Microsoft Is Putting Ads on the Mail App in Windows 10
thurrott.com
thurrott.com
Is my money not good enough for them? This is getting absurd
AFAIK a license is paid with every new computer coming WITH Windows, so it isn't like people get Windows for free. I'm not sure it is even possible to transfer Windows's license from computer to computer anymore, so why is Microsoft doing this? just because they can. Imagine tomorrow some f\*cking ads pop up each time you open the start menu, or on the background of the desktop, or on the login screen, or in Visual Studio Code because why not? Absolutely outrageous. "Pay for the product and you're no longer the product they say". and while we are at it, why not display ads on websites hosted on Azure even when you paid for hosting?
The default experience was garbage thrown in your face.
The leadership had to drive revenue growth and msn/ads were a money maker. That’s how they get promoted and we had to play their game.
Seeing that ladder chasing culture made me quit.
Very few companies actually legit give a shit about their users and the user experience. It’s so easy to blindly do things that annoy users but make a quick buck.
For anyone curious about vscode, there is a fork called "VSCodium" which is vscode without any telemetry shit in it.
I still think it's an excellent option for the privacy conscious.
There are plenty of free software based operating systems that will take your money. Red Hat seems like the most obvious one.
I can't even SSH into the box. The SSH daemon accepts connections, firewall is off, and login sharing is enabled. But the daemon refuses my key, my password. I can't even figure out how to get it to display the reasons for the denied access.
At least on Linux I can turn off the daemon, turn on logging, turn the daemon back on, and get somewhere with denied access.
https://www.reddit.com/r/macsysadmin/comments/9wt05m/cannot_...
Several of the latest OSX releases have progressively locked down some executables/directories to Ring -1 (requires more than just root/sudo privs). I see it as Apple locking down the OS against potential malware, as I've always been able to work around their changes with some Stack-Overflow-fu.
With macos, you need to buy the hardware, and the hardware locks you out of using Linux lately. You also have to spend like crazy on pre-upgrades since everything is soldered in. Then they fight tooth and nail to keep 3rd party repair from being viable, so the apple store says you need a fully new machine and yet the guy down the street can fix it for $700 (would be less but everything is soldered). The machines and os are great, but the other stuff is a buzz kill.
With red hat, I'm not sure its up to date enough for desktop use - dedoimedo likes to talk up his centos install but he doesn't actually recommend it. I'm going to look at red hat one day for production.
All this trouble so I can play modern PC games... Next system upgrade cycle I think I'll be moving to linux.
2018: I'd never connect a Windows box directly to the Internet. Microsoft might break my computer.
Blizzard has officially stated they won't boot you (permanently, apparently there are occasional false positives) for using other wine offerings. I've been tempted to try to install Overwatch using Lutris as well (productivity be damned!).
I'm lucky in that I tend to prefer indie games, which are more likely to support steamos, but I'm certainly feeling optimistic about gaming on linux. I've found that I need to boot into my win7 partition less and less in the last year for games reasons.
source: configured windows10 manually once, decided i'd like to never experience that particular circle of hell again
I don't think that works, I'm pretty sure the networking stack bypasses the hosts file for Microsoft sites because it's a potential vulnerability.
As to linux gaming, a lot of effort has been made with Steam, another walled garden, but a nicer one. I just wish some of the UI/UX in linux would solidify a bit. I've been running elementary with some tweaks on my spare, but still not enough for my main desktop.
The good news is that if Microsoft refuses to let me buy it as an individual, then I have no moral/ethical qualms with not buying it per se.
I've been a member for a while now. And we even ran a domaition drive for a local food nonprofit, and our COO would match to a nonprofit org we said. More to the FSF.
Thanks for sharing the link :)
>Is my money not good enough for them? This is getting absurd
Yeah, this is surreal.
That being said, you really want money to go to developers making the software. Not to discredit the work of packagers and integrators (mostly at Debian) but actually writing the code at the end of the day is the deal breaker.
For that you can donate to Gnome, KDE, specific projects like Krita, or Software in the Public Interest that funds a bunch of the non-umbrella projects like LibreOffice and Postgres.
Also, they (Apple, MS) don't want your money. They want your freedom, which is virtually priceless. I'm sure a fat monthly fee will suffice, but yeesh.
There used to be a time where ads on the internet were, if not outright illegal, then at least considered like spam is today. I am not sure we wouldn't be better of if we didn't go back to to those classifications.
You could maybe make this argument about popups before browser vendors killed that behaviour off, but ad banners where still a thing even with those.
The idea that they were ever even close to “outright illegal” is almost certainly a stretch in the vast majority of legal systems.
Enabling telemetry collection as the default setting needs to end - even if it is well intentioned.
[1] https://www.networkworld.com/article/2226648/opensource-subn...
[2] https://www.techradar.com/news/the-controversial-ubuntu-1804...
I wish the fsf distros could get more contributors. I understand why corporate contributions aren't aimed in that direction, but I wonder why Trisquel doesn't have more hobbyists pitching in.
edited to clear up opening sentence
(I agree that the Amazon search thing was bad.)
"This data collection is turned on by default"
I took this to mean that telemetry was being collected and, if someone desired, could be turned off after the fact. I have a problem with telemetry being opt-out (it should always be opt-in). If Ubuntu is prompting to allow or disallow the collection of data, then that is good news, as people are being asked for their informed consent.
It's the same direction they go when they desperately push subscription licenses (see: Office 365) They want a business model less dependent on people replacing their PCs every three years.
I don't doubt they see a rapidly approaching future of management saying "these computers are more than adequate for office work and web browsing, so we won't replace them until they physically fail in 5+ years." It's an easier and easier argument to make, especially when we're running out of easy, cheap across-the-board performance boosts. (Office and Chrome don't run that much better on a new 32-core Threadripper than on a second-generation i5)
So people used the same argument with games and loot boxes. But even if videogames cost $500 a copy, there is so much money to be made with loot boxes that they would still exist in these games at that price.
I don't think this is true, but if it is, please provide a link to prove the assertion.
I doubt that companies are selling software at a loss with the intent to make it up in ad revenue. They're selling the software at a profit, and then getting ad revenue for additional profit.
All this just to "maximize revenue potential" for a bunch of faceless investment funds.
Let's be honest though, if a company can make money doing something they most likely will do it. It wouldn't matter if you paid $100,000 a month to use windows, if they could make an extra $1000 selling your personal information and pushing ads at you they will.
The value of marketing to Windows users is in the network effect. If one Windows user can pay $1000 to avoid advertising and change nothing else, the other users will probably hear about this and take notice. But if every Windows user is subjected to ads, I very much doubt that Microsoft is making $1000 in advertising revenue from just one person.
Microsoft would never convert 100% of users to "ad-free" paid subscriptions, at any price. But they can make money directly from advertising to 100% of their users, and there is no "loss" except from attrition (which I would guess is still probably quite a bit smaller than their numbers for overall user-base growth.)
Also, on prime video, occasionally, pressing the fast forward button won't skip the ad. I'm sure it's one of those "bugs" that just happens to force the user to do something the company wants but the user doesn't but I have a feeling it might just stop working all the time and we'll be forced to sit through the whole ad on a paid service.
Similar things abound with Hulu. Even the more expensive "ad free" version has some ads for certain shows/movies due to "licensing agreements" (read: Hulu wanting more money).
Slowly they became as ad infested as open channels.
Also, Cable is a bit of a mixed bag as the cable company you pay doesn't pay for ALL the content on 100+ channels. Even if you only want like 10 of them. That's where ads pick up the slack.
That said, the ever shrinking runtime is really annoying... late 70's hour long programs had around 48-50 minutes of content... today, it's inching under 42 minutes of content (and overlays on credits most of the time).
I've switched almost entirely to watching content I own, whether its iTunes purchases or ripped DVDs. I control the entire experience, I don't have to worry about content suddenly vanishing, I don't have to deal with anyone trying to steal my attention.
I feel the same way about dropping Netflix now as I did about dropping cable TV 5 years ago. I'm never going back.
Netflix's above-the-fold, skippable "Now Showing" preview on the homepage can't be compared to the unskippable videos that Amazon and Hulu force you to watch. Hell, it even remembers that you muted it. And it only plays if you sit there staring at it.
Since almost all of Netflix's competitors force you to watch ads after you click play, I'm pretty happy with what Netflix does. Seems like a perfectly fair trade-off to me.
If you don't like it, just add ".billboard-row" to your content blocker. I bet you haven't. I bet you kinda like it. ;)
Cable TV model isn't dead after all.
If Netflix introduces any mid-show ads, I suspect there'll be a sharp rise in illegal downloads...
Vote with your wallet.
This is why I won't subscribe to Hulu. If I'm paying for it, I'm not going to watch ads unless I absolutely have to. And "absolutely have to" is why I pay for satellite TV. Can't wait until I move to a place with OTA TV again. I don't mind watching ads on broadcast TV because it's free.
Oh, how the time has changed!
Pretty much every ad platform out there does exactly that
> although these ads are interest-based, they do not look at your emails to display ads based on data from your email.
I'm sorry, this snark is not really directed at you, but how exactly are they determining your interests if they're not reading your e-mails? Where does that data come from? I'd be happy to take back my /s if someone can tell me it was all voluntarily collected, but I suspect the answer is really "they just found a different way to spy on you other than reading your email."
I personally use Bing, but not Windows. Looking on my interests page for Bing, I see they have a decent chunk of info on me, nothing too crazy personal though.
> "All I want is to be able to give companies my money in exchange for not being spied on, manipulated, or locked into some walled garden....Is my money not good enough for them?
Can someone elaborate a bit on this idea? Are we at a point where there is something more valuable than money itself? Data? Is this the point where Google et al can say "Nah, we actually don't want your flat out subscription fee cause that's pennies on the dollar compared to what we can get with our data collection efforts"
I've made snarky remarks to this kind of thinking in the past but I didn't take it too seriously. Does anyone else see this becoming a real problem?
If company XYZ offers service/product A, should I be able to buy that product/service flat out, (if I'm financially able) without bells and whistles even if company XYZ insists on adding bells and whistles? (i.e., data collection). Is that somehow a sort of right as a consumer?
Another anecdote: Spotify. I don't use that. https://twitter.com/mikarv/status/1012386696934182912
Another anecdote: DI.fm. I do use that. I pay for a pro subscription. Unfortunately their privacy policy makes it clear that they do sell tracking metrics to advertisers (double-dipping).
Then there's, of course, Microsoft. Clearly they track users. How can you guarantee that they don't sell your data to third parties neither now nor in the future?
> If company XYZ offers service/product A, should I be able to buy that product/service flat out, (if I'm financially able) without bells and whistles even if company XYZ insists on adding bells and whistles? (i.e., data collection). Is that somehow a sort of right as a consumer?
I absolutely 100% believe that this should be an ability for end-users to do. Buy the product and provide the ability to 100% disable telemetry.
What theme you use or what buttons you click most often, isn't sellable; what is sellable are interests, consumables, and demographic distinguishers.
What theme I use is sellable, especially if themes can be purchased. What buttons I click most often is also sellable by making it known what features would attract the most advertisements or what kind of data drives my use of the application.
2. I think there's still a distinction. Using telemetry to better monetize the product your using is different than selling data to a third party to target you.
Back to your original post though, I do agree that you should be able to opt out of any and all data collection. This already is a pattern too, you often see the "allow us to collect diagnostic information" dialog in software.
Since most consumers aren't demanding these options, there isn't a critical mass of individual customers who are willing to pay a price that makes it worth Microsoft's time to pursue those sales. Consumers get stuck with the spyware/adware editions unless they are savvy enough to pirate the no-BS editions.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yRBphYeo3uUl5jFFQJufLMKPmup...
I would hope that this would allow them to split the codebase, and make other, paid versions (professional, enterprise) that didn't have ANY of the tracking or advertising -- and didn't require extensive GPO manipulation to turn off -- but that's probably too much to ask.
They actually promoted "signature" PCs which were supposed to come without crapware. I can recall buying a Windows 8 tablet from a brick-and-mortar Microsoft store because I knew it would come with a hassle-free clean install.
After the latest update, my hard drive wheezes like an asthmatic climbing his 25th flight of stairs on startup.
Just a long list of problems with Windows 10
Found your problem!
/har har har
But seriously, I still refer to even SSDs as hard drives. Spinning rust or memory chips. They're interchangable right now, until spinning rust phases out completely.
And you could see that the ads are littered all over the place. And their ads don't really make sense anyway, as for example, the ads that I see are something that:
- I am not interested - Irrelevant as the products have no use for me - Unable to purchase as the products themselves are not available locally where I am located.
They should probably train their algorithms for ads to ensure that it is something interesting (or at least would compel the consumer to look). For example, I noticed that in Instagram, the ads are more targeted, and they usually remind you of stuff that you have recently searched.
As a vocal critic of the Linux Desktop, your horrifically misguided attempts to "improve" Windows since Windows 10 have so degraded the experience of using it that I am now only 2 reasons[0] away from switching anyway, so at least I don't have to pay for the privilege of using crappy software.
I would ask you kindly to cease your endeavors to kill off the Windows Desktop and personal computing in general, but having dealt with you I know that it is your policy to ignore user feedback.
[0] 1. I hate package managers as an application installation paradigm, and 2. GPU drivers still perform worse for my card, if you must know.
wat
so you prefer go to vlc.com for vlc, 7-zip.com for 7-zip, update them by hand or add custom system services constantly running for every program to install themselves, etc etc instead of a `pacman -S 7z vlc krita libreoffice [every other software you need]`
There is not a single package manager in existence for Linux that gives me these things.
I really think your argument against package managers on Linux is incorrect. Many linux distributions provide "some recent version" of common tools, but of course you can get the latest package directly from the developers.
Nothing stops you from getting the latest packages directly from the developer (assuming the developer provides packages in the first place). Some developers even offer their own repository you could add to the package manager so you can stay up to date regardless of whatever version you don't like in the OS repository.
> I like having portable applications that don't even need installation.
You can build from source and run without installing. That's probably not quite what you mean though.
> I like being able to put applications on different disks.
No problem here. You can mount disks to wherever you want and you can install using a prefix path to those locations.
> I like being able to have multiple versions of an application.
Prefix path to the rescue here too.
Edit: answered more of your concerns
Nix is the package manager that does this. It literally does damn near everything that comes out of every HN discussion of package managers, ever, but very few seem to bother investigating it.
For my part, I've discovered since switching to Mac that I don't like having system packages managed alongside user packages.
It's one thing when I'm all-in on handling everything from the kernel up (it was fine back when I used Gentoo, for example) but the middle ground of massive meta-packages and such mingled with user-installed individual packages on e.g. Ubuntu is a train wreck. MacOS w/ homebrew's great. I can delete the entire directory with my brew installed crap in it and the system's unaffected. System upgrades are separate from my stuff. That plus the occasional drag+drop installed program cover my needs nicely, and better than everything's-a-bespoke-GUI-installer on Windows.
I agree that "installers" are not a good paradigm either, but a lot of Windows software can be had in portable (or at least non-installer) form.
They actually do allow multiple versions of the same application to be installed. It's just difficult to get it to work.
The package itself will install to (for example) /usr/bin. A new version of the package will have the same file names, so they get overwritten.
Most well-built packages will allow you to override the installation path though. This is perfect in case you want to install to your home directory (instead of globally) or some versioned directory.
For example you can relocate RPM installations given an example.rpm file:
rpm -i --relocate=/=/home/myuser example.rpmWhich GPU?
In addition to the performance degradation, nVidia and the kernel maintainers don't currently get along so I'd also have to deal with that.
I even tried the AMD pro drivers. Granted, the open source nvidia drivers couldn’t do it with a 1030 on 18.04 either, but the proprietary ones had no issue.
edit: I should note, the RX 560 runs fanless up to 60c on Windows, but the fans always spin on Linux.
Flatpak has you covered, or at least, it's getting there pretty fast. You'll still need to manage debs for base system stuff but you can install most gui apps as flatpaks now.
Also, flatpak has a lot of problems in my opinion, not the least of which is that it has no mechanism for installing to a different disk without creating an entirely new "installation", which in its terminology means a completely new dependency chain too.
The "portals" idea is a pretty good one though, on the whole.
I hear you on installing to different disks, though. Appimages are also an option, but I've found they have a tendency to not actually work between different distros and system versions.
One thing that would be interesting would be to use flatpak "runtimes" to provide a target base system for AppImages, but I don't think that level of cooperation is actually possible within the Linux community.
well, go on then, elaborate...
And all of it looked pretty bad. I'm a fan of (though not insistent upon using) "ugly" old school interfaces, so it's not that it wasn't "flat" or "beautiful" enough or whatever the current trend is, just lacking consistency and the result of a whole bunch of small, poorly-chosen defaults adding up to a big stew of gross. I could overlook that if it weren't also crash-prone and janky as hell, but it is.
So I'm still stuck on Mac for anything serious, and my gaming desktop sits in storage because I can't be bothered these days to screw with either Windows post-10 or Linux. Sigh.
FWIW my favorite desktop I've ever used, as far as core software, stability, desktop UI/X, compared to its contemporaries, was BeOS.
As for linux, I went through a bunch until I found my love for fedora. It still requires some tinkering, but for the most part everything works.
I switched to Arch Linux when RedHat was swallowed by IBM. KDE Plasma 5 is my thing. Windows 10 is a VM guest in Arch host. 32GB workstation, multiple monitors - 2 24 inch Dell monitors, 1 Haeir 55 inch, SSDs and Western Digital Caviar Blacks and Transcend External HDDs... no issues to report.
Same experience with Fedora for more than 2 years. FreeBSD with Xfce 4 and TWM on my laptop. No crashes, no issues.
"The trial balloon revealed too much backlash, we're going to pretend we never had to plan to roll it out universally."
Go to Settings -> Privacy, and slide many (most?) things to off. Including Diagnostic & Usage Data to Basic.
Settings > Personalization > Start and slide "Occasionally show suggestions in start" to off.
Settings -> Personalization -> Lock Screen and slide "Get fun facts, tips, and more from Windows and Cortana on your lock screen" to off.
Settings -> System -> Notifications & actions -> "Get tip, tricks, and suggestions as you use Windows" and "Show me the Windows welcome experience after updates and occasionally when I sign in to highlight what's new and suggested" to off.
Go to Cortana (Taskbar) -> Settings (Gear Icon) -> "Taskbar tidbits" to off
I wouldn't use the built in "Mail" app with or without ads, it is terrible. Just have him simply not use it.
Edit: Sorry. It's now a paid software. Checking for free alternatives. Found one: shutup10
Lastly, install Unchecky. It'll automatically uncheck options for additional unwanted programs, adware, toolbars... when installing software.
https://community.spiceworks.com/scripts/show/4378-windows-1...
Open the PowerShell as admin and copy:
Get-AppxPackage * windowscommunicationsapps * | Remove-AppxPackage (remove space at the two asterisks, HN turns the text into italicized)
voilà, Mail and Calendar uninstalled. You can do this with all of the preinstalled stuff (Xbox as well), see the link above.
Having to do this has in the past been the main argument I've seen used against using Linux based OSes. If you have to do it anyway you might as well actually own your computer.
Exactly how many dollars more would I have to pay for the Win10 license to not see ads? I'd like that thanks.
How did that get integrated? Is there some sort of Microsoft VP who decided to stake their career on Cortana and overrode everyone to merge that awful design decision into the installer, or do Microsoft employees like it as well?
Who ever wanted to run a Windows installer via voice? Has anyone ever actually used the voice installer?
You know who has demonstrated that they are their own worst enemy? Consumers.
People vote with their pocketbook. Now you have to live with that result.
My parents do not need $1.5k of laptop to browse the internet, email, and exchange photos of grandkids. Particularly in a world when a decent laptop doing the above should cost $750 or less out the store.
In this case, I don’t think that’s fair. A great number of people can’t devote the time to learning a new operating system or cannot afford a high priced OS X machine.
Gmail, Outlook.com/O365/etc, are designed for you to "keep everything." Problem is that all desktop email clients aren't designed that way, they want you to have a very small limited subset of email that they can index and constantly have in memory.
When these two worlds converge desktop clients choke and choke hard. Outlook is so terrible that it almost needs to be completely retired. They've barely updated it in ten years.
Best case scenario right now is full webmail (with anyone) and browser notifications for new email etc if you need that.
with large amounts of mail (~90k in one of my inboxes - and if someone asks just yesterday I had to go and fetch some info from a 2007 mail), GMail chokes much more than thunderbird, e.g. it takes 2/3 minutes and sometimes does not work to mark a large set of email as read/archived/whatever while this is almost instant with TB.
I have over 20 years of email stored locally in Postbox. I've kept every non-spam email since I first got online in 1997. I regularly use it to search for things people sent me (or I sent them) months or even years ago. It's really not a problem at all.
I've got Postbox open right now and it's using 625MB RAM. (That's a lot compared to the Eudora days, but I have 16GB RAM now.)
A desktop client on your laptop also means you can write emails & be able to search your email history while in flight mode, and queue the messages to be sent when you land & have WiFi again.
I use Mailmate. It’s everything I wanted Thunderbird to be.
the default answer to op's question in enterprise land (where windows is still treading for relevancy) is Outlook.
thunderbird suffers the issues the comment mentions above -- barfs with large dbs, no support for exchange, not sure if it even supports push notifications, etc
it should be noted that mail on mac works well and the win 10 mail app this article is all about works pretty well too, which is why its a travesty MS is going to ruin it.
I swear half of the clients on the market turn out to support only a small list of authentication methods, or don't let you specify port!
It is of course overkill though if you have one email account and only process a couple emails a day.
i still dont think it supports the iCalendar/calDAV standard either.
I'd like an alternative that has close to tray functionality.
15 years later and 3 major windows iterations later and we still don't have it.
OEM Licenses are bound to a single computer AFAIK. You change computers you need to pay for Windows again. So it's not like people will never buy Windows anymore as long as they buy computers installed with Windows on it.
Before one would get a separate Windows CD with his computer and be able to install it on many different machines, one activation at a time.
8.1 brought back things like the closing button on metro apps, and some other fudging, to make it a bit more Win 7, and it just felt like even more of an abomination. The control panel/metro settings mixed UI - is the thing that killed Windows for me. In Windows 10, I can't find anything setting wise particularly easily. And on a recent new laptop start up, I cringed at all the options that I had to turn off, and at the apps I tried to remove.
Any recommendations for a touch-friendly (i.e. must be UWP) mail app for Windows?
The article suggests that the Mail app will never have ads for Office 365 users. Office 365 Home is often a good deal for a Surface owner anyway, as it boosts your OneDrive space, and gives you up to date copies of all the Office programs, and stuff like that.
Fuck Edge touch support - they don't support the event API used by Safari/Chrome, instead you need to use an MS specific touch API.
I support touch on IE11/Edge (because our business made a bet on Windows Phone) but I have wasted an obscene amount of time to do so (we have very few windows phone/laptop touch users).
I hate supporting Edge more than IE11 - weird bugs and continual problems with the debugger and touch support.
Also, I love Edge to death (it's the only browser I'll use when I'm on my Surface), but I forgot another reason why I don't want to deal with Gmail in the browser: Gmail doesn't let me have my personal and work email open at the same time.
I don't care if you can turn it off, if ad revenue is now meaningful enough to MS that it will be interleaved throughout the OS then it's now a non-option for me.
I have to go to far more effort for my email accounts that are still web based, having to sign in every so often and do the 2fa dance.
I have put all the ips of ads and microsoft in hosts file. I don't see ads in skype more.
If this day would come I will dump all microsoft store app. I am using dws lite for disable all uwp grabage in my windows 10
It's breathtaking how bad the Windows Store and the apps available there remain, what, four or five years now after the start of this Modern Windows/UWP push. Complete miscalculation.
Use Google, get everything for free subsidized by ads. Pay for Windows, still get ads?
Hmmmmm
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326184/firefox-ads-spons...
Recently Amazon has been playing ads at the beginning of shows that are offered for free via Prime. I feel like I even saw them when I had bought a season of a show, but it is now offered for free via Prime.
So far it seems like buying shows and movies through Apple is ad-free.
Edit: You also don't get free updates if you don't have an Apple machine. Still not free.