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."

9 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Never in a million years by symbolic · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. I can't wait by grammar+fascist · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    I got my Linux laptop at System76.
  3. Good Idea but not practical and too annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Ad vs Subscription, but... by Ninwa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. In The Future... by mac.convert · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    "Every time a bell rings, a Dell laptop bursts into flame."
  6. Re:s/windows/google/g by Threni · · Score: 5, Informative

    > gmail anyone?

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

  7. Dumbest Article I have ever read by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
  8. Public Terminals by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  9. Windows has ALWAYS been ad-supported... by jkrise · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....