Several weeks ago, we published an article detailing five not-so-great features coming soon to Windows 11. Recommended websites in the Start menu (introduced in build 25247) appear in the list as arguably one of Microsoft’s worst ideas. Luckily, the company has decided to backtrack that controversial change. Those unhappy with Windows 11 showing more ads on the Start menu will be glad to learn that developers removed recommended websites in the latest preview build.
A bit of positive news on the ads-in-Windows front for once.
I’m somehow reminded of the line from Serenity;
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.
They will likely try again. I’m guessing within the developer builds they test the function… there is outcry, then they remove them… and then it’ll just appear in the consumer versions. Got to monetize everything! Windows 11 trying to push OneDrive and 365 subscriptions on everyone is bad enough…
To add to this every time they have implemented some active content from the web on the desktop somewhere it has been a security hole… and a big one.
I miss the nineties and the oughties. Back then the North Americans and the Western Europeans paid for the software, and we the developing world people used the cracked versions, Everybody were more or less satisfied with the arrangement (albeit the richer nations carrying the burden). The software was decent, and in practice a Robin Hoodian order prevailed for funding the development.
Now, on the surface, the software is free (as in beer). But it no longer is decent, and is trying to sell junk services to everyone on the planet. Now, no longer a teenager, I’m making enough money to pay 3 benjamins to Bill Gates every now and then, but the offering is just trash.
The devolution of the software industry into something similar to banking is just sad.
Yet they never made such a high ranking profit. Go 6 figures.
The idea is simple:
“bad money drives out good”
When cheaper TV manufacturers started playing around with their displays (showing ads at random times, tracking users, even recording microphones and selling data without user knowledge), others had to follow. Now even the top of the line premium models have data collection.
Same with software. If others are selling ad space on Windows (remember all those IE toolbars? installers bundled with adware? entire Download dot Com fisaco: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Download.com?), Microsoft had to jump on board, too.
That is unfortunate. And I wish there is a better solution.
And other countries stealing Windows did not actually help. First it lead to “online activation”, and today it is actually a big driver for “free with ads” Windows. Now you are paying, and we are paying at the same time.
(The idea was younger people would pirate, but professionals would pay. So it was some sort of an “intro” deal. (Same with Adobe, etc). However, even the governments were known to use cracked software, which broke the expectations).
I disagree with this statement. This kind of software was malware. Windows is software you pay for.
Hence “bad money”.
If someone benefits from your “stolen” software, while you get nothing (in fact have to pay for actively servicing it, even though miniscule), I can see a company changing their approach.
Umm…no. Microsoft instead released a capable free antivirus and ended the adware problem to a very large degree. Not to mention IE itself became a little-used (and hence irrelevant) browser. Windows XP, Vista and 7 with Microsoft Security Essentials was an ad-free and adware-free experience.
But Microsoft looked over the fence one day and saw that Android, available at no charge to OEMs, was eating their lunch in phones and tablets, and so the great “monetization” experiment started with Windows 8 and later with Windows 10 and its as-a-service model. There was a time when Windows 10 updates would sneak microtransaction tarpit software such as Candy Crush into your start menu without consent. Yes, that’s right, they turned Windows Update into an adware/crapware dropper in the name of monetization. Now with Windows 11 they are continuing the monetization experiment but also borrowing a page out of Apple’s playbook and introducing arbitrary cuttoffs to force new system purchases.
Meanwhile, nobody cares about Microsoft’s monetisation efforts. Trying to sell Candy Crush and content consumption apps to desktop and laptop users is like trying to sell DOOM for SGI workstations, there is no “branching out” to phones and tablets as Microsoft thinks there is. The content consumption market (aka phones and tablets) has been locked by Google and Apple and Microsoft is pissing off their gamer and content creator stronghold and destroying their stronghold for nothing.
Meanwhile Apple keeps cultivating a premium image for MacOS.
sukru,
Even google themselves are (or at least were) guilty of this too. They would pay to get google software and toolbars bundled with other software.
https://community.ccleaner.com/topic/35765-chrome-bundles-with-ccleaner-new-install-318/
I’m not a fan of this model, but I don’t think we can deny it is very successful in terms of growing market share. People who would have never installed chrome or google toolbars on their own still ended up with it as the default browser.
Interestingly microsoft eventually turned windows defender into a weapon not just to protect users from dangerous software, but also to protect themselves from competitive threats…
https://news.softpedia.com/news/windows-defender-blocks-ccleaner-due-to-software-bundled-with-the-installer-530679.shtml
I have mixed feelings about this. While I wasn’t a fan of companies bundling software downloads, I don’t really want microsoft using their privileged position to block software on the basis that it bundles software that competes with microsoft. This seems very wrong to me too. Either way I think consumers loose and none of the corporations involved are truly acting in consumer interests. Corporate greed wins.
The only action you can take is vote with your feet, CCleaner is an interesting example, I used it for years as a useful tool then all of a sudden it became overloaded with drive-by installations. Here I was trying to clean up end user workstations, and some of the very utilities I made use of to do this were adding their own! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! So I stopped using them, stopped buying licenses, or at least I used them on a greatly diminished basis.
Luckily PowerShell has evolved to become a very useful tool and is quickly surpassing the alternatives, and as the knowledge base and library of solutions grows I might even be able to do away with my much loved WSL. (Dread the thought!)
In regards to paying money for being able to use Microsoft Windows in the past forty years or so. This was always the case. Hence if you feel Windows is becoming trash. It’s not due to people not paying for the license anymore. Windows is still not and never was free as in beer.
Asking somewhat seriously, what is the reason anyone would use Windows these days? Forgetting companies handing new employees a Windows laptop, why would someone choose Windows for a personal system?
“Why would someone choose Windows for a personal system” as opposed to what?
For the technical people you have hundreds of choices of any number of Linux or BSD systems. For the non-technical people you have Chromebooks and that entire ecosystem or the Apple world. The compelling reason for non-technical people to choose Windows seemed to always be “well, I know how to use this because I have it at work” or “the program I want to buy in a cardboard box is available for Windows”. And since everything for non-technical people these days is a web page app, the reason to stick with Windows seems to not really be there anymore.
I’m sure you’d classify me as a “technical” person, yet having “hundreds of choices of any number of Linux or BSD systems” has never done a single thing for me. I believe having options is generally a good thing, but having hundreds just fragments everything beyond the point of diminished returns. I’d rather have 3, 4, maybe 5 good choices than hundreds of mediocre-to-shitty ones. Surely if there’s room for all that, there’s room for Windows. And if people should be able to choose from all those Linux and BSD options, surely they should be able to choose Windows.
Why would “non-technical” people care at all about the smaller Chromebook or Apple ecosystems? Vastly smaller market share, software options, hardware support, and all the drawbacks that come with those things? YES PLEASE! ……I don’t think so.
I know this is going to sound really crazy but have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, of the billions of people using Windows, some of them might actually like it? Windows is after-all, good at most things for most people most of the time. Most people are even big-boy enough to acknowledge that. Not everyone prefers using web page apps. Being forced online and probably logged in to some account they don’t even want, just to use an app, isn’t exactly something people cheer about. Aside of that, why should anyone change their os just to use the same web apps?
You say the reasons to stick with Windows aren’t there anymore. I say I’ve yet to hear a good reason not to. I know you said you’re asking with seriousness but I’m having a hard time buying it.
Hold up, I wasn’t trying to start a battle here. For clarification, I do not care what anyone uses on their system. I was trying to ask the question from the point of view of the general user. I think it’s safe to say that all of us who read this site are non-standard users of any system we have. And I think we’re all quite capable of using a wide range of systems.
My question around Windows was about the value or need. I don’t know that it’s there for most people like it was 10 or 20 years ago. I asked because I don’t use Windows on a daily basis and haven’t in a very long time. When I see articles discussing major UI changes in Windows and negative reactions from users leads me to ask “what is it that people still like or need about Windows that leads them to put up with it.”
And yes, I did leave out gaming. Not because I forgot, but because I’m not a gamer. I’m going to assume that gamers already use Windows. I was trying to ask about the general purpose user. Is there still a need for Windows that they can’t fulfill from a device like a smartphone or tablet? I’m absolutely not a general purpose user, so I have no idea.
Please don’t take my question as a jab or something at Windows users. I know that’s hard to convey through forums. I am out of the loop on Windows and just wanted to know (besides games and people that just like the platform, which are both entirely ok reasons!)
You apear to not have the same non-techincal people as everyobne else.
Yes they want to still install programs, no not in a box, but you know they have downloaded them for 25 years also. (well some of them).
You also forget gaming. And yes gaming on linux still needs a lot of knowledge to just play windows games since there are no real linux games anymore becuase the linux users did not want them enough). Chromebook, no streaming is not popular or good enough for 99% of people due to internet costs or complete unavailability of a decent enough package art a price point (or at all).
For all the pain is causes windows is still the easy option. And became a much better option with windows 2000 (although the masses wanted to use me for some unknown reason at the time, 2000 was good, xp was bad! (etc etc 😉 )).
So to put it again in words you might understand. No the average use does not use web apps. Give it another 10 years.
Carrot007,
I’m not siding with dcantrell’s “why would someone choose Windows for a personal system?” I dislike when debates get framed this way; of course some people are going to prefer windows. However you’ve gone to the other extreme in suggesting that all average everyday users need windows and chromebooks and desktop linux are not good enough for them. Obviously that’s true for some, but I also know some that are using linux and chromebooks and it is fine for their needs.
I don’t know if it’s possible to de-escalate the rhetoric once stakes have been set, but this is my attempt at converging the discussion around a reasonable point of balance. Can we agree the middle ground has merit? Is this futile? Maybe, I’ve been trying to counter one-sided dogma for years but not stepping on anyone’s toes takes some delicate maneuvering 🙂
Even mentioning BSD makes it seem like you’re actually using Windows yourself, maybe having briefly tested an Ubuntu live CD at some point…
Games.
Moochman,
That’s true. Obviously windows is still the premiere platform for games, no contest. I wouldn’t recommend linux (or macos for that matter) to someone who wants the opportunity to run every game, But then again it’s not like the old days, there’s actually a decedent selection for casual gaming.
Alfman,
I would not call “Elden Ring” or “Final Fantasy” casual 🙂
https://www.steamdeck.com/en/verified
Joking aside, gone are the days we were happy having a source port of Quake, or having a commercial release of “World of Goo” on humble games. I think, today, more than half of current popular games can run reliably on Linux, if not more. (In my personal library 73% seem to be verified on steamdb).
A long list of creative software for Windows (and often Mac) but not Linux. Adobe, ON1, DxO, Topaz, Affinity, etc. As technically capable as some of the Open Source equivalents tools are (often exceeding the commercial alternatives), they are not close to the same level of UX sophistication.
0-day hardware support of both components and peripherals such as VR headsets.
Games used to be a reason, but not a big one any longer.
@Dcantrell
Aside from retail use, legacy software is a huge issue, the company I work for and most clients I visit still have a rather uncomfortably large dependency on ancient software, DOS, Win32, even some 16 bit stuff survives. I have a rather large array of legacy interfaces, controllers and data capture hardware I have to support that can run on nothing else but Windows!
Another hurdle is certification, it’s easy to claim we can emulate and replace a lot of it, and it may even be easy to complete, but getting that tick in medical, aviation or military applications is another issue altogether, and it is the biggest hurdle due to the costs.
Familiarity + Office + Games + Software (esp. content creation) + Price
It comes installed and it offers what most consumers need in that space. You can flip the question as to why would anyone not use Windows as it’s already on the PC they purchased.
We are more or less waiting for somebody to tackle Microsoft Windows monopoly position through market regulators. For example when you will buy and turn on a PC for the first time. For there to be more options listed. With description and price tag included. Or something like that. In my opinion after 40 years of Microsoft Windows. For whatever is coming next. In my opinion that will happen way before another 40 years pass. The time is rather right now. Windows is stagnating for around a decade already. It’s basically a dinosaur. Time is hence now right for some real progress. Being GNU/Linux or something else. We’ll likely find out soon.
With how it’s pre-installed and how sales work even for the Linux systems with it installed by default, it’s no wonder people end up just using what is installed.
I was recently looking for a 2-in-1. Lenovo sells the X1 Yoga with Ubuntu pre-installed, but guess what? It was going for the full 2700 dollars, rather than the exact same spec one being on ‘sale’ for 1500. (just drank my coffee, those numbers may be a little off).
@cpcf
Amusingly, Linux with DOSBox, Wine, etc is more compatible with legacy applications than Windows 10/11 is. At least in my experience with trying to get some stuff from GOG to work.
As far as gaming goes, outside of some specific games, and ones with anti-cheat mechanisms where they aren’t just checking a box for Linux support, gaming is VERY good compatibility wise on Linux. Again, because of Wine/Proton, some older games are easier to get working on Linux than they are on modern Windows.
Gaming is definitely better on Linux than it is on a macbook.
leech,
Yes that’s true.
I know right! I look around every few years but you end up having niche pricing just because it’s running linux. Furthermore very few vendors let consumers buy computers without an operating system, so what I end up doing is buying used windows computers and installing linux myself. This is viable for experienced users, but I don’t consider this a reasonable path for amateurs who don’t have a mentor. even when a linux desktop could suit their needs otherwise.
That’s very true of DOSBox. TBH I’ve had lots of trouble using wine to run arbitrary windows software to the point of frustration. Some things work, but others are very finicky and require hacking. In my experience the situation is significantly better on steam with proton thanks to upstream efforts going into making titles proton compatible. I’ve had success using proton to run titles that I failed to get running under wine. I appreciate the work that steam is doing on improving compatibility.
I’ve heard that too. Between limited titles, no proton or directx compatibility layers, no vulkan support, few games targeting apple’s proprietary metal API, no 32bit support, not having a hardware upgrade path over an iGPU, etc, I’d avoid macos too if my intention was to game.
https://hothardware.com/news/directx-12-on-mac-tougher-than-linux-work-is-underway
As I sit here browsing the content on my dynamic and stealthy Ad and Marketing riddled phone, I’m not sure I’m in any strong moral or social position to criticise any OS for repeating such mistakes. What the developers call them, “Notifications”, “Ads”, “Alerts”, “Alarms” or “Reminders” makes little difference, they all have to monetise the product in some way and the label they give that process is irrelevant!
This indeed was a close call. Imagine Microsoft wouldn’t have backtracked. And would go ahead with this one of the worst changes in Windows 11. That would be the final straw. People would move to GNU/Linux. Only to find out GNU/Linux doesn’t run games.
Geck,
We need a reality check though: advertising has proven to be a very successful business model. It built up industry titans like google and facebook who themselves are internet descendants of advertising giants before them in traditional media. Advertisers might make media objectively worse from a consumer point of view, but there was never a “final straw” moment for consumers to escape the advertising swamp in large numbers. Instead incessant advertising becomes normalized everywhere. I’ll agree it’s disappointing, but more ads are accompanying products and services that we’re paying for.
I’m all for criticizing the invasion of advertisers into every nook and cranny of our lives. Count me in as one of the resisters, however I don’t think there is a final straw and my prediction is that we will ultimately loose because everyone is chasing profits and for better or worse advertising has proven to be a resilient business model in spite of the people who dislike it.
I see. Then i don’t see what the fuzz is about and on why Microsoft backtracked. It’s not like anybody was planning to do anything about it anyway. But i guess a win is still a win. Only four places inside Windows will get adds this time. Not five! But then again a win for who? Microsoft is OK with it. People are OK with it. Peanut gallery? Don’t they use GNU/Linux anyway? And it’s not like Apple doesn’t do it. Jealousy. Of Google and social …
Geck,
I’m having trouble following your train of thought here, but I’d say that microsoft rarely follows a strait line from A to B, especially when it comes to pushing undesirable changes. They do a dance with several steps backwards and forwards that ends with changes that customers like. This way the forward steps are what they remember the most and hopefully the backward steps are forgotten.
This is how I expect tracking and ads to slowly increase over time.
Is the model Microsoft are trying to use to monetise windows with adverts to make it free at use that different from what OSnews do?
Instead of directly paying for OSnews, I get adverts, lots of them, banner And video adverts. OSnews is in no way incentivised to reduce the number of adverts as it is part of the benefit of payment.
It’s different. You can’t use Windows without paying for the license. You hence need to pay and should give up your privacy too. Paying money for being a product. Next level.
Windows 11 was a free upgrade for many/most or was included in the system purchase at no perceived cost to the user. There is a fairly small minority that actually purchased windows 11 directly.
And that “paid price” is subsidised by advertising. Another analogy is the Amazon kindle. You can buy it for cheaper with ads.
Adurbe,
The original post did suggests that windows itself is free and did not differentiate between windows itself being free versus updates being free. I think it’s important to be explicit about the distinction. A gas station attendant might exchange 4 quarters for a dollar, but this fact doesn’t mean quarters are free. Ads and tracking only pay for the update, but (short of software piracy) owners still must pay for windows just as they had before.
Over the years microsoft realized that consumers were becoming much more reluctant to pay for windows updates with only marginal benefit for them. Consumers were opting to stick with what they already had. That so many owners were sticking with windows xp and windows 7 for so long was a notorious problem for microsoft. It was embarrassing and unacceptable to them. This is why microsoft decided to turn towards ads and trackers in their windows business model. They even went to the extent of coercing owners to update using UI design patterns that were explicitly designed to deceive owners in some cases. It should be clear now that MS considers data mining and advertising more profitable than consumers paying for updates. Even so, I expect microsoft will continue charging for new windows installs on top of the ads.