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.
You'll probably be downvoted for that comment. I reached the same conclusion, but for whatever reason, this will be different for X reason. Something along the lines of "but we don't pay for iOS". Which is a great argument if you don't care about user experience. It's shameful all around, really.
Indeed. I don't like desktop apps containing ads, but this is exactly what was predicted to happen with the shift to Metro. Metro, just like iOS and Android, needed a universal way to have ads in apps. This means that Metro apps running on the desktop can contain adds.
It's the existing mobile sphere coming together with the desktop world, and is just a side effect of the introduction of Metro.
I am getting tired of the extremely slanted coverage of Windows 8 on HN. The stories about them selling four million upgrades in 4 days[1] or the web traffic from Windows 8 machines surpassing all of Android in 10 days in the so called post-PC world [2] don't make it to the front page(and will get flagged if they do), but such manufactured outrage or the doom and gloom about how it will fail has no such problem.
Wake me up when they actually use users' personal data like Ubuntu is doing or if the ads are part of the OS like in Explorer, not the silly News app.
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.
It should be noted that on the mobile Android and iOS devices you do not see ads on the homescreen, nor in system apps (eg settings). You don't even see them in vendor provided apps like News and Weather on Android and Weather on iOS. The only way to see ads is to deliberately install an app, or use a web browser.
Windows 8 is crossing that line by showing you ads through no additional action of your own. The real debate amongst commenters here seems to be whether this is a major line, or just another one in the long list of those already crossed.
You can visit many parts of Europe to find less visual clutter. Even here in the US my county bans all billboards except one, so it is quite jarring being elsewhere in the country and seeing how prevalent they are.
I must admin being astonished at American's tolerance of advertising. Somehow people are averaging 5 hours of TV watching a day, yet the broadcasts seem to be non-stop advertising briefly interrupted by snippets of programming. Web pages seem to be substantially similar.
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.
Who's saying there's a difference? That there isn't is the point.
In fact, if there is a difference, it's that operating systems are far more integrated into both my personal and professional lives, both in terms of time and functional integration. The last thing I want is for the rest of my life to be as whored out and substance-free as television.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
>> 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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] j_baker|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
None of the apps that come with iOS use iAds. Same with Android.
[+] [-] tomkin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lelandbatey|13 years ago|reply
It's the existing mobile sphere coming together with the desktop world, and is just a side effect of the introduction of Metro.
[+] [-] recoiledsnake|13 years ago|reply
Wake me up when they actually use users' personal data like Ubuntu is doing or if the ads are part of the OS like in Explorer, not the silly News app.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/30/3576512/windows-8-upgrade...
[2] http://www.techspot.com/news/50745-statcounter-data-says-win...
[+] [-] CrankyPants|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rogerbinns|13 years ago|reply
Windows 8 is crossing that line by showing you ads through no additional action of your own. The real debate amongst commenters here seems to be whether this is a major line, or just another one in the long list of those already crossed.
You can visit many parts of Europe to find less visual clutter. Even here in the US my county bans all billboards except one, so it is quite jarring being elsewhere in the country and seeing how prevalent they are.
I must admin being astonished at American's tolerance of advertising. Somehow people are averaging 5 hours of TV watching a day, yet the broadcasts seem to be non-stop advertising briefly interrupted by snippets of programming. Web pages seem to be substantially similar.
[+] [-] jobu|13 years ago|reply
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-...
[+] [-] Cowen|13 years ago|reply
Chrome OS only has ads because the internet has ads.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 16s|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] archangel_one|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CrankyPants|13 years ago|reply
In fact, if there is a difference, it's that operating systems are far more integrated into both my personal and professional lives, both in terms of time and functional integration. The last thing I want is for the rest of my life to be as whored out and substance-free as television.
[+] [-] mattmanser|13 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] 1SaltwaterC|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
Like, say, Kindle with Special Offers?
[+] [-] barista|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SquareWheel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] owenwil|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeremyarussell|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
Here's the trick to get MagicISO to install correctly on Windows 8: http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2012/08/how-to-insta...
Just do that first and it should work fine.
[+] [-] chamanbuga|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesbrennan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antihero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nnasser|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byproxy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fear91|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
Google funds Android to promote Google services. Whether Google services pushes ads in your face or not has absolutely nothing to do with Android.
[+] [-] drtbx12|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alpb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barista|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jchavannes|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stuartd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] james4k|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pippy|13 years ago|reply
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|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gergles|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gootik|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antihero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] recoiledsnake|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SwearWord|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]