mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 18,058
- 10,238
- 136
I never said the "Can and Should whatever they like". Reading is fundamental.
Yes, reading is fundamental, and you applied emphasis on this bit:
"the operating system that they paid for but don't own."
This time you applied emphasis on a different bit of what I said, here:
Originally Posted by mikeymikec View Post
What does it matter? He thinks that MS can and should do whatever they like.
If you want to use emphasis to point at the specific bit you're responding to, it helps to apply the emphasis in the correct place, as there were at least two points that you might have been responding to. So, now we have your communication issue out of the way, let's rewind and try to get you to elaborate on your opinion.
Your argument has been two-fold:
1) Users who click without reading messages are stupid (inference: this situation is entirely the user's fault).
2) The end user has a licence, they do not own the product, and, your words: "Microsoft can update the software any way they like". These points combined constitute a very broad statement that is open to many logical interpretations.
I've already stated my opinion on point 1 here, the crux of which (wrt "strategy", implies intent) which you appear to have ignored because you prefer your perspective. Fine, moving on.
With regard to point 2 and your apparent disapproval of how I have interpreted your opinion, if MS can "update the software any way they like": I'm wondering whether this licence business you keep going on about is actually irrelevant to your overall opinion, because by including it, it is logical for one to infer that MS have the right to do what they want on your computer due to the licence agreement that they got the user to agree to when the OS was first booted, and since the user doesn't actually own it, they have less rights regarding it.
Perhaps you would like to elaborate on this point? Because it seems utterly pointless for me to try and interpret what you said only for you to say, "that's not what I said".
The specifics that I would like you to elaborate on are (though if you can be as explicit as possible regarding your overall opinion, that would be great):
If "MS can update the software any way they like", then what do you think the limitations of such a notion ought to be?
Is your mentioning of licencing actually relevant? If so, how?
Here is my perspective:
MS initially created an irritating app that popped up in the middle of peoples' work to say "would you like to upgrade to Windows 10?". Clicking the X made the message go away without any repercussions.
MS then modified the irritating app's "tray pop-up message" (ie. the miniature notification, not the full-blown window). It looked very similar to the old one (so users thought it was the same one as before), but exploited the fact that many (most?) users don't read messages as consent because they didn't go out of their way to explicitly say no to the upgrade. I think this is wrong. I think that if MS wanted to "up the ante" and try harder to get users to upgrade, then the whole style of the message (colour scheme as well, turn it red and use alarming warning triangles and exclamation marks) should have been altered, and perhaps get rid of the X in the corner altogether if MS want an actual answer on this point, as well as an easy-to-find but comprehensive option that opts the user out of the upgrade altogether. A user should have had to have clicked "yes / agree", then scroll down a licence agreement, agree again, then the upgrade starts. I think an MS Office installation actually requires more explicit consent than this Windows upgrade did, even though the MSO installation would have already been paid for (ie. lots of explicit consent happening beforehand) before getting to those explicit "I agree" options!
The crux of my point is that I think MS was no longer interested in getting consent from users to upgrade Windows, their interest was to boost the adoption figures for Windows 10, and get as many potential users onboard to their "Windows as a service" business model.
Last edited: