3 ms·

"Although the article insinuates that Microsoft is somehow responsible for crapware" You're not the only person to get this from the article, but I didn't read

"Although the article insinuates that Microsoft is somehow responsible for crapware" You're not the only person to get this from the article, but I didn't read it that way at all. Maybe that's a sign that the article wasn't clear about the author's feelings, maybe it's a sign of defensiveness from MS fans, but I read it more as a critique on the absurdity of the situation. Is the service "beneficial" to consumers? Sure. After the $99 service, they have a better OS install. Is it Microsoft's "fault"? Of course not. They're not the ones installing the crapware, and they're powerless to do anything about it (thanks DOJ!). The absurdity comes in the simple fact that MS finds themselves in a position where their best choice is to offer a service to de-crapify operating systems that are made crappy by their own customers (OEMs). It's not Microsoft's fault. They're not doing anything malicious here, but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

brudgers 14y ago
Once the author calls third party software "crapware" it calls his objectivity into question. "It could only be worse if the OEMs wanted payment to remove crapware." Might at best, be considered damning Microsoft with faint praise. But it's clear that this article is intended as an indictment of Microsoft's practice: "This isn’t an example of Microsoft benefiting at the expense of the hardware makers, it’s Microsoft benefiting at the expense of consumers" It is actually possible to estimate the degree to which this is asinine: 16 stores * 40 customers * 365 days * $99 = $23,000,000/year. If they actually get 40 customers per day per store and all that revenue is all pure profit, it represents 0.1% of Microsoft's 2011 Net operating revenue.