this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
995 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59429 readers
3058 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How did the default attitude toward the user get so hostile? The amount of toggles you need to set just to have a smooth experience with minimal tracking is insane. The people in here defending it by the fact it can be disabled are missing the point: we shouldn't have to deal with it in the first place.
MS doesn't care about the desktop operating system except how can they control it like Apple and iphones. All the money is in O365 and Azure these days.
Having control over other people's computing gives you power over them: you can gain from their detriment. It's not like everyone is uncaring or greedy but even people with good intentions do not have infinite willpower to resist temptation. When the user doesn't like a change from an update their choice is usually to put up with it. Defending ads in a menu or opt-outs that should be opt-ins in hidden menus is less mental work than learning what an operating system is and that you can use a different one.
By sharing the source code instead you give up that power - if you fail to be good to the users then other devs can work on it without you.
You don't give up anything by sharing source code. If anything, you share your power with the world. All other perceived outcomes are attributes of capitalism baked into your thought pattern.
It got here because it’s super profitable, and that’s all the C-suite cares about, and they’re the ones calling the shots at the end of the day.
I also think that engineering ethics has, in general, been strongly de-emphasized, and true holistic ownership of technical products is now usually held by business and finance types instead of engineers, with all the negative consequences that that entails.
Edit: also, don’t forget the Peter principle
Fewer people are buying PCs now that Smartphones have replaced the need to have one for most uses, but Microsoft still has to make more money every quarter than the quarter before because the stock market doesn't value stable profits.
Pretty simple. Stock go brrrr.
This is a direct result of our Wall Street economy. Wall Street demands that each corporation's stock price shall increase every quarter. No matter what. If that means the customer is unhappy or that a corporation must consume itself from within. Doesn't matter.
You shouldn't. I haven't. Microsoft is a plague and a choice.
You don't choose your childhood education. Microsoft and Apple offer schools deals to create adults dependent on it - after all they'll be using it in work too.
so?
This greatly affects the likelyhood of people choosing a particular OS later in life.
The choice is hard to make when Microsoft's garbage has been shoved down your throat for decades, it's the default pretty much everywhere and the only viable alternative, for 99% of the population, is Apple.
Governments have been way too lenient and passive towards Microsoft for far too long
This is largely because Windows and MacOS come preinstalled and that's how the vast majority of people interact with operating systems. If you had to choose your OS, I'm sure there'd be more choice in the market. Not necessarily Linux, but just more choice in general.
That's pretty much my point, 99% of computers sold are sold with Windows on it and the leftover percent is 99% Apple and maybe 1% Linux.
And that's mostly because no one did anything when Microsoft licensed their crap to big OEM.
If any given computer sold was Linux (or any other free OS to be fair) by default and Windows as a paid option, it would change the market massively I believe. It would take time obviously but I'm convinced it would work in the long run.
You're not wrong, but there's a larger issue here: the fact that there's an alternative does not make what Microsoft is doing okay. This shit ought to be prohibited by consumer protection law.
Yeah it’s not just Microsoft. Fucking ads in my doorbell app, Google TV, etc.
Putting ads in a product you paid for should be illegal.
TBH I am fully expecting a world where, in the next 10-15 years, some company will make a car that plays unskippable audio ads every X number of miles/km which can be disabled for $9.99/month.
Your company can't afford the ad-free version of Zoom, so this meeting is sponsored by Papa Johns®. Try the new Cheesy Papadia virtual background.
Before you can place this emergency call, here's a word from our sponsors at Nord VPN.
I hate it as much as the next guy, but I certainly don't see why it should be illegal (and disclaimer
Debian on all my personal machines, macOS for work).
Should it be illegal for books to have a list of similar material from the author/publisher? Should food staples not be able to list recipes on the back?
I completely agree that pulling the rug out from under the customer should be illegal (i.e., effectively changing the terms of service for an already-purchased product), but having a shitty product shouldn't be illegal IMHO.
Hardcopy images in a book are a bit different from the typical proprietary software doing who knows what on your personal computer. Not saying ads should be illegal but I would argue for software freedom where you can remove ads from any software running on your computer - like you can rip pages out of any of your books.
Yeah, I guess it's a matter of what the analogy is to "page." I would say my computer is the book, and the pages are the software. If some developer wants to make a piece of shit ad ridden software, well, great
but I won't install it :)
It really goes like this:
I buy product. Product has no ads, and works really well.
After updates, my device starts showing ads and works worse than it had before.
I bought the device. It is my device. I should be able to do what I want with my device, that I spent my money on, the way I like it. If that means I don't want your shitty ads, then I should be able to avoid or opt out of those by default.
From your thought:
You buy cookbook. Cookbook has what you need already, which is why you purchased it.
The one you purchased it from comes and "updates" your book by scribbling in ads for it's other recipe books, and they did it really sloppily to boot.
Now, when you are looking for a specific recipe that you knew was in the book before, instead it is an ad for their other recipe book in place of where the recipe you were looking for was.
Sure, you can still find your recipe somewhere in the book, but as you flip through the books pages you see more and more and more ads for their other recipe books, and oh, now they are also showing you ads from some of their sponsors.
You paid for the book. It is rightfully yours to do with it as you please.
The recipe book company already got your money, yet they are insistent you buy more from them, and have even gone as far as defacing your book.
You should be upset.
Yeah I think we're in violent agreement to an extent
as I said in my last graf, if it's effectively changing the user agreement, absolutely not ok. But if it's a shitty product to begin with, then I'm just not going to buy it in the first place.
So yeah, Windows doing shitty things for users who have already paid for the product is definitely not cool. But for all users going forward to have a shitty experience? That's... shitty, yeah, but I personally don't think it should be illegal?