Let me make sure I understand you, FuncOfT - You complaint is not that you are being annoyed by advertising, but rather that the advertiser has not not collected sufficient information about you to target the ad to your demographic?  Is that correct?

3 minutes ago, wkempf wrote

"If you don't pay for it, you are the product." No one is being conditioned to accept continued incursions. Advertising is a necessary alternative to paid services. Always has been, and always will be. No, what's changing is that we, as customers, are becoming less willing to actually pay for anything. As such, we're getting what we've asked for.

I remember in the olden days when people paid for stuff they were "the customer is always right", and you were treated with respect because you might buy something from the store.

We seem to have sleepwalked into a world where people believe paying for services and content online is abnormal.

In capitalism, you get what you pay for. If you're not paying, you're either getting a crap product or you are the product.

Skype would be better if it cost you $1 a month to run, because then Microsoft would have a way of making money from it without wasting your time with adverts.

* $4.99 based on a 12 month subscription. Normally $9.99 per month 

3 hours ago, swheaties wrote

I recently wrote in another post that we are gradually being conditioned to accept continued incurrsions by advertisers into our private lives. 

Let me make sure I understand you, FuncOfT - You complaint is not that you are being annoyed by advertising, but rather that the advertiser has not not collected sufficient information about you to target the ad to your demographic?  Is that correct?

 

The advertising can be quite annoying, but it's bearable if it's something that is remotely interesting to you, so yeah, getting the correct demographic is important.  MS and Skype should be smart enough to know that the ads they are serving are borderline offensive to me.  If it was an ad for the new JetBrains product or something I wouldn't complain.  The video ad in Skype is also much larger and in your face than the Messenger ads ever were.  The issue in particular with something like Skype now is that we are all going to be forced to move to Skype, and I believe that fundamentally, this kind of application should and can be built into the OS.  If that means the price of the OS is $10 more per license, I'd pay for that.  I don't like the idea of having a ton of annual subscriptions to track, so I'd much rather pay a few hundred bucks ever few years for the latest OS and let MS deal with paying the people that built the application. 

I don't mind paying for something like Skype, if I were going to use it, but I don't use it much at all.  I just use it for instant messaging and actually have only ever used Skype 3-5 times in my life for calling someone.  I may not be the norm, but the point is that I am almost forced to pay for the "premium" version to avoid the ads when I don't really need the premium services.  Some do, and that's great, it's not a bad deal if you aren't already paying through the nose for your cellular services and so on, but I really feel like choice has been taken away from me, not given to me.  Even if it's an illusion of choice, like, if they gave me a way to say, "this ad sucks", like Hulu does, at least I could bear some of the ads.  At this point, Skype, to me, is the worst adware I've ever used.

If everything that someone was "willing to pay $10 for to have bundled in Windows" was in Windows, it would be 150GB installation, slow as a dead parrot and cost $900 per licence, and you'd be complaining that you don't use most of the inbuilt "features".

2 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

@FuncOfT:

If everything that someone was "willing to pay $10 for to have bundled in Windows" was in Windows, it would be 150GB installation, slow as a dead parrot and cost $900 per licence, and you'd be complaining that you don't use most of the inbuilt "features".

Context - this kind of application, IM in particular (not interested in Skype for calls right now), which is as necessary as email to many people for work. 

37 minutes ago, FuncOfT wrote

*snip*

Context - this kind of application, IM in particular (not interested in Skype for calls right now), which is as necessary as email to many people for work. 

Perhaps they should bundle Outlook as well (they used to bundle OE)? And Office (like they do on RT). Lots of people use that to work. Let's also bundle DVD codecs since lots of people use those, and BluRay, just in case they end up with a BluRay player.

Oh, and a better photo-editing suite, since Paint is pretty rubbish and lots of people take photos.

And OCR software - that's pretty useful too. And you'll probably want to bundle VLC for the off-chance that you see a video that you can't play, and probably Wireshark because it's more powerful than netstat.

Oh wait -  now Windows costs you $100 instead of $40.

Instead, why not let people pay $40 for the bare minimum OS, and let them spend $60 tailoring their OS to their specific needs by letting them buy the software they actually want from the Windows store?

10 minutes ago, FuncOfT wrote

@evildictaitor:  Some of those, yes.  DVD codecs, for sure!  How about you pay $100, and get $60 in Windows Store credits to buy what you need. 

If you get $60 back in store credit, then you're only actually paying $40 - but you want Microsoft to include more than $40 of stuff. Capitalism doesn't work like that.

Your choice is between:

* A minimal build for $40 - buy what you want from the store yourself

* A "fat" build with loads of added stuff like Skype, Office, codecs etc that you might not want for $100, $0 store credit.

* A minimal build for $100 with $60 store credit

* A "fat" build for $160 with $60 store credit.

If Windows costs $160 instead of $40, then your Windows devices all cost $100 more and suddenly Microsoft are putting off lots of people who don't have loads of money to blow and would prefer a cheaper (e.g. Android) device instead - and besides, why force people to have stuff on their machine that is only going to get in the way? That's entirely contrary to the "slim and fast" image that Microsoft are trying to push with Win8.

It seems to me that the best (and most consumer-friendly) approach is to aggressively push down the cost of the base platform by bundling nothing and let customers spend money in the Windows Store for stuff they might need but which most customers don't need (like Skype, Office, OCR software etc).

Win8 + Windows Store gives you the perfect solution - you get to decide how expensive your initial Win8 setup is by adding extra software (e.g. Skype) from the Windows Store and paying for it after you buy your Win8 licence or device, and unlike any other solution - your device's expense and initial tools are entirely customized to your unique situation! Yay for customer choice!

Having said that, I will explicity say here that the sheer volume of advertising we see in the world has itself has become an incursion.  This is a different statement than what I said in my original post.  I am including all forms of media including the sides of buses and buildings, etc.

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

If you get $60 back in store credit, then you're only actually paying $40 - but you want Microsoft to include more than $40 of stuff. Capitalism doesn't work like that.

Your choice is between:

* A minimal build for $40 - buy what you want from the store yourself

* A "fat" build with loads of added stuff like Skype, Office, codecs etc that you might not want for $100, $0 store credit.

* A minimal build for $100 with $60 store credit

* A "fat" build for $160 with $60 store credit.

If Windows costs $160 instead of $40, then your Windows devices all cost $100 more and suddenly Microsoft are putting off lots of people who don't have loads of money to blow and would prefer a cheaper (e.g. Android) device instead - and besides, why force people to have stuff on their machine that is only going to get in the way? That's entirely contrary to the "slim and fast" image that Microsoft are trying to push with Win8.

It seems to me that the best (and most consumer-friendly) approach is to aggressively push down the cost of the base platform by bundling nothing and let customers spend money in the Windows Store for stuff they might need but which most customers don't need (like Skype, Office, OCR software etc).

Win8 + Windows Store gives you the perfect solution - you get to decide how expensive your initial Win8 setup is by adding extra software (e.g. Skype) from the Windows Store and paying for it after you buy your Win8 licence or device, and unlike any other solution - your device's expense and initial tools are entirely customized to your unique situation! Yay for customer choice!

" you get $60 back in store credit, then you're only actually paying $40 - but you want Microsoft to include more than $40 of stuff. Capitalism doesn't work like that." 

What??  The notion was, don't include all those extra Apps then, but by giving some amount in store credit then you allow people to "customize" Windows (and have the side-effect of promoting Windows Store Apps that people may not normally be willing to pay for, but if they have some credit/coupons to spend, they might be more willing), so I wouldn't be expecting MS to include more than $40 in that case ... it was just a thought to find a happy medium, and has nothing to do with capitalism, so stop going way off tangent, how is it anti-capitalist to give out coupons and credits and gift certificates to help sell a product?  Terrible, in your face, irrelevant ads are what I'm complaining about, (and the forced upgrade coming to Messenger users). 

I was wrong about a fact here that I will correct:  Skype does have a "Like or dislike this ad?" feedback link, which I didn't notice until a minute ago, however, clicking on it brings me to a page to sign in ... WTF do I have to sign in, I'm signed into Skype.  Make it easier to give feedback, please.  With the Windows Store App version, it's very simple to give feedback.  I love the way MS incorporates Feedback and Ratings into the charms for every Windows Store App; this feature may pan out to be one of the most important for the overall future of Windows 8.

8 hours ago, FuncOfT wrote

This is not MS bashing - but it is Skype bashing.

Just a friendly reminder. Skype bashing is in fact Microsoft bashing, since Skype is a part of Microsoft.

1. Provide software and services that people value and trust over others.
2. Provide a degree of trust that customers jumping into their ecosystem won't be left locked into an inferior system or that Microsoft takes a direction in the future that is contrary to the customers needs causing a costly move to another ecosystem.
3. Exceed offerings of similar products by their competitors in UX/UI, features, and price.
4. Provide some excitement to lure new customer to take a look at their offerings. First and foremost start with fixing their lousy branding; fire everyone who has had anything to do with branding in Microsoft in the past and hand the reigns over to a new group that is walled off from Microsoft's politics. Get over labeling everything "Windows" and "Microsoft". Those brands are a lost cause.

8 hours ago, FuncOfT wrote

*snip*

I may not be the norm, but the point is that I am almost forced to pay for the "premium" version to avoid the ads when I don't really need the premium services. 

Yes, but one of those premium services is no ads. You might not "need" the premium services, but you obviously *want* one of them -- namely, the part that removes the ads.

7 hours ago, Craig_​Matthews wrote

*snip*

Yes, but one of those premium services is no ads. You might not "need" the premium services, but you obviously *want* one of them -- namely, the part that removes the ads.

That part is definitely not worth $4.99/month (based on an annual subscription).

16 hours ago, swheaties wrote

wkemph, If you keep trying one day you are going to get something right.  I'm rooting for you buddy   The incursion is not advertising itself, rather the invasive gathering of personal information, the extent of which I wont detail because I have neither the time nor patience to do so.  Why do I have to explain that to you LOL.

Having said that, I will explicity say here that the sheer volume of advertising we see in the world has itself has become an incursion.  This is a different statement than what I said in my original post.  I am including all forms of media including the sides of buses and buildings, etc.

Why are you getting personal here? Did I touch a nerve?

Advertising does not automatically equal the "invasive gathering of personal information". You're hijacking the topic here. Seems you have a political agenda.

3 hours ago, FuncOfT wrote

*snip*

That part is definitely not worth $4.99/month (based on an annual subscription).

Then, as I clearly stated, you get what you (don't) pay for. The only thing remotely relevant is not wanting "offensive" ads. However, since different people take offence to different things the only way to do this would be to target ads, and then you upset people like swheaties.

17 minutes ago, wkempf wrote

*snip*

Then, as I clearly stated, you get what you (don't) pay for. The only thing remotely relevant is not wanting "offensive" ads. However, since different people take offence to different things the only way to do this would be to target ads, and then you upset people like swheaties.

I'm a 38 year old male, who doesn't have any interest in ads with kids at a rave or half-naked pop stars, especially at work, so yeah, some targeting - the basics, like age considerations is fine.

1 hour ago, FuncOfT wrote

*snip*

I'm a 38 year old male, who doesn't have any interest in ads with kids at a rave or half-naked pop stars, especially at work, so yeah, some targeting - the basics, like age considerations is fine.

If you're at work, get your boss to pay the $5/mo. The cost of your time when you're watching adverts is more than $5/mo unless you're secretly working in a sweat-shop in the Philippines.

In fact, the cost to your business of you popping your head round his door and asking the question and him saying "yeah - I'll do that now" will cost more than the subscription for the entire year just in raw salary terms.

2 hours ago, Bass wrote

Skype is not going to magically stop sucking because you made a thread about it on Channel9. A better idea is not stop the fruitless bitching and use something better, like Google Voice. Problem solved.

Does Google Voice provide VoIP and Video calling service now? I've been using Google Voice for three years, and the only thing I've ever seen it do is act as an inbound/outbound call broker for existing voice service from elsewhere. If Google Voice has VoIP and Video calling now, Google needs to fire their marketing department because I'm not seeing anything about this anywhere in Google Voice.

I've used Google+ to do video chat before, and it even supports screen sharing. It's also part of "Google Chat" software. Why Google poorly markets this sort of stuff is anyone's guess.

8 minutes ago, Bass wrote

@Craig_Matthews:

I've used Google+ to do video chat before, and it even supports screen sharing. It's also part of "Google Chat" software. Why Google poorly markets this sort of stuff is anyone's guess.

The problem isn't that they don't market Google Chat as part of Google+. The problem is that nobody wants to use Google+.

That's unfortunate.

2 days ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

I remember in the olden days when people paid for stuff they were "the customer is always right", and you were treated with respect because you might buy something from the store.

We seem to have sleepwalked into a world where people believe paying for services and content online is abnormal.

In capitalism, you get what you pay for. If you're not paying, you're either getting a crap product or you are the product.

Skype would be better if it cost you $1 a month to run, because then Microsoft would have a way of making money from it without wasting your time with adverts.

++

Jan 08, 2013 at 5:51 PM, wkempf wrote

"If you don't pay for it, you are the product." No one is being conditioned to accept continued incursions. Advertising is a necessary alternative to paid services. Always has been, and always will be. No, what's changing is that we, as customers, are becoming less willing to actually pay for anything. As such, we're getting what we've asked for.

Skype (real time video and audio, at least) is p2p. It costs Microsoft jack to run, except a few login servers.

17 hours ago, GoddersUK wrote

*snip*

Skype (real time video and audio, at least) is p2p. It costs Microsoft jack to run, except a few login servers.

Oh? I thought at least some of that changed.

EDIT: In fact, the MS spokesperson in that article is quoted as saying:

This has not changed the underlying nature of Skype's peer-to-peer (P2P) architecture, in which supernodes simply allow users to find one another (calls do not pass through supernodes)

(And quite honestly I don't want that to change...)

10 minutes ago, GoddersUK wrote

(And quite honestly I don't want that to change...)

I don't think MS does either.

If you route the calls through Microsoft servers then

(1) you have to pay for crap-tons of bandwidth to handle all of this increased traffic that is ridiculously latency sensitive,

(2) you add a route to the call (previously me -> you, now me -> MSFT -> you) upping the latency

(3) it's unpopular, because people will assume you are playing shenanigans with their data - so you'll lose customers such as citizens who believe the US government wants to listen to them speaking with their mum and foreign governments who know that the US government wants to listen to them speaking with their mum.

(4) even if you wanted to play shenanigans with the data, it's very high volume, it's all analogue and most conversations over Skype aren't good for generating digital targetted advertising, so it's probably unprofitable for Microsoft to play shenanigans with the data, even if it wanted to.

(5) playing shenanigans with the data would also be at direct odds with Microsoft's whole stance on privacy and would be overtly hypocritical given their ads against Google.

(6 ) it draws unwanted attention from other people who want the conversations for reasons other than targeted advertising (such as the FBI). Although we can debate all day whether it's good or bad for the FBI to have more data to target, the basic fact is that it's bad for Microsoft, because they have to do more work and it doesn't generate money.

Summary: Routing the data is expensive, unnecessary, unpopular and gets unwanted attention from the FBI and police and unwanted assumptions leading to lost sales from other governments and citizens.

So no. I don't think this will happen any time soon.

8 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

I don't think MS does either.

If you route the calls through Microsoft servers then...

Sometimes you may not have a choice.

If two conversing people both have largely unrestricted internet connections with UPnP capable routers... then yes, it's probably very likely that the voice/video conversation would be a direct point-to-point conversation.

If on the other hand both users are behind non-UPnP capable routers as well as firewalls which do not support incoming connections... then some intermediary proxy would be needed... and Skype providing that service would make perfect sense... even with many of the drawbacks associated with it as the only alternative is either to 1) deny these users access to the system, or 2) leech off of some unsuspecting users bandwidth in a major way.