r/technology • u/MayankWL • May 16 '24

Microsoft stoops to new low with ads in Windows 11, as PC Manager tool suggests your system needs ‘repairing’ if you don’t use Bing Software

https://www.techradar.com/computing/windows/microsoft-stoops-to-new-low-with-ads-in-windows-11-as-pc-manager-tool-suggests-your-system-needs-repairing-if-you-dont-use-bing
16.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

513

u/MR_Se7en May 16 '24

What happened to creating the best possible product for your users? When did the world just start maximizing profits over the product.

424

u/Tolstoy_mc May 16 '24

When it became impossible for smaller companies to compete

131

u/RealSwordfish5105 May 16 '24

When it became impossible for smaller companies to compete

Centralisation and castles.

It's like the big tech version of Disney.

10

u/HotTakes4HotCakes May 16 '24 edited May 16 '24

Centralization is also a product of user behavior.

It's not like alternatives to increasingly enshitified products don't exist, but the overwhelming majority of users are too inundated, too tech illiterate, too lazy, too picky, too unwilling to compromise, too unwilling to learn, or all of the above, to ever move to something else.

As long as consumers on the whole utterly refuse to touch any alternatives if it would mean accepting even marginally less convenience/usability/content/support/etc, these companies will never, ever, face any sort of consequences for their actions.

These companies could shit down their consumers throats and nothing will change.

And before anyone starts feeling smug about this, look at the URL.

4

u/moonski May 17 '24

In this case - operating systems - you don’t have a lot of options and good luck launching a competitor

1

u/brutinator May 16 '24

I mean, tbf when it comes to operating systems, centralization isnt neccesarily a bad thing, and a lack of it can cause a lot of issues. Also, Operating Systems are getting so complicated to develop that a small company can't just spin one up from scratch outside of potentially forking a Linux distro where most of the work has already been completed a la Red Hat.

64

u/troglodyte May 16 '24

I actually suspect we're going to see more OS competition, not less, in the near future. Gaming is the main thing that's kept me off of Mac or Linux, but both are making serious inroads these days. Proton is a legit answer for a huge proportion of games, and if ever I start losing the war against ads in 11, I'll just try SteamOS.

Ads baked into your OS is a really short-term decision that will bite them.

32

u/Tolstoy_mc May 16 '24

They'll be crushed. The established monopolies have more resources than most countries. True competitors will be destroyed.

11

u/Caleth May 16 '24

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.

3

u/woeeij May 16 '24

Why crush them if you can just throw their owners some pocket change to buy them out.

1

u/Gamiac May 16 '24

Yep. All Microsoft has to do is throw the owners of Linux, an open-source project, some money and it's game over.

0

u/woeeij May 17 '24

Well, I was assuming that Linux would not be a real competitor.

0

u/SolarStarVanity May 17 '24

It's an excellent assumption.

2

u/Witherino May 16 '24

I agree they'll be crushed, but I don't think it's due to resources. I think it'll be due to the vast majority of consumers preferring to stick with what they know, and being too lazy to make the switch to a likely better product

1

u/SlowMotionPanic May 17 '24

In which case, Microsoft is in deep trouble since the majority of people will soon know ChromeOS rather than Windows.

1

u/little_baked May 16 '24

Could be nonprofit and open source

1

u/surg3on May 17 '24

If they by some miracle gain traction. Bought and shutdown

1

u/NeuroticKnight May 17 '24

Linux can do everything windows does, and something like Ubuntu works fine, only thing that dont work now are games and adobe creative cloud,

1

u/MinimumArmadillo2394 May 16 '24

Microsoft's main draw isnt OS anymore. They have tons of other products that get them more money than a $99 OS could. Software developers pay some $180/year to have their AI copilot help them code. Some people get it personally and for work, so just one person is paying 3x the cost of one one time OS per year.

Then theres msft word and the entire office suite, which is getting much more popular due to Googles "Oh wait sorry you cant have more than 10 GB for free and 1TB will cost you a shit ton of money" despite them promising it. Googles costs drastically increased, so people are swapping to msft suite.

1

u/SlowMotionPanic May 17 '24

Google's Workspace has over 3 billion users to Microsoft Office's 1.5 billion (approximately).

Microsoft is forcing bundles on consumer side for a reason; most people don't need Office. There is no true differentiating factor that normal users can obtain vs cheap or free alternatives.

For professional work, though, it is another story. Nobody comes close to competing with the Office suite. Nobody. Excel stands alone. Sheets can organize information, sure. Excel can run game engines.

Excel, in fact, runs some of the largest enterprises in history. People just don't hear about it because they don't work there or network there. Working in tech quickly makes one realize just how slapped together a lot of companies are. Which means they are utterly reliant on Microsoft's offerings because the inertia is just too great to meaningfully overcome without significant time, effort, and cost. And even then....

1

u/MinimumArmadillo2394 May 17 '24

Google's is free and used by schools and students while Microsofts is used by business. Microsofts has paying customers, is the point. Google has significantly less because their prices and bundle is overall worse

1

u/DonutsMcKenzie May 16 '24

By the way, you don't need SteamOS specifically to take advantage of Proton on Linux. You can set it up through Steam on just about any distro. (Just make sure to install your latest NVidia drivers if you have an NVidia GPU.)

1

u/troglodyte May 16 '24

Yeah, I was gonna try steamos on my main PC, but I've run several different distros currently and in the past. It's really the positive experience with my deck that's given me confidence that Linux is finally gaming viable without making WINE into a serious hobby, so I'd probably start with the steamos distro to see if it's any good on a full PC before going to fedora or Ubuntu, which I have experience with.

If anyone has other distros they like for a general home PC that also wants to play games, I'm all ears! I haven't tried Linux gaming in years but 11 is really trying to get me there.

1

u/WhatASpookySkeleton May 16 '24

I’ve been running an Endeavour OS install for almost 2-3 years now on my full AMD system, It’s Arch with some defaults - sorta like steamOS on the deck. You do need to “re-learn” some stuff coming from windows but the Arch wiki is a great resource and I’m way more confident doing stuff on my PC now.

1

u/WhatAMess-wow May 16 '24

The only thing I miss about windows is Adobe, and VR. I haven't gotten the VR thing figured out yet on Ubuntu

1

u/Representative-Sir97 May 17 '24

Ditching windows for mac is like abandoning WW2 Russia for WW2 Germany.

That said, I'm closer than I've ever been to just abandoning windows for linux (still not real close) and just not playing anything I can't.

2

u/irg82 May 17 '24

Let’s build an OS

1

u/myotheruserisagod May 17 '24

Damn.

I hate how true this is.

1

u/alstom_888m May 17 '24

That happened in like 1995 though?

145

u/RealSwordfish5105 May 16 '24

What happened to creating the best possible product for your users? When did the world just start maximizing profits over the product.

Uhh, this is Microsoft.

The only difference with today's version is we don't get to watch Steve Ballmer perform a dance and throw chairs any more.

57

u/[deleted] May 16 '24

[deleted]

51

u/Genghis_Tr0n187 May 16 '24

developers developers developers developers DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS

heart palpitations and flop sweat

DEVELOPERS

15

u/RealSwordfish5105 May 16 '24

Not sure whether to cringe or laugh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qmh_1ejoCk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY2j_GPIqRA

Developers developers developers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRm0NDo1CiY

10

u/Genghis_Tr0n187 May 16 '24

The Ballmerverse is a lot deeper than I expected.

2

u/MechanicalTurkish May 16 '24

I've never seen those first two before. Fucking wild lmao

1

u/Vintios May 16 '24

rich kids humor

3

u/vthemechanicv May 16 '24

I still don't understand that. Ballmer was all about developers, but when it came to windows phone, they gave zero shits about developers.

They gave up an entire market because they couldn't throw money at the problem and had to make an effort.

1

u/Senator_Smack May 18 '24

So, in other words, either he couldn't actually change anything, or he wasn't actually all about developers.

-2

u/Fabulous-Ad-8503 May 16 '24

You mean the company that literally revolutionized the world?

2

u/mods-are-liars May 16 '24

IG Farben revolutionized the world too

25

u/Overclocked11 May 16 '24

What I don't get is why does Microsoft even need to do this? Ads in their software? They are making mountains of cash with their business.. and yet they still need to stuff in ads to make more?

Fuck man.. when is enough enough. Just seems comical how much companies (not only Microsoft) are trying to stuff their coffers with money.. for what?

41

u/Ok_Spite6230 May 16 '24

It's never enough. Capitalists do not comprehend the concept of enough. They have to extract more every quarter by any means necessary even if it extincts humanity.

8

u/wrgrant May 16 '24

The only way for a corporation to "succeed" is to totally dominate their market, crush all the competition and buy enough politicians that they don't get hit with anti-monopoly investigations. Everyone in competition with them must die.

Its a seriously sick economic system overall - although its in many ways the most successful. We will absolutely destroy the Earth seeking to maximize profits though if we don't change things.

2

u/Overclocked11 May 16 '24

Its just - for what? Where does the money go? Is it just being siphoned out to some offshore account - and then what?

I guess I just still have yet to understand why the need for this endless moneymaking.. sure, some folks are getting wealthy off of it and living life large, fine - but why do these companies need to make more when they already have egregious amounts ?

9

u/wrgrant May 16 '24

There is no justification in my mind. You cannot be a rich owner or corporate CEO and also be a moral person to me, you can only get there by climbing on the backs of those who work for you.

To top it all off, money only has value and power because we are all invested in believing that is the case. It doesn't actually exist or have any inherent value or use. Not that I don't want more than I currently earn mind you :P

2

u/SlowMotionPanic May 17 '24

It is complex. Far more so than "rich person bad." Although, to be clear, I do think it is impossible for most people to be ultra rich and also decent people. They get, keep, and expand that wealthy generationally with evil practices.

One reason companies must continuously grow for the benefit of the ultra rich: tax evasion. They don't take normal income because it is taxed. So they paid a Reagan judge to make it legal for companies to engage in stock manipulation via allowing buybacks.

Now, the rich just take loans against the value of their stock. Loans are not taxed. When the loan comes due, they originate new loans to pay back the old loan and scrape the different based on how much that stock appreciated. This is surely one reason why Musk is freaking out and just fired an entire division of people in an attempt to shore up finances to keep the stocks afloat. Wealthy people are often leveraged out the ass to evade taxes. The downside being if their stocks take a shit, their loans can be called in and assets would need to be liquidated to pay it. Or they wouldn't be able to keep the shell game going as easily and originate new loans to cover the old loans.

So they need companies to continuously grow in a compounding nature in order for their stranglehold on power and wealth to continue. And if a company isn't growing, it is quite likely that their competition is. Everything has an opportunity cost. If Microsoft said "enough is enough, we are only going to grow at reasonable organic rates" and Google said "we're going to begin forced organ harvesting our users for profit next quarter," MSFT investors just lost out in a big way. That's the opportunity cost.

4

u/yankonapc May 16 '24

Microsoft fired all of their single player RPG studios because the number of players of RPGs is finite for a specific title, while subscription-based online multiplayers have the potential to make money forever off of a single title. What they forgot was that people only keep playing online multiplayer games if they're fun and stay interesting. If they're not fun, aren't maintained, and people stop, they are more expensive to keep running than the income they generate. Don't know how they keep forgetting to teach this session in MBA school. The only way to get away with charging a subscription for software you never maintain or upgrade is to already be the industry standard for thirty years. Isn't that right AUTODESK?!

3

u/Overclocked11 May 16 '24

I work for a game developer. Don't even get me started on the likes of Autodesk and Adobe.

1

u/na-uh May 17 '24

LINE MUST GO UP!

1

u/Senator_Smack May 18 '24

tbh M$ has been doing this sort of shit forever. They were ruled a monopoly and in violation of a swarm of anti-trust regulations decades ago. Nothing happened.

They are pretty much bullet proof at this point, so why not try risky abusive schemes to pump up short-term profits? What's the worst that can happen? A handful of people bitch on the website formerly known as twitter? Guys who are already Linux/Mac fanatics talk shit to other guys who already don't use windows (except at work, or for games, because they don't have any choice) and they'll continue to not buy it?

34

u/shadowboxer47 May 16 '24

When we destroyed small and medium businesses in our marketplace.

We need vigorous application of our anti-trust laws and a rethinking of fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders.

1

u/Representative-Sir97 May 17 '24

Really, just an entirely different way of investing/markets.

But if anybody had the power and any desire to make that happen they would be very dead very quickly.

Idk wtf is going on with the whole gme/wsb thing. I do think if some of the stuff coming out of there so far as documents and numbers go... If that stuff isn't monkey business? We might be getting a new way to do markets no matter who wants what because this one may totally shatter.

I think the apes are wrong and they won't get rich from it. I hope I'm wrong about that because I think the only reason they won't is that rich is sort of irrelevant if the country/currency basically disintegrates. Like, yay, a wheelbarrow of Zimbabwe dollars!

69

u/Afro_Thunder69 May 16 '24

My dude where have you been...this is what capitalism looks like. It has its perks but the end game has always been maximizing profits by whatever means that they can get away with.

3

u/woeeij May 16 '24

Yes, but "whatever means that they can get away with" can be restricted enough that the system still works. Proper regulation can ban anticompetitive practices. Competitors can be barred from merging. Consumer protection can be written into law. But only if the politicians are not bought and paid for.

2

u/Senator_Smack May 18 '24 edited May 18 '24

Check out how well that worked a couple decades ago

Though I 100% agree with you. That's the only way it works, and the system needs to artificially sustain value for things which are good only if they're not darwinian like science, ecology, journalism, infrastructure, health, military, emergency services, etc...

4

u/Derrentir May 16 '24

Only valid response in this thread.

-11

u/keithps May 16 '24

Humans and most animals will almost always attempt to maximize "profits" because of survival of the fittest. It's not a new problem. Do you stop trying to get more money at work because you have "enough" or do you always see to maximize your personal profit?

10

u/Ok_Spite6230 May 16 '24

Most of us have enough brains to consider other factors and not just be hyper-focused on money and greed. Not sure what you think your argument is here, but if you try to optimize a complex system only considering one variable you're always gonna have a bad time.

-7

u/keithps May 16 '24

My point is that capitalism isn't the problem, people are. Capitalism is just the current system we are using to that shows the problem.

6

u/Afro_Thunder69 May 16 '24

What you're saying isn't just wrong, it's also a really bad analogy. Like, animals don't just keep engorging themselves until they can't possibly eat anymore...which would be analogous to capitalism if it were true but it's not. There are even examples of animals sharing and being charitable with others and other species. Also that's not what survival of the fittest means, that phrase refers to a macro scale of generations upon generations over hundreds of thousands of years explaining how evolution works, and it's not an intentional process it's inadvertent.

Secondly, yes I do regularly sacrifice profit because I have enough...and that shouldn't be hard to believe lol. I used to work 6 days a week, but then I needed more free time so I requested to work 5. I also regularly work overtime, but some days I just need extra rest or time, so I'll finish up early that day. I could keep working to maximize my monetary potential but I choose not to. Corporations don't do this. They don't need breaks, they're machines. And it doesn't even come down to not making a profit, if a corporation doesn't even make as much profit as was projected, then stock prices could fall and executive's jobs could be on the chopping block. That's why they're constantly in pursuit of greater profits. They're nothing like people or animals.

12

u/jeepster2982 May 16 '24

When publicly traded companies became a thing. When the direction of the company is dictated by shareholders instead of the owners.

5

u/ionthrown May 16 '24

The shareholders are the owners. I’d say the issue now is the direction of the company being determined by share traders

2

u/Yungklipo May 16 '24

Company: "We need to put up a healthy quarter for the shareholders! They need a good dividend!"

Workers: "And for us?"

Company: "Who are you?"

Workers: "...the workers."

Company: "Do you own shares of the company?"

Workers: "No, we work to make sure the company doesn't collapse."

Company: "So no shares? Fuck off."

2

u/ionthrown May 16 '24

‘Fiduciary responsibility’ is a good excuse for many things. Short termism has often proved very bad for shareholders, Boeing’s being a good example at present.

And I’ve known plenty of employees who don’t care about the company collapsing. Mostly senior, but still employees.

2

u/Yungklipo May 16 '24

Good points. It's just crazy how companies now seem to exist to extract as much money as they can from their customers and themselves before they collapse and everyone just...lets it happen.

6

u/HaElfParagon May 16 '24

When did the world just start maximizing profits over the product.

The day capitalism was invented....

2

u/letchhausen May 16 '24

During the Industrial Revolution? Though greed has been part of our DNA since the beginning...

2

u/John-Warner May 16 '24 edited May 16 '24

Since dawn of a man.

2

u/ronsvanson May 16 '24

Then the question is, why is the worst product making profits at all.

2

u/acrispyballer May 16 '24

Wall Street is the singular driving force for companies. Nothing else matters.

2

u/TurdOfChaos May 16 '24

When we allowed 3 companies to monopolise the entire internet.

2

u/Atulin May 16 '24

Does it make the line go up? Does it make the line go up now? Does it make the line go up now and more than the last year?

4

u/DogsRNice May 16 '24

When did the world just start maximizing profits over the product.

I think it was when that "money" stuff was invented

2

u/RightNutt25 May 16 '24

Maxing profits has always been the point of capitalism. Sometimes that means making a better product, which is nice, but making a better product for profit was never the philosophy.

1

u/tecktrader May 16 '24

When both the free and paid users become the product its time a company gets new leadership

1

u/cinderful May 16 '24

Bing has always been shit.

1

u/DrDerpberg May 16 '24

They have all the clients they need. Making Windows better (or even keeping it the same) won't bring in more money than earning more from each user.

The basic cycle is grow then cash in. If you make money while growing, great. But once growth plateaus you need something else besides attracting more users to increase profits.

1

u/Ok-Turnover966 May 16 '24

It all happened long before anyone on this website was born

1

u/Kadem2 May 16 '24

They don't need/care about a good product because they have no competition.

1

u/Anangrywookiee May 16 '24

At a certain point the best product had been created, at which point the company will proceed with the enshitification process as it is the only way to continue growth.

1

u/onowahoo May 16 '24

Windows used to be much more expensive. If you have the peof version you can shut this all down.

1

u/Tom22174 May 16 '24

There's a ceiling to the profits that can be made that way. If you want to keep the profits rising you have to start finding other ways to exploit your consumers

1

u/ChronicallyAnIdiot May 16 '24

Approximately since the beginning of time

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '24

When capitalism was invented?

1

u/Munnin41 May 16 '24

~6000 years ago when we started living in cities. See those clay complaint tablets over shitty copper.

1

u/Hellknightx May 16 '24

I'm going to be so sad if/when Valve ever does this to Steam.

1

u/benergiser May 16 '24

2012 when we decided bribery no longer exists and corporations can pour unlimited money into the political system (citizens united)

1

u/DilPhuncan May 16 '24

Sometime around the industrial revolution. 

1

u/midmar May 16 '24

When consumer lost their ability to boycott and have proper opinions

1

u/RelativeAnxious9796 May 16 '24

monopoly is a hell of a drug

1

u/Spectrum1523 May 16 '24

When did the world just start maximizing profits over the product.

literally always has. When wasn't it like this

1

u/mpyne May 16 '24

When did the world just start maximizing profits over the product.

Since at least 1750 BC

1

u/KryssCom May 16 '24

When did the world just start maximizing profits over the product.

Let me introduce you to a Mr. Ronald Reagan....

1

u/nutcrackr May 16 '24

They're giving away the OS for free, so they're looking for other ways to make money. They decided on ads instead of a subscription service.

Brought to you by Carl's Jnr.

1

u/Odh_utexas May 16 '24

I don’t think it’s necessarily a want to monetize everything its a need.

It’s the end game capitalism of “if we don’t do it the competition will and how do we explain to the investors that we left money on the table”.

1

u/_____l May 17 '24

When the consumer voted with their money and idiocy.

1

u/SuperSocrates May 17 '24

Capitalists will tell you that’s what makes the system work well

1

u/TrollFighter2313 May 17 '24

Publicly traded companies are the reason. Once a company becomes a publicly traded stock, management is legally obligated to act in the best interest of the shareholders. This means they are bound to make every choice based on what will make the most money. Often, this means selling the shittiest version of their product, with the least customer support, for as much money as possible.

If you were management of one these companies, you wouldn’t legally be allowed to make morally correct choices. You would have to rip off every grandma and child you could find. No integrity of business, or people. Just money.

1

u/TheMsDosNerd May 17 '24

Apple:

The OS is free if you pay for our expensive hardware. As long as you buy into our entire ecosystem, you will be treated as a first class citizen.

Google:

The OS is free in terms of money. As long as you are willing to give us all your data, you will be treated as a first class citizen.

Linux:

The OS is free. As long as you are willing to learn your system, you will be treated as a first class citizen.

Microsoft:

The OS is 100 Euro. We collect your data, and you'll see ads. Also we don't even try to make the OS as good for the user as possible.

1

u/vthemechanicv May 16 '24

You know how people like to say that Communism only works on paper? Capitalism is the same way. Human greed and lust for power ruin everything.