How else would you present the tradeoff to the user? How is the presence of the tradeoff any more of a "dark pattern" than if they had simply turned on inline ads with no option to avoid it?
Instead of just moving to a different ad delivery mechanism (right option) they are still trying to push the inline option (which is objectively "worse" for most users, but good for bottom line) as the best choice, using language that make the "good choice" seem like a stupid option (slower and less space). Hence the language and design here certainly reads like an anti pattern to me.
I don't see how the inline option is objectively worse for most users. If I had to have ads in my email client I'd definitely prefer inline. My normal email already includes things I don't normally read so I'm already skimming the inbox to select what to read and discarding the rest. Ignoring ads would be no different than ignoring the other things I ignore. Unless they went totally overboard on the number of ads all it would do would mean maybe a little bit more scrolling on average to get through the inbox.
Having a separate ad section would be a lot more distracting and would likely reduce the space available for displaying the messages that I do read.
Inline is certainly the worst option for most users. If the ad is always displayed in the same location (a location separated from what you're there to read: your emails) it can be ignored. As big and distracting as they'll try to make it, most people will eventually tune it out entirely, because they already know nothing they care about will be there. The term for this is "Banner Blindness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness) and it means that most people will spend very little time paying attention to the ad.
Inline ads are mixed in with the content you care about (your emails). You say yourself that you'd be forced to skim over them along with everything else that you're forced to evaluate to determine if you actually care about that message or not. That means every time one shows up you'll be forced to determine if what you're seeing is an advertisement or an email that you may or may not care about. You won't be able to become blind to the ads because that would cause you to miss important messages you want to read. Ads, legitimate messages you care about, and legitimate messages you don't care about, they will all need to be evaluated and that will require you to read the ad the same way you are forced to read the sender/subject lines of the email in your inbox you don't care about.
Microsoft knows that inline ads are more effective. It's why they are pushing them so hard. Microsoft wouldn't try to manipulate people into selecting an option that wasn't advantageous for Microsoft. They aren't looking out for your best interests. They are looking out for themselves at your expense. Any time they seem to be steering you toward something, that's a warning sign that you should be extra careful.
Do inline ads really make that much more money? I would have thought advertisers would pay more for bold in-your-face banners over subtle grey text somewhere.
How? I laid out precisely what the choice is in my comment, but I'll lay it out here again: smaller, inline ads vs larger, out-of-mailbox ads.
There are positives and negatives to both. The only sense in which this is "not a choice" is that you will be served ads regardless, but "free service has ads" is not "a new dark pattern", in any way.
If you think we’ll all kiss the corporate boot and accept the limited range of options offered, think again. The better choice is the one not presented. Hint: it’s obscenely visceral.
But believe it or not, not everyone is simple-minded enough to think that it's impossible to be incorrect as long as you're rooting for the right "side".
There's a group of people (let's call them "adults") who are capable of discussing reality in more detail than "hurr durr ads bad". The claim I responded to was that the choice of ad format was a new dark pattern, which is a specific claim that's independent of your feelings about ads overall.
For someone this supercilious, you sure make a lot of bad assumptions en route. The only person to have used the phrase “new dark pattern”, by the way, is you. So if you want to argue whether it’s new or not, go right ahead: you’re just arguing with yourself. If you want to argue it’s not a dark pattern, then good luck on the next zebra crossing.
I’m not your “buddy”, either.
From the comment I responded to: "Add this to the list of dark patterns". (You don't _add_ existing instances of a category to a list enumerating that category)
As it seems the only thing worse than your emotional continence is your reading comprehension, I should probably take my leave of this "conversation". I hope your day goes better than it has been.
There are multiple interpretations of "Add this to the list of dark patterns". The asinine paraphrase of this to "a new dark pattern", especially coupled to the absurdly rigid thinking of the explanation offered, is not merely one of many interpretations; it is the least likely, because the general case of Hobson's choice and its related dilemmas have been recognised for centuries. Ergo, we can trivially reject that interpretation. The author might instead merely be suggesting this is their first personal recognition of such a pattern, or they could be imagining a list of specific instances of major tech companies deploying such a pattern, or offering simply a figure of speech to say "this is a dark pattern", and several other variations besides.
Tip: the world is not a fucking Lisp machine.
In light of which, the cheap crack about "reading comprehension" looks even more sophomoric.
What's more, none of that invalidates the actual point, viz. it is one.