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."

Comments

Never in a million years

[symbolic]

...would I consider an ad-supported OS. Linux is free, and ad-free. Why bother?

Re:Never in a million years

[Jugalator]

So you are just going to make Bonzi starve like that? :-(

Re:Never in a million years

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"...would I consider an ad-supported OS. Linux is free, and ad-free. Why bother?"

That would depend on the features of the OS. Linux is free, but I paid for Windows. Why? Several apps I use are available on Windows but not Linux. Therefore, Windows (sadly) has value to me.

This isn't a rebuttal, though. You're right. They've got to answer the 'why bother' question. I probably wouldn't ahve bothered replying except for the "never in a million years" bit in your post.

Re:Never in a million years

[kolme]

Yeah, right, that's what I think. Also I'd never use MS Messenger because it's full of ads, and there's a lot of free (as in speech) and ad-free alternatives. But in spite of it, people don't seem to care.

Re:Never in a million years

[Fulkkari]

The article didn't consider that many people don't buy Windows - they have it pre-installed. Now, I suppose that hardware manufacturers could sell their computers with an ad-supported Windows for a lower price. And maybe it would catch on, but I doubt it. If the average computer still has something like 1024x768, even if the ads would be text only, they would take screen space. Now, I'm sure most people have no problem of ads taking some of the screen space, but when you start to have ads from the OS, ads from the browser, ads from the IM application etc. there will be a limit. People just have enough.

This idea has also some serious privacy and security implications. Will the average user care? Probably not. But if he knows that the operating system was free, he might go on and try out Linux. He won't consider losing money, if he never paid anything for it in the beginning.

Anyway, this ad-biz is getting ridiculous. What's next? Ad-supported games? Oh wait...

PS. I downloaded my Windows XP professional ISO for free from Microsoft. What do you mean you can't get legal Windows for free?

Re:Never in a million years

[Zelbinian]

And how! I mean, anyone who actually thinks this is a good idea, please, for the love of all that's holy, go rent the Corporation. Then come back and read this article. And then die a little inside like the rest of us.

Re:Never in a million years

[onion2k]

Depends on the advert too. If the system was written to download advert material in a similar fashion to Windows Update, and then display it during boot up, or even on the Login screen, I don't think I'd have a problem with that at all. I might even put up with adverts replacing my desktop background.

In essence, so long as they don't actually get in the way then I'm happy with them. As soon as they make a noise, stop me accessing my PC immediately, or sit on top of windows I'm using, then I'd get irritated by them. The key to Google's ad success is that they're easy to ignore. Well, consciously ignore at least, we all still read them even if we don't realise it.

Re:Never in a million years

[zoeblade]

Linux is free, and ad-free.

It's also free, an important distinction. :) It doesn't matter if it's free as in zero-cost, as long as it's free as in the-freedom-to-copy-it-to-your-friends.

Re:Never in a million years

[Rick17JJ]

I assume that an ad-supported version of Windows would most likely involve some type of tracking and loss of privacy. Perhaps some type of spyware would monitor your browsing and searching habits so that advertisers could send you targeted advertising. Is that how it would work?

I already use a free OS, I use Linux. I do not need an ad-supported version of Windows. I like the fact that most common spyware won't run on Linux. Viruses and worms won't either for that matter. I value my privacy and don't want more spyware or ads.

Despite being free and having no ad-revenues, Linux has done surprisingly well at getting better every year. If fact many of the new "innovative" features Microsoft has been bragging about for Vista are already available for Linux. Linux even has some of the features that were cut from Vista so that it would be released on time. Vista will have "Instant Search" while Linux already has the Beagle desktop search program. Vista will have its new "Aero" graphical interface while some versions of Linux already have XGL graphics. Instead of everyone in Windows usually being an administrator, Vista will have more of a Unix/Linux style security. Linux has always done it that way. Vista will have desktop widgets, Linux already has SuperKarama. I could go on.

I admit there actually are various pros and cons in the Windows vs. Linux argument, but my point is that, there already is a good free operating system that is doing just fine without having to resort to ad-supported revenues. No, never in a million years for me.

Re:Never in a million years

[Fulkkari]

Microsoft has an academic developer program, where they give all kind of software for free. I downloaded Windows XP Professional, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and some other software as well. You get an ISO image and your own serial code for the software by downloading from this website with an unique login. Other software that I remember being available was the Visual Studio and SQL server. I don't remember the specifics, as I rather use my Mac. Microsoft Office could not be downloaded.

I believe this is just a way for them to try to keep new developers using Windows, rather than switching to Linux or OS X. Some membership fee is paid by the school, but I don't see any of it.

Re:Never in a million years

[rucs_hack]

Some people might consider it.

By that I mean the same people who make life decisions based on television advertising, worry about characters in soap opera's as if they were real people, and think a family outing to macdonalds is a treat (I'm not joking, I know people like that).

In short, the very poorly informed people who have no proper understanding of the consequences will jump at this.

Will that be enough people to allow this to succeed? I don't know about that. All it has to do is break even and the likes of microsoft will keep it going, claiming huge success.

I wouldn't ever have such a system, but I'll probably be forced to use one at some point to send email.

Re:Never in a million years

[mgblst]

Maybe that is the way it would start. Then they would start replacing window backgrounds, and your browser defaults. You would no longer be able to search google, it would intercept it. Maybe a small strip on the left of the page would always be adds, which would slowly get bigger and more distracting. You would try to make the window bigger, and scroll that past the screen edge, but they would have thought of that.

Could get really insidious, at which time most sensible people would install a real os.

Re:Never in a million years

[Dawsons]

IF somebody cannot afford the £50.00 to purchase an actual operating system how are they going to afford, what is advertised on the operating system... this whole thing makes no sense at all...

Re:Never in a million years

[Sgt. CoDFish]

MSN Messenger is a good example of the ad-supported Windows "problem". Linux users don't use it (they use GAIM or Kopete or some other Linux-friendly messenger.) so they don't get the ads that come with it.

But, MSN Messenger has features that other, Linux-friendly IM clients don't have: webcam support out of the box, audio conversations, games...

The same can be said about the Windows-Linux situation in general. Linux users get a free operating system, with no ads, but they don't get the Windows-only programs that have been developed. A lot of companies have programs made for them that will only function in Windows, so they can't afford to use Linux: their programs wouldn't work. Sure, Linux has wine, but can anyone really say that they can get all windows programs to work perfectly under wine?

Back slightly more on topic, I can see the use of a free Windows. That way, a lot of Linux users who have a dual boot system for Windows games won't have to pay for a/use a pirated copy of Windows, but they can still use Windows legally, and free of charge. This is actually a good thing from Microsoft. As long as they don't force the ads down your throat, I can see the advantages of this.

A free Windows certainly wouldn't bother me; I won't be seeing any ads when I use Windows for the only reason I do use it: games, games and more games. :)

Re:Never in a million years

[Godji]

As much as I hate Microsoft, if a free ad-supported Windows was available, I'd go for it. While nothing can replace Linux as my primary OS, I still want to play games, and Cedega just isn't good enough. An ad supported Windows means: 1) Microsoft will not make money off me on purchase 2) Nobody will make money off me as I ignore the ads 3) I get to play games on Windows and stick it up to Microsoft in the process 4) Privacy in this case is not a problem because I'm not doing anything other than play a few games on that OS (no browsing around or reading e-mail or handling personal data) It sounds perfect to me. Bring it on!

Re:Never in a million years

[plumby]

Several apps I use are available on Windows but not Linux. Therefore, Windows (sadly) has value to me.Have you tried WINE? Every Windows program I've tried so far works fine on that.

Re:Never in a million years

[indifferent children]

The DOJ needs to look into this. Microsoft is trying to use their dominance in the OS market to achieve dominance in the Adware market. This probably violates the Sherman Anti-Trust laws somehow (IANAL).

Re:Never in a million years

[indifferent children]

Could get really insidious, at which time most sensible people would install a real os.

If crashes, malware, and remote pwnership can't make people switch to a real OS, why should advertising?

I think if Vista came with a USB-controlled cat-o-nine-tails, and you had to take five lashes every morning before you could log in, most people would probably put up with it.

Re:Never in a million years

[TheRaven64]

I haven't used Windows regularly for three years. I use OS X, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD on a regular basis, however. I also have a small Windows partition on a spare machine which I occasionally boot up when I feel the need to play an old game (about once every couple of months). When I installed it, I was amazed at how primitive the system was. Here are a few things I noticed:

1. Dragging a window caused a (slow) redraw. Haven't they heard of buffering?
2. Inserting a USB memory stick went through some kind of add new hardware thing. Why wasn't it automatically mounted? The drivers were present, so why bother the user?
3. Ejecting the USB drive meant going to a tiny PCMCIA icon in the task bar; hardly intuitive. Why wasn't there an eject button Explorer?
4. The scheduler really sucks. Even the old 4.4BSD scheduler handled load better, and ULE wipes the floor with the Windows scheduler.
5. Why doesn't the kill -9 equivalent always work? Some processes seem to get stuck in system calls that never return. Not good design.
6. Privilege escalation is painful. RunAs feels like a horrible hack, and accessing it through the GUI is painful.
7. Drivers. Why do I have to hunt for drivers for my hardware? The only specific configuration I've had to do on other platforms was to grab the DRI drivers for FreeBSD, and that was little more than 'portinstall drm.' Windows won't even tell me what hardware I have if it doesn't have drivers for it! It is very hard to find drivers for 'Unknown Multimedia Interface.' If it even gave me the PCI ID then I could google for that.
8. Installing software is painful. Each application seems to have its own method of installing. On OS X, I just drag things to the Applications folder. On FreeBSD, I use portinstall. On OpenBSD, I use pkg_add. On Windows, it varies for app to app.
9. ACPI support is somewhat flaky. Quite often my laptop would go into suspend mode and never resume. According to the comments in the ACPI code for FreeBSD there are some special work-arounds for a buggy ACPI controller in my machine, but somehow Windows doesn't have them. Why not?
10. Drag and drop support in Windows is very hit-and-miss. Many things don't even seem to support drag and drop on text!

My conclusion was that Windows is not ready for the desktop, let alone the laptop.

Re:Never in a million years

[TheRaven64]

The freedom to copy it to your friends might be important for interoperability. The freedom to modify it to suit your needs might be important to a developer. The freedom to fix and distribute bug fixes might be important if you are experiencing problems.

The freedom from vendor lock-in is priceless.

Re:Never in a million years

[BVis]

The money issue is another thing, but they won't not accept you because they thing you are unable to pay for it. They'll accept you as a student, it's up to you to figure out the financials.
 
The two issues are inextricably linked, however. If you get accepted to Ivy League X school based on your grades etc. but can't afford to pay for whatever reason, it's the same as not having been accepted. These students count on financial aid from the institution (and to a lesser degree, other scholarships) to be able to actually make use of the privilege they've earned.

When I applied to college (about 15 years ago now, sheesh) I was accepted at several schools that I could not afford to attend. I was ineligible for financial aid because somehow my parents' income was too high to qualify, but too low to be able to pay outright. Sure, I could have taken out student loans, but unlike the common perception, not everyone can get those. I attended an in-state public university (but even that was close to $10k/year back then, when you figured in room and board. On a related note, our illustrious Republican governor likes to tout his "full tuition" scholarship program for students who score highly on our state standardized testing. What he fails to mention is that out of the ~$15k or so in-state students will pay at one of our state universities, about 3k is tuition, the rest is "fees". The fees are retained by the university, while the tuition is given to the state which then decides how much (if any) they're going to get back in the budget.)

Even with the cultural advantages I've been lucky enough to enjoy (white, middle-class, male, went to a high school without metal detectors, etc) people look down on my degree because it came from "that safety school." (Which, I might add, just recently went to "open enrollment", which is a polite way of saying "if you have a pulse and a high school diploma you're accepted." Thanks guys. I suppose I can use my diploma to patch my drywall now.) Take away those advantages and it's another obstacle to someone looking to pull themselves out of poverty, and we all pay the price for people being unable to lift themselves out of poverty (public assistance, uncompensated medical care, other social problems).

However, this being the United Corporate States of America, any politician who suggests that we use substantial (as opposed to "lip service" level) public money to help the financially challenged (read: minorities, the poor, immigrants, etc) go to college, quickly finds him/herself voted out of office. Helping bright students acheive will have benefits in the long run, but nobody cares about the long run, they care that their taxes don't go up half a percentage point. Public funding of higher education is a loser in this country, and nobody wants to be associated with a loser.

Re:Never in a million years

[paralaxcreations]

Really? Someone better tell Microsoft this!

Oh wait...they already know. Hence their "world of applications that run on windows" ad campaign. You may have seen it before.

Re:Never in a million years

[gstoddart]

If crashes, malware, and remote pwnership can't make people switch to a real OS, why should advertising?

As much as I dislike Windows, it is a real OS -- I wish people would stop with this tripe. Sure, it's deficient and suffers from all of the things you mention. But, there are loads of things for which Linux doesn't have any software to do certain things. And, I don't mean some broken POS 0.11 version of something open source. I mean functioning, supported, commercial software which I can actually use -- like my tax software for example.

Eventually, I decided I needed two machines -- one running XP, and one running my beloved FreeBSD. Because there are just certain things you can only do with a Windows machine. And, quite honestly, my XP box is exceptionally well behaved compared to older versions of Windows. Put it behind a firewall and don't install stupid things on it, and pwnership is a moot point.

I think if Vista came with a USB-controlled cat-o-nine-tails, and you had to take five lashes every morning before you could log in, most people would probably put up with it.

*laugh* And, some people might actually prefer it that way, who knows.

At this point, you can guarantee Vista will sell, because of Microsoft's dominance in the market segment. And they will continue to dominate for the forseeable future because it is the only platform most people know, and the only one which many software titles are available on. Apple is pulling some people away, but for many people, Linux (or FreeBSD or whatever) is simply not a viable operating system for what they need to do -- from their perspective, those aren't real operating systems.

Cheers

Re:Never in a million years

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize you already have the fruits of your labours 'stolen' to pay subsidies for inefficient farmers, defence contractors and all the other pork-barrel stuff? So you're already living in what you call a 'socialist state'.
Also, by your logic there should probably be no state funded education at all in the US (If funding higher education beyond a certain arbitary point is 'socialist' so is all state education funding). Sounds like you'd rather live in a 3rd world shit-heap country with no state services at all apart from possibly a big fat military. I hope you get your wish.

NB Only posting as AC because slashdot bans signons from entire blocks of perfectly good IP addresses due to supposed 'abuse'.

Re:Never in a million years

[Cylix]

Yeah,

I replaced my tax software with a linux friendly version of "Accountant."

Damn, this human/program works wonders as I don't have to do any work myself. It's voice activated too!

ie, "Hey, Steve here is this and this and that, I want this and those and something else. See you later Steve!"

It's just like that folks...

Not sure if Steve is open source though, but I could ask him later!

Re:Never in a million years

[winnabago]

Every Windows program I've tried so far works fine on that.

Did you really mean every Windows program? With full support, periodic upgrades, plug-ins, and guaranteed compatibility with those using native Windows in my company? It's good to dream about the silver bullet for linux, but we aren't there *yet*.

Just to get it out there, I'm looking for AutoCAD to run under WINE and still have the ability to use the scripts I've spent years writing. That would get me somewhere. It also seems, from /. and other community sites, that there is THAT ONE piece of software for everyone. Whether it's for your taxes, proprietary insurance forms, or that 3d raytracer that gets the best look out of the box, my take is that there is just too much legacy software, or closed source that doesn't run in WINE (without significant tweaking), to get us all on linux. For my workstation for now, it has to be Windows, unfortunately.

Re:Never in a million years

[bheer]

> It's much more clever sending the best students to the best schools, instead of sending those with the richest parents.

I'm not familiar with the Scandinavian education system, however I am familiar with other 'free' higher education systems. I'm sure the Scandinavian ones have a high standard of education, but I wonder if they have some of the flaws the other free systems have.

How did the 'best' schools get created? Did they get created with government money? Or did they start privately and were later made free-for-all?

Is there a Finnish or Norwegian equivalent of Stanford, which was set up with private money (and is even today quite expensive) because the establishment in those days thought MIT and Harvard was 'enough'? To put it another way, is state-budgeting limiting the growth of Scandinavian higher education?

Further, if you look at the free/subsidized higher education in Asia (and to some extent even France), you see an interesting trend: the best are very good indeed, but the quality of education falls off quite dramatically after that. The reason being that taxes only go so far, and countries tend to finance institutions of higher education keeping national prestige in mind (hence the French Grandes écoles and the Indian IITs). Compare this with the US where they Ivy league has catchet mainly because of the age of the institutions, but insitutes like Rensselaer can hold their own despite not having the prestige associated with Ivy leagues. What I'm trying to say is that the US system has a lot more depth than state-supported systems elsewhere.

Incidentally, the GP noted that all the free education is financed by taxes, the hope being the student will pay taxes too someday. (Finland IIRC has pretty high taxes.) So how does you feel about Linus, who's presumably having to pay no taxes now that he's living in the US? (he had a Finnish university education AFAIK). Apparently a lot of successful Scandinavians do this as well.

Re:Never in a million years

[JKConsult]

While I don't disagree with the overall point of your post, you would do well to remember that for some people, taking the family out to McDonald's IS a treat. Because they don't have much money, it's relatively cheap, and the kids get to run around and be kids at the nifty little playground. Looking down on these people does you no good.

Re:Never in a million years

[Beetjebrak]

Yes Windows is pure evil, and yes we may think that for the above average user it is "teh sux" but they designed a system that was intutive enough for the average user to pick up and understand within a matter of a few days. Throw someone who has never used a computer before and have them install something on a linux box... or a mac box, I sure know the first time I was going to intstall firefox it never occured to me they meant for to literally drop a program into a folder.

That's because you're conditioned into thinking installing software should be complicated. Dragging a new application into a folder is by far the most intuitive way to install software that I've come across, and I've seen MANY operating systems in actions. Linux is no big deal either. Check the box for the app you need in a tool like Synaptic and it installs itself, no hassle. The point is with Linux you can choose a distribution that makes this as hard or as easy as you want it to be. I'd never let a first time computer user install Gentoo unattended and expect them to succeed on the first try, but for things like Ubuntu: no problem!

[rant mode]Then again.. I keep wondering why everybody thinks computers are so hard these days. I was friggin 12 years old when I coded small games in C64 Assembly, 10 years old when I mastered MS DOS, 6 when I wrote my first program in C64 BASIC. Whole offices managed to be productive with the likes of WordPerfect 5. Why are computers all of a sudden thought to be so hard to use? As far as I can tell things have only gotten easier and easier as time goes by. Bare bones Debian reminds me a lot of my MS DOS days, only Debian's a whole lot more powerful. If a 12 year-old can grasp Assembly, any office clerk should be able to grasp the way Linux should be operated.. [/rant mode]

I can't wait

[grammar fascist]

I can't wait to have Explorer force me to view an ad for ten seconds before I can access the hard drive.

Or play "Punch the Monkey!!!" on my task bar.

No thanks. I've been sticking with Free Software lately because I like it better for research, but if this advertising crap ever happens, I might just become a convert to the philosophy.

Re:I can't wait

[utlemming]

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.

Re:I can't wait

[landattack]

I think I have already seen one of these ad supported machines at a friends house.

Re:I can't wait

[iamacat]

I think that many people would happily pay for an operating system just to avoid the ads.

Isn't that a good idea, given that they can try it for as much as they want first and make sure it's worth the money. I am more worried that the pay option will not be there.

Good Idea but not practical and too annoying

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good Idea but not practical and too annoying

[iamacat]

Just get a plain old CRT and adjust the control to clip the ad toolbar off the screen. Space problem solved!

Re:Good Idea but not practical and too annoying

[Mister Transistor]

Or a strip of black electrician's tape - hey, it always worked for VCR's flashing 12:00!

Ad vs Subscription, but...

[Ninwa]

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.

Re:Ad vs Subscription, but...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"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.

In The Future...

[mac.convert]

This Blue Screen of "Life" is sponsored by Blue Shield Health Insurance.

Re:In The Future...

[gbobeck]

I can imagine trying to use Vista's speech recognition software...

After every time you get "Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all" a popup ad for USPS, UPS, FedEx... would popup.

Re:In The Future...

[kolme]

A critical error has happened: unknown

352ff7: 00000 00000 0000 0000 0000

Enlarge your pennis!

Re:In The Future...

[noidentity]

Or this:

The application has been terminated due to insufficient ad clicks.

Will it allow ...

[giriz]

... click frauds ??

Re:s/windows/google/g

[Threni]

> gmail anyone?

Accessed via POP3 using the free Thunderbird? Don't mind if I do...

Malware...

[RickBauls]

Right now, I get paid to remove ads from peoples computers

In the future, I'll be getting paid to install an OS with ads preloaded.

/not gonna happen

Dumbest Article I have ever read

[rolfwind]

From TFA:

Another example of this is Microsoft. This company makes most of its money off of software but has made it clear that they want a piece of the advertising game. It seems that some of their reasoning comes from a desire to compete with Google, just like their revamping of MSN Search not too long ago, but advertising offers a lot more than just a chance to take some money from Google.

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:

The ideal of ad-supported Windows makes perfect sense under a number of different circumstances. While it most likely won't be appearing in any offices, it would be ideal for libraries, internet cafes, and in the homes of casual users.

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.

Re:Dumbest Article I have ever read

[NickFortune]

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.

If it's an either/or deal then you're right. But suppose they're just testing the water looking to make ads ubiquitous on the windows platform.

Then they'd probably market Vista with a ridiculous mark up - even by Microsoft standards, that is - and then offer an entry level version with full functionality, but supported by adverts. Of course, the ad-supported version costs as much as they think the market will bear, but everyone is so relieved at not being charged One Beeeelion Dollars that they think "phew, what a relief". Likewise when the OEMs start bundling the ad enhanced version by default.

MS already have the infrastructure to serve the ads via their acquisition of Massive. They'd need to make sure no one turned the adverts off - which sounds like a job for WGA.

Suddenly the spyware like elements of WGA make sense. MS can mine user activity patterns to serve targetted ads, beat Google at their own game, and get an ongoing revenue stream against the likelihood that the next windows released gets delayed until the Twenty-Second Century. Huzzah! The company is saved!

You know, I think this might actually be The Plan...

Ads in Linux

[jandersen]

$ ls -l

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the wife of Dr. Mabunga, the former minister for internal affairs in Nigeria, ...
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3409 2005-12-13 14:35 cpuload.c
-rw------- 1 root root 614363 2005-08-17 19:16 culturalgrammar.pdf
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 456 2006-03-23 17:17 cv
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27136 2006-02-03 12:08 cv+cover.doc
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 48 2006-08-01 15:56 Desktop
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 33995 2006-03-30 10:26 dilbert2006610630330.gif
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 49672 2006-03-30 10:35 dilbert.gif
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 245760 2006-03-16 15:57 djpenguin.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2005-11-16 17:44 dlmgr_.pro
drwxr-xr-- 2 root root 336 2005-08-19 15:55 download
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 223 2006-07-13 15:23 DVconfig.ini
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6461758 2006-06-13 15:07 E1.wma
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10583 2005-07-19 10:49 endian

Public Terminals

[ozmanjusri]

This won't be marketed at home users, at least not to start with. It'll be promoted as an option for public kiosks, and terminals in shopping areas, etc.

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.

Re:Public Terminals

[Eivind Eklund]

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.

You are missing something: Programs are DESIGNS. This is an important point. This is a VERY important point.

Programming is like the DESIGN of the T-Ford, which was never automated. The PRODUCTION of programs has already been automated - it's the compilation and duplication I get when I do "make && make install".

Eivind.

Isn't this what Google is becoming?

[pieterh]

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.

Re:Isn't this what Google is becoming?

[Jugalator]

Sorry, bad link... For your clicking convenience: http://spreadsheets.google.com/

Windows already is just what TFA speaks about

[kripkenstein]

Never in a million years [...] would I consider an ad-supported OS. Linux is free, and ad-free. Why bother?

Ok, you wouldn't. But the vast majority of people use Windows, which in actuality already is an ad-supported OS. Many (most?) installations of Windows are (1) pirated, hence 'free', and (2) infected with adware, hence 'ad-supported'...

TFA even hints that the point would be to move the ad revenue from the adware companies to Microsoft:

This is no doubt why there was news about MSFT buying a adware company, probably so the operating system could essentially be infected with the most permanent adware possible, though at this point the term "adware" would not really be appropriate.

So, Windows would remain free and ad-supported, as it essentially is right now, but MS would get paid and not the adware companies. An interesting thought, but it's just speculation on TFA's part. MS will probably want both kinds of revenue, licenses (enforced by WGA), and integrated ads.

Re:Ad-OS is already here

[zakezuke]

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

Not to speak of the last "dell" I got (sorry folks, dual core $700 (not anymore), couldn't resist). I don't remember half the crap I deleted but trial word perfect, trial mcaffes, plus a shit load of isp adverts, this is ontop of the normal winxp adverts if you click the wrong thing. Fortunatly the crap was easy enough to delete, well except for McAfee's spyware.

Riiiight.

[Short Circuit]

At first thought, *maybe* for the consumer market, but *never* for server-market. I mean, who regularly looks at the screen of a server, anyway? You use remote tools for that.

And as long as their OS comes packaged with OEM systems, why should they worry about selling Windows for less than they're charging already? Win XP is a fraction of the cost of a desktop from IBM, HP, or even Dell.

And that leave Retail boxes, where demand isn't exactly elastic.

Re:Choice is good

[nihaopaul]

i'd only support advertising driven os if it was
A) run by the OSS comunity and not nosy fuckers
B) go directly to the OSS community
C) i'd have the choice to not watch them.
D) does not contain flash or malicious content or impact the preformance of the system
E) does not collect personal information

thats all i ask

like email spammers....

[SethJohnson]

So instead of getting reputable ads they start getting penis enhancment products and the like.

Or, if spam email is any predictor, the hijackers will advertise their services promising to reduce the OS-planted ads. Oh, and also how you can get your ad planted in 10,000,000 people's OS.

Isn't it just like Microsoft. They rarely try to entice people to purchase their products because they're good. They always are looking for ways to MAKE people by their products because they have to. I'm saying this in relation to the likelihood that an ad-based windows OS would be the one bundled with OEM computers. It's doubtful the ad-OS would be in a box on a store shelf anywhere.

Windows has ALWAYS been ad-supported...

[jkrise]

I've got Karma to burn, so here goes.... my true assessment of home-computing. A few of my relatives have home PCs - all running pirated versions of Windows. The ads come in the error messages:

* Program performed illegal operation

Sends the hapless home user scurrying to get a licensed copy of the OS.

* Windows did not shut down properly. Files may be corrupted or lost

And the poor chap goes out and buys a UPS. Never a chance to even imagine that ext3 rarely loses files even during a power shutdown.

* Photoshop Elements may not work well with this Service Pack

So the user pays Adobe for the privilege of being lazy enough not to explore better options.

* Windows encountered an error in lsass.exe and must shutdown

The user buys an upgrade since there's no support for the old OS any more.

And so on, Windows has been a huge advertising platform for anti-virus software, UPSs, Backup-software-that-actually-works-but-is-suppose d-to-be-part-of-Windows, anti-spyware, external firewalls, broadband (modem drivers are clunkier in recent OSes), Flash, Support services etc.

The fact that despite being an antiquated junkpiece several years behind in technology, Windows has succeeded as a platform, proves a coupla' things:

1. User apathy and lethargy is a very potent force. A user would rather patch a buggy junk, rather than learn something better, simpler and advanced.. like Linux, Opera, Firefox, Open Office, Gnumeric etc.

2. It's not possible to release Newer OSes forever, that's still prone to viruses and malware... remember You Can't Fool All The People All The Time...

and so, it appears

Microsoft has patented Web-Service-OSes that can be metered like Electricity and Gas. It's about time, one would've thought. Suddenly, all these lower-life-forms like anti-virus and backup s/w firms who depended on MS for their living.. would become redundant! There'll be hell to pay, since these guys don't die overnight.

Symantec, Trend Micro, Citrix or Veritas wouldn't take such initiatives lying down. Interesting times ahead!

It's been happening for years, to some extent.

[grrowl]

Has everyone forgot installing Windows 95/98, and going through the process of deleting the bundled AOL trials, CompuServe this and MSN Online that? It's not "Punch the monkey and win a free iPod!"-style advertising, but it is paid product placement and it is advertising. Also in Windows 95 and 98 was a "Sampler" directory on the CD with games and reference utilities, although most were distributed by Microsoft Games, there was a game from Scholastic and another company. In Windows XP, view your My Pictures folder (or any folder you or windows has identified as a photo folder), and look at the task pane: "Order Prints Online" takes you to a list of paid links to photo printers, "Shop for Pictures Online" takes you to a page with two microsoft links and one to 'BizPresenter.com'. It's not a new concept! It's just been subtle, but I doubt it'll get too much more obvious (viewing a 10 second advertisement every time you boot up, or "Targeted Media" on your desktop, ala Win98's Active Desktop items but with Coke ads instead of CBS News -- wait, they're both advertising!

Ads are not free!

[bunhed]

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.

Re:s/windows/google/g

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Could work.

[Fantastic Lad]

I know a fair number of people who don't know how their browser works and who just accept that using the internet means looking at hundreds of adverts a day.

If MS provided retailers with a cut-rate version of Windows to distribute on their products, how many people, really, would bother uninstalling said OS from their new computer?

Can MS make enough selling adverts to match or overshadow the profits they'd otherwise make from selling a straight system OS?

I'd venture a big fat 'Yes'.

An OS driven ad is very different from an internet ad. --Why? Because the internet ad only comes up if you go to a specific site. An OS ad comes up if you turn on your computer. How easy is that to sell to a company?

And who cares about click-throughs? Click-throughs are for small companies trying to hawk wares on the web. That's small potatoes. When you can guarantee a hundred million pairs of 'eyeballs' you can now get advertisers like Coke and Tide and GM sending checks to your accounts receivable department. Coke and Tide and GM don't care about click-throughs.

-FL

Two Words:

[Vegeta99]

Fuck that. Given the choice between pirating Windows and OS-level adware, I'll take the former, thank you.

I (jokingly) predicted this years ago...

[swein515]

On a satirical website I made in 1996 or so which parodied the FreeOS and OpenOS movements for the Macintosh, when Copland was languishing and Steve Jobs was still in exile. It was called VaporOS. From the "about" page (the site is ancient, forgive some of the archaicness):

Why a free OS won't work
A free OS is an enticing idea for the end user, but a free OS is purely a labor of unrequited love, no matter the level of dedication and resources. In the end, the free OS developer answers to one person; his mom peeking down into the basement. You lose.

Why a shrink-wrap OS won't work
Web cruisers are getting used to downloading stuff; big stuff; for free, beta status be damned. People simply don't want to pay for anything anymore. The commercial OS developer answers to one person, and that's his landlord. You lose.

Why VäporOS works
At VaporSystems, we have a different philosophy; VäporOS will be entirely advertiser-driven ; you don't pay for the software, and we don't get stuck in the basement. VaporSystems answer to one person; the sponsor. You still lose, but at least we're making buckets of money doing it.

Even though the idea of an advertiser-driven OS was a total joke at the time, it did seem like an inevitable development someday.

Advertisement-riddled Windows

[Wolfger]

Because ad-supported software is so much better than free software.

Seriously... does anybody think this idea is good? At all?

Clippy!

[mdboyd]

I see that you're writing a report. Would you like to:

• Purchase a pre-written report online.

• Purchase Viagra from an online pharmacy.

• Visit a Porn site instead.

FreePC did it.

[Rob T Firefly]

Does nobody remember FreePC? In the late 90s, they would give you a free Windows-based PC bordered with ads, which constantly phoned home with your demographic info and surfing habits. IIRC you'd get a 1024x768 desktop, but the usable area was the 800x600 in the middle, and the rest was ad banners. It was basically consensual spyware in the vein of those purchase-tracking store club cards.

I always wanted to get one to just run as a monitorless file server, but they stopped answering my emails after I asked what was being done to stop me just reformatting the thing. Oddly enough, they disappeared when the bubble burst. Can't imagine why...

More ads?

[capc75]

I still can't understand all the ad biz, I really don't pay much attention to 99.99% of the ads. Really, are all those companies paying for those ads getting a benefit from them?

Even on TV it has been years that I pay attention to an ad, usually I will switch channels or fast forward. On the internet I just block those sections of the page, and just read the article or the forum.

How much money is being spent on advertising, that money could be used on making things cheaper for consumers, or just donate all that money to other countries and then they will have a bigger market to sell their products.

I'll be really interested in reading some study about the efficiency and success of all those ads, I bet some are really good, but 99% of them I think is a waste of money, just like e-mail SPAM, and regular spam in your mailbox at home. I don't know anyone that doesn't throw that to the trash without reading. We could be saving some trees.

Stop the ads and make something useful with that money.

This might not be a bad thing!

[PotatoHead]

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!

My rant: bitterness towards marketing

[merc]

Once upon a time Internet marketers could have had a brighter future. In metaphorical terms I feel that too many of them cooked the goose that laid golden eggs. While the Internet matured they exploited it with spam, adware, unwanted pop-ups, malware, exploits and any other slimy scummy technique they could think of in order to push themselves before unconsenting eyeballs -- be damned whether the user wanted it or not.

The end result is (just speaking for myself mind you) that I *HATE* marketing now. Yes, I admit it. I know it's not PC, but I despise all forms of marketing, even forms that could be considered ethical. I now change the TV channel when a commercial comes on. I change the radio station when an ad comes on the radio. I throw away all my direct marketing ads in the mail without even glancing at it. I use all of the pop-up filtering technology available so that I don't have to see it on the web. I don't want to see ANY of it now.

The thing is I don't think I'm alone, I think there are a following of people who feel the way I do.

How did we reach this state of marketing-hatred? I think perhaps it's related to the attempts by online marketers to prevent me from blocking the ads, whether we're talking about hashes in spam to bypass checksum filters or anti pop-up-blocking technology -- that's when the war on the consumer started and they don't deserve to win.