Hacker News Reader

Comment by JCWasmx86 | Hacker News Reader

Companies should really accept a "No" from their users. No I don't want to use a microsoft account just to use my computer. (Without jumping through hoops) Don't ask me again the moment I say "No".

You can see the same with all those dialogs that only have "Yes, do $THING" and "Remind me later".

View on HN

It's what the phrase "the customer is always right" originally meant. It means you can do all the market research, development, testing, polling, and seeding to sell a product. But the ultimate decider of whether the product is "good" is whether or not the people buy it. If your sales plan flops don't say "it's not the product's fault, I just need to do a better job marketing it." No, the product is wrong, the customer is right. Don't try to change peoples' behavior, instead change your marketing to target what people are actually buying. That could mean scrapping the project because it's unpopular, but could also mean narrowing the focus to the smaller population that really does want what you're selling.

Well, that's what it originally meant. Nowadays it's been twisted to mean reacting to every minor complaint and demand in order to retain existing customers, no matter how unreasonable or costly the effort. Rather than helping increase productivity it's become a weapon to punish subordinate sales staffs.

I think the original saying was longer, and something along the lines of, "the customer is always right when it comes to taste".

No, that's a more recent thing.

Please define "Customer" in this context?

There are several parties at this party. One is the person who bought a computer with an operating system on it; possibly they even paid for the operating system itself, though more likely they are using the operating system that came on the computer they're using. Another party is the one who bought a license from microsoft; occasionally they're the same party but more typically it is some sort of vendor who did this. And there's also the party that's giving microsoft money to put advertising in front of the "consumer."

So -- it isn't clear to me who in this context is "always right"

If you buy a car from a dealership does that make you less of a customer of the manufacturer?

If you buy a car from a dealership, then yes indeed you are "less" of a customer of the manufacturer.

Consider this relationship:

Toyota makes a car to the specifications of general motors, who brands the car as a "Pontiac Vibe" and sells the car to a Pontiac dealership. The Pontiac dealership then sells you the car at mostly a wash because you're also financing the purchase and they want to sell "your" loan to a loan bundler and reseller.

So -- everyone gets a cut, and almost nobody's actually got a direct interest in how the schlub who buys a car feels about the car.

I don't believe you've proven the point you're attempting to make.

Tesla is a rather famous example of a car manufacturer that doesn't have a dealership model. Do you imagine that GM or Toyota is somehow less interested in how their cars are either liked or disliked by their target audiences than Tesla is? That seems pretty hard to imagine.

I'll try to be clear here:

Microsoft is selling your eyeballs to advertisers: You are the product not the customer.

Vendors are buying windows from Microsoft and installing it onto a computer and selling that computer to you. You are buying a computer not windows. If you need support you talk to the vendor, not microsoft. The vendor is the customer to Microsoft, not you.

And regarding cars -- car companies make lots of crappy cars and sell them to dealerships who have to buy them regardless of if they want them or not. The dealerships are the customers of the car companies. You are a customer of the dealership. 99% of the time if you've got a problem with the car, the manufacturer is going to be of limited use to you.

> Microsoft is selling your eyeballs to advertisers: You are the product not the customer.

> Vendors are buying windows from Microsoft and installing it onto a computer and selling that computer to you. You are buying a computer not windows.

Sometimes people are buying Windows[1].

It is possible to be the customer for the OS and the product for the ads at the same time.

---

1. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/d/windows-11-home/dg7gmgf0kr...

Microsoft clearly has zero interest in the idiots who buy retail licenses, especially home licenses. They'll cash your check, but they're not going to pay any attention to your opinions. You're trapped in their ecosystem and they have no reason to pay attention to your desires. They're going to sell your eyeballs to as many advertisers as possible and there's nothing you can do about it.

> ... and there's nothing you can do about it.

Except - like with the car examples above - eventually customers get pissed off or frustrated enough to switch to a different OS (or car manufacturer).

Thus Apple and Linux distro's picking up a lot of ex-windows users. KDE plays well to this audience. :)

The executive in charge of that strategy, by then, will have moved on to Google.

Also, likely microsoft has realized there's zero long term revenue in operating systems -- you'll have been forced to move all your data to their Office 365 environment and will be paying them rent regardless of if you use a windows or a mac or a linux or an oracle desktop.

I think valve did there part to remove one large reason to stay on windows.

I think if steam decks gets a good linux desktop, similar to windows in look and feel, that can be run on a desktop, parallel to windows. Its over, very suddenly, very brutal.

And here it is: https://store.steampowered.com/steamos/download?ver=steamdec...

A challenger appears. He is unburdened by the need to advertise. Its super effective.

This seems like something we’ll get to see play out over the next few years. Given that GM has decided that they don’t care if customers want CarPlay, we’ll see if customers say “No thanks” to buying cars from GM because of that.

I'm pretty sure they're doing this because they know a good chunk of their customers don't want this.

In the newspaper industry, the 'Customer' refers to the advertisers who pay for the ads, advertorials, sponsored content, etc that actually make the publication a viable business model.

The individual who buys and reads the newspapaper is referred to as the 'Consumer'.

>>That could mean scrapping the project because it's unpopular, but could also mean narrowing the focus to the smaller population that really does want what you're selling.

... or, keep improving the product to the point where most people actually find it useful, which is obviously an option for Microsoft, with cash reserves to fund centuries of development. Find out what the downsides are, and fix them, or offer actually compelling benefits.

Heck, I'm very hard-set against it, but I just heard about Apple starting to offer savings accts with 4.5% interest. If MS started paying that much, with trustworthy security and no upper limit, I might sign up (i.e., if you pay me enough, I might also accept your other parts of the offer).

It must be damn valuable for MS to have us have accounts, and if so, they could actually afford to provide better returns than banks, because the return to MS would be [banking profit] + [network profit].

> or, keep improving the product to the point where most people actually find it useful

Some product ideas can't be made desirable and useful no matter how much improvement they get.

True, but you start paying enough, and you'll get bigger and bigger populations who find it an acceptable bargain.

You'll also always have some who see through it.

Desirable to who ? Windows 11 users are the product not the _customer_

You, a windows 11 licensee, are a captive market for microsoft to sell your eyeballs to advertisers.

"I am going to sell clicks to advertisers and the cost of customer acquisition is negative $10 per customer -- they pay us to get advertised to!"

It doesn't matter how much you paid: You aren't the customer, you're the product.

There's a saying in Japanese that precisely describes this situation: 鴨が葱を背負ってくる. The literal translation is "a duck approaches you with a leek on its back." It refers to good luck brought by someone waiting to be exploited. Paying money for a product that works against you is exactly this.

That description sounds very similar to the Farfetch'd Pokemon [0]. Was that the original influence?

[0]: https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Farfetch%27d_(Pok%C3...

It probably is, and the English name for that Pokemon is a reflection of that. How likely would duck come along carrying ingredients for stew? That’d be “far-fetched.”

Someone’s essay on that theory: https://bulbanews.bulbagarden.net/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Spec...

One thing is clear: MS doesn't really care about customer satisfaction at all. There is no single innovative thing in Windows 11 that would make me switch over. I use Windows 11 on company machines only; I don't understand why anyone would voluntarily put up with this crap.

Because Microsoft almost have a monopoly on the OS market. Pretty much the only alternative for users who aren't tech savvy enough to comfortably use Linux is to buy a Mac, which will price out a lot of people. Even if you are able to use Linux (or can afford a Mac), the popularity of Windows means that you will eventually run into a piece of software you need that isn't available for your OS and won't run in Wine, forcing you to use Windows by some other means.

The next time I build a gaming computer, I'm gonna hold my nose and do it. I know Proton is good, but it is still a compromise for a lot of games.

Users should learn to say "no" to companies. The surveillance advertising economy is not some hapless mistake that companies will suddenly wake up to one day and realize the error of their ways. Whatever Microsoft "should" do is just wishful thinking. Change will come from users or regulation, and regulation seems unlikely.

In my comments here over the years, I have occasionally mentioned how I don't do business with certain companies or use certain sorts of products because I find the companies objectionable.

What I find interesting/hilarious is how often someone will reply to me saying that my life would be so much easier if I just gave in and used them anyway, or (worse) how I'm being wrong in some way by being selective about who I support with my money.

That borg-like "you will be assimilated" sort of commentary is fascinating, disturbing, and goes far to illustrate how there are ordinary people who absolutely don't want you to exert your economic authority.

> That borg-like "you will be assimilated" sort of commentary is fascinating, disturbing, and goes far to illustrate how there are ordinary people who absolutely don't want you to exert your economic authority.

I've learned not to underestimate the extents to which people will go to rationalize their cognitive dissonance. In person, my tactic has just been to self-censor more - I guess I'm tired/lazy and don't want to be bothered unnecessarily.

>I've learned not to underestimate the extents to which people will go to rationalize their cognitive dissonance. In person, my tactic has just been to self-censor more - I guess I'm tired/lazy and don't want to be bothered unnecessarily.

I couldn't agree more. As someone with decades of infosec experience, I stopped trying to get my family members (especially those who don't have any technical background) not to use abusive products/services, especially on their smartphones years ago, because I got sick of having to hear about how wrong I was from folks who wouldn't know good security hygiene if it came up and bit them.

It just wasn't worth the argument.

As in most situations (not just tech/infosec), some lessons can't be learned from others, the mistakes must be experienced personally to actually get it. Those lessons are different for everyone, but are pretty ubiquitous. I've certainly been there myself.

Edit: Corrected prose to actually make sense.

It's fair enough if you don't want to make evangelism your life mission but if you don't point bad things out to people at all then you are limiting your impact as much as those that have given up and submit to those things. Sometimes people are receptive to being nudged towards responsible behavior.

>It's fair enough if you don't want to make evangelism your life mission but if you don't point bad things out to people at all then you are limiting your impact

What makes you think I don't? Check my comment history, that should disabuse you of that notion.

>Sometimes people are receptive to being nudged towards responsible behavior.

That's often true. But I've banged my head against that particular wall too many times already. You did catch the part where I said "family" right?

> Users should learn to say "no" to companies.

This assumes that consumers have a choice to say no. I can drop windows and switch to linux, but I don't think everyone could. I want a phone that doesn't come with Google's software and won't severely limit what I can do with it like apple would. Could most people find and afford one? Some surveillance companies like facebook and Experian don't give you any choice at all. They collect (and leak) your data even if you never sign up for anything with them. If I only have one option for broadband in my city it's unreasonable to expect me to go without functional internet access, even if I hate the one company available and know they'll sell my browsing history.

At a certain point people are basically forced to use companies or are at their mercy even if they'd rather not be.

> I can drop windows and switch to linux, but I don't think everyone could.

Honestly, most people could if they really wanted to. People come up with all kinds of reasons why they can't but ultimately it just boils down to not wanting to be inconvenienced.

Your other examples are a lot harder to do something about but that doesn't mean you can't do anything. Do you really need a smartphone at all? Third party data harvesting is bad and should be regulated out of existence but you can limit how much those companies affect you. Broadband does work a bit better in some parts of the world where the last mile cables are considered common infrastructure so go campaign or heck you could start your own ISP or support someone else that does. Can any single person fix all of this on their own? No. But you can resists wherver possible. You can choose better companies where they are available even if that means paying slightly more. You can get involved politically, especially locally. You can say no to services that are not really essential.

You CAN say no even if that has a cost.

Yes. I need a smartphone. What is it with so many antiprogress people on HN? Do you really need cooked food? Like reaaaaly need it? Yes ffs... Windows with ads is a much smaller inconvenience than completely changing my work style to fit with linux lack of support of a million useful things.

No, you don't really need a smartphone. You want one. Slightly different thing. Nuance, you know.

Sure, you can have it, nobody is going to tell you that you can't. But be honest to yourself; nobody ever died of hunger for not having one.

I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that many many people have died who wouldn't have if they'd only had a working cell phone on them at the time. A cell phone could very well save a person's life. It's a pretty useful thing. Increasingly, the expectation is that everyone will have one and a growing number of products and services require the use of an app. In fairness, I've personally managed to avoid those so far, but it's already at times required companies to go out of their way to provide me with alternatives and it's not hard to imagine that they will only grow more reluctant to provide those costly accommodations in the future.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to limit their employment options, risk their safety, and increasingly cut themselves off from normal society just to avoid the harms of owning a cell phone, when those harms are impacting everyone at little or no benefit to the public at large, and when the worst offenses could be mitigated through regulations.

vetinari: > > No, you don't really need a smartphone. You want one. Slightly different thing. Nuance, you know.

autoexec: > I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that many many people have died who wouldn't have if they'd only had a working cell phone on them at the time. A cell phone could very well save a person's life.

Emphases added.

You may need a smartphone. That's fair. But the majority of people really don't. The want one. That's a different thing.

> What is it with so many antiprogress people on HN?

There aren't a great deal of antiprogress people on HN. There are a bunch of people who may disagree about what counts as "progress", though.

Most people need a smartphone at least for google maps. Do you really believe people will go back to using paper maps for orientation? Or fixed phones?

Paper maps aren't that hard to get. Whether people will use them has no bearing on whether people can, and therefore they want the convenience of smartphones but only need verbal/paper directions when trying to get somewhere.

It's hard to say something is a "need" if it has existed for only 18 years and still has viable alternatives. That doesn't mean it should automatically be discarded, but it's disingenuous to act like it's actually necessary.

Just say no to Nestle. Cook your own food! Same goes for piracy, if they feel violated by me not being customer, dont go to the government and its laws as company. Just try to exist without the could-be-customers. Boycott the pirates, by doing nothing.

And notice how "Yes" is permanent. Once you "agree," you can never go back without starting all over again, if even then.

This is why there are no more "No" selections. The developers--from marketing to the people who ask ChatGPT to spit out the required Python code and then paste it into a GitHub repository--all have financial motivations for you to say "Yes".

This is why I think that the GDPR is such an important law not just for the things it covers but because it formalizes the notion of iformed consent for computer interactions - specifically requiring that saying no has to be as easy as saying yes.

I don't see how we get them to accept a "No" when they know they can make more money by relentlessly badgering the users until they say "Yes".

And by the time they get a push back, if there is any, they will have made enough money to spend a 10th of it in PR to buy back their karma points.

Few vote with their wallets anyway, so it's a winning strategy.

access to private computer system vs harrassment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment

Not paying them, perhaps? : /

Not buying their products.

That doesn't work in this situation. What percentage of windows users "bought the product"? Someone else bought it and put it on the computer without any user input. It's like buying a house and finding out that it has a coin-operated lock on the front door when you try to move in.

Without client conciousness clients will be fcked!

Sooner or later will be, as their agressive provider shoves more and more crap down their throat without resistance it will only make that provider more and more determined feeding even more crap for fortunes. Not being satisfied and stop. It will continue into the eternity if can. When something is forced on you that you do not want or even harmful for you then not the submitting is the answer but to push back. Be lazy or be fcked! Those are the choices. We seen it before in the history.

Don't come with client consciousness.

MS's deal with computer manufacturers makes them pay more if they want to not install Windows on all of the computers they sell. And when some decided to just sell computers, you know, unbundled, the way that maximizes consumer choice, they were framed as criminally enriching from piracy and lots of governments felt into them with all their rage.

It's not the client's fault that corrupt powerful people use violence to take down their rights.

Not the client is the responsible for others agression of course but they are for supplying those doing violents on them with their money. Of course thay are! Those doing shady business to the damage of the customer while the customer aware of this but still pay those doing violence is more than responsible: being accomplice. Don't come to me with the 'nothing can be done' kind of lazy nonsense please! That is just an excuse to remain lazy.

> corrupt powerful people use violence to take down their rights.

Sir this is a Wendy's.

Or at least, a thread about start menu ads. Touch grass and gain perspective.

Sir, this is HN, where dismissive comments of this sort are generally viewed as unhelpful and unwelcome.

I'm sorry, I don't see the problem here. If you don't like Windows, don't use it; it's really that simple. If you're forced to pay more to get a computer without Windows because of bundling deals, then just buy the one that comes with Windows (because obviously, the cost of the OS is being subsidized, and then some, by all the extra bloatware added on), and then delete it and install the OS of your choice.

There's nothing forcing you to use the OS that was installed on your PC; these aren't phones where the OS is largely baked-in and can't be easily replaced or reflashed. It's quite trivial to install a different OS on a PC. People have been doing it for decades now.

If Dell/HP is able to sell you a computer for less money by bundling Windows, then obviously MS isn't making a lot of money from OS sales, but rather from other stuff, which is why all the ads are included. People want cheap, so they're getting an OS which is cheap, and paid for partly from ads. If anything, people should be happy: they can get a computer cheaper by just accepting the adware/bloatware-laden MS OS, which they can then delete and replace with Linux.

> There's nothing forcing you to use the OS that was installed on your PC; these aren't phones where the OS is largely baked-in and can't be easily replaced or reflashed. It's quite trivial to install a different OS on a PC.

So far.

> People have been doing it for decades now.

Feels like that may be coming to an end.

No one is powerful on their own. Power is derived from other people going along. Always.

Powerful people use threats of violence (the law, the police, the army) to centralize wealth and power while externalizing costs. Most of these costs are minor (such as annoyances with Windows advertising) on an individual basis but result in large profits for the powerful.

It’s a sad fact of reality but that’s how it is. You want to change things? Then you need to organize people to back your cause. But then if you succeed you become one of the powerful. And as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I highly doubt people buying a Windows 11 license with their own money is even 0.1% of the installed base.

If they had hundreds of millions of people, or OEMs, sending them $150 USD per license, it would be unlikely for them to put in ads. As in windows 7.

But when it's almost freely given away...

> But when it's almost freely given away...

If that's a problem it's one created by Microsoft themselves. They're the one that sets their license fees. Their execs set stock guidance.

What if they don't consider it a problem? Do you think there'll be any reasonable chance of change?

Perhaps they figured they could rake in much more cash by giving the license away for free and charging someone else for showing ads.

Microsoft does not give their license away for free. OEMs pay for every PC they ship. The OEM licensing price is lower than the retail price but the PC buyer most assuredly paid for their copy of Windows. Microsoft just decided they needed to double dip. They make money on the front with licenses and subscriptions and on the back with advertising.

This was in response to another comment up the thread saying that the license is basically free since you can use it without activation with very few limitations (can't change the desktop background and such).

That has no bearing on the fact customers buying PCs paid for their Windows license.

OEMs aren't paying license fees for preinstalled Windows (if they are doing that at all) because they want to support Microsoft but because their customers expect Windows to be installed. That means you still decide.

> That means you still decide.

Not really. I recently bought two used tower computers, and they came with Windows preinstalled. I have no use for Windows and formatted the hard drives immediately. But nonetheless, Microsoft still got some money from me in this exchange.

I didn't get to decide.

Doesn't work. The market is not perfect, nor can it ever be.

You do it by making sure that in your case it means they make less money, ideally none or even less, and convincing others to do the same.

But they don't respect the consumer any more.

Your selections are never final. Your settings can always be reset on the next update. Your choices can be withered down, like a stone by water.

You are the least important part of these monopolies dukeing it out for the crown. You lost your ability to choose years ago.

What happens now, is just formalities and preparing future generations for the new normality.

The capitalism that worked for the common men, was dead the moment the wall dropped.

Companies should be regulated to offer No as an option, and to make that option for all intents are purposes equally represented. No other way will work. Abuse makes a lot of money.

Sounds good, but what does it mean in practice?

- Does every program need to support offline account? (what about MMO games?)

- Does every program need to support online account? (tongue in cheek, for people who prefer online services)

- What if I don't want to install a particular Windows update because I dislike something about it? Right now I can stay forever on an obsolete version (I assume), but that's not "equally represented" - my computer is broken now.

I think it's very hard (or borderline impossible) to do what you ask for. Even in Open Source, where choice is almost a religion, not all options are equally easy for users.

I don't think it's hard. If the software uses an online account, it should clearly say so before buying. Not just Windows, games often do this too, for example I just bought Bloons TD 6, and discovered that it didn't sync my progress over Steam cloud. Turns out I have to register, in order to be able to sync progress. Would have been nice to know beforehand.

Regarding the options I'm sure you have seen many cookie prompts. Often the Accept all is inviting, and the Reject all is smaller text, or outright hidden or unavailable. But there are cookie prompts that just have uniform buttons for Accept all, Reject all. Simple.

Now, I realize that no matter how I phrase this, it can (and would) be abused. I'm not clever enough to avoid that. But as I look at history, humans don't play nice just because. Many of the nice things that we have now all stand on regulation, which previous, bad behavior prompted. For a little example, the common charger for phones. If phone companies can be regulated into one charger standard, I'm sure we could also make software options look and behave equal.

Just FYI but on the store page Steam lists features a game has. If it does not list Steam Cloud, then it does not use Steam Cloud for save games. Bloons TD 6 does not list Steam Cloud.

That's a very good tip, thanks, I'll look out for it the next time.

> Does every program need to support offline account? (what about MMO games?)

MMOs are all about connecting to other other people, hard to do that offline. Reductio ad absurdum is not a valid argument for social issues.

I do however think that all multiplayer games should publicise their server components, at least when the operator shuts them down.

> What if I don't want to install a particular Windows update because I dislike something about it? Right now I can stay forever on an obsolete version (I assume), but that's not "equally represented" - my computer is broken now.

Security updates and bug fixes should not mean forced functionality changes, yes.

website you've never seen before:

"Sign up for our newsletter?"

"Yes! I want $10 off my first purchase of $200 or more!" "No, I hate saving money."

“Your answer ‘I hate savings’ contains the letter ‘S’, just like the word ‘yes’. You have been signed up for newsletters anyway.”

My pet peeve is ones that make you say "Please". I don't know what they are thinking.

> "No, I hate saving money."

Funny thing -- in my head, that sounds exactly like "No, I hate manipulative assholes."

> Companies should really accept a "No" from their users.

At some point, it gets into “creepy pervert” territory.

I got this from BBC Sounds app.

https://imgur.com/a/CSMwv96

A full screen dialogue box with no other way of dismissing it but “maybe later”.

“Switch on notifications and we'll find new releases that you might like, so you don't have to.

Sounds good

Maybe later”

No shred of concern for consent.

I get if you’re a scrappy startup growth hacking taking ethical shortcuts. But a public service broadcaster should have better standards.

(edit - to be clear, scummy behaviour is scummy behaviour whoever's doing it)

> I get if you’re a scrappy startup growth hacking taking ethical shortcuts.

Nope.

Scrappy startup or established corporation, it doesn't matter. Taking ethical shortcuts makes you a Bad Guy.

One of the reasons I refuse to install the thing. Another being it no doubt it requires me to setup an account (making up personal details as I do so) like other BBC properties do. There are some things I've stopped listening to as they are not available elsewhere (or are available 28 days later but have time sensitive content). At some point, if this keep moving this way, I'll use BBC content so little that I can just disable it on all my devices and stop paying the license fee (unless by then the licensing arrangement has changed so I'm still liable to pay in that circumstance).

Interestingly the image host you link to with that screenshot refuses to remember that I don't want to install their app on my device.

Look this stuff might be stupid but they really don't need your consent to do offer certain features on their website/app which you are voluntarily using.

It seems you are the one who does not understand consent.

How about fucking Signal. You know, the privacy oriented app that's written by one of the supposed good guys. On iOS at least the prompt to gain access to your contacts provides two choies: Yes" "Remind me later".

No. Fucking. Thanks.

I keep saying that if someone understood consent like tech companies, you would keep an eye on your drink whenever they’re around.

Companies don't actually care at all when you say no. Developers who can leverage a 2% kpi bump into a promotion care, and are driving this. (And to be clear, they don't get the promotion because "the company" cares, but because their management chain can transitively benefit.

It's terrifying how many people in business clearly have a complete lack of understanding of what consent means.

I've heard comments like "behind every no is a yes" made with a straight face, as if it wasn't insanely horrible and gross.

It's terrifying how many people absolutely refuse to leave their abusers, and even defend them. "Maybe he'll change."

Not just the account. The telemetry should have a complete off switch too.

They'll never let you disable all of their data collection. They need that data to sell to the government, help them decide which ads to push at you, and to leverage against you in any other way which might benefit them.

Companies realize that they're in monopolistic situations where users don't really have a choice, so they know that they're not in any real danger of a significant percentage of users dropping them just because they're doing something awful / annoying. See also: Comcast. The other place this works is if all of the companies in the market hold the line with a particular brand of BS, like gyms. If any of them just offered access for $60/mo with no subscriptions or sign-up / cancellation fees, they'd destroy the industry for everyone else. I'd guess that if anyone tried to do it, they'd get bought out in short order by one of the other large health club companies. Yay capitalism + weak consumer protections.

cough Reddit Mobile Web cough

probably a hot take but microsoft's product and pm culture is garbage leftover from the microsoft's anti customer era and is most entrenched in windows and other old orgs

They're still acting like a monopoly when that positioning is long gone.

Not in large orgs. They missed the Internet, but they did one smart thing: they put Novell out of business by offering a free alternative. Everybody got hooked up and now it's too late. Practically all large organizations that have desktop users are using AD.

> leftover from the microsoft's anti customer era

Are you saying they're in some different era now?

I'm assuming Azure has less of the culture but I haven't personally experienced it. Mostly my thought is the old culture is much stronger in the older orgs. They seem to be trying to change it but the change is really just superficial with the same people using new words but doing the same things.

It also seems like the MS approach would be very much against the "consent" concept of the GDPR.

Maybe they'll have a different model for windows-in-EU vs elsewhere?

This is what autonomy and consent is all about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com