Thank You Microsoft for Adding ADS

[DeathFromBelow]

Your analogy is absolutely, completely, inaccurate. If you would have said "and started playing ads over the speakers when you use the cars built in satellite radio, which costs nothing extra and requires no extra monthly fee.", that would be accurate, though I doubt anybody would feel ads were unjustified in that situations.

Clearly there's some sort of understanding gap here, though. You seem to be having trouble grasping the concept that the ads are entirely separate from Windows.

No, I was referring to Microsoft's placement of ads in the stock metro apps and the terrible UI. I'm surprised they didn't manage to slip an Office 365 banner ad into Notepad given what a mess Windows 8 is in general.

I'm ambivalent about the Bing search integration. When I use the search feature in an OS I'm searching for local files, not web content. I don't think it's something most people want, it's just there to drive traffic to Bing.

 

[Dogs]

No, I was referring to Microsoft's placement of ads in the stock metro apps and the terrible UI. I'm surprised they didn't manage to slip an Office 365 banner ad into Notepad given what a mess Windows 8 is in general.

Again, the only apps which contain ads are the ones which are service based. Things like the weather app contain ads to support the weather service. The application itself simply presents the weather information. It does not collect weather data, analyze the data and provide forecasts. Those services are done externally, and the people who deliver that information make money off of ads. It's the same idea as the ads in the bing search; I doubt you'd have an easy time finding a reputable weather site that does not display any ads. Things like the Photos app do not contain ads, because there is no service to support.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Again, the only apps which contain ads are the ones which are service based. Things like the weather app contain ads to support the weather service. The application itself simply presents the weather information. It does not collect weather data, analyze the data and provide forecasts. Those services are done externally, and the people who deliver that information make money off of ads. It's the same idea as the ads in the bing search; I doubt you'd have an easy time finding a reputable weather site that does not display any ads. Things like the Photos app do not contain ads, because there is no service to support.

The ads are just gravy for them. I already paid for the OS and the cost of delivering weather data is tiny. Vista/7 have an ad-free weather gadget (the stock ones don't have maps but you can download ones that do).

You have to push back against this crap or before long there will be obnoxious banner ads whenever you change the volume like Panasonic does on their TV's. If they can get away with it they'll do it.

 

[heatlesssun]

And how exactly did that come about? Are you a journalist? Do you work for a PR company?

I'm not saying that I have any kind of high level access, I don't. I've worked in large financial intuitions for many years that are among Microsoft's biggest customers and have worked a lot of their techs on development and support issues. And I know our rep at the bank and have discussed things with him. I know that many around here think that Microsoft just sticks its head in the sand and doesn't listen but they actually have lot of people engaged in various discussions at many different levels. And when you're company is tossing them millions a year, yeah they will talk to app developers that have influence on the tools and technology for those apps.

 

[Dogs]

The ads are just gravy for them.

Nope. The ads fund the services which drive the metro apps which contain them. The weather app contains ads because they get their weather data from Weather.com and AccuWeather. The ad revenue funds those services, rather than going into Microsoft's pocket. I don't understand why such a simple, elementary concept is so difficult for some people to understand.

I already paid for the OS and the cost of delivering weather data is tiny.

But if you know literally anything about weather, you're aware that the cost of creating the weather data isn't tiny. You already paid for the OS, which is why absolutely nothing in the operating system itself contains ads whatsoever for it's own purpose. That's right, nothing. Literally nothing.

On the other hand, I suspect you did not give any money to Weather.com or AccuWeather, nor did you pay the salaries of any meteorologists or buy them their expensive doplar radar equipment. Thus, if you want to eat the fruits of their labor, you have to put up with ads.

You have to push back against this crap or before long there will be obnoxious banner ads whenever you change the volume like Panasonic does on their TV's. If they can get away with it they'll do it.

Or maybe you just need to be open minded enough to grasp the simple concept of how basic economics work. Websites cost money to run. In order to provide these services, their operators require revenue. To acquire said revenue, these operators must either charge a direct fee to use their sites/services, or they must fund these sites/services with advertisement. If you want there to be weather data for you to receive in your application, there's going to need to be ads, just like on the weather website.

The same goes for search results. Developing things like MapReduce and PageRank cost money. Architecting, implementing and maintaining all of the hardware infrastructure to run a search engine costs obscene amounts of money. If advertisements went away, sites like Bing and Google couldn't exist without charging a membership fee.

All of the places in metro where you find advertisements are applications or features which consume expensive-to-operate external services. This isn't like your Panasonic example, where you're turning the volume up and down. This is like watching your favorite TV station, where the network operators need to run advertisements to generate the revenue necessary to function as a business.

 

[_brew]

The ads are just gravy for them. I already paid for the OS and the cost of delivering weather data is tiny. Vista/7 have an ad-free weather gadget (the stock ones don't have maps but you can download ones that do).

Windows 8 has a stock, ad-free weather app, too. The ones with ads are 3rd party (accuweather and weather.com). They don't have anything to do with the OS or Microsoft other than being available in the app store.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

...
If you want there to be weather data for you to receive in your application, there's going to need to be ads, just like on the weather website.

The data is availible for free from the national weather service. I pay taxes. I paid for the OS. The ads are unnecessary.

Even if they use a commercial service the per-user cost of providing the data is tiny. This isn't a difficult concept. Its not like they launch a satelite and hire a meteorologist for your hometown. They make plenty of money through the sales of the OS to cover it. Its just a money grab, and like any other company they'll take it as far as you let them.

 

[heatlesssun]

So what some are saying here is that any cloud or web service that Microsoft includes in Windows can have no funding mechanism beyond the price of a Windows license. That doesn't seem very workable.

 

[Autopia]

So what some are saying here is that any cloud or web service that Microsoft includes in Windows can have no funding mechanism beyond the price of a Windows license. That doesn't seem very workable.

not just windows but all other OS for me.

 

[Dogs]

Windows 8 has a stock, ad-free weather app, too. The ones with ads are 3rd party (accuweather and weather.com). They don't have anything to do with the OS or Microsoft other than being available in the app store.

There are ads in the stock weather app, if you look hard enough. The stock app pulls from Bing weather, which gets data through agreements with Weather.com and AccuWeather.

The data is availible for free from the national weather service. I pay taxes. I paid for the OS. The ads are unnecessary.

That's an excellent source of weather information....Assuming you live in the US. Microsoft, unlike the American view of the world, is global. Not ever single person in the world lives in the US. Therefore, not every person in the world can retrieve their local forecast through the National Weather Service.

Even if they use a commercial service the per-user cost of providing the data is tiny. This isn't a difficult concept. Its not like they launch a satelite and hire a meteorologist for your hometown. They make plenty of money through the sales of the OS to cover it. Its just a money grab, and like any other company they'll take it as far as you let them.

Sadly, your US-centric view of the world has failed to account for the fact that it isn't as simple as delivering data straight from the NWS, already boxed and ready to go. Data has to be put together from a variety of sources to provide a service that can deliver relevant data to many regions. Not all of that data will come from tax-funded services like the NWS.

So what some are saying here is that any cloud or web service that Microsoft includes in Windows can have no funding mechanism beyond the price of a Windows license. That doesn't seem very workable.

Why yes, of course. DeathFromBelow has paid for his single OS license and has paid is tax dollars. That's all it takes to fund every single computer-consumable service in the world, apparently.

 

[heatlesssun]

Windows 8 has a stock, ad-free weather app, too. The ones with ads are 3rd party (accuweather and weather.com). They don't have anything to do with the OS or Microsoft other than being available in the app store.

Bing Weather does have ads, however there are three different 3rd parties that provide data for this apps and I doubt that they are doing it for free.

 

[Dogs]

Bing Weather does have ads, however there are three different 3rd parties that provide data for this apps and I doubt that they are doing it for free.

Yes. The weather application gets its data from Bing Weather. Bing Weather gets its data from three providers (two of which are AccuWeather and Weather.com), no doubt for a non-trivial portion of the ad revenue generated by Bing Weather. These three providers get their data from other sources, and the flow of revenue generally travels downhill as one would expect. If you were to visit Bing Weather in your browser, you would see ads, even if you did so on a Windows computer, so I don't understand why integrating that experience into a metro app suddenly makes it unacceptable to display those same ads. From my understanding, Bing Weather exists mostly to keep people within the Bing ecosystem (if Bing offers you most of what you're looking for, you're more inclined to use it), rather than to directly generate profit as a weather service by itself. Buying a Windows license does not entitle you to ad-free consumption of services offered on the web, especially when most of those services are not completely vertically handled by Microsoft. The revenue from you buying your copy of Windows goes towards Windows development...someone everybody who uses Windows will benefit from. Not everybody will use the weather app, for example, so the costs associated with delivering weather should be funded by those who use that service, rather than by everybody. In this case, that is done through advertisement. It would make little to no sense to increase the cost of a Windows license just to make things like Bing Weather completely ad-free services.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

So what some are saying here is that any cloud or web service that Microsoft includes in Windows can have no funding mechanism beyond the price of a Windows license. That doesn't seem very workable.

No. My issue is that they're monetizing features that were previously free. Charging $110 for Media Center (a Vista/7 Home Premium feature), ads in basic apps...

I wouldn't mind an ad in a new app for something like maps. My concern is the Panasonic scenario I mentioned earlier where everything in the OS is progressively monetized. The only thing preventing it is the response from consumers, and since there isn't any other real competition on the desktop there's not much besides negative user feedback and sales to drive changes.

I don't think I'm biased against Microsoft in any way, I stood up for Vista and demonstrated benchmarks to debunk a lot of bad information that was going around back then. I'm genuinely concerned that Microsoft is ignoring criticisms and feedback regarding Windows 8. This issue over unnecessary ads is just the tip of the iceberg, writing off the bad UI as 'innovation' really strikes me as PR speak. I want Microsoft to innovate and be competitive on phones and tablets, but they didn't have to screw up their desktop product in the process.

 

[Dogs]

No. My issue is that they're monetizing features that were previously free.

It's a necessary and entirely reasonable thing to do, and that is obvious if you understand the economics behind it all.

Charging $110 for Media Center (a Vista/7 Home Premium feature)

People who upgraded from Vista/7 (within a reasonably large window of time) were given Media Center for free. Those individuals are at no loss. However, most people do not use Windows Media Center, so budgeting for the expense of continuing development of Windows Media Center by funding it directly from the revenue of all licenses does not make sense. Microsoft is simply distributing the cost of developing features more directly to those who use and benefit from them.

Most people don't use the enterprise features of Windows, such as Active Directory, so operating systems which do not have these features are sold at a lower price. The people who use these features pay extra in order to have them, so that people who don't use them don't have to pay a high price for Windows in order to fund feature development of features they don't use.

ads in basic apps...

The services behind those basic apps have never been ad-free. These new apps are just additional facets to already existing internet services which are funded by ads. You have nothing to complain about, unless you believe that visiting any of these services in a web browser should also be a 100% ad free and unpaid experience. Of course, if that's what you believe, I don't know how you expect those services to be funded.

This issue over unnecessary ads is just the tip of the iceberg...

There is no issue of unnecessary ads. The ads are the same ads you would see if you consumed the same services through a web browser instead of a metro app. And if you're truly concerned about Microsoft not responding to criticisms/feedback, you should do your best to avoid creating unnecessary noise through complaining about things that aren't issues. It only serves to make finding and responding to real criticism and real problems more difficult and less likely, and in the long run people like you are only serving to make things worse for everybody else. The things others and I would like to see changed/fixed/implemented are less likely to happen, because far too many people are so loudly complaining about problems that aren't actually problems.

 

[heatlesssun]

My concern is the Panasonic scenario I mentioned earlier where everything in the OS is progressively monetized. The only thing preventing it is the response from consumers, and since there isn't any other real competition on the desktop there's not much besides negative user feedback and sales to drive changes.

But it's not the OS that's being monetized, it's the services. As Dogs and I have pointed out, it's the same monetization model that these services have in a web browser. These same services and type of integration already exist on mobile devices. Why should a PC have the same capabilities and connivance and why all of sudden because the services are running on a PC they have to be stripped on their monetization? These services aren't even tied to PCs, they are client independent.

I don't think I'm biased against Microsoft in any way, I stood up for Vista and demonstrated benchmarks to debunk a lot of bad information that was going around back then. I'm genuinely concerned that Microsoft is ignoring criticisms and feedback regarding Windows 8. This issue over unnecessary ads is just the tip of the iceberg, writing off the bad UI as 'innovation' really strikes me as PR speak. I want Microsoft to innovate and be competitive on phones and tablets, but they didn't have to screw up their desktop product in the process.

How do you know what is necessary or economically viable in relation to what it costs to run all of these services? No one is required to use anything in Windows that uses ad advertising, it's totally optional. But I think many will appreciate these services, I really dig the integrated search. It's not anymore littered with ads than a web search. If one has privacy concerns and such I understand. But many people don't have much of concern obviously as they people can't seem to suck up enough ad and information monetized services.

 

[wonderfield]

Why is it necessary for Microsoft to advertise in their weather software when Apple can provide that as an ad-free (and cost-free) solution in the OS X weather widget and the iOS weather app?

 

[Dogs]

Why is it necessary for Microsoft to advertise in their weather software when Apple can provide that as an ad-free (and cost-free) solution in the OS X weather widget and the iOS weather app?

Providing those services without advertisement or fee is a cost that must be made up for somewhere else. Apple provides perks such as these as a benefit for those who pay the extreme Apple tax. Apple has always taken the approach of delivering the whole package to their customers, and making things like weather and free fit into that model. Of course, in buying that complete package, customers pay extra. Would I be willing to pay $700 for my phone instead of $300, if it meant I didn't have to see ads as often? No, but some consumers are into that.

 

[heatlesssun]

Why is it necessary for Microsoft to advertise in their weather software when Apple can provide that as an ad-free (and cost-free) solution in the OS X weather widget and the iOS weather app?

The iOS weather app only gets its data from Yahoo I believe and there is a Yahoo link in the app. Bing Weather gets data from quite a few more sources:

Desktop gadgets still work in 8/8.1 if one wants them and there are weather gadgets that don't have ads. Also the live tile of Bing Weather shows no ad. There are also free weather apps out there that have no ads in them if for some reason one ad at end of the panorama after the Historical Weather section is overly burdensome.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

Charging $110 for Media Center (a Vista/7 Home Premium feature)

What?

If you have Windows 8, it's $100 to upgrade to Pro AND Media Center.

If you have Windows 8 Pro, it's $10.

If you're buying OEM licenses, there's only a $50 delta between the cheapest version of Win8 and Pro + the $10 upgrade.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Read entire thread..Found Not one single reason why Advertisements should be baked into my "DESKTOP".

I don't Want Ads in my Web Browser.
I don't want Ads on my Phone.
I don't want Ads on my TV and if I ever figure out how to completely eliminate them, you can damn well bet I will.
I don't want Ads on my Game console.
And I sure as Fuck don't want ads on my Desktop search. Ever..For any reason what so ever. Seriously Arguing that this is acceptable on any level is just laughable. Sorry but there is just no justifying this shit. Microsoft is just flat out disrespecting you as a consumer at this point.

I pick and Choose to allow ads on sites like HardOCP to support specific sites. Not because I give a flying monkeys ass what the ads are. Anything else can take a flying leap.

 

[heatlesssun]

Read entire thread..Found Not one single reason why Advertisements should be baked into my "DESKTOP".

Probably because it's not baked into the desktop first of all. I've been using the integrated search for a week, the way you guys are describing it there's all sorts of random ads all over the place. It's just the same inline search related results that you get from a Bing search in a browser and they are relevant to the search. Unless you're doing a search on a product or service you're probably never even going to see any ad links. I didn't even see one in a week of constant use of this until I tried out the example in the Microsoft blog post on this. "aaa travel" does indeed result in an add link to aaa.com.

As to the why, it's pretty cool to hit the Windows key, start typing and do a web search, that just makes things convenient. Secondly, this system is extensible and tie other apps into search results.

I don't Want Ads in my Web Browser.
I don't want Ads on my Phone.
I don't want Ads on my TV and if I ever figure out how to completely eliminate them, you can damn well bet I will.
I don't want Ads on my Game console.
And I sure as Fuck don't want ads on my Desktop search. Ever..For any reason what so ever. Seriously Arguing that this is acceptable on any level is just laughable. Sorry but there is just no justifying this shit. Microsoft is just flat out disrespecting you as a consumer at this point.

I pick and Choose to allow ads on sites like HardOCP to support specific sites. Not because I give a flying monkeys ass what the ads are. Anything else can take a flying leap.

You may not want the ads but everyone that's criticizing ads benefits everyday from them even when they block them.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

What?
If you have Windows 8, it's $100 to upgrade to Pro AND Media Center.

$100 extra for a standard feature from Vista and 7 Home Premium with no changes or updates...

If you have Windows 8 Pro, it's $10.

If you're buying OEM licenses, there's only a $50 delta between the cheapest version of Win8 and Pro + the $10 upgrade.

Ok, so $50 extra for a standard feature from 7 with no changes or updates... What a steal!

This is stupid. This is a feature that came standard with Windows Vista and 7. Why should I have to pay $50-$100 extra for an old feature? They made no changes to it (and have depreciated their program to support tuners). Why are they monetizing it?

Like I keep saying, history indicates that they'll do whatever customers will let them get away with. It's easy to imagine Microsoft putting ads under the slider that appears on-screen when you adjust the volume, just like Panasonic. No big deal right?

 

[heatlesssun]

Like I keep saying, history indicates that they'll do whatever customers will let them get away with.

This is kind of related to the point I was making. Millions and millions of people each and everyday see exactly the same kinds of results in web browsers today. So now Microsoft just adds a system in Windows to make it easier to get search results and integrated them into other apps and services, very much like people are already getting on phones and tablets.

You really expect average people to get upset about the very thing that are smoking like meth on phones and tablets? "Gee, it a PC, it should be less integrated and more of pain in the ass to use! Just keep everything disconnected, screw integrating services and apps. I just want to search local files all day long!" At some level, this is what many of you are saying.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Probably because it's not baked into the desktop first of all. I've been using the integrated search for a week, the way you guys are describing it there's all sorts of random ads all over the place. It's just the same inline search related results that you get from a Bing search in a browser and they are relevant to the search. Unless you're doing a search on a product or service you're probably never even going to see any ad links. I didn't even see one in a week of constant use of this until I tried out the example in the Microsoft blog post on this. "aaa travel" does indeed result in an add link to aaa.com.

As to the why, it's pretty cool to hit the Windows key, start typing and do a web search, that just makes things convenient. Secondly, this system is extensible and tie other apps into search results.



You may not want the ads but everyone that's criticizing ads benefits everyday from them even when they block them.

Integrating web search into my desktop is the same thing. If I want to search the web, I will search the web. Otherwise, keep that shit out. Of course even on that, I simply don't need or want ads when searching. Give me a list of the things that are directly relevant to my search and keep the advertising bullshit out of it. I am not nothing more than a walking wallet.

The few sites that I visit that benefit from ads and I support, I allow them. As for the rest of them, if they can't make money without shoving ads down my throat, then bye bye. If the few sites I visit went Sub only in lieu of Ads, I would simply subscribe. That all said, that still doesn't justify this shit being built straight into the OS.

Quite Frankly, I think it is complete bullshit as it stands that I pay $200/mo for cable and still have to endure ads. Much less having to put up with more of this garbage on my desktop.

 

[Wrench00]

Integrating web search into my desktop is the same thing. If I want to search the web, I will search the web. Otherwise, keep that shit out. Of course even on that, I simply don't need or want ads when searching. Give me a list of the things that are directly relevant to my search and keep the advertising bullshit out of it. I am not nothing more than a walking wallet.

The few sites that I visit that benefit from ads and I support, I allow them. As for the rest of them, if they can't make money without shoving ads down my throat, then bye bye. If the few sites I visit went Sub only in lieu of Ads, I would simply subscribe. That all said, that still doesn't justify this shit being built straight into the OS.

Quite Frankly, I think it is complete bullshit as it stands that I pay $200/mo for cable and still have to endure ads. Much less having to put up with more of this garbage on my desktop.

Seriously quit trying cause Heatlessun is in a lala land of make belief of MS is an Angelic entity and can do no wrong.

 

[heatlesssun]

Integrating web search into my desktop is the same thing. If I want to search the web, I will search the web. Otherwise, keep that shit out. Of course even on that, I simply don't need or want ads when searching. Give me a list of the things that are directly relevant to my search and keep the advertising bullshit out of it. I am not nothing more than a walking wallet.

The few sites that I visit that benefit from ads and I support, I allow them. As for the rest of them, if they can't make money without shoving ads down my throat, then bye bye. If the few sites I visit went Sub only in lieu of Ads, I would simply subscribe. That all said, that still doesn't justify this shit being built straight into the OS.

Quite Frankly, I think it is complete bullshit as it stands that I pay $200/mo for cable and still have to endure ads. Much less having to put up with more of this garbage on my desktop.

Do you really think that if you were to do a search on "hardforum" with this thing that you'd end up seeing an ad about Windex? It's the same search results you'd get from a Bing search in a web browser. Bing or Google, you don't usually see search related ad links on anything other than companies, products and services.

And here we go again with yet another Windows 8 thread where people are bashing something and have no idea what they are talking about because they never touched the subject at hand. And that's why I think many of you will surprised when lots of average people like this thing, because it's nothing more than what they are already seeing in a web browser and now these results can be used in more interesting and powerful ways because of the much tighter integration that can be achieved that's not possible in a web browser.

 

[heatlesssun]

Seriously quit trying cause Heatlessun is in a lala land of make belief of MS is an Angelic entity and can do no wrong.

Anyone is going to be hard to convince when the people talking about something have obviously never touch it. Rambling on and on about a bunch of ads that do not exist proves that point. I used this thing constantly for a solid week and never saw ONE AD. The ads that do come up are search related and are as I said, commercial related subjects. And again, when you've totally got it this wrong don't be surprised when people like this feature.

 

[Void]

I must be doing something wrong. I hit the windows key and type something in it's not giving me any results from the web, all local. When I went into the search settings web search was turned off, I didn't turn it off so I guess it must be that way by default with 8.1? Mind you this is a fresh install I just did earlier this week so I could try out 8.1 as I had gone back to Windows 7.

 

[Dogs]

$100 extra for a standard feature from Vista and 7 Home Premium with no changes or updates...


Ok, so $50 extra for a standard feature from 7 with no changes or updates... What a steal!

This is stupid. This is a feature that came standard with Windows Vista and 7. Why should I have to pay $50-$100 extra for an old feature? They made no changes to it (and have depreciated their program to support tuners). Why are they monetizing it?

I already explained the middle-school level economics behind why they're doing that. Instead of making the price of a license higher for everybody, they remove features most people don't use anyways and charge a small extra fee ($10) to those who do use those features. It is 100% exactly like what they do with separate editions. Not everybody uses things like BitLocker, Active Directory, etc., so these features have been put into a 'Professional' version which costs more so that the 'Home' version can cost less. Microsoft is distributing the costs of developing these features to only those who use them, rather than to everybody. That's a basic tactic almost everybody has been using for decades. The reason Media Center was included in Windows Vista/Windows 7 was that Microsoft thought that was where technology was going. Media Center computers didn't catch on as well as Microsoft had hoped, so use of Media Center was not as ubiquitous as Microsoft had hoped. Since it turned out few people use Media Center, it was separated into a $10 add-on to distribute the costs directly to those who use it, rather than making everybody pay for it. Remember, back in Windows XP, you had to buy a more expensive version of Windows specifically to get Media Center. It's tiered versions, and they're the reason the average user can get a Windows 8 license for $100 instead of $140.

Like I keep saying, history indicates that they'll do whatever customers will let them get away with. It's easy to imagine Microsoft putting ads under the slider that appears on-screen when you adjust the volume, just like Panasonic. No big deal right?

Nope. There is no historical precedence to suggest that Microsoft will do anything on that level. You're just being extremely irrational and paranoid. People have been saying the same types of things you're saying for the past decade at least, and so far nothing like anything any of them have said has even come close to happening. Right now, you're just noise to mask the real complaints.

 

[heatlesssun]

I must be doing something wrong. I hit the windows key and type something in it's not giving me any results from the web, all local. When I went into the search settings web search was turned off, I didn't turn it off so I guess it must be that way by default with 8.1? Mind you this is a fresh install I just did earlier this week so I could try out 8.1 as I had gone back to Windows 7.

I do believe that it is turned on by default but I've read that there was an option to disable it during the install.

 

[Void]

I do believe that it is turned on by default but I've read that there was an option to disable it during the install.

Oh, that may be. I did uncheck a few things when I installed, lol. Forgot all about that.

 

[Ur_Mom]

No one has really explained to me why ads in web browser are ok but if they are displayed in an application (beyond the world is spying on me syndrome but not in a web browser) they are bad when the ad is related to the actual search. It's not like you search for Isaac Newton and are presented ad links for Turtle Wax.

Web browser is ok because you are visiting other sites which put those there. If the browser itself was giving ads, I'd switch to a different browser. Those tool bars that track you are labeled as spyware by most, if not all, Anti-spyware programs.

If it's the integrated Windows search giving me ads, that's not acceptable. If it were a third party application, it'd be acceptable because I could just not buy/download that application. With Windows, you already bought and paid for the OS. Putting ads within it (even the search function) is a bit too much. For me, anyway.

I can easily see ads in applications. They are a revenue stream for usually free applications. But, the base OS? There is a line there somewhere, and it's before the paid OS. There are a lot of applications out there that are free (from Juno, the old ISP, to free games) that are ad-supported with paid versions (with no ads). If I pay for it, I don't want ads.

 

[wonderfield]

Of course, in buying that complete package, customers pay extra.

Is the Surface not a "complete package"?

 

[Dogs]

Is the Surface not a "complete package"?

I would say it isn't a 'complete package' to the same extent buying an iPad is. The Surface comes with everything from a hardware point of view, but Microsoft isn't the same way Apple is about "Everything you should ever use already comes with this." In Apple's ideal scenario, you would buy their product and never install a piece of software or use a service that wasn't entirely produced and delivered by Apple. When you buy an Apple product, you're buying an ecosystem full of Apple ecosystems.

 

[wonderfield]

I really don't understand your argument here. You're suggesting Apple does not wish for you to buy any of the 900,000 third-party apps in the App Store and would rather you buy only the dozen or so they've produced? And what exactly does this have to do with inclusion of ads in the Windows 8 weather app?

This seems only slightly less far-fetched than your theory that using the Modern UI isn't really using the Modern UI.

 

[pxc]

This is stupid. This is a feature that came standard with Windows Vista and 7.

It's funny how the simplification of consumer licensing vs the mess that was Vista and 7 still causes drama. For consumer versions, only Vista Home Premium and Ultimate contained media center, but Windows 7 Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate all included media center.

Since Home Premium became pretty standard for consumer systems, and it did include media center, I can see how someone who used that feature may be annoyed that it's no longer included in the mainstream version of Windows 8, or as a low cost add-on. I agree that purchasing it as an add-on is just way too expensive with the standard consumer version. Why does media center require Windows 8 Pro? That's plain unjustifiable.

 

[heatlesssun]

I can easily see ads in applications. They are a revenue stream for usually free applications. But, the base OS? There is a line there somewhere, and it's before the paid OS. There are a lot of applications out there that are free (from Juno, the old ISP, to free games) that are ad-supported with paid versions (with no ads). If I pay for it, I don't want ads.

Let's say that Microsoft approached Google with the following:

Microsoft: "Hey we'd love to use your search engine to power integrated search in Windows!"

Google: "Splendid! Google is obviously the best search engine in the world, we'd love to do a deal!"

Microsoft: "Wonderful! Let's get the legal teams together to work on the deal. One other
thing, since this search is running in the OS, we're going to have to remove the ad links."

Google: "SAY WHAT?!?!?!"

And here's the other issue. If I paid for an search ad, then you go and build a search client that will be used by millions and millions of users and then strip out the ads links there, then as the ad buyer I'm going to wonder what the hell I was paying for.

All I know is that if PCs can adapt and bring the same levels of tight integration of search and services and the cloud, the things that people can't get enough of with smart phones and tablets, then days of the PC as mainstream consumer computing platform are done.

 

[Dogs]

I really don't understand your argument here. You're suggesting Apple does not wish for you to buy any of the 900,000 third-party apps in the App Store and would rather you buy only the dozen or so they've produced? And what exactly does this have to do with inclusion of ads in the Windows 8 weather app?

If you would, I dunno, read instead of trying to provoke unwanted and out-of-scope discussions, that would be entirely clear to you. But since you seem to be struggling, I'll try to simplify my statement to the point that someone with a primary school reading comprehension level should easily be able to understand it.

Apple will pay the cost of giving you weather information so that you don't have to see ads. That way, you feel like you bought a premium product. Apple is spending extra money so that they can get away with charging you extra money when you buy their computers. Microsoft is not interested in doing things that way. Microsoft doesn't spend the extra money, but that means buying a Windows computer does not cost as much as buying an Apple computer.

If that notion is too sophisticated for you to understand, then I'm afraid I simply cannot help you.

This seems only slightly less far-fetched than your theory that using the Modern UI isn't really using the Modern UI.

That only seems far fetched to you due to the fact that you're making a significant omission. I believe my statement had more to do with the fact that only ever using the UI to do one and only one menial task (shutting the computer down) does not actually count as using the UI. Much like how leaving the car running to keep the AC on when you leave your dog in the car at the corner store doesn't mean your dog was driving the car. Or maybe that's far too difficult of an analogy.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Let's say that Microsoft approached Google with the following:

Microsoft: "Hey we'd love to use your search engine to power integrated search in Windows!"

Google: "Splendid! Google is obviously the best search engine in the world, we'd love to do a deal!"

Microsoft: "Wonderful! Let's get the legal teams together to work on the deal. One other
thing, since this search is running in the OS, we're going to have to remove the ad links."

Google: "SAY WHAT?!?!?!"

And here's the other issue. If I paid for an search ad, then you go and build a search client that will be used by millions and millions of users and then strip out the ads links there, then as the ad buyer I'm going to wonder what the hell I was paying for.

All I know is that if PCs can adapt and bring the same levels of tight integration of search and services and the cloud, the things that people can't get enough of with smart phones and tablets, then days of the PC as mainstream consumer computing platform are done.

I can see ads on the desktop/Metro web client any time. But, not in the built in OS search. Even with the iPhone, when you search you don't get ads. When you select 'Search the web', it opens the browser and will display ads, as expected.

I see the commercial benefit of it all, but not the consumer benefit. Not within the OS itself, anyway.

 

[wonderfield]

Apple is spending extra money so that they can get away with charging you extra money when you buy their computers.

iFixit's bill of materials analysis of the Surface RT determined that it's actually higher per-unit margin product than comparably-priced iPads:

At an estimated total BOM and manufacturing cost of $284 and a retail price of $599, the Surface RT generates hardware and manufacturing profits that are, in percentage terms, higher than the low-end iPad. Even at a price of $499 without the Touch Cover, Microsoft will generate a profit margin that is greater than the low-end iPad, in percentage terms and on a per-unit basis.

There's no information regarding the BOM of current MacBook Airs (the most comparable product to the Surface Pro), so we can only guess as to how profitable it is for Apple versus how profitable the Surface Pro is for Microsoft.

Microsoft is not interested in doing things that way.

Actually, given available data, it would seem as though Microsoft is more interested in commanding greater per-unit profits on devices than Apple. Would you care to provide contradictory data?