Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Nov 2012 01:41 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 541759
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-07-15
Microsoft has been slowly beginning this trend for a while now? Windows live messenger? Office starter? Those two at least, you didn't have to pay for, but the trend has been clear enough. It doesn't affect me one way or the other, as I do not and will not be upgrading to Windows 8 from OS X. That really would be a downgrade
.
I'm sure Microsoft's reasoning, if questioned, will go something like this: Well, these apps are free, so we have every right to put ads in them. Even if they weren't "free," Microsoft is absolutely correct. I hate ads, I'll do anything I can to avoid them as much as possible, but it's Microsoft's right to put whatever advertising in their product in whatever capacity they wish. Fortunately, it's also my right, which I'm quite happy to exercise, to flip them the figurative finger and not use their ad-infested crapware.
I see people here talking about a class action. That is not going to be possible unless these ads can be proven to be harmful (e.g. if they're sending unauthorized data about you to third parties or otherwise compromise your security). Then, and only then, has Microsoft done something illegal. Sorry people, but annoying the living hell out of you is not a crime.