Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Hidden Windows 8 Feature: Ads
MojoKid writes "Despite the fact that I've been using Windows 8 for the past three weeks, I somehow managed to overlook a rather stark feature in the OS: ads. No, we're not talking about ads cluttering up the desktop or login screen (thankfully), but rather ads that can be found inside of some Modern UI apps that Windows ships with. That includes Finance, Weather, Travel, News and so forth. On previous mobile platforms, such as iOS and Android, seeing ads inside of free apps hasn't been uncommon. It's a way for the developer to get paid while allowing the user to have the app for free. However, while people can expect ads in a free app, no one expects ads in a piece of software that they just paid good money for."
M$
I only pay for applications with bad money instead of good money, so I'm fine with the ads.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
send Microsoft your monthly Internet bill, so they can pay for the bandwidth those ads use.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
This kind of caught me off guard too. The music App started showing me ads, and not just little images off to the side, but full screen videos asking me to sign up for a subscription. I thought that the :"Music" app was what I was supposed to use to listen to the music I already owned. Not some nagware that tried to convince me to buy more music off the MS specific store. I promptly removed the music from my desktop after that and just went to download Winamp, since WMP and the new music app were completely unable to play FLAC files anyway. I can't see how MS isn't going to get in trouble for this one. If they got in trouble for doing it with browsers, which were mostly free anyway, even before they started including them, just think of how Apple is going to react to MS embedding a music store in the OS, or Steam is going to react to adding a games store in the OS.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I guess Tanenbaum will have to add a new chapter to the next printing of his Operating Systems textbook.
What - Like Angry Birds on the iPad?? http://www.iosnoops.com/2011/03/17/angry-birds-hd-advertising-screw-up-why-ads-in-paid-apps-are-a-big-no-no/
You paid MS to license Windows8. You didn't buy a copy. Ergo, you are agreeing to pay MS a specified sum of money to view ads which happen to come with programs that you can also use.
Is there, or has there ever been, ANY reason why you would put Windows 8 on a desktop or laptop? There's not a single positive new feature or advantage of it that I've heard of. And I'm being serious, I really haven't heard one thing it does new or better than 7.
Phones/Tablets, I can understand, but why would you on a desktop or laptop?
One more reason to exercise "down"grade rights.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I can hardly believe this article was posted without researching the EULA. I would imagine it addresses this new feature. If it does, that's not news (other than the usual EULA hilarity). If it does not, that's news.
The only thing that's "news" here is the rather unbelievable concept that you actually think people read EULAs anymore. Even if it did address it, chances are the words "built-in ads" are summed up inside three paragraphs of legalese that no one understands anyway.
Only the second coment and it's parrotting "feature". How is this in any way a feature? features help the end user, anything that detracts from the user's experience is either a bug or a design flaw.
This is not a feature, it's a flaw. A really BAD flaw.
Free Martian Whores!
You paid money for the OS. When an OS component has an ad, feel free to get angry. In the meantime, get over it. You don't have to use Microsoft free software. You can choose to download your own. Hell, this is Slashdot, you should be making your own, releasing the source, and publishing it to the Microsoft Store. Anyone who's unboxed a new computer will know that this is true. You just paid ______ computer company $____ for a computer! How dare they install advertisements, trialware, and crap software on your computer! Same issue, different company.
I never see ads in Linux, even when using free apps.
It's a brave new world out there for Ubuntu users: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/online-shopping-features-arrive-in-ubuntu-12-10
They're so targeted to my interests, it actually adds value to the experience? It makes it easier and more intuitive to find the products I need? The costs would otherwise be passed on to the consumer?
Fuck you.
It's not like you pay for windows anyway.
How is this a Windows 8 Feature though and not something that the developer embedded into her app?
From the summary: "apps that Windows ships with."
just think of how Apple is going to react to MS embedding a music store in the OS, or Steam is going to react to adding a games store in the OS.
Valve has already published its reaction to the Windows Store in Windows 8. See stories from late July and late October.
On page 7 of the 11 page legal document called the Windows 8 EULA, in Section 6 "Windows Apps", Microsoft include the following wonderfully enlightening information...
"Some Windows apps include advertising. You may choose to opt out of personalized advertising by visiting choice.live.com."
Gold gets you ads as well.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, "(GBP)inux" and "Appl(EUR)" aren't quite the same as "M$". Microsoft started out as a publisher of interpreters of the line-numbered BASIC programming language. Names of string variables in early BASIC always ended in $, making LET M$ = "Microsoft" valid code. What language are you talking about that uses the symbol for GBP or EUR?
I haven't noticed any ads, myself.
Of course, the first thing I did after I installed Windows 8 was install classic shell and disable metro entirely, so maybe that's why. ^_^.
Covering it in the EULA does not necessarily make it either reasonable or unremarkable.
.
The question is --- With Apple and Google cleaning Microsoft's clock in the mobile world, at what point will the value of Windows be reduced to the point that it is just another delivery medium for ads?
"You may choose to opt out of personalized advertising by visiting choice.live.com."
".. by filling in the form with the mandatory fileds of First, Last and Maiden names, Birthday, Address, Phone number, Utilities bill and Blood group."
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Fact the first: Adverts within an application consume display space, and in smaller screens, this becomes more apparent.
Fact the second: Adverts require that you be a bit more careful with your mouse/finger/stylus/whatever, lest you accidentally click on the advert and interrupt what you're doing (especially if you're playing a game or other activity that has a high chance of random clickage).
Fact the third: Ads in paid-for/included applications, delivered by the OS maker, cannot be rationalized, especially since the competition does no such thing. When an OEM does it, it is often labeled "crapware".
Fact the fourth:: Even if you do not use it (them), you are stuck with the application(s) residing on your hard drive, taking up space, and potentially running in the background, which would consume both CPU and networking bandwidth. For mobile devices with 3G/4G data caps and using Windows 8 (be it RT or x86), this becomes a potential extra cost... you are literally paying to see the adverts in programs you did not install or choose yourself.
Fact the fifth: You as a consumer were not made aware of this intrusion until after you purchased the item, and since it is software, good luck getting a refund on it from either OEM or OS maker.
Conclusion: This ad-laden software is a massive flaw, not a feature.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I paid $15 for the OS upgrade (before they fixed the loophole in their upgrade promo site), just to see what all the commotion was about. Upgrade went fairly smooth considering I did the unthinkable and actually tried to upgrade a Microsoft OS without starting from scratch (I imaged my boot drive ahead of time just in case).
I played around with the Modern UI apps for the first day or so, smirked at the not-so-subtly placed ads, installed Classic Shell and haven't bothered to go back to the Modern UI since. The Modern UI truly has no place on a desktop computer... or anything without a touchscreen for that matter. It's a consumption-oriented tablet UI that probably excels at keeping you occupied during an extended shit session. I'll stick to the desktop and benefit from Win8's tighter security and streamlined bootup/shutdown. With a couple tweaks, it's like a really well made service pack for Win7.
They're metro apps. They are sandboxed.
On page 7 of the 11 page legal document called the Windows 8 EULA, in Section 6 "Windows Apps", Microsoft include the following wonderfully enlightening information...
"Some Windows apps include advertising. You may choose to opt out of personalized advertising by visiting choice.live.com."
... Or you might aswell also opt-out by visiting www.ubuntu.com and avoid the hassle altogether!
I knew this was coming the moment i saw ads on the new XBox interface and was further reinfirced when MS did everything they could for you to NOT be able to diasable 'Metro'. First and foremost, Metro is there FOR OTHER PEOPLE to use your computers' resources.
Good-bye
It looks like this is a core component of Redmond's business plan in all their OS offerings.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Opting out at choice.live.com requires registration, including providing an email address. [sarcasm]I'm sure i'll never receive unsolicited emails from them! [/sarcasm]
I am not a number - I am a free man!
I don't believe that hosts is faster than adblock, which blocks content before the domain name is resolved. Firefox goes through a process to decide whether and how to send a request, which ABP uses. Benchmark it for me.
Also, why should I trust a piece of closed-source software with my DNS records?
If you're dynamically updating a hosts file, it would seem that you are reinventing the square wheel -- this is what a DNS cache is for. A local DNS caching server is going to be just as fast, and much more flexible. You can run one on your desktop, or have it on a separate machine, and either way you can route all other DNS requests to it, instead of having a script running on each machine. They support dynamic blacklists as well, and you can match wildcard addresses (e.g. *.malwareserver.com). What is the problem with using tools designed for this purpose?
You mention the home address. The problem with 127.0.0.1 isn't that it it's slower. The problem with it is that it's a valid IP address, usually for a local web server. If there is a server listening, it will process the request.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
It's a nasty trick, but apparently it can be turned off although I haven't tried this yet; see thread below.
What's more evil, IMHO, is that the ads give location and context to users and invade their privacy, and potentially open the software being used to infection or manipulation vectors. Users didn't ask for their privacy to be given up, and it means that the apps have holes, perhaps big ones, to be manipulated by malware.
I understand the need for revenue, but this seems over the top.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Yep, you pay for an XBox Live subscription on a monthly basis and STILL get ads. It stands to reason a one-time license purchase of Windows would also have ads.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
I'm just "Trying before I buy" is it my fault I am bad at making decisions and it will take till windows 9?
There Can Be Only One...
Hell, even the damn satellite radio in my car is feeding me ads, and I pay money for that. Really defeats its appeal...
/* No Comment */
AdFree Android.
DroidWall.
You're welcome.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
No, that's not how things work.
Without Adblock,
User requests a piece of content -> Firefox uses content policies to determine how and whether a request should be sent -> Firefox checks the local browser cache for the file -> Firefox requests the DNS record for the domain in question -> The OS parses the local DNS cache (the hosts file should be preloaded)-> finds address 0.0.0.0, returns that to Firefox.
Adblock stops that process at step 2. Hosts would be faster IFF Adblock adds more overhead to the content policy process than it would take to actually make the request.
I took a minute to actually test this.
Atom netbook, Linux, Firefox 17 beta, Adblock Plus, Firebug, Mozilla's internal DNS/file cache disabled, hosts file 34 lines long:
Normal DNS name resolution: 3 ms.
With hosts blocking : 3 ms.
With Adblock : 0 ms.
A larger hosts file would of course increase the time taken for DNS resolution.
Not only this, but it can also filter parts of addresses (e.g. filter example.com/badcontent but not example.com/goodcontent). You can filter all sorts of things with regexes that are completely impossible with naive blacklists, like blocking content based on its type.
Your A, B, C, D list is all handled by a DNS caching server. Do note, this is not the same thing as the built-in local DNS cache, so your comments are really completely off-base.
DNS caching servers may be a bit more complex, but again they're also more useful: they work for any device that supports TCP/IP networking. The one I am using weighs in at a hefty 39.9 kilobytes. How big is your implementation?
A "plain" manually updated hosts file is going to be larger in itself than any other form of blacklisting. Even so, you might have an argument still by virtue of simplicity. When you start updating it with a script, you've just tossed all that out the window: your software performs the exact same function as a dns caching server, except badly, with more resources, and less flexibility.
The fundamental weakness of hosts is that you can't do regexes, and you cannot enumerate all malicious domains. It is difficult to strictly compare the performance of string matching (hosts) versus regular expressions (DNS, ABP). A small hosts file would have a chance of beating the other solutions, in theory. In practice, not so much, and by the time we get to multi-megabyte hosts files, you're pretty much screwed for performance.
Are we done here?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You can't moderate and post on the same topic, dipshit.
You have this hilarious persecution complex, where you think all ACs are the same person, and the moderators *must* be sockpuppets of the same people who disagree with you.
If you really think I've been modding you down somehow, even though the site doesn't allow that, then you should write to the site admins and report me. They should be able to correlate the IPs and determine whether I've been sockpuppeting. I invite you to do this, because I am damn sure of what they would turn up.
And no, no one has the time to use separate proxies just for the pleasure of downmodding you. Basically you're the only one who is that much of a crazy asshole, and you're projecting onto everyone else.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I ran benchmarks. Adblock is faster. Requests that are not generated by the browser are faster than ones that are and resolve locally in the hosts file. The language being executed makes zero difference.
This is how Microsoft says DNS works. The ironic part is how you go through all these contortions to make sure that hosts is resident in RAM, when it would be anyway if you just used the Windows DNS Client.
You're totally ignorant, it seems, of how Firefox operates internally. What I outlined was exactly correct. Firefox handles a number of different types of content, such as http, https, ftp, ssh, images, javascript, etc. Before it goes to find something, it determines how it should do that. It parses the request. Is this a file? is it local ("file://") or remote? ("http://"). This is the stage that Adblock interrupts. The next stage would be Firefox asking the OS's host name resolution system for the IP address. Resolving a null address takes longer -- as benchmarked -- than not making the request at all.
Your DNS caching server can run on the same hardware as your browser, it doesn't have to be remote -- or complicated. Windows being Windows, people have easy solutions for this. Again, your program is just a bad example of one -- it's not that difficult to use is it? If you can make a simple product, then someone who knows what they're doing can too.
Regexes. Let's see if we can fill this vast gulf of your ignorance. So you want to block
baddomain.com, baddomain.net, baddomain.xxx etc.
A request comes in. You want to know if it is a domain that you should be blocking. If you are doing string matching (as in a hosts file), you must check entries in your list until you find it. You make N comparisons, and either find it or exhaust the list.
If you are using a regex (e.g. baddomain.*), you make one comparison.
For short lists, string comparison can be faster. If you're parsing more than a kilobyte, you should probably think about regexes. Megabytes are no contest. I can provide benchmarks for that too.
So, you have my benchmarks. How big is this program of yours? How many cpu cycles does it use? Does it take more or less time than 0 ms to block a request? How big is your hosts file?
I get the feeling that you've never actually tested any of this, and are just going by your gut feeling.
Stop with your A, B, C list.
A) a local DNS caching server will do the exact same thing. Because it is the exact same thing.
B) a local DNS caching server will affect all webapps and all other devices on the local network. You just have a shitty version.
C) See A.
D) See A.
E) See A, also see benchmark it before you claim it's faster.
F) If you can access the hosts file on those devices, if it exists. See B.
And really, you're smoking something if you think the IP stack isn't being rewritten regularly. IPv6 ring a bell? DNSSEC? Networks have changed since the 80s. You don't understand how or why.
You have zero evidence that this actually works the way you think. None. Most of what you've said is factually wrong, even the parts where you try to call me out. You don't have any idea what the network stack looks like, or how it's actually being used. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you've never configured a non-home network. Or a server.
You're not going to convince anyone with testimonials. Show some numbers. I don't want to hear bullshit about how many people suck your dick, or how bulletproof your systems are. If you can't prove your claims with actual numbers, you're just a loudmouthed excuse for a script kiddie.
Face it -- you're not even a mediocrity. You're just a laughingstock. Your complete lack of wit is painfully obvious to everyone on every forum that you troll.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
That is what your script is.
Except by using the hosts file, you screw yourself out of being able to use it to manage the whole network. Among other failures.
I asked some random tech, "What do you call a program that manages DNS entries?"
"A DNS server."
So, I'm going to look at your solution and compare it to other DNS servers. Hmm. Looks like it's broken, featureless, and bloated beyond belief.
With that in mind, #10 is pretty irrelevant. Oh, hey look. Windows DNS software with a nice GUI. I bet it doesn't do anything retarded like load an ASCII file into memory -- you literally double the size needed to represent IP addresses that way (8 bytes ASCII vs 4 bytes hex). But hey, features, performance, and a simple GUI aren't everything, right? Why have it all when you can have software by APK!
And for those of us who are actually paying attention, yes, Adblock can be configured to allow unobtrusive ads. It can also be configured not to do so, and I have. Further, since it's open-source, I've gone through the code and verified that that toggle actually does what it says. I have no problem forking the code if that ever changes.
Keep in mind, this is the same list you keep presenting, and I keep giving variations on the same answer. You have this one toy hammer, and this one nail, and you can't imagine that the rest of the world figured out DNS. No, the entire world must be wrong, and the 40-year-old solution is the still the best technology, and you are the only one who knows this. IT organizations around the world are waiting for you to swoop down on them and save them.
But man, that SimpleDNS program really looks...simple! And look at its impressive feature list -- I bet you don't know what half of those things are even for! I'm sure you'll get around to supporting those things any day now though. Your app has...uh...well.
Oh yes, that's right. The power of delusion!
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
They spent up big in the 70s and 80s promoting funding for research into multiple sclerosis 'MS', for a condition that affects the brain, something really important to geeks and nerds.
Of course the difference between multiple sclerosis and Microsoft is that one is a debilitating and surprisingly widespread affliction that renders the sufferer barely able to perform the simplest task, and the other is a medical condition.
So M$ is Microsoft and MSN is Microsoft Networks but MS is multiple sclerosis.
And M$N is the peso moneda nacional, a former currency of Argentina.
Adblock can do #2 and #8, and it should not do these other things. When I want to fuck with my DNS, I'll use a tool designed for the job, not your broken and featureless hosts nonsense. And did I mention bloated? You have a tenth of the features for thousands of times more CPU and memory usage.
You don't need programming ability to use Adblock either -- I don't even bother to configure it, just install and forget about it. If an ad slips through, I right click on it and select "block this with AdBlock." It doesn't get easier than that.
Your silence on the subject of DNS servers is pretty telling. Really this hosts nonsense is just your complete ignorance of what the rest of the world uses DNS for, and how they do that. You don't understand CNAMES and AAA records, and so you've kludged your way through to something that *almost* a DNS server.
There's a colossal and impotent arrogance about you. Ozymandias is really quite perfect: You don't know how to learn from others -- it's vaguely impressive that you've managed to teach yourself anything. You don't even know how to process the idea that other people solved DNS years ago, because you have a solution.
It's probably an attitude that served you well in the 80s, when computers were an arcane art and there weren't any resources other than yourself. Today, if I have a problem, I can immediately find out how other people solved it. I would never try to write a script to update a hosts file, because people smarter than I am solved that issue and there are thirty or forty software packages that do that. Those smart people have moved on to other things like DNSSEC and automatically securing email.
Thirty years ago, using a hosts file was a good idea. Twenty years ago we replaced it with something better, but it was still useful. Ten years ago it was completely outmatched for the task. Today it is thoroughly obsolete and only ever in fringe cases. Ten years from now it won't be used at all, and in twenty years it will be entirely forgotten. "...Nothing beside remains."
With that in mind, here's a (partial) list of what hosts can't do:
Hosts can't block part of a domain.
Hosts can't block files based on content (e.g. swf or java applet).
One hosts file does not affect other computers on the same LAN (see also "shitty DNS server").
Hosts can't be changed from within the browser.
Hosts cannot block entire top-level-domains (*.ru), you have to use a Fully-Qualified Domain Name (FQDN).
Hosts cannot block things that are not explicitly listed in the hosts file.
Hosts can't return actual DNS records, only IP addresses. This can increase the number of DNS queries needed.
Hosts can't easily be edited remotely. You can do it with Powershell on a LAN, but not otherwise.
Your solution of logon scripts only works for windows computers. Real useful, that. How is it better than normal DNS propagation? Only in looney-land.
Hosts is vulnerable to DNS cache poisoning, MITM attacks, and denial-of-service attacks.
Hosts can't allow a domain but block cookies.
Being a simple file, hosts is an easy target for viruses and malware. Do you know if something has been added to it? I actually have mine under source control, but I'm not using windows and it's more of a byproduct.
Hosts can't point a single domain to multiple IP addresses.
In most systems, most of the time, hosts will not have a positive effect on how fast your favorite websites load. Your browser and the Windows DNS Client Service already have caches. As mentioned in the previous post (the microsoft.com article), when the WDNSCS is enabled, the hosts file is parsed into memory; the OS doesn't actually touch the file for every request. This can be verified by checking the access time. Other operating systems behave identically.
Hosts can't redirect one host name to another host name.
And I've mentioned it before, but it's pretty im
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
No. Metro is there because MS want to be a mobile phone OS company -- that is where the money is in the future. However, no third smartphone OS can be successful because of the App problem: there are no apps until the app developers see customers, and there are no customers until they can download apps. So, MS had this great idea: force every Windows PC user to use the same interface as their new phone OS. Create a ready built large market for app developers and so get a lot of apps developed quickly, ready for the phone users.
I hate MS as much as the next guy on /. but I have to admit this is a brilliant way to solve the problem that brought down Nokia and surmount the barriers to entry erected by Apple and Google.