Would You Use Ad-Supported Windows?

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet reported earlier this week that Microsoft was thinking of offering an Ad-Supported version of Windows. A blog post by John Carroll offers some reasons why Ad-Supported Windows makes sense. From the article: '4. More revenue through targeted marketing: The holy grail of marketing is to target an audience with the sort of ads that most appeal to them. Sending a bunch of male programmers advertisements for breast enlargement isn't terribly useful. Sending a bunch of male programmers advertisements for a four hour extended version of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is useful.' Is there any situation where you can see yourself open to the possibility of using an Ad-Supported operating system?"

Comments

Sounds like a potential security issue...

[Coopjust]

If there is an ad-supported version of Windows, the ads would be intergrated on the level of the operating system (like a rootkit). Doesn't this sound like a bad idea? What will happen when a less-than-well-intending firm finds out how to use the ad system and hijack it? It would be almost, if not impossible, to remove.

Would Windows then be free?

[CommiePuddin]

The American computer-using public is used to "ad-supported" meaning "free to me." We're also used to "ad-supported" meaning "not going to last very long."

Would the OS be crippled? Could a purchase un-cripple it (and remove advertisements)?

And how intrusive are these ads? Is this a thirty second video commercial while the OS loads, or am I going to be receiving pop-ups every 30-45 seconds? Am I sacrificing monitor space to keep a banner ad on the screen at all times?

Um....no.

[Chanc_Gorkon]

WHY? Ads have been tried by the free pc people and how many of those are around now? I am convinced that we must be in the beginnings of another nutty web bubble. 2 million to Revision3 and another 2 million to podshow. VC money going to REALLY wacky ideas.....crazy ideas like AD supported OS's? Stupid. A OS is supposed to allow you to run programs and manage the hard stuff that programmers used to have to do when writing for bare hardware. It should not have anothe rlayer of crud on it.

Depends

[aaron_ds]

A non-intrusive Google-Ads-like system I could live with. A bar containing seizure inducing banners and annoying "Catch the monkey and win a gazillion iPods" flash ads would be intolerable. It depends on how it is implemented. Of course, why not just use a prexisting free OS?

Re:Depends

[Wylfing]

Ah, you see, that's what this is about. Microsoft is desperate to cut off Google air supply. One way they can do that is by gobbling up all the ad dollars. In other words, advertisers have x dollars to spend. Every dollar they spend advertising directly to Windows is a dollar less that goes to Google.

Re:Depends

[decoutt]

This is exactly the comment that I was looking for. Bravo, very insightful! Google sits in a browser which in turn sits in an operating system. MS lost the browser battle long time ago, and now plays the card of the operating system. And it is precisely this dependence that will cut the 'air supply' ... or maybe not: google adsense is based in context sensitive ads, that are put in websites, especially independent (non-corporate) ones. And it is precisely this dependence that will keep MS in a lower level than google on this matter.

Re:Two good uses

[rovingeyes]

Even though you can try to justify it and I am sure there are some isolated usefulness, I'd say NO, at least for work PC. We have enough trouble with email and IM itself (there have been a lot of stories on those on /.); the last thing we need is some ads popping up when someone is trying to work especially in crunch time. It might work for home editions or home users, but professional uses - NO. I don't care how contextual the ads are, they are a distraction and I bet they will be flash based or something more silly and obnoxious or at least they will evolve in to those.

Re:Two good uses

[Soybean47]

You would be ok with running an ad-supported OS in your church? There's no moral dilemma in adding commercials to your church services?

Did you miss the episode of the Simpsons where Homer's model rocket hits the church, Mr. Burns pays to fix it, and he introduces changes to make it more profitable? "Get your money changed! Right here in the temple!"

Re:Two good uses

[Philip K Dickhead]

I would pay NOT to see ads.

I can't leak into the urinal, without looking down and seeing someone selling me something, printed on the drain-cover.

Re:Not yet ad-supported

[Crayon Kid]

Only paying customers will be allowed to bother you.

Who wants to bet on the odds that eventually a flaw in the ad system would be discovered, that allows _anyone_ to shove stuff in your face?

the ads! make them go away!!

[skiman1979]

I have enough problems trying to keep spyware/adware ads from displaying on my Windows desktop. Now you want the OS itself to support the displaying of ads?! I can see a lot of users not realizing they have spyware then. Oh that ad? it's just Windows advertising.

Re:Two good uses

[Fordiman]

The question is: how hard would it be to remove the ads from "ad-supported" windows. I would suppose it would just take Sysinternals' Process Explorer to kill a few "Critical System" tasks.

Re:Two good uses

[0racle]

I'm so mad that I chose to run this Adware OS. Oh wait, no I'm not it was cheaper this way.

Ya, lots of grumbling over saving money. I hear Geico has the same problem. Incedentally, 15 minutes could save you 10% or more on car insurance.

Re:Not yet ad-supported

[nine-times]

Seriously, though, what about all the ads that people see because MS makes MSN the default start page for IE? That MSN search is the default search? What about making WMP automatically open to Microsoft's media site? What about the bookmarks that come with IE? What about the products sold through the "Windows Catalogue"?

Are you telling me, with a straight face, that MS isn't already gathering revenue by the ads they deliver through their OS?