Slashdot Mirror
The Ad-Supported Operating System
An anonymous reader writes "The appearance of an ad-supported operating system is probably not that far off. This article takes a look at some of the finer points behind an OS which is financed with ad views, and more specifically the logic behind a free version of Windows which could make this a reality. There are a few issues which must be resolved first, but with Microsoft refining Windows Live and shifting some of their focus to advertising, many of the pieces seem to be falling into place."
Just in case windows wasn't slow enough, Microsoft decided it would be good to also have the software also worry about what ads are running. Just in case you didn't mind windows phoning home already, they added the benefit of logging everything you do so that they can better tailor ads toward you. Ohh, and don't think about having a computer running without an internet connection because Microsoft needs to verify you have all the latest adds running. I'm so glad I bought that widescreen monitor. That way after the adds arrive, I will still have the usable screen space of my old monitor. Forget about uninstalling other peoples adware, after windows, it isn't soo bad anymore. Unfortunately, this is a good idea to cheapen Microsoft products for those who have trouble affording them. The problem is those people will probably also have slower machines which this will place a burden on. Also, I don't want to have to pay a higher premium to get the non-add supported version.
Micro$hit Winblows X-Pee is full of ads for M$'s services. There's ads for Passport, Windows Media download stores, MSN Search, MSN Explorer, Microsoft Plus, and other bloated bullshit. Don't forget the ultimate coercive ad, Windows Genuine Advantage. Loads of false claims of pirated software means more bucks for Satan.
I can't agree with you more.
The problem with an ad-supported operating system is that people expect the computer to work. And when they sit down to do their taxes, balance the check book or write an email they do not want to be hindered with ads about the latest tax, accounting software or email client that is available. Sure, this model may have some people who will do it. Heck, the reason I watch so little TV is because of the ads (and yes I know about Tivo), and the last thing that I want is to be attacked with ads while using the computer; I use the computer when I want to be entertained as is, why would I voluntarily invite it on to my computer? This is just the realization of ad folks that people are starting to spend inordinate amounts of time on the computer and they want to encrouch on where people are spending time. AOL is switching to an ad context, and they are going to offer free service. I think that many people would happily pay for an operating system just to avoid the ads.
Besides how much do you want to bet that an ad-supported OS would make the malware guys overly happy? Think about it. If a malware guy could take over the ad-subsystem on Windows, then the user might not even know it. So instead of getting reputable ads they start getting penis enhancment products and the like.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
"Ads in place of a subscription make sense, but how do you justify ads for something with an exact value? When you see enough ads to have payed the price of the OS do they go away? I don't understand."
I'm not sure why you don't understand, it's not like there are plenty of other services out there that stop showing ads when they hit a certain point. The 'exact value' thing is bunk, anyway. If there were an ad-supported OS, part of the income would be re-invested into improving the OS. You see ads in perpetuity, they update the OS in perpetuity. I'm a little surprised that somebody with a GMail account doesn't get this.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
This article is touting the ad-supported OS like it will have a million entrants, but who are the players that can go for this? Only 3 realistically, Microsoft, Mac OS X, and a company with their own branded Linux.
An ad supported linux will never take off. The good and free versions are just too numerous and the other trillion reasons that won't work. It will never fly on Mac OS X, that is just too contrary to contemplate. But Microsoft...... why would they want an ad free OS?
Right now, they make a set amount from each sale. An ad supported OS will not only lower that intake, it will not have long term gains from all the people who will patch their OS to fix it from the "crippled" version to the good version. Total loss for MS.
This seems to be just somebody's hair brained scheme to "compete" with google, but how does it compete with Google? It doesn't. Google, if they ever release an OS (I doubt), will supply it over the net while MS here just pushes a reduced cost version off store shelves.
Furthermore, the article states:
Um, no. Home Users already indirectly pay for Microsoft when they purchase a computer. No win for Microsoft there, either in marketshare or revenue. It would not be ideal for internet cafes, as people pay cafes (at least in Europe) to use those computers, so bludgeoning them to death is neither in the interest of the Cafe owner who sells time (and doesn't get any revenue from said ads anyway) nor their customers. In libraries, again, I have to ask why?
I chalk all this nonsense to a slow newsday. I swear, this is the dumbest fad that is making every idiots eyes light up as if this is the best thing since sliced bread. The advertising market is already saturated, people are becoming resistant to advertising in general, and the pie is only so big.
The thing is, all the major software makers are desperate to find some sort of subscription or rental model so they can get a guaranteed revenue stream without having to stay on the product improvement treadmill. Improving software is HARD - Vista is a crystal clear example of how hard - which makes it expensive. If a software house can persuade customers to keep giving them money without improving the product, they're on a win.
That's why they're tying software to hardware with product activation and pushing DRM or other methods of artificially obsoleting their products. Almost all of Microsoft's OS sales are with new PCs but even then, your ordinary punter, after paying for the OS for the Nth time, is starting to ask "how many times do I have to pay for this crap? It's barely changed in the past five years, but I still have to fork out the same $$ as I did the first time." Expect to see more of this sort revenue model as software becomes more complex.
What's really needed, of course, is a new way of writing and maintaining software. The programs we use today are essentially bespoke, hand-built items, much the way cars were at the start of the 20th century. The primitive fabrication methods are masked because computer software can be duplicated infinitely without additional cost, but it's still an industry ripe for a new enry Ford to invent the digital equivalent of a production line.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Google is admittedly not an operating system in the classic sense, but it is systematically taking over the functionality that users expect their boxes to provide, and it is entirely supported by advertising.
Trying to plug an advertising-driven model into traditional "operating systems" is like trying to glue a Mini-ATX motherboard into a Palm PDA. Some things just don't translate. We have learned to accept Google's ads, because they sit inoccuously in parts of the screen that would be blank otherwise. How can Windows even attempt this?
I don't think Microsoft and Google are competing on the same terms any more, if they ever were. While Microsoft are still selling products that were defined twenty years ago and hit their peak a decade ago, Google is busy reinventing the online world, following its own designs and writing the rules.
Let me give you an example... Office applications. On the one hand, Microsoft is wondering how to provide online access (advertising supported, metered, whatever) to Office. Now, Google are thinking, "in five years' time, people won't want to write documents this way any longer" and they're thinking of how to use the web to create documents, presentations, totally bypassing the Office metaphor (which is ancient, dating to before the days of the IBM PC). The very first microcomputers, running CP/M, ran office applications (WordStar, CalcStar, etc.)
I used to write many documents using Word, then I switched to OpenOffice a few years ago. Today, I edit my documents as text, post them to Wikis, and use text-to-PDF and text-to-HTML conversion tools to produce deliverable output. I don't open OpenOffice any more unless someone sends me a document. The only exception is spreadsheets. I've not yet seen a new online abstraction that replaces spreadsheets, though calculations would be a natural feature to add to wiki systems.
Google gets this, I think.
My blog
From the don't-eat-that-johnny-that's-poop-dept:
Ads cost brain cells, time, bandwidth, screen space, cache space, mouse clicks. They accelerate carpal tunnel and dimish visual acuity. They undermine asthetics and camoflage the point of the enviroment they are in. This is the same sell as television is free because of the ads. Cable, sattelite, whatever, costs you monthly just so you can watch "free" television rather then "pay" television. WTF? I doubt free windows will come with a free ISP connection. I don't want ads on my screen, piling up in my mailbox, filling my answering machine or blocking the view to the lake. Ads, no matter what or where they are cost you something directly, everytime! A "free" version of windows will most certainly not be free.
But Google is ads that you visit to get. Windows will load it for you. In countries that have small data caps on their broadband accounts (Aus/NZ) this will definitely cost more in the long run.
Fuck that. Given the choice between pirating Windows and OS-level adware, I'll take the former, thank you.
Because ad-supported software is so much better than free software.
Seriously... does anybody think this idea is good? At all?
Nothing to see here. Move along.
My first reaction was along the lines of: "WTF?!? --No way in hell!, etc..." After thinking about it though, I'm actually liking the idea.
I've had a simple rule since I bootstrapped myself onto OSS, namely: I don't run win32 OSes unless somebody else is paying for them. This works for me actually.
For personal computing, it means access to win32 if needed for some reason. A recent example for me was having to perform an upgrade on my ReplayTV. The better tools are win32 ones. I've no problem booting the OS, doing the task, then back to my OSS environment. Running an AD supported version would not have impacted me one bit. I don't need commercial apps for anything these days, so it's just about running win32 programs that do very specific things that may not be so easy in OSS land.
Where work related tasks are concerned, I'm still very much tied to the win32 system. However, that's on somebody elses dime. Fine by me.
I say bring it on.
You know what's gonna happen though. There will be an AD for the OS, then another AD for the application, and another for the browser.... Might have to get a pretty high pixel density monitor for it all!
Blogging because I can...