5 ms·
We (edit: used to[0]) paid for windows, we shouldn't be the product. I believe the problem (and I am outraged about that) comes from the fact people are paying
by johnchristopher 11y ago
We (edit: used to[0]) paid for windows, we shouldn't be the product.
I believe the problem (and I am outraged about that) comes from the fact people are paying for Windows and practices such as the collecting of e-mail and contact shouldn't be necessary for 1. the OS to run smoothly and 2. for MS to cover for a low selling price.
The OS and its default bundled application's set price should be enough to guarantee MS doesn't need a user's private data and metadata to provide the product (aka: we gave MS some money, they shouldn't need our private data to make money in order to keep the price `low').
There are many things like "data about network you connect to" that need to be collected and stored on the device unless the user wants to introduce the same password over and over again. This has to be stated somehow and phrased.
Now if MS stores it on-line through the windows account for convenience it's almost the same thing if it's encrypted and hashed so MS just stores something that can't be exploited if leaked.
I have been looking at Surface recently and now I wonder if I can run Debian on it.
[0] but considering the upgrade path implies a paid product (win 7/8) it's a huge change for the user and my point still stand.
- bitJericho 11y agoYou know you don't have to login with a MS account right? that renders almost all of the privacy issues moot.
- AdieuToLogic 11y agoYou make a cogent argument, which I almost completely agree (excluding an OS vendor storing account info on their own servers). The consideration I hope to make evident now is: how do your points differ when applied to an Andriod device for which Google has been paid their licensing fees by the device manufacturer? Facebook's offerings are different, true, yet their Machiavellain use of whatever is presented to them warrants inclusion in this type of discussion IMHO.
- icebraining 11y agoAndriod device for which Google has been paid their licensing fees by the device manufacturer? As far as I know, Google charges no licensing fees for Android (not even for the proprietary apps / "Google Mobile Services"). http://9to5google.com/2014/01/23/google-we-do-not-charge-licensing-fees-for-androids-google-mobile-services/ http://9to5google.com/2014/01/23/google-we-do-not-charge-lic...
- AdieuToLogic 11y agoFees can be extracted in many ways: While Android is open source, the Google applications, like the Play Store, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Play Services, and others must be licensed. This licensing agreement is called the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement" (MADA) and comes with tons of restrictions.[1] This is only one example and the monetary considerations are unknown. 1 - http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-licensing-terms-leak-open-comes-with-restrictions/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-licen...
- icebraining 11y agoThe link I posted above explicitly says they don't charge for those applications and services.