Would You Use a Free, Ad-Supported Windows?
Posted by Harry McCracken | Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:09 AM PT
CNET News.com has
a worthwhile piece about a big-idea Microsoft memo which mulls over whether the company should move towards a business model in which desktop applications are free, but supported by contextual advertising--in other words, something closer to the Google model.
"Interesting idea," I thought to myself as I read, "But of course, this would be for second-string products rather than the company's core moneymakers."
Nope. It's true that the memo, as quoted by News.com, mentions less-than-blockbuster packages like Money, Works, and OneNote. But it also broaches the idea of an ad-funded version of Windows itself.
As the memo and the article say, there are all kinds of reasons why it's far harder to apply an advertising-supported model to productivity software than to a search engine like Google. For one thing, people aren't online all the time when they use desktop applications. And while seeing ads while searching can be useful--or at least vaguely relevant to the job at hand--it's hard to envision ads making sense all the time in every kind of program. (If I don't want to be distracted by a talking paperclip while working in a word processor, I surely don't want ads vying for screen real estate and my attention.)
I also remember the time a few years ago when ads were supposedly going to subsidize practically everything--anyone else recall dead-on-arrival ideas like ad-supported ISPs and free PCs? Online advertising's evolved a lot since then, but I'm still doubtful whether typical users think that free-in-exchange-for-ads is always a good deal. (And yes, I know that I say that as an editor at a Web site that has lots of free content, paid for by lots of ads.)
Still, it's fascinating that things are changing so rapidly that Microsoft would even give thought to an ad-supported OS. Which brings me to my question: If you could save $100-$200 by opting for a version of Windows with (let's say) relatively low-key embedded text ads, would you even contemplate the notion?
No. I think the advertising market can not indefinitely support several billion+ dollar companies. I've been worried about Google going belly-up if the advertising market collapses. Though I have no love of Microsoft., I believe that the computer technology sector of the economy would suffer if Microsoft had troubles that prevented it from making new software that uses new ideas. Also, I don't *want* to see ads while I'm working. Web sites? Sure. Offline productivity applications? Definitely not.
It could be very interesting. "This 'Blue Screen of Death' Brought to you by..." Nah, I don't think so.
So Microsoft would come out with an OS preloaded with spyware? Now that's innovative!
I agree. We are already fighting ads on our computers put on there without our permission. Why would anyone want to have to constintly put up with even more ads just to save a one time fee? I wouldn't. Plus, I'm sure the ads would have to be updated and that would just be one more hole in the already porus Windows OS.
Yes I would. No, I wouldn't like the ads, but it wouldn't take that long for someone to figure out a way to remove them with a "patch".
yes
Yes, as long and it would appear when opening the program and once in a while (let's say 15 minutes)
Not unless there was no other Google/Sun or open source alternative.
Personally I don't think Microsoft are worth my time or effort.. I'd rather go back to using pen and paper.. Microsoft can suck my b***s
I'm so sick of people trying to put ads, et al, on others computers. I will NEVER use software that is ad supported. I will find an alternative or do without.
I'm so sick of people trying to exploit, put ads, et al, on others computers. I will NEVER use software that is ad supported. I will find an alternative or do without.
If Microsoft wants to deal with piracy, this is the wrong decision. How should consumers decide if they want and ad supported windows or they need a better priced windows when there are tonz of windows copies that works just fine without paying or getting ackwards with ads? I would choice the copy...
If consumers support a free version with ads, then they will eventually have different versions with varying levels of ads, with only an even more expensive ultimate edition ad-free. Hopefully, people will see through the scam.
Simply, NO. Solaris 10 & Ubuntu do everything I need them to do (ads free). It's time Microsoft learned how to develop an affordable compact, efficient, maintenance-free desktop OS for under US$50 for the masses. After too many years in tech support, I realize that even Windows 98 & XP is way too complex and overkill for 90% of the owners. Soon we will have more bloatware in the guise of Vista. Where does it end?
Pffft! I wouldn't use Windows even when I pay for it, its just so crap. Why would I want a spam filled Windows?
Just let's switch to a MAC (Apple)... at least we will not see ads or the famous "BLUE SCREEN" of death!
One thing is for sure... Microsoft really has a monopoly. Since I can't see how other OS's could convince companies to use their software or develop a new system since our "DB" or most at least are based on Windows. Surely further in a near future we will see a Virtual CHAOS. Worried about Windows Live...
After years of using windows, i'm sick of it. my next comp will either have linux or mac, and i'm never going back to windows. it's certainly not worth the money. and no, i wouldn't want to save money by getting stuck with ads. that would annoy me to death and not solve the problem of windows being junk. what i want is an operating system that does what i tell it to do, not one that randomly does dumb things to destroy my productivity.
linux- good
windows- sucks and getting worse
another reason to pirate software.
Its free and ad-free, now tell me why you would opt for an OS thats chalk full of adware when you can get the same thing ad free?
No, I already prefer Linux. Currently dual boot Ads would kill Windows in my house.
Most people get Windows preinstalled so there would be little or no savings, most savings would be eaten by the OEM
Not when there is Mac OS X around.
wow; i thought microsoft could sink no lower yet somehow they still do... linux it is for me!
If the OS started poping up adds then how whould the end user tell if their computer has been infected with unwanted addware?
Right now we have addware that ties to trick users into thinking that the add is a system message by making the add look like a system message.
I don't understand the resoning behind adding somthing to an operating system that most users spend hours of time trying to get rid of.
Doesn't MSN have enough adds on it I mean it can some times take for ever to load -- that's still the reason why I use google - might not be add free but the homepage takes on 1/2 a sec to load.
I would get a version of windows with ads. Would I like it? No. Would I put up with it? Depends on how the ads are presented. I live in a low-income household and until 2 years ago computed with Win 98. That's because the last thing on my mind was trying to upgrade the OS, especially since I needed that money for other things. The only way XP would get in is if I got a new computer. But for an upgrade, I let everyone in my house try a live session of Ubuntu Linux and would use that most of the time and then use Windows only when needed. But to save a few bucks with an ad-supported Windows? Let's wait and see.
"Doesn't MSN have enough adds on it I mean it can some times take for ever to load -- that's still the reason why I use google - might not be add free but the homepage takes on 1/2 a sec to load."
That's what Adblock is for!
I don't buy anything because of an ad I may see.Radios have seek,Tvs have remotes.I would never use an ad based OS.Microsoft needs more competition.Then the marketplace would determine what the buying public wants
ADS CAN GO TO HELL!
I understand what Microsoft stand to gain. They won't have to worry about piracy anymore, because they will make money if you use their software irrespective of how you got it. Pirates will die out in the process, since all they'll be doing will be helping microsoft make more money without any benefit to themselves.
I understand what Microsoft stands to gain. They won't have to worry about piracy anymore, because they will make money if you use their software (irrespective of how you got it). Pirates will die out in the process, since all they'll be doing will be helping microsoft make more money without any benefit to themselves.
Seeing an ad during the boot screen wouldnt be terrible; so maybe one big ad at startup and one at shutdown (assuming neither is made longer than is now normal), would be acceptable.
But while im actually USING the computer for anything, ads would TOTALLY suck.
... would you even contemplate the notion?
No.
Tip for Microsoft:
Don't mess with ads. Instead, give the OS away for free, but exclusively for personal use. Only charge for business licenses. Lots of software makers make a good living with that formula. This way Microsoft will be certain of keeping it's virtual monopoly for the next decade. Whether that is a good thing for us customers, is yet another question....
If Microsoft needs to resort to an ad-infested freeware OS to compete with Linux in the "free-world" of OS, they have sunk to a new low. Linux does well, without the ads, why would Microsoft need to have the desire to use ads in a "free" OS? Freedom my foot, I say...
No, no, and NO!
I'm sick to death of ads everywhere I go. They are annoying at best, and sometimes offensive. And even services I PAY for now are foisting them on me. I can't imagine - and don't want to - what my PC screen would look like in an ad supported version of Windows! Eeep!
Hahaha, NO!
Believe me, if Microsoft ever did that, I'd switch to Linux faster than you can say: "central processing unit."