
Microsoft CTO on the future of software engineering [audio] - chmaynard
https://om.co/2019/04/08/microsoft-cto-kevin-scott-on-the-future-of-software-engineering-and-the-better-world-ahead/
======
renholder
> _But online ads and the technology that makes them work have played a
> considerable part in the development of almost every aspect of what we’ve
> come to enjoy as the free and open internet of today._

Online ads and free and open internet are not synonymous and I _really_ wish
that people would stop trying to equate them as such. The pervasive
advertising systems that are running today (e.g.: Facebook, Google, LinkedIn,
etc.) aren't running to make the internet free and open but to squeeze out
more profit margins for their respective shareholders and _nothing more_.

Were online ads the cause of the move from dial-up to "high-speed" internet?
I'd argue it was actually pictures, graphics, movies, etc. and the desire to
be able to consume those at a reasonable rate that caused the move from dial-
up to "high-speed" internet.

How did advertising play a role in the development of that portion of the free
and open internet? (Genuinely asking, in case I'm missing something here.)

~~~
keerthiko
Yes this. Most people who work outside software development and several
within, are convinced that they have access to free internet services only
because they are willing to tolerate ads.

Ads ≠ "free" services, and "free" services ≠ ads.

["free" in scare quotes to refer to not paying money per usage or to gain
access to usage, but you may be paying in other ways]

Counter examples are public libraries (no ads but "free") and cable television
(not "free" yet ads).

~~~
simonh
He didn't say that in principle the only way to make money on the internet was
through ads. He's saying that in practice most (not all) of the services
people actually use on the internet for free (at no direct cost to themselves)
are in fact paid for by advertising.

As an observation, I think that's hard to argue with.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
The quote in question specifically says “free and open internet” which has a
massively different connotation than merely “no direct cost.”

Free and open software, and by extension the internet services wishing to
provide a free and open internet, often has no direct cost to end users _and
also_ does not generate income from ads, and seeks non-exploitative funding or
donation models very different from advertising.

Regardless of how many ad-based services people use at no direct cost, it’s
highly debatable whether these services contribute in any way to the “free and
open” internet... their widespread usage and superficial lack of direct
financial cost certainly don’t factor in at all and are not relevant details
for what the quote is discussing.

------
pts_
Transcript please? Or is the future of SWE voice operated (God forbid)?

------
iblaine
Sanjay said one of the reasons he hired Kevin is because he wanted another
hard core engineer in upper management at Microsoft. MSFT has historically
allowed business decisions to trump technical decisions and Keven adds
balance.

/former LinkedIn employee

------
eismcc
Keep in mind, Kevin Scott has made most of his career around ads: AdMob,
Google, LinkedIn and now Microsoft.

~~~
williamaadams
Ive worked for Kevin during his tenure at MS. Ads have not been the focus, so
I'm not sure the innuendo means much.

~~~
eismcc
It’s just the facts. I worked with him at LinkedIn, so I know his history.

------
revskill
Ads is fine. Nothing bad with it. All TV programs show ads everyday.

It's the policy that matters. If all website enforces a policy that requires
user permission to show it, then it's good to go.

~~~
mattsouth
Well not all TV programs. The BBC in the uk is one exception to this rule.

~~~
cm2187
...paid by taxes.

