7 ms·

Windows 8 is just another way for Microsoft to show you ads

105 points by owenwil 14y ago

spoiledtechie 14y ago
Makes sense with them reducing the costs of their Windows Product. They need to make up that money somewhere.
- james4k 14y ago
  Windows Store is another place they'll be making up that money.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    If the Apple store just breaks beyond even for Apple, why would it be more than that for Microsoft?
- stuartd 14y ago
  In Office 2015 you'll have to watch a 10 second ad before you can open a document..
jchavannes 14y ago
>> Do you want to be the product being sold? You decide. I wonder how many ads are for other ad supported products which in turn have ads for other ad supported products. Does the chain ever end? Sure Microsoft might make an extra few bucks, but I can't see this being a good long term strategy for their brand.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Imagine the rage from Amazon search results in Unity. Then this? Ouch. I was in disbelief that they would do this in shipping RT apps.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  The rage on the Amazon search results was especially because of file search keywords were being sent to Canonical and Amazon to show the ads. Here the ads are part of apps and as far as I can tell, no personal info is uploaded to Microsoft to personalize the ads.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    I know that and you know that, but I don't get the impression that that's why people were angry. I know the EFF went at it from the privacy angle and the privacy/gaudy-ness of it is what bothers me... but most people who were just "raging" about it were upset at the perception that Canonical was selling out or that they were tainting the out-of-box experience or making Ubuntu into adware. For me, it's incredibly, incredibly simple to remove from Unity... and it's completely free. Windows, not so much on either count.
SquareWheel 14y ago
When I saw the ads I just removed all the default apps. There will be a hundred weather app in a week, after all.
- owenwil 14y ago
  The weird thing is, those applications aren't "removed" when you uninstall them: http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1099533-advertisement-in-metro-apps/page__view__findpost__p__595167471 http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1099533-advertisement-in-m...
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    It's just like Android, they're part of a system image. No conspiracy here. It's likely due to some intricacies of licensing Windows Store apps which I'll not get into.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Android is worse. You can't even disable in built apps, so junk like Play Magazines and Twitter sucks up RAM and CPU forever.
      - SquareWheel 14y ago
        I can imagine disk space, but why would they be running in the background?
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        That hasn't been true for well over a year, probably a year and a half now. Running apps don't use CPU, default apps (now) don't often have services anyways so. yeah
CrankyPants 14y ago
Yeah. A few other things come to mind: Chrome OS, Android, most search engines, nearly all news channels and coverage, the vast majority of television shows, magazines, most so-called "'blogs," for that matter, most online content, most newspapers, etc. One could argue that that's just how many of them are staying alive, injecting a bit more life into their business model, which is a reasonable analysis, but I can't help but think it's still sucking the soul out of it. How likely would they be to, say, run a story that will almost certainly cause their biggest advertiser to pull their funding? Or, put another way, if they pulled the ads out and charged a subscription, would people value it enough to pay, or are they more just a part of the stream of noise, largely indistinguishable from the rest of it? It's sort of unreal how much we all just accept it, and may not even notice it. Call me crazy, but when I see some historical photos, it make me sad that most clothing worn now is either advertising or advocating something, and good luck finding a town largely free from the visual clutter of commercialization, and so on. And the only cities I've seen that aren't yet like that are in places like North Korea, or places recently like NK.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Cowen 14y ago
  Chrome OS doesn't ship with ads. Chrome OS only has ads because the internet has ads.
  - CrankyPants 14y ago
    Yeah, that's fair, but shipping with ads isn't the point. The point is to replace desktop apps that aren't capable of serving their ads or contributing to data that will improve their ability to monetize said ads. That, and to prevent someone else from doing the same. I agree that it's not a the most overt of plays, but for that matter, it's not like Android injects ads into the home screen. Google's smart enough to know they'll kill the goose that way. It makes the default search engine theirs, the browser theirs, location data theirs, any usage data–however aggregated and non-personally identifiable–theirs, encourages you to store your files with their cloud service (vs. doing it yourself or using someone else's who can't leverage it for ad revenue, e.g., SpiderOak's), and so on, all things that will drive up competitive CPCs and CPMs. It's about the land-grab that's going on right now, with the major players afraid of seeing the potential future balance of power shifting heavily to someone else, and with the downsides so high, they all want to get in while they can. Think of it as online advertising's own little cold war (but without the awesome fighter jets, spaceships, and submarines!). Nearly all of Google's revenues still come from ad dollars, and everything they're doing is to make sure they make progress on two fronts: expanding reach, and mitigating the fact that the growth of mobile is killing the revenue they could previously made from desktop activity. I had dinner with a Google exec last week, and he said to me, "the meme the made the rounds is right: we hate Facebook, but really only for what it's made us become. I miss the days when we all focused on search."
drtbx12 14y ago
I was surprised to see ads after installing Windows 8. I don't remember seeing any in the customer preview. Immediately changed my hosts file. I hates ads...
- alpb 14y ago
  What lines have you added?
- barista 14y ago
  What search engine do you use?
j_baker 14y ago
I'm calling FUD. The service the article is talking about is Windows Ads in Apps: http://advertising.microsoft.com/ads-in-apps http://advertising.microsoft.com/ads-in-apps It certainly is a way for Microsoft to make more advertising revenue in the same way that iAds does the same for Apple, AdMob does for Android, and AdSense does for Google Search. The only novel thing I see here is that the ads are for desktop apps.
- tomkin 14y ago
  You'll probably be downvoted for that comment. I reached the same conclusion, but for whatever reason, this will be different for X reason. Something along the lines of "but we don't pay for iOS". Which is a great argument if you don't care about user experience. It's shameful all around, really.
  - barista 14y ago
    Actually as an app developer I see this as a huge monetization opportunity to me. With a huge installed base of Windows, if I get my app running on some those with the ads powering my app? It's a mouth watering proposition.
  - shinratdr 14y ago
    Here is the x reason, in case you're in curious: Name the Apple-developed app, bundled with iOS or Mac OS X that also uses iAds. Exactly.
- lelandbatey 14y ago
  Indeed. I don't like desktop apps containing ads, but this is exactly what was predicted to happen with the shift to Metro. Metro, just like iOS and Android, needed a universal way to have ads in apps. This means that Metro apps running on the desktop can contain adds. It's the existing mobile sphere coming together with the desktop world, and is just a side effect of the introduction of Metro.
- gergles 14y ago
  No, this isn't talking about a service. It's talking about apps that come with the system, that can't be removed, that have advertising in them. None of the apps that come with iOS use iAds. Same with Android.
16s 14y ago
What's the difference between this and paying 100 bucks a month to DirectTV? I'm paying 100 bucks each month for the service, why does DirectTV bombard me with ads every few minutes? It seems logical that if DirectTV can behave that way and get away with it, then Microsoft can too.
- archangel_one 14y ago
  The fact that you're getting a bad deal from DirectTV doesn't make everyone else's bad deals okay as well.
  - majormajor 14y ago
    I'd much rather see ads during TV than have to personally cover much more of the cost producing the shows I want to watch. Just keep in mind that there are other perspectives out there. I know some people hate ads and would rather pay more, and I don't blame them for that, but I'm largely the opposite. (This breaks down some for internet display ads where there are privacy concerns with the data being tracked, unlike with broadcast-to-everyone TV ads; I'm not aware of how much data is shared between advertisers and such with this program for W8 apps to know just how big of an issue that might be.)
    - CrankyPants 14y ago
      I've moved to paying for content. In fact, at one point I shut off all content I wasn't directly paying for. A few things happened: • The S/N got astonishingly better. • The time spent on it was much lower. • What I got out of it was more nuanced, and impacted me more deeply. Now, a few other things happened: I missed some things, some of which was good (well-reasoned debates on HN, for example), some of which was the equivalent of junk food (tech news updates), but still not without some utility and applicability. I also decided some of my subscription content really wasn't worth it, because it started to feel an awful lot closer to the ad supported stuff I'd just detox'd off of, than the higher quality stuff I was paying for. I also missed some really, really good 'blogs from people who are respected industry figures, and run the 'blog more to make sure they stay respected industry figures, than to directly profit from them. Those are back in the (much reduced) fray. Which is all to say: I think if we paid directly for the content we consumed on TV, it could work out OK. And, once the industry realizes its model is unsustainable, everything will cost less to produce, and, hopefully, buy. (Think of sending $5-7 to an artist for their album, as opposed to paying ≥$10-15 to pay a lot of guys whose ability to add value is ever declining.) I'd just as soon watch 2-3 really superb TV shows per week and pay $100-300/year than spend that (or more) for the same stuff, plus a whole lot of noise and bloat. I think we'd come out of the other end better for it, and with more to show. At the risk of being hastily axiomatic, I could say that everyone's beholden to someone. Or, at least, content creators who want to be paid for their work, are. I'd rather they be primarily beholden to the customer, than to the advertiser, or the political climate and/or government, etc. Any other arrangement, to me, seems too compromised, if for no other reason than because a direct wallet-vote seems to be the most powerful.
mariusmg 14y ago
The OS itself has nothing to do with ads shown by 3rd party Metr....Windows Store apps.
- gergles 14y ago
  These aren't 3rd party apps. They are first-party apps that are shipped with the OS and cannot be removed.
  - canistr 14y ago
    The first-party apps can be removed. You just right-click on it and uninstall.
    - ajanuary 14y ago
      I think the meant the ads couldn't be removed.
    - makomk 14y ago
      More "hidden" than "removed", apparently.
Nnasser 14y ago
I think the article writer doesnt differntiate between the Win OS itself and the content–free apps that comes installed by default in the modern interface! I think Microsoft has a full right to put ads on these apps as they are 1)Free 2) They are an interface if thier content–based websites which have ads anyway.
- byproxy 14y ago
  I think your second point is right on. These are beautified websites that contain really unobtrusive ads, the "apps" just being a bookmark pinned to the start screen. I'd rather have that then a cluttered website in a web-browser with obtrusive ads. Though, in my use-case, I'm mainly in the desktop away from those apps, anyway.
1SaltwaterC 14y ago
"Gmail Man" ad hypocrisy in 3, 2, 1 ... Wondering how are they going to sort things out when Gmail is ad supported (perfectly fine with that, although no ads via IMAP / Android app) vs a product you're actually paying for. I almost felt sympathetic for their efforts with their new ecosystem. Close, but no cigar. Windows 7 stays till supported. Which, for the Professional version, is actually 2020 aka more than the average lifespan of the hardware itself.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  vs a product you're actually paying for. Like, say, Kindle with Special Offers?
  - jevinskie 14y ago
    That has a discount. Can I get a no-ads Win8 for a premium? Nope. I can with the kindle.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      You may not be able to get a no-ads version of Win8, but let me observe that I didn't even know Win8 had ads until this article- I've never opened those apps.
      - jeremyarussell 14y ago
        Same here, I didn't notice until checking the sports app. I was like wtf, until I realized it was in the app not the OS itself, on an app that makes sense (sports products in the sports app oh nooo) and it was the last thing in the list of big ol' tiles. VLC doesn't have apps, OS functions don't, Office didn't, just the store apps. Now if they ever do move into my other programs or into the core OS itself i'll have an issue, they aren't really that bad as it stands. (watch video before opening third party programs for instance.) I highly doubt they'll go there though.
- barista 14y ago
fear91 14y ago
Well the same is true for the android. Matter of fact, pushing ads in your face is the only reason Google funds android. They don't even want you to pay them. The SOLE reason for it's existence is for you to click their ads.
- pook1e 14y ago
  What a load of absolute crap. Have you ever even picked up an Android phone? In no way does Google "push ads in your face". In fact, none of the Google apps included with Android have ads. Third party apps may have ads, but that is no different from any other mobile platform. Google funds Android to promote Google services. Whether Google services pushes ads in your face or not has absolutely nothing to do with Android.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Google owns the largest Android mobile app ad network.
chamanbuga 14y ago
Interesting. To summarize, the article is arguing that if you pay for a service, you shouldn't be shown ads. What about your monthly cable subscription? What about Hulu? Even as a Hulu Plus member you are subjected to ads. Ads are simply another revenue model for parent company, in this case Microsoft, and for the channel, in this case the app.
- coin 14y ago
  Yes, when I go to the movie theater, I am bombarded with ads (previews) before it starts.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    I would love a movie theater where the ads were only previews and not cars and dentists.
    - chamanbuga 14y ago
      Here here! Dentist? Where are you seeing commercials of dentists? I've never come across those, and I practically live at theaters.
jamesbrennan 14y ago
If Windows adopted a freemium model I don't think it will attract many more users - I doubt there are consumers deterred form using Windows because of the price tag. I think this is the unfortunate future of desktop OSs though, with Ubuntu adding ads (or links to products they get a slice from) with local search results.
- antihero 14y ago
  I think it's wrong to compare this - useless ads on a product you pay for, with Ubuntu - search functionality that happens to benefit a specific provider, on a free OS, which is removable by a single command.
jeremyarussell 14y ago
I have to say, as much as I didn't want to have to say it. Microsoft outdid themselves with windows 8. I just bought a new Asus laptop and I didn't notice when I ordered that it said windows 8 (which is really really not like me) and when I got it I almost installed seven right over it. Instead I gave it a fair shot and damn it if it turns out I like it. The interface changes flow real nice for me. The apps it comes with are good (the store is lacking bad but time should help that issue) and the one program I couldn't install was for mounting an .iso (which is a huge deal for me) and turns out you can right click (or double click) and it mounts it and proceeds into the root of the image, so that won it bonus points. Obviously I've had it less the twenty four hours, but it's already growing on me. I really did think it was going to be a vista fiasco all over again, I can say I'm dropped by how well Microsoft managed to release an I-didn't-find-a-bug-within-minutes(hours even) new operating system. Which gets me even more because it's such a deviation from prior version of windows.
- cdh 14y ago
  If you're talking about MagicISO, I agree, I couldn't live without it. Windows 8's built in functionality is good, but not quite as good. Here's the trick to get MagicISO to install correctly on Windows 8: http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2012/08/how-to-install-an-un-signed-3rd-party-driver-in-windows-8/ http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2012/08/how-to-insta... Just do that first and it should work fine.
  - jeremyarussell 14y ago
    That actually was what I was talking about, cool I'll grab that for when windows fails (and the magicISO features themselves.) Thanks
pippy 14y ago
Windows 8 isn't bad or good. It depends what _you_ use it for. Ads get in the way for me. Some people don't mind ads. I use computers to code, multitask and use open source software. The majority of people don't do these things, so Windows 8 is a perfect piece of software for them. You don't use a hammer when you need a screwdriver, and Windows is just a tool. It depends if you like the software.
gootik 14y ago
"I’m worried about what comes next. Ads while I send email? " Why is this OK if Google GMail does it?
- antihero 14y ago
  You don't pay for Gmail.
SwearWord 14y ago
Yep that's ALL it is.

105 points by owenwil 14y ago

spoiledtechie 14y ago

Makes sense with them reducing the costs of their Windows Product. They need to make up that money somewhere.

james4k 14y ago
Windows Store is another place they'll be making up that money.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  If the Apple store just breaks beyond even for Apple, why would it be more than that for Microsoft?
stuartd 14y ago
In Office 2015 you'll have to watch a 10 second ad before you can open a document..

jchavannes 14y ago

>> Do you want to be the product being sold? You decide. I wonder how many ads are for other ad supported products which in turn have ads for other ad supported products. Does the chain ever end? Sure Microsoft might make an extra few bucks, but I can't see this being a good long term strategy for their brand.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Imagine the rage from Amazon search results in Unity. Then this? Ouch. I was in disbelief that they would do this in shipping RT apps.

recoiledsnake 14y ago
The rage on the Amazon search results was especially because of file search keywords were being sent to Canonical and Amazon to show the ads. Here the ads are part of apps and as far as I can tell, no personal info is uploaded to Microsoft to personalize the ads.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  I know that and you know that, but I don't get the impression that that's why people were angry. I know the EFF went at it from the privacy angle and the privacy/gaudy-ness of it is what bothers me... but most people who were just "raging" about it were upset at the perception that Canonical was selling out or that they were tainting the out-of-box experience or making Ubuntu into adware. For me, it's incredibly, incredibly simple to remove from Unity... and it's completely free. Windows, not so much on either count.

SquareWheel 14y ago

When I saw the ads I just removed all the default apps. There will be a hundred weather app in a week, after all.

owenwil 14y ago
The weird thing is, those applications aren't "removed" when you uninstall them: http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1099533-advertisement-in-metro-apps/page__view__findpost__p__595167471 http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1099533-advertisement-in-m...
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  It's just like Android, they're part of a system image. No conspiracy here. It's likely due to some intricacies of licensing Windows Store apps which I'll not get into.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Android is worse. You can't even disable in built apps, so junk like Play Magazines and Twitter sucks up RAM and CPU forever.
    - SquareWheel 14y ago
      I can imagine disk space, but why would they be running in the background?
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      That hasn't been true for well over a year, probably a year and a half now. Running apps don't use CPU, default apps (now) don't often have services anyways so. yeah

CrankyPants 14y ago

Yeah. A few other things come to mind: Chrome OS, Android, most search engines, nearly all news channels and coverage, the vast majority of television shows, magazines, most so-called "'blogs," for that matter, most online content, most newspapers, etc. One could argue that that's just how many of them are staying alive, injecting a bit more life into their business model, which is a reasonable analysis, but I can't help but think it's still sucking the soul out of it. How likely would they be to, say, run a story that will almost certainly cause their biggest advertiser to pull their funding? Or, put another way, if they pulled the ads out and charged a subscription, would people value it enough to pay, or are they more just a part of the stream of noise, largely indistinguishable from the rest of it? It's sort of unreal how much we all just accept it, and may not even notice it. Call me crazy, but when I see some historical photos, it make me sad that most clothing worn now is either advertising or advocating something, and good luck finding a town largely free from the visual clutter of commercialization, and so on. And the only cities I've seen that aren't yet like that are in places like North Korea, or places recently like NK.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Cowen 14y ago
Chrome OS doesn't ship with ads. Chrome OS only has ads because the internet has ads.
- CrankyPants 14y ago
  Yeah, that's fair, but shipping with ads isn't the point. The point is to replace desktop apps that aren't capable of serving their ads or contributing to data that will improve their ability to monetize said ads. That, and to prevent someone else from doing the same. I agree that it's not a the most overt of plays, but for that matter, it's not like Android injects ads into the home screen. Google's smart enough to know they'll kill the goose that way. It makes the default search engine theirs, the browser theirs, location data theirs, any usage data–however aggregated and non-personally identifiable–theirs, encourages you to store your files with their cloud service (vs. doing it yourself or using someone else's who can't leverage it for ad revenue, e.g., SpiderOak's), and so on, all things that will drive up competitive CPCs and CPMs. It's about the land-grab that's going on right now, with the major players afraid of seeing the potential future balance of power shifting heavily to someone else, and with the downsides so high, they all want to get in while they can. Think of it as online advertising's own little cold war (but without the awesome fighter jets, spaceships, and submarines!). Nearly all of Google's revenues still come from ad dollars, and everything they're doing is to make sure they make progress on two fronts: expanding reach, and mitigating the fact that the growth of mobile is killing the revenue they could previously made from desktop activity. I had dinner with a Google exec last week, and he said to me, "the meme the made the rounds is right: we hate Facebook, but really only for what it's made us become. I miss the days when we all focused on search."

drtbx12 14y ago

I was surprised to see ads after installing Windows 8. I don't remember seeing any in the customer preview. Immediately changed my hosts file. I hates ads...

alpb 14y ago
What lines have you added?
barista 14y ago
What search engine do you use?

j_baker 14y ago

I'm calling FUD. The service the article is talking about is Windows Ads in Apps: http://advertising.microsoft.com/ads-in-apps http://advertising.microsoft.com/ads-in-apps It certainly is a way for Microsoft to make more advertising revenue in the same way that iAds does the same for Apple, AdMob does for Android, and AdSense does for Google Search. The only novel thing I see here is that the ads are for desktop apps.

tomkin 14y ago
You'll probably be downvoted for that comment. I reached the same conclusion, but for whatever reason, this will be different for X reason. Something along the lines of "but we don't pay for iOS". Which is a great argument if you don't care about user experience. It's shameful all around, really.
- barista 14y ago
  Actually as an app developer I see this as a huge monetization opportunity to me. With a huge installed base of Windows, if I get my app running on some those with the ads powering my app? It's a mouth watering proposition.
- shinratdr 14y ago
  Here is the x reason, in case you're in curious: Name the Apple-developed app, bundled with iOS or Mac OS X that also uses iAds. Exactly.
lelandbatey 14y ago
Indeed. I don't like desktop apps containing ads, but this is exactly what was predicted to happen with the shift to Metro. Metro, just like iOS and Android, needed a universal way to have ads in apps. This means that Metro apps running on the desktop can contain adds. It's the existing mobile sphere coming together with the desktop world, and is just a side effect of the introduction of Metro.
gergles 14y ago
No, this isn't talking about a service. It's talking about apps that come with the system, that can't be removed, that have advertising in them. None of the apps that come with iOS use iAds. Same with Android.

16s 14y ago

What's the difference between this and paying 100 bucks a month to DirectTV? I'm paying 100 bucks each month for the service, why does DirectTV bombard me with ads every few minutes? It seems logical that if DirectTV can behave that way and get away with it, then Microsoft can too.

archangel_one 14y ago
The fact that you're getting a bad deal from DirectTV doesn't make everyone else's bad deals okay as well.
- majormajor 14y ago
  I'd much rather see ads during TV than have to personally cover much more of the cost producing the shows I want to watch. Just keep in mind that there are other perspectives out there. I know some people hate ads and would rather pay more, and I don't blame them for that, but I'm largely the opposite. (This breaks down some for internet display ads where there are privacy concerns with the data being tracked, unlike with broadcast-to-everyone TV ads; I'm not aware of how much data is shared between advertisers and such with this program for W8 apps to know just how big of an issue that might be.)
  - CrankyPants 14y ago
    I've moved to paying for content. In fact, at one point I shut off all content I wasn't directly paying for. A few things happened: • The S/N got astonishingly better. • The time spent on it was much lower. • What I got out of it was more nuanced, and impacted me more deeply. Now, a few other things happened: I missed some things, some of which was good (well-reasoned debates on HN, for example), some of which was the equivalent of junk food (tech news updates), but still not without some utility and applicability. I also decided some of my subscription content really wasn't worth it, because it started to feel an awful lot closer to the ad supported stuff I'd just detox'd off of, than the higher quality stuff I was paying for. I also missed some really, really good 'blogs from people who are respected industry figures, and run the 'blog more to make sure they stay respected industry figures, than to directly profit from them. Those are back in the (much reduced) fray. Which is all to say: I think if we paid directly for the content we consumed on TV, it could work out OK. And, once the industry realizes its model is unsustainable, everything will cost less to produce, and, hopefully, buy. (Think of sending $5-7 to an artist for their album, as opposed to paying ≥$10-15 to pay a lot of guys whose ability to add value is ever declining.) I'd just as soon watch 2-3 really superb TV shows per week and pay $100-300/year than spend that (or more) for the same stuff, plus a whole lot of noise and bloat. I think we'd come out of the other end better for it, and with more to show. At the risk of being hastily axiomatic, I could say that everyone's beholden to someone. Or, at least, content creators who want to be paid for their work, are. I'd rather they be primarily beholden to the customer, than to the advertiser, or the political climate and/or government, etc. Any other arrangement, to me, seems too compromised, if for no other reason than because a direct wallet-vote seems to be the most powerful.

mariusmg 14y ago

The OS itself has nothing to do with ads shown by 3rd party Metr....Windows Store apps.

gergles 14y ago
These aren't 3rd party apps. They are first-party apps that are shipped with the OS and cannot be removed.
- canistr 14y ago
  The first-party apps can be removed. You just right-click on it and uninstall.
  - ajanuary 14y ago
    I think the meant the ads couldn't be removed.
  - makomk 14y ago
    More "hidden" than "removed", apparently.

Nnasser 14y ago

I think the article writer doesnt differntiate between the Win OS itself and the content–free apps that comes installed by default in the modern interface! I think Microsoft has a full right to put ads on these apps as they are 1)Free 2) They are an interface if thier content–based websites which have ads anyway.

byproxy 14y ago
I think your second point is right on. These are beautified websites that contain really unobtrusive ads, the "apps" just being a bookmark pinned to the start screen. I'd rather have that then a cluttered website in a web-browser with obtrusive ads. Though, in my use-case, I'm mainly in the desktop away from those apps, anyway.

1SaltwaterC 14y ago

"Gmail Man" ad hypocrisy in 3, 2, 1 ... Wondering how are they going to sort things out when Gmail is ad supported (perfectly fine with that, although no ads via IMAP / Android app) vs a product you're actually paying for. I almost felt sympathetic for their efforts with their new ecosystem. Close, but no cigar. Windows 7 stays till supported. Which, for the Professional version, is actually 2020 aka more than the average lifespan of the hardware itself.

sliverstorm 14y ago
vs a product you're actually paying for. Like, say, Kindle with Special Offers?
- jevinskie 14y ago
  That has a discount. Can I get a no-ads Win8 for a premium? Nope. I can with the kindle.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    You may not be able to get a no-ads version of Win8, but let me observe that I didn't even know Win8 had ads until this article- I've never opened those apps.
    - jeremyarussell 14y ago
      Same here, I didn't notice until checking the sports app. I was like wtf, until I realized it was in the app not the OS itself, on an app that makes sense (sports products in the sports app oh nooo) and it was the last thing in the list of big ol' tiles. VLC doesn't have apps, OS functions don't, Office didn't, just the store apps. Now if they ever do move into my other programs or into the core OS itself i'll have an issue, they aren't really that bad as it stands. (watch video before opening third party programs for instance.) I highly doubt they'll go there though.
barista 14y ago

fear91 14y ago

Well the same is true for the android. Matter of fact, pushing ads in your face is the only reason Google funds android. They don't even want you to pay them. The SOLE reason for it's existence is for you to click their ads.

pook1e 14y ago
What a load of absolute crap. Have you ever even picked up an Android phone? In no way does Google "push ads in your face". In fact, none of the Google apps included with Android have ads. Third party apps may have ads, but that is no different from any other mobile platform. Google funds Android to promote Google services. Whether Google services pushes ads in your face or not has absolutely nothing to do with Android.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Google owns the largest Android mobile app ad network.

chamanbuga 14y ago

Interesting. To summarize, the article is arguing that if you pay for a service, you shouldn't be shown ads. What about your monthly cable subscription? What about Hulu? Even as a Hulu Plus member you are subjected to ads. Ads are simply another revenue model for parent company, in this case Microsoft, and for the channel, in this case the app.

coin 14y ago
Yes, when I go to the movie theater, I am bombarded with ads (previews) before it starts.
- Evbn 14y ago
  I would love a movie theater where the ads were only previews and not cars and dentists.
  - chamanbuga 14y ago
    Here here! Dentist? Where are you seeing commercials of dentists? I've never come across those, and I practically live at theaters.

jamesbrennan 14y ago

If Windows adopted a freemium model I don't think it will attract many more users - I doubt there are consumers deterred form using Windows because of the price tag. I think this is the unfortunate future of desktop OSs though, with Ubuntu adding ads (or links to products they get a slice from) with local search results.

antihero 14y ago
I think it's wrong to compare this - useless ads on a product you pay for, with Ubuntu - search functionality that happens to benefit a specific provider, on a free OS, which is removable by a single command.

jeremyarussell 14y ago

I have to say, as much as I didn't want to have to say it. Microsoft outdid themselves with windows 8. I just bought a new Asus laptop and I didn't notice when I ordered that it said windows 8 (which is really really not like me) and when I got it I almost installed seven right over it. Instead I gave it a fair shot and damn it if it turns out I like it. The interface changes flow real nice for me. The apps it comes with are good (the store is lacking bad but time should help that issue) and the one program I couldn't install was for mounting an .iso (which is a huge deal for me) and turns out you can right click (or double click) and it mounts it and proceeds into the root of the image, so that won it bonus points. Obviously I've had it less the twenty four hours, but it's already growing on me. I really did think it was going to be a vista fiasco all over again, I can say I'm dropped by how well Microsoft managed to release an I-didn't-find-a-bug-within-minutes(hours even) new operating system. Which gets me even more because it's such a deviation from prior version of windows.

cdh 14y ago
If you're talking about MagicISO, I agree, I couldn't live without it. Windows 8's built in functionality is good, but not quite as good. Here's the trick to get MagicISO to install correctly on Windows 8: http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2012/08/how-to-install-an-un-signed-3rd-party-driver-in-windows-8/ http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2012/08/how-to-insta... Just do that first and it should work fine.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  That actually was what I was talking about, cool I'll grab that for when windows fails (and the magicISO features themselves.) Thanks

pippy 14y ago

Windows 8 isn't bad or good. It depends what _you_ use it for. Ads get in the way for me. Some people don't mind ads. I use computers to code, multitask and use open source software. The majority of people don't do these things, so Windows 8 is a perfect piece of software for them. You don't use a hammer when you need a screwdriver, and Windows is just a tool. It depends if you like the software.

gootik 14y ago

"I’m worried about what comes next. Ads while I send email? " Why is this OK if Google GMail does it?

antihero 14y ago
You don't pay for Gmail.

SwearWord 14y ago

Yep that's ALL it is.