Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Nov 2012 01:41 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 541834
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by kaiwai
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:36
in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
That's true for free apps. These are apps that access microsoft's services and you've already payed for that by buying windows. A lot of apps are like that, they have a free version with ads and a paid version without. Similar to sites where you can browse without ads if you buy an account.
Edited 2012-11-10 16:00 UTC
RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 11th Nov 2012 03:14
in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
That's true for free apps. These are apps that access microsoft's services and you've already payed for that by buying windows. A lot of apps are like that, they have a free version with ads and a paid version without. Similar to sites where you can browse without ads if you buy an account.
These services have on going costs - how is a one off sale going to cover the costs of a service over the life time of the product? regarding your 'paid version' again they're not accessing a service which reoccurring costs of the business - you're comparing Apples to oranges. Regarding your example of an account - that only works because you don't pay a once off fee but pay a subscription which pays for the reoccurring costs.
Edited 2012-11-11 12:46 UTC




Member since:
2005-07-06
Why is anyone here surprised? if you're going to access the website via an application rather than going to the actual website the take guess as to why they've included ads. The movement is to provide access to data from a website and through an application then someone/something has to pay for delivery of that data hence advertisements. For me, as long as those advertisements are non-intrusive then I'm more than happy to have said advertisements if it means that the said services remain free of charge.