much all over at this point anyway; they're making more money now with people "upgraded" than they lost in a few piddly small-claims lawsuits. For a larger company that tries to sue because one of the bundled updates screws up their ERP system, MS isn't going to just pay out millions on that, they're going to crush that company in litigation costs, using their EULA which has been proven in court. Relying on the threat of a lawsuit against MS to keep your business alive is suicide; MS will win and your company will lose. If you don't like the way their software works, get different software.
    - syshum 10y ago
      There will be a class action over windows 10, and it not assured that MS will win as you seem to think. Sorry that is just not how any of this works. Further your continued instance that MS can literately do anything it wants and if you do not like it "get different software" is less than useless and not relevant.
    - creshal 10y ago
      > using their EULA which has been proven in court. No. Microsoft's EULA is void in large parts of Europe. Consumer protection laws are very strong over here.
ghostly_s 10y ago
I don't understand why you think you're entitled to that expectation. If you don't like what Windows does, buy an OS from someone else.
- sjm-lbm 10y ago
  I'm not saying that I'm entitled to an exception (and do use desktop Linux and macOS in any situation that allows me such a choice, gaming and Office usage being my primary barriers - and I'll leave aside whatever Apple may be doing with my usage statistics there, which probabally isn't great). Rather, the comment that I'm replying to infers that there is nothing wrong with what Microsoft is doing because they are using all of this data for some sort of Good Reason, and I personally think that their methods of data collection are shady enough to make whatever good they may be doing with that data irrelevant.
- ashark 10y ago
  My guess is you disagree with the notion that it's a legitimate role of government to set and enforce standards for various market products. That's fine, but if you truly don't understand why someone might hold that position (distinct from agreeing with it) then frankly the kind of reading you need to do to gain that understanding isn't likely to materialize in response to barbed comments on Internet message boards.

by sjm-lbm 10y ago

Grishnakh 10y ago

>I'd be annoyed if my home builder occasionally came through my house while I was gone in an attempt to analyze how I was arranging furniture and using my space. They could, undoubtedly, use that data to better their future work - but I'd still feel violated. Too bad. If you sign a contract with your builder allowing him to do this, or you sign a contract allowing him to change your agreement and force new terms on you whenever he wants, then you brought this on yourself. Worse yet, if you willingly buy from a builder who is infamous for a decades-long history of horrible customer service and shoddy house designs and construction, I have zero sympathy for you. Customers have a responsibility to research their purchases beforehand, and avoid patronizing vendors with poor reputations.

syshum 10y ago
While true, this also gets into the ethical, moral and legal obligation a company has when for all practical purposes they have a monopoly on a market segment. This type of action is what got MS is legal trouble in the EU and US in the 90's
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >While true, this also gets into the ethical, moral and legal obligation a company has when for all practical purposes they have a monopoly on a market segment. First off, companies do not have ethical or moral obligations at all. Corporations are purely amoral. It's up to customers to penalize them for unethical or immoral actions by refusing to support them. If the customers refuse to stop throwing money at them, it's the customers that are to blame. Secondly, MS does not have a monopoly, except for having an OS that runs software designed to run on Windows, just like Apple has a monopoly for the market of "OSes that run software designed to run on iOS or OSX". Lots of people run Macs rather than Windows-based PCs, and some run Linux. If you're not happy with Windows, it's your job to look for alternatives, just like if you're not happy driving a Chevy, it's your job to look at Hondas and Subarus instead of whining that Chevy isn't living up to your expectations. MS didn't have any legal trouble in the US, ever. They "lost" an antitrust trial in the 90s and the penalty was absolutely nothing, and that trial was all about their OS forcing the bundling of their browser. Their OS still forces the bundling of their browser, except these days, only clueless morons actually use IE/Edge, and everyone else uses either Firefox or Chrome or some variant (while some use Safari). In fact, last I heard, Chrome had the largest marketshare of all browsers. The lesson here is that if you're hoping for the government to step in and save you, you're hopelessly naïve, as proven by history. The US government in particular is never, ever going to do anything to rein in MS, and really, why should they at this point? As I pointed out above, if you don't like Windows, there are viable alternatives now (the alternatives were much worse in the late 90s, now they're actually much better). If your 3rd-party software vendor doesn't support non-Windows platforms, then maybe you should find a better one.
  - syshum 10y ago
    >>First off, companies do not have ethical or moral obligations at all. Corporations are purely amoral. It's up to customers to penalize them for unethical or immoral actions by refusing to support them. If the customers refuse to stop throwing money at them, it's the customers that are to blame. I completely disagree with this, and believe this type of belief is one of the core problems in society. Corporations are just a social organization of people, and the people of that organization absolutely have ethical and moral obligations. Choosing to join a social organization like a corporation does not absolve you of those obligations. >Secondly, MS does not have a monopoly, except for having an OS that runs software designed to run on Windows, just like Apple has a monopoly for the market of "OSes that run software designed to run on iOS or OSX". Lots of people run Macs rather than Windows-based PCs, and some run Linux. This goes to how you define Monopoly, For most government regulating entities a monopoly is created when a company reaches over 80/90% market share in a given product category, in the 1990's Microsoft was a clear monopoly in the personal computing market. Today that is debatable if you include Smartphones, Tablets and other devices in the Category of "Personal Computers" However simply saying "There is an alternative" does not in fact legally mean there is not a monopoly. For example when Standard Oil was broken up as a Monopoly there were other Oil refinement companies, however their market share was such that they were still considered a monopoly under the legal statues governing monopolies Your analogy to cars is just absurd, Most people do not actively seek an Operating System, they use what ever operating system is supplied by the manufacturer of the devices, one of the MAJOR anti-trust violations MS was charged with was using Vertical Conclusions to lock out alternative operating systems like Linux. Intel was also charged with Anti-Trust violations for attempting use their market dominance to lock out AMD from OEM channels. Car makers did similar things in the early day with Maintenance, accessories and parts. this resulted in MASSIVE regulation of the Automotive manufacturing industry and passage of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act which electronics companies today like to pretend does not exist >MS didn't have any legal trouble in the US, ever. They "lost" an antitrust trial in the 90s and the penalty was absolutely nothing, and that trial was all about their OS forcing the bundling of their browser. While it is true that the FTC, as is usual, failed in their duty to the American people, there was much more to the case than simply IE, that however was the most reported on in the Media, and what MS focused on in the PR efforts after the settlement was announced. Sadly with Windows 10, they have back peddled even on these provisions, no longer are browsers able to automatically set themselves as default, a user must navigate to the Default Applications Settings and manually change these. Even when doing so it asks "are you sure" at least 1 time before actually changing the default. Further users report often updates will revert these settings. >>The lesson here is that if you're hoping for the government to step in and save you, you're hopelessly naïve, as proven by history. I am expecting no such thing, I am a libertarian. Geo-Libertarian to be exact. At no point did I say anything about the government saving anyone. The fact I believe corporations have legal and moral obligations have nothing at all do with government. Having said that, given that corporations are government created entries that can not exist with out the legal framework the government created that allows for their existence, I do believe any evil a corporation does can and should be directly attributed to government as they are ultimately the creators and protectors of ever corporation to have ever existed and ever will exist >As I pointed out above, if you don't like Windows, there are viable alternatives now (the alternatives were much worse in the late 90s, now they're actually much better). I have been using Linux since 1999. > If your 3rd-party software vendor doesn't support non-Windows platforms, then maybe you should find a better one. I normally just write my own
creshal 10y ago
> Too bad. If you sign a contract with your builder allowing him to do this Did we? There's a quite a bunch of lawsuits going on right now regarding that topic.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  There's some lawsuits over MS forcing/tricking people into "upgrading" to Windows 10. This is something entirely different; this is MS not providing software updates in the way that some people would prefer. Customers don't have a right to tell their vendors exactly how to provide ongoing services. If you don't like it, find a better vendor. Also, the only successful lawsuit I've heard of against MS recently was the one where some woman sued them in small-claims court over the forced upgrade. $5k or $10k or whatever is a nice little chunk of money for some middle-class person who runs Windows Home for looking at Facebook and cat videos, but it's nothing to some company with dozens of employees or more that relies on their computing systems for running the business. MS just let that one slide because the cost to send a lawyer out wasn't even worth it, and the forced upgrades are pretty much all over at this point anyway; they're making more money now with people "upgraded" than they lost in a few piddly small-claims lawsuits. For a larger company that tries to sue because one of the bundled updates screws up their ERP system, MS isn't going to just pay out millions on that, they're going to crush that company in litigation costs, using their EULA which has been proven in court. Relying on the threat of a lawsuit against MS to keep your business alive is suicide; MS will win and your company will lose. If you don't like the way their software works, get different software.
  - syshum 10y ago
    There will be a class action over windows 10, and it not assured that MS will win as you seem to think. Sorry that is just not how any of this works. Further your continued instance that MS can literately do anything it wants and if you do not like it "get different software" is less than useless and not relevant.
  - creshal 10y ago
    > using their EULA which has been proven in court. No. Microsoft's EULA is void in large parts of Europe. Consumer protection laws are very strong over here.

ghostly_s 10y ago

I don't understand why you think you're entitled to that expectation. If you don't like what Windows does, buy an OS from someone else.

sjm-lbm 10y ago
I'm not saying that I'm entitled to an exception (and do use desktop Linux and macOS in any situation that allows me such a choice, gaming and Office usage being my primary barriers - and I'll leave aside whatever Apple may be doing with my usage statistics there, which probabally isn't great). Rather, the comment that I'm replying to infers that there is nothing wrong with what Microsoft is doing because they are using all of this data for some sort of Good Reason, and I personally think that their methods of data collection are shady enough to make whatever good they may be doing with that data irrelevant.
ashark 10y ago
My guess is you disagree with the notion that it's a legitimate role of government to set and enforce standards for various market products. That's fine, but if you truly don't understand why someone might hold that position (distinct from agreeing with it) then frankly the kind of reading you need to do to gain that understanding isn't likely to materialize in response to barbed comments on Internet message boards.