> Summing up these 45 pages, one can say that Microsoft basically grants itself very broad rights to collect everything you do, say and write with and on your devices in order to sell more targeted advertising or to sell your data to third parties. The company appears to be granting itself the right to share your data either with your consent “or as necessary”.
And this differs from Google's and Facebook's usage policies how?
Throwing out a red flag at this point for a corporation stating that people^H^H^H^H^H^H^H users are their product is the quintessential example of "closing the barn door after the horse is out."
We (edit: used to[0]) paid for windows, we shouldn't be the product.
I believe the problem (and I am outraged about that) comes from the fact people are paying for Windows and practices such as the collecting of e-mail and contact shouldn't be necessary for 1. the OS to run smoothly and 2. for MS to cover for a low selling price.
The OS and its default bundled application's set price should be enough to guarantee MS doesn't need a user's private data and metadata to provide the product (aka: we gave MS some money, they shouldn't need our private data to make money in order to keep the price `low').
There are many things like "data about network you connect to" that need to be collected and stored on the device unless the user wants to introduce the same password over and over again. This has to be stated somehow and phrased.
Now if MS stores it on-line through the windows account for convenience it's almost the same thing if it's encrypted and hashed so MS just stores something that can't be exploited if leaked.
I have been looking at Surface recently and now I wonder if I can run Debian on it.
[0] but considering the upgrade path implies a paid product (win 7/8) it's a huge change for the user and my point still stand.
You make a cogent argument, which I almost completely agree (excluding an OS vendor storing account info on their own servers).
The consideration I hope to make evident now is: how do your points differ when applied to an Andriod device for which Google has been paid their licensing fees by the device manufacturer?
Facebook's offerings are different, true, yet their Machiavellain use of whatever is presented to them warrants inclusion in this type of discussion IMHO.
While Android is open source, the Google
applications, like the Play Store, Gmail,
Google Maps, Google Play Services, and others
must be licensed. This licensing agreement is
called the "Mobile Application Distribution
Agreement" (MADA) and comes with tons of
restrictions.[1]
This is only one example and the monetary considerations are unknown.
The difference is that this has been Google's and Facebook's business model ever since they became profitable, while MS was in the business of selling software products to users. The fact that they include this now combined with windows (the previously second largest cash cow) now being effectively free, indicates that MS sees user data as the future of their business too. Given MS makes their money mostly with enterprise/businesses I doubt that this will succeed.
> The difference is that this has been Google's and Facebook's business model ever since they became profitable, while MS was in the business of selling software products to users.
I respect the point you are making, yet must point out that all it does is establish a timeline. There is no significant difference between the three companies' treatment of their customer base in this regard.
And don't forget, including Google _also_ includes Andriod.
> Given MS makes their money mostly with enterprise/businesses I doubt that this will succeed.
I believe it would not be a surprise to find that the enterprise/ultimate/wtf-ever-they-call-it are excluded from this. Of course, I'm sure a user could receive the same exemption should they choose to pay the fee...
> here is no significant difference between the three companies' treatment of their customer base in this regard.
Correct. What's different is the customer's expectation (so far) about this treatment. IMO this is significant.
> I believe it would not be a surprise to find that the enterprise/ultimate/wtf-ever-they-call-it are excluded from this. Of course, I'm sure a user could receive the same exemption should they choose to pay the fee...
I would certainly hope this to be the case, but so far this is AFAIK just speculation. Did MS think as far as building in these use cases? After what they did to the desktop UI (even on Windows Server) on Windows 8 I have stopped to just assume Microsoft knows what they're doing.
Thanks. I would agree that the expectation on smartphones is different, but we're still also talking about desktop users. This might be just one of the delicate issues a Software company runs into when trying to do hybrid desktop / mobile OSes, of which I consider Win10 to be the first major one (i.e. with relevant usage numbers).
> And this differs from Google's and Facebook's usage policies how?
This article has nothing to do with Google and Facebook. It doesn't even mention them.
I think the article's purpose is to dispute the claim that the terms aren't as "straightforward" as Microsoft would have us think, as evidenced by the sarcastic closing line, "So much for clearly understandable and straightforward terms of service."
In part, it is quite convincing. Phrases like "or as necessary" and "we collect voice input, as well as your name and nickname" is a little unsettling to me.
> This article has nothing to do with Google and Facebook. It doesn't even mention them.
Agreed. My point was not that the article critiques either of those organizations, simply that this move by Microsoft is quite comparable. To the point of being indistinguishable, IMHO.
> I think the article's purpose is to dispute the claim that the terms aren't as "straightforward" as Microsoft would have us think, as evidenced by the sarcastic closing line, "So much for clearly understandable and straightforward terms of service."
I recommend detailed reading of the ToC's the various Google and/or Facebook offerings which you are interested in as well then. Perhaps they are less shrouded in "legalese", but I submit their implications are no less disturbing.
>> And this differs from Google's and Facebook's usage policies how?
Let's remember that you aren't running your desktop on facebook, you can use custom android rom or self-built chromium that doesn't interface with google.
You don't see a significant difference between terms of service governing the use of data you entrust to computers owned by some web service, and terms of service governing the use of data you store yourself on your own computer?
> And this differs from Google's and Facebook's usage policies how?
Was waiting for someone to bring that up. Microsoft has never done anything different than Google does yet, until now, no one bothered to check up on Microsoft. However, Microsoft has its tentacles more tightly wound around Windows users.
What I find most disappointing is that Microsoft could have stopped all of this in the beginning if they had simply put adblockers on IE way back when they were giving the finger to all of the anti-trust legislation anyway. Google would have had to have a different model, and the currency of the Internet would be money.
If you charge me $25/year to use facebook, I know what that means. If you charge me $25/year to use google, I know what that means.
Now, however, the currency of the Internet is privacy, and not very many of us know what that means. It's still too abstract- and abstract thinking is hard for many of us.
Please, your first sentence adds nothing, and it angers me.
In that day, targeted ads weren't a major source of revenue (revenue models were still being worked out). Many web sites built primarily for Microsoft then-that is, taking advantage of their standards-breaking browser. The public didn't really cared about any other browser (by that I mean the same "public" that doesn't really care about privacy now).
Microsoft did many bad things in that day. But if you wanted people to be able to use your site it had to work in IE (version 5 or 6 or so-I don't really remember). If it didn't work in Netscape it was no big deal. The web page would say "best viewed in IE5.5 or later" (or whatever version).
So, no, websites couldn't afford to block Microsoft. They would lose their customers.
I wish I could be angered by your reply, unfortunately it just amuses me. Web sites rely on advertising dollars for revenue. To be denied this revenue from the dominant browser would have created a revolt.
>So, no, websites couldn't afford to block Microsoft. They would lose their customers.
I see. So they can't afford to block Microsoft, but they can afford to have their main revenue stream cut off by Microsoft.
And this differs from Google's and Facebook's usage policies how?
Throwing out a red flag at this point for a corporation stating that people^H^H^H^H^H^H^H users are their product is the quintessential example of "closing the barn door after the horse is out."