

Windows 8 is just another way for Microsoft to show you ads - owenwil
http://owened.co.nz/windows-8-is-just-a-way-for-microsoft-to-show-you-ads

======
j_baker
I'm calling FUD. The service the article is talking about is Windows 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.

~~~
gergles
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.

~~~
dpark
> _It's talking about apps that come with the system, that can't be removed_

They can be removed and it's up to the OEM whether they come with the system.
I don't recall if a clean install gives you the option to opt out of these
apps or not, though.

~~~
The_Egg_Man
I uninstalled a bunch of them when I did a fresh install of Windows 8, so you
can uninstall them from a clean install.

~~~
dpark
For sure you can uninstall them if you choose. I meant that I don't recall if
you can opt out of them entirely during a clean install, as in they never get
installed at all. A "no apps" Windows install.

------
CrankyPants
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.

~~~
jobu
Between AdBlock in Firefox and Chrome I don't usually see any ads on the web,
so the ads can be a big shock when I try to use Internet Explorer.

I suppose if the the ads become too obtrusive in the OS itself I'll have to
start modifying my router to block the them:
[http://www.howtogeek.com/51477/how-to-remove-
advertisements-...](http://www.howtogeek.com/51477/how-to-remove-
advertisements-with-pixelserv-on-dd-wrt/)

~~~
CrankyPants
Yeah. I love AdBlock, and I've donated. But it still can't filter out pay-to-
play content (which, working in the industry I can tell you is far more
prevalent than even the most cynical of people think), or anything of that
ilk.

And the same thing's true of filtering: I also block all ad, social, and
various other tracking networks from my entire network, but that's not going
to change the fundamental dynamics at play, unless a really large number of
people vote with their eyeballs, wallets, cookies, browser data, referrer
data, and so on.

And if enough people did, the stakeholders would just move on to the next
gateway (as if they haven't already).

------
16s
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.

~~~
mattmanser
When cable came out it was billed as no-ads.

Greed gets in the way, as a consumer you've got too little power to say no.
It's use the service with ads or get nothing.

It's exploitation, but what can you do?

In my opinion forced ads are an overall societal drain, a niggling little evil
cheapening all our lives, but as I said, what can you do?

~~~
canistr
I wouldn't say it's necessarily an overall societal drain. While I'm not a fan
of seeing ads, there IS value added when you get to use an app for free under
condition the ad is served to you. And it stops most people from pirating the
software.

Consider if Photoshop had ads. Yes it's a ridiculous concept but hear me out.
For most people, a Photoshop license is not priced in such a way for them to
get it. Not everyone can get the student license. But what if you had an ad-
supported version to allow you to use it? For people to try it out and open
their doors to image editing, that would be a great experience. The
alternative being pirating or using smaller programs or ones without the same
industry-vetting.

~~~
CrankyPants
I think it is an overall societal drain, and we're just in the early stages of
it.

Photoshop is an interesting example to me, because I count Photoshop as
another model that has had to change with the times: it used to be for pure
professionals only, at a time when professionals often worked for companies
that bought their licenses. Like the sports tickets of software. Crazy
expensive, but if you did it as a full-time job, it was more than easily
absorbed. After all, it required expensive (and technically challenging)
hardware to run it on, so that barrier was already crossed by potential
customers.

Today, everyone's a designer. Alright, that's not a fair assessment, but the
number of people who have design skills–ranging from minor editing to some
real mind-blowing stuff–but don't depend on them to feed their family, is
astonishingly high compared to just a couple of decades ago. People who never
consider themselves graphic artists find a lot of utility value in Photoshop,
or one of its offshoots.

So its old price point, relative to everything else, just doesn't make sense
if broad adoption is their goal, unless they're totally happy to capture just
the pure pro crowd, who, for perspective, can run it quite handily on hardware
that costs what a night or two in a mid-grade hotel in any big city does. The
technical and cost barriers have fallen dramatically.

So that's changing.

Now, consider if Photoshop were ad-supported, and had been so for long enough
to where designers grew up with that being the new normal.

Then, imagine someone comes out with an ad-free image-editing program, with no
ads, that costs a reasonable amount. In some ways, better than Photoshop, in
other ways, probably not as specialized, not as built-out, but pretty solid.

I think there's a market there for the taking.

Adobe's trying to strike that balance, and I'm not here to say whether or not
they're doing a good job at it with their current approach (that's a much
longer post and I doubt my ability to think about it as clearly as I believe I
can other segments of the industry), but my point is that well-made products
at a reasonable price is something I still want to believe there's a huge
market for.

And we tend to underestimate it because of all the sub-par stuff, our
conditioning to which we don't even realize.

I'd like to think that enough humanity still has the innate thoughtfulness to
be slightly skeptical when being pitched to trade hours of their life (that
is, the money they earned by working) for a given product, to provide a market
for it.

And if we've all reached the point where we'll happily trade our time,
attention spans, compromise our abilities to focus and concentrate, and reveal
a wealth of personal data so as to pay a bit less, well, then we get what we
deserve. But that's probably outside the scope of this particular comment.

Edit: Fixed a typo.

~~~
canistr
I agree that the market exist for a no-ad, reasonably cost version of program
X.

I guess what I'm getting at is how do you try software without 30-day trials,
ad-supported free versions, or having to pay a hefty price without test
driving?

Is there a better way?

~~~
CrankyPants
Good question. From my (limited) perspective, I see nothing wrong with
time/feature-limited trials. It's the free food sample at the store. If it's
good, it makes me want to buy. If it doesn't, I carry on. Works for me.

And I don't even necessarily see ad-supported free versions as the worst
option. A lot of developers find the paid version winds up getting them far
more revenue, and from better customers, which magnifies the gains. So if
that's a good gateway for them, great, and if that's a good filter by which to
learn that they should ditch the free version, even better.

I don't love it. I think a truly enlightened society would look for better
ways to connect customers with the products they'd enjoy and find value in,
but having an ad-supported version plus a paid version, seems to be a step in
the right direction. One could argue that's what's being done by networks who
broadcast their shows for free and sell them on iTunes/Amazon, but I'd like it
if: they came out at the same time, and if it wasn't clear the ad-supported
model is largely necessary because most of their products are garbage, and
they rely on the big hits to subsidize their general lack of taste. (Same goes
for the music industry.)

Now, I've made donations to sites that disable the ads for donors, and I get
why they do that. I don't judge the guys who see an ad-supported version as
their only potential way of gaining some traction (though I might not always
agree with that assessment). They're scrappy, and doing what they have to.

What I think really drives me nuts is this frantic, 90s-like gold rush push
for the ability to corner the market on every square inch at which eyeballs
point, with the aim towards placing corporate sponsorship there. And hey, for
the square-inches that aren't digital, let's put glasses between your eyes and
it!

(Don't get me wrong, wearable displays will be massively useful, and massively
'disruptive,' to use the local dialect, but I'd just as soon get mine from
someone who wants to make a really good one, and sell it to me for a profit,
and then carry on designing the next, even better one, as opposed to spending
most of their time thinking about how to monetize my life even more. But
that's probably just me.)

------
1SaltwaterC
"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
_vs a product you're actually paying for._

Like, say, Kindle with Special Offers?

~~~
jevinskie
That has a discount. Can I get a no-ads Win8 for a premium? Nope. I can with
the kindle.

~~~
sliverstorm
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
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.

------
SquareWheel
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
The weird thing is, those applications aren't "removed" when you uninstall
them: [http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1099533-advertisement-
in-m...](http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1099533-advertisement-in-metro-
apps/page__view__findpost__p__595167471)

~~~
drivebyacct2
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
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
I can imagine disk space, but why would they be running in the background?

------
jeremyarussell
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
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-
insta...](http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2012/08/how-to-install-an-
un-signed-3rd-party-driver-in-windows-8/)

Just do that first and it should work fine.

~~~
jeremyarussell
That actually was what I was talking about, cool I'll grab that for when
windows fails (and the magicISO features themselves.) Thanks

------
chamanbuga
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
Yes, when I go to the movie theater, I am bombarded with ads (previews) before
it starts.

~~~
Evbn
I would love a movie theater where the ads were only previews and not cars and
dentists.

~~~
chamanbuga
Here here! Dentist? Where are you seeing commercials of dentists? I've never
come across those, and I practically live at theaters.

------
jamesbrennan
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
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.

------
Nnasser
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
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.

------
fear91
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
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
Google owns the largest Android mobile app ad network.

------
drtbx12
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
What lines have you added?

------
jchavannes
>> 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.

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

~~~
james4k
Windows Store is another place they'll be making up that money.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
If the Apple store just breaks beyond even for Apple, why would it be more
than that for Microsoft?

------
pippy
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.

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

~~~
gergles
These aren't 3rd party apps. They are first-party apps that are shipped with
the OS and cannot be removed.

~~~
canistr
The first-party apps can be removed. You just right-click on it and uninstall.

~~~
makomk
More "hidden" than "removed", apparently.

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

~~~
antihero
You don't pay for Gmail.

------
drivebyacct2
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
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
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.

