Windows 8 includes ads in default apps

[Shimapan]

Yes, Microsoft was not only braindead enough to force a butt-ugly touchscreen interface on the desktop, even though the amount of people actually having touchscreens is in the lower one-digit range.
Let's not mention the crippled desktop either, which intentionally had the start menu removed, so you're forced to use that abysmal Metro to launch apps. Or that all apps launched by Metro run maximised now, if you want it or not.
Let's also not mention all the other stuff that MS changed arbitrarily, and which makes Windows 8 an even much bigger pain in the arse to use than the above already does.

No, MS did even more: They are including ads in an OS that you were stupid enough to pay good money for. Ok, if you bought Windows 8, you're already an extreme masochist, but still... (unless you just bought a new laptop or pre-built PC and were *forced* to buy it along with it.)

Now the "Shopping lense" suggestions in the new Ubuntu Unity already proved very controversial, but they're quite unintrusive, and you can easily disable or even uninstall it (or even better, use Kde instead of stupid Gnome in the first place).

Not so with Windows 8. There's no way to disable the ads - after all, MS wants to make lots of $$$ off you by selling space in your apps to advertising companies. The ads are also *way* more intrusive than what the shopping lens does, taking up ample space. Yes, I know that no one asked you if you want ads in your apps, but when did MS ever ask you if you want something or not? ... Exactly.

A few examples:

"Oh, going to visit the stock exchange today? Be sure to shave yourself properly before, using the new Braun 3-in-1 full size shaver!"



"Oh no, just look at that weather, and what it does to your hair. Use the new Pantene shampoo now to erase the damage!"



Also, take a look on how you have a black ad on a very light background and a white ad on a dark background, to make sure the ad jumps at you the instant you open the app. After all, it's the most important part of the app now (for MS, at least).

Finally, there's still another thing you should be concerned about - tracking. There's a very good chance that MS will be tracking what ads you click and then seel those profiles to the ad companies as well. From the article:

"We can't talk about the inclusion of ads and not mention the "T" word: tracking. I haven't been able to find any information on whether or not Microsoft's tracking the ads you are clicking on, but if that is indeed the case, we'll find out soon enough. Unlike Windows 7 and earlier, your entire Windows 8 account can be tied to an e-mail account, so it would be rather easy for Microsoft to track things on a personal level - much like how Google does with its search engine, e-mail and so forth. This alone gives good reason to be concerned."

All that makes Windows 8 even more "fun" to use than it already is XD

Source: http://hothardware.com/News/Microsof...n-Advertising/

[pauly]

I tried Win 8 in beta. I hate it with a passion. Didn't think it was possible to increase that hate but I guess I was wrong.

[whatthefunk]

Wow. That is pretty low. Chances of me buying a new Microsoft product have just dipped into the negative percentages. I would be really REALLY pissed off if I had bought Windows 8 and would probably demand my money back.

[SteveRiley]

A few folks in the comment thread mentioned that the ads are visible in certain Metro-style apps, not the operating system itself. And indeed, that's true. You can right-click the tile and uninstall the app. Technically, these apps aren't part of the core operating system. But since they're automatically installed (and there's no way to change that), I agree that the decision to put ads there is pretty silly.

[dmeyer]

This is actually just funny! I'm guessing you could use a linux-based router to act as an Ad-Blocker network wide but would that leave an ugly empty space there or would it resize to take up the new space (like a browser.)

I could probably understand these Ads in say a super budget version of Win8. Say something costing $60 with a ton of features stripped out but in something like W8 Pro then I have to say I am quite disgusted.

Don't forget Microsoft adds their own Ad-riddle version of MS Office to new installs. Seriously! A productivity program with Ads!

[whatthefunk]

I cant imagine using that in a business setting. Your employees should be typing away or whatever but are instead looking at ads? Ridiculous!

[Wallace]

Well you're sort of preaching to the choir here. I find it interesting that Windows 8 looks so much like Gnome 3. From the splash screen which has a small circle that spins on the boot-up - to - the right hand task bar that shows when you hover your mouse over it - to - screen edges that open and close apps. But as far as Windows goes 8 does appear to start and shut-down faster. Search function works nicely. Unfortunately there are still a lot of applications and games that are written to only run on Windows. Looks like it will be a dual-boot configuration for me for a long time yet.

[NickStone]

I read somewhere that Windows 8 does not actually shut down but goes in to sleep mode which is the reason why it appears to "boot up" much quicker than previous versions or even Linux.

[SteveRiley]

The default shut down is now a new kind of hibernation.

This lead to a problem where Windows 8 would boot "too quickly" in certain circumstances -- namely, to get to the recovery menu. Therefore, a new feature had to be added, that allows you to override this default. To explain the feature, I refer you to this zillion-word blog post that describes the million-keystroke sequence.

[sealbhach]

Wow, that sucks. You pay for an OS and then you have to see annoying ads. Was it worth the revenue to annoy so many customers?

.

[Shimapan]

Well you're sort of preaching to the choir here. I find it interesting that Windows 8 looks so much like Gnome 3. From the splash screen which has a small circle that spins on the boot-up - to - the right hand task bar that shows when you hover your mouse over it - to - screen edges that open and close apps.

Now that would be just like MS. Stealing an idea that was retarded in the first place (Gnome 3), and then go and make it even worse.

But as far as Windows goes 8 does appear to start and shut-down faster. Search function works nicely. Unfortunately there are still a lot of applications and games that are written to only run on Windows. Looks like it will be a dual-boot configuration for me for a long time yet.

The reason why Win8 seems to start faster is because it only loads that Metro crap anymore. Only loading that Metro crap seems to be faster than loading a full-fledged desktop (even if it's a crippled desktop as in Win8).

Wow, that sucks. You pay for an OS and then you have to see annoying ads. Was it worth the revenue to annoy so many customers?

You should already know that the greed of MS is boundless. As for annoying people, that's where they're uncontested champions. Remember all the hubbub about the Uac introduced with ME 2.0 (Vista)? It wasn't intended as a security feature - it has been proven again and again that what little security it pretends to give is easily circumvented. No, the main purpose of Uac was to annoy people, nothing else:

At the RSA 2008 confab in San Francisco, Microsoft admitted that UAC was designed, in fact, to annoy. Microsoft's David Cross came out and said so: "The reason we put UAC into the platform was to annoy users. I'm serious," said Cross.

[SteveRiley]

The reason why Win8 seems to start faster is because it only loads that Metro crap anymore.

No, it's because the shutdown process has changed and it's now closer to hibernation. See my earlier post.

Remember all the hubbub about the Uac introduced with ME 2.0 (Vista)? It wasn't intended as a security feature - it has been proven again and again that what little security it pretends to give is easily circumvented. No, the main purpose of Uac was to annoy people, nothing else:

Actually, David Cross's characterization is only partially correct. For years, Microsoft tried to persuade developers to write programs to run under standard user, rather than administrator, context. But because almost no users ran as standard user, developers had no incentive to change. We (I was part of Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing Group when this feature came about) had almost no leverage to change third party behavior because we weren't buying their programs. Users, however, were. So if we could somehow invoke the power of the user's dollars, perhaps third party developers would improve.

UAC was never intended to -- and indeed can't -- be a security boundary, because elevation isn't a security boundary. UAC as implemented in Windows Vista intentionally made users aware of elevation to the point where they complained to third party developers to improve their stuff and allow most programs to run as standard user. And indeed, complaints happened, software became better, and it's now possible to operate a Windows machine productively without needing to be an administrator.

[Shimapan]

We (I was part of Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing Group when this feature came about)

Oh sheet... so you were working for MS? Now that must've been extremely painful My condolences to your misfortune.
Anyway, good to see you're all better now.

had almost no leverage to change third party behavior because we weren't buying their programs. Users, however, were. So if we could somehow invoke the power of the user's dollars, perhaps third party developers would improve.

UAC was never intended to -- and indeed can't -- be a security boundary, because elevation isn't a security boundary. UAC as implemented in Windows Vista intentionally made users aware of elevation to the point where they complained to third party developers to improve their stuff and allow most programs to run as standard user. And indeed, complaints happened, software became better, and it's now possible to operate a Windows machine productively without needing to be an administrator.

Typical MS decision. MS messes up big time and is too incompetent to fix it, and the user has to suffer because of it.

MS employee A: "Companies are all writing programs requiring admin access because of our mess-ups. How do we change that?"
B: "If we would make the admin account more secure to use, it wouldn't be that much of a problem."
A: "Nah, that sounds like actual work... besides, most here can't program their way out of a bag of cornflakes, and who gets to clean up the mess again? Me! Thus, rejected."
C: "Deny programs to run as admin, unless the companies bought a special admin privilege key from us."
A: "Making money is always good... However, many are already complaining that it's such a pain to develop for Windows in the first place, and that would make them only more likely to make programs for Apple, or maybe even for... *ominous music* Linux! Thus, also rejected."
D: "How about we use the usual way and make the user suffer? Put something in that annoys the living daylights out of him, and when he complains enough to the companies, they'll change their ways."
A: "Yes, I like the way you're thinking! Sounds like a plan."
E: "This might sound like a novel idea, but... how about we try to fix our mess ups, for a change?" *sees the shocked expressions on the other's faces* "Hey, just a joke, just a joke!"
*everyone laughs*
A: "Okay, we'll do it the usual way, as D suggested. Putting something in that annoys the user is very little effort, and the companies won't feel offended. The user will have to suffer for that, but then again, when did we ever care the least about what the user thinks or wants?"
*everyone laughs again*

Thus, Uac was created to deliberately annoy the user.

[SteveRiley]

Oh sheet... so you were working for MS? Now that must've been extremely painful My condolences to your misfortune.
Anyway, good to see you're all better now.

Actually, the 11 years I spent at Microsoft were very influential in my career. I learned more about software security at scale than I ever thought possible. While Microsoft is certainly not mistake-free, it's also important to realize that the scale at which the organization has to work is unprecedented. Patching a billion machines is really, really hard.

Typical MS decision. MS messes up big time and is too incompetent to fix it, and the user has to suffer because of it.

I'd like to get you to reconsider your thinking for a moment. Remember that DOS and early Windows were single-user systems and had no network connections. Isolation -- of processes, programs or users -- simply wasn't a design requirement. An enormous third-party ecosystem arose in this environment. As Windows evolved into a multi-process, multi-user operating system, Microsoft published numerous guidelines for third party developers. One of those was to develop software that didn't require admin rights. But, unfortunately, few third parties paid attention. So the world ended up in this situation:

DEVELOPER: "Everything works as admin. Why bother changing? No one runs as non-admin anyway."

USER: "Everything needs admin. So I'll just keep using admin accounts."

Rock, meet hard place. No amount of cajoling on the part of Microsoft was effective at changing third party behavior. I tell you, the sense of frustration we felt in TwC was huge. We successfully changed the firewall in XP SP2 so that it would be enabled by default. We successfully integrated malware detection and removal into the operating system. We successfully got every single business unit to adopt a unified upgrade mechanism (the politics around that were beyond comprehension, but we did it) and we got it enabled by default. We fixed a lot of broken stuff, organizationally and technically. What we couldn't change was stuff outside our control: third party defaults.

The decision to implement UAC was not taken lightly, nor was it a mechanism to squeeze money out of people. Your characterization of it as a profit center is mistaken, and there is no such thing as "a special admin privilege key." When we asked third parties why they weren't writing for standard user, the response was essentially, "Only one percent of our customers care, so we aren't going to spend money on them, especially since they keep buying anyway." Faced with that reality, we had only one choice: get more of their customers to care. Financial incentives are wonderful motivators, and indeed, it worked. Customers started demanding that third parties write for standard user, or they would take their business elsewhere. When this happened, UAC prompts dropped off significantly. I'm not making this up: TwC gathered plenty of data to demonstrate that the expected outcome was precisely because of the intended reason.

[Shimapan]

Remember that DOS and early Windows were single-user systems and had no network connections. Isolation -- of processes, programs or users -- simply wasn't a design requirement. An enormous third-party ecosystem arose in this environment. ...

MS has *no one* to blame for that than themselves only. At the time MS fudged together Win 3.1, there was already Unix, derivatives and other OSes which were fully multi-user and multi-threading-capable. There was also Os/2, which worked nicely in these regards. Sadly, the MS developers were way too dimwitted to grasp the concepts behind a proper multi-user-system and all that, and so they just happily continued their fudging. However, as with many other things they had done, this too came back later to bite them in the ass, and they had once more to deal with the consequences of their earlier incompetence.
This was especially bad after Windows XP, when they had to realise that their fudging had reached a critical mass, and they couldn't simply fudge on like that, as they had used to. They had to pull ther plug and do a code reset, which was the main cause of the countless delays during the creating of Vista. When they finally couldn't delay things any further, they released Vista, now almost three years late, but it was still an atrocious monstrosity, with many things half-finished and half-ass, poorly working (if at all), and stuff designed to annoy the user on top of that. There was a very good reason that Vista was the most hated OS right after the also abysmal ME.
It took MS then another three years to fix up the worst flaws in Vista and trun the bloody mess into a halfway-working OS. This fixed-up OS, which was only a minor upgrade (6.0 -> 6.1), and which was what Vista should've been in the first place, was then pompously announced as "Windows 7", with MS spending millions upon millions to continue to shove Windows down everyone's throats.

Any other company, where the quality of their products is even of the least concern, would've quickly went out of business, had they release garbage like ME, or at the very least after the release of garbage like Vista, which was insanely delayed on top of that. Not so MS. As everyone is *forced* to buy Windows with evey laptop and every pre-built desktop PC, they can do whatever they please and release the biggest garbage, and it will still not have any noteable inpact upon them.

We successfully integrated malware detection and removal into the operating system.

You're talking about the flaming piece of garbage called "Windows Defender"? In various comparison tests with other anti-malware programs, it regularly placed last (just like its equally worthless bigger brother regularly placed last in comparison tests). But that's no surprise, after all it was never meant to be a proper anti-malware solution. It was only meant to keep programs MS didn't like out of Windows - programs like Firefox. Fort that, any Firefox installation Windows Dickfender could find was marked as "malware", in an attempt to stop Firefox from kicking Internet Exploder in the nuts. That however created a huge sh!tstorm, and MS was forced to change the malware detection and not detect Firefox as malware anymore.