Does P2P Windows updates really count as a question of ethics? I don't think so.
Any privacy options are quite clearly stated in the installation options, and they are in the settings menu in easy to find places.
Security is another issue, I'm not a fan of the OneDrive bitlocker key that MS automatically gets, or the Wifi Sense, but other than that I think MS has been quite transparent.
Considering that most privacy settings revolve around Cortana (i.e. the flagship feature for the OS), I don't see why people are getting their pants in a twist over it. For most people that pick the express installation, that will by default send all data to MS, their experience will be vastly improved.
For everyone else, you can switch the settings off, and for people who still have an issue generally use Linux (or OSX if they're that way inclined).
So really it isn't that MS thought you would say no to all their privacy questions. It's because Cortana doesn't function all that well if she's not able to send data to MS. Would it be nice if MS were more open in what exactly they were sending to their servers? Yes. So if that's the real problem, then don't question ethics, question their documentation.
Does P2P Windows updates really count as a question of ethics?
If a user is on a metered connection, and "seeding" Windows updates pushes them over their bandwidth cap, then MS is quite literally stealing from them.
I'd say that's an excellent example of a question of ethics.
> If a user is on a metered connection, and "seeding" Windows updates pushes them over their bandwidth cap, then MS is quite literally stealing from them.
That scenario would never happen since P2P updates (a.k.a delivery optimization) won't use metered connections [1].
That's great that it correctly detected your connection as metered but to think that it's going to do that perfectly every time is just naive.
Even if it only messed up and misidentified a connection as non-metered one time ever, you'd still be pissed off if it was you and it ended up costing you real money.
I don't know where you live but here in Canada we have bandwidth cap. If you go beyond that, you pay 2.50$ for every 5 GB (I'm really impress by that price, in the past we were billed 8$ for every GB, up to like 10 GB, at that point you could use as much as you wanted).
I think the issue with the p2p is the Microsoft is leveraging consumer's paychecks to lower their server costs all without even reasonably informing the consumer, let alone asking for permission. This feature could end up charging those with data caps. When I use p2p program, be it some chat system or bittorrent, I make the choice to use it. I understand that I am using my resources to run an application. But Microsoft seems to be making that choice for me.
I have very little interest in Windows so I haven't really been following this, but game developers have been using P2P updates for almost a decade now. It's a good feature. Especially if you have everybody grabbing updates at roughly the same time (which is likely), this is going to free up congestion and make it work better for everyone (including ISPs!).
What kind of data sizes are we talking about here, though? And at what ratio does it seed to? Without knowing details like that, it's hard to tell if the user will really be negatively impacted in a practical sense. Like I said, the games I have played that have automatic updates all have this feature turned on by default and I've never heard anyone complain (except for NAT issues making the P2P updating not work ;-) ). Admittedly I'm not a gamer, so possibly I have a skewed perspective from the few games I have played.
I think it's pretty well-known, though, that game updates are delivered using P2P file-sharing. Like you, I'm definitely not a gamer (we've got a Nintendo Wii and an Xbox 360 but I've never played either of them and the last PC game I played was MS Flight Simulator for DOS, if memory serves) but even I'm aware of that -- and apparently you are too.
I think the bigger issue is not that they're using P2P to deliver updates (or the plethora of other things that Microsoft is doing with Windows 10), it's that it's all being done without the user's knowledge or -- more importantly -- their consent.
The user benefits as well: if you have multiple machines in your home, only one set of updates will be downloaded and all your machines will share it. Until now, each machine had to download its own updates.
That's not the point. The point is that MS defaulted to using your bandwidth to send update data to other users over the internet P2P style.
If MS were benevolent, they would have made this an opt in feature, not the default behavior. They have the option of sending updates to PC on your local network, but that isn't selected by default.
So did spotify, if they didn't then no one will opt-in not because they care about their "privacy" but because it takes effort and knowledge.
They set the LAN option for enterprise and education SKU's not because they care about their privacy but because the network setup will not make it functional as UPNP and other types of port knocking are not something which is available in an enterprise environment.
UPNP and/or port knocking typically aren't available in an enterprise network because they aren't needed or wanted. Neither of those is necessary for P2P delivery of updates, though. I think they turned it off by default for those customers because Microsoft knows the ass chewing they'd get if they didn't.
Besides, a typical large enterprise is already going to have a system in place to handle the delivery of updates (e.g., WSUS, SCCM, or whatever they're using/calling it nowadays) to PCs such that the bandwidth savings aren't going to as noticeable.
It's not free if they expect for you to pay for it in time, privacy, and bandwidth. Presenting it as free while still trying to extract value from the recipient is where the ethical murkiness comes in.
Actually that is what free is. Just like Facebook and Google, Microsoft can very clearly and truthfully claim that their product is free if and only if they do not charge you money to use it.
It's free in the strict sense that you are not exchanging money for it. While that is perfectly legal, people are saying that you pay in a different way.
> Does P2P Windows updates really count as a question of ethics?
How could it not at least be a question? You could answer the question in the negative as not an ethical issue, sure. But a company using resources of their customer for their own private purposes without a very clear, up front and explicit opt-in is quite new and radical. It seems like a no brainer as an ethical question.
Does P2P Windows updates really count as a question of ethics?
Did you not read the post? Using customer's resources without permission for profit?
Any privacy options are quite clearly stated in the installation options, and they are in the settings
Many users are barely competent to initiate & complete the upgrade and find Solitaire thereafter. Data caps and P2P are incomprehensible to them, much less how to adjust settings to stop abusing limited bandwidth.
Any privacy options are quite clearly stated in the installation options, and they are in the settings menu in easy to find places.
Security is another issue, I'm not a fan of the OneDrive bitlocker key that MS automatically gets, or the Wifi Sense, but other than that I think MS has been quite transparent.
Considering that most privacy settings revolve around Cortana (i.e. the flagship feature for the OS), I don't see why people are getting their pants in a twist over it. For most people that pick the express installation, that will by default send all data to MS, their experience will be vastly improved.
For everyone else, you can switch the settings off, and for people who still have an issue generally use Linux (or OSX if they're that way inclined).
So really it isn't that MS thought you would say no to all their privacy questions. It's because Cortana doesn't function all that well if she's not able to send data to MS. Would it be nice if MS were more open in what exactly they were sending to their servers? Yes. So if that's the real problem, then don't question ethics, question their documentation.