Microsoft ad banner nags you in Windows 10 File Explorer

[AETAaAS]

Is Android much apart from Google Play Services nowadays? Most apps seem to require Play Services. Many Android File Explorers are ad-supported for the free version, so ads appearing in my file explorer isn't exactly an alien concept. Ignore and carry on, IMNSHO.

To answer the first part theoretically, yes. Practically more often no than yes. Good examples for the 'no' camp are such as the Amazon tablets and Fire TV systems and the AOSP devices which ship without Google Play. These are more common in the Chinese and Indian markets (though grey-to-black market phones/tablets/TV sticks/TV boxes can be found), because shipping an Android device without Google Play in Western markets is not going to fly at all, to the point where specifically advertising Google Play is positive marketing.

You can try going Play free yourself. Flash a clean ROM from places like XDA, skip the Google Play packages and you can get by with 3rd party markets like the Amazon Appstore, Getjar or F-Droid. I definitely wouldn't say most apps require Play Services, just from looking at what is on offer in other markets. The ones that do may do so for verification, Google specific integration or some bells and whistles that Play Services provide.

But to your last point, most Android devices ship with a standard file viewer which will not contain ads. The ones you mention are 3rd party, made by someone who did not get paid when you bought your device or use Google's services. For their time and effort creating the software, they are entitled to making some money.

The explorer has been part of Windows for ages, and most would consider that having paid for Windows, Explorer was a component which was also paid for.

[Wozza63]

Was hoping to eventually be convinced that W10 would be better than sticking with W7 or even 8.1, but I'm not seeing much to convince me. Last thing that had my attention was the update that added BASH support.

[watercooled]

I've been the first to defend Windows 10 but even I think this is a step too far. I realise Microsoft need to make money on the OS now but there must be better ways...

Retail upgrades were, as I understand it, never a major source of income from Windows anyway. Device manufacturers still pay for licenses the same as before, and retail licenses still cost money.

Some have even suggested that Win10's free upgrades would have actually saved MS money, by drastically reducing the number of legacy systems they have to support with updates.

[donkiddik]

I sometimes have a quick game of freecell, now when I want to play it tries to make me upgrade and pay a monthly subscription to go ad free, ridiculous! If this is the way W10 is going I can see myself just using W7

[CyberScooby]

This is one of many reasons why Linux is my main O/S

[Saracen]

I feel like this was a pretty natural development, given the direction they've been working in, but that doesn't detract from this being yet another negative practice. At what point will Windows be more advertisement for Windows services than operating system? Imagine Android being essentially Google Play Services.

It's precisely the "direction they've been working in" bit that led me to seek alternatives to MS, or at least, new MS OSs.

I'm starting to feel it quite hard to avoid "told you so" type remarks in threads like this.

Regulars will know my opinion of W10, which is not that it is bas as an OS, because it isn't. In fact, in many respects, it's very good indeed.

BUT ..... there has just been a direction of travel, too many individual decisions which while trivial on their own, once taken collectively strongly suggest a mindset, a direction, a long-term strategic plan, which takes MS to a destination that personally, I am not prepared to go.

For me, a personal computer is precisely that - a computer that's personal. The instant MS decided that THEY can insrall upgrades, to do whatever they want, regardless of whether I, the owner of the PC, mind or not, and even if I vehemently object, they crossed a red line. And unlike Mr. B. Obama, a red line IS a red line, not an idle threat.

The break point was when an MS exec stated they were, paraphrasing, "changing how they monetised Windows". IMHO, they're doing more than that. They are changing Windows from a personal computer OS into a platform for MS to market other services direct into our homes and offices, which to me means into MY home and home-office. It turns MY OS into a trojan horse, and moreover, one that increasingly snoops on me.

And THAT, the removal of control of MY OS from my hands into a tool for MS is an absolute non-starter.

It's forced me to radically change how I use computers, depending on what it is I'm trying to do. Most generic web stuff, like browsing, is done on an Android tablet which (due to Google) has NO personal information on it, and never has had. Not so much as an enail address. It's also rooted, and connects via an encrypted VPN service.

Systems which have personal info on them, like my accounts functions, property and investment data, extensive genealogy data, photos, and much more, are on old legacy systens, mainly under Win7, with absolutely no way to be connected to the net, that is, no wifi at all, of any type, and no cabled connection. As I don't need upgrades, to do what I want, and don't need security, firewall, Antivirus, antimalware, etc, I can let them just sit there, doing their thing.

Then, separare from the above, I've replaced main 'admin' functions, like email, WP etc, with Linux OS and Linux apps. I REALLY didn't want to go that way, but the writing has been on the wall, clearly for all to see with just a little imagination, for MS since not long after the days of the Win8 Start button fiasco. I use Linux because MS forced me to, and in fact, the transition was far, FAR less hassle that I expected.

As someone that's been using MS OS's, albeit with some deviations into Netware, OS/2 etc, since the days of the original IBM PC, and Windows since it became viable, around 3.11, and evaluating it for several years before that (I still certainly have Windows 2 boxed somewhere, and probably V1 too) I am NOT HAPPY about being forced out, but MS, you chose your direction and if, as slowly seems to be becoming the case, resentment over that direction is growing, well .... you only have yourself to blame.

Luckily, I don't actually need the internet for anything. It's useful, nice for sone things, but I know, having tested the hypotheses for several months, that I CAN live life entirely without it. Cut free entirely. And if MS, Google and others keep up with their efforts to turn it into a combination of a snooper's paradise and an ad-serving platform in our homes, then I will.

They're not there yet, but it's getting closer to that day. And at that point, MS and Google can both take their offerings, fold them until they're all sharp corners, dip them in lighter fluid, set fire to them and shove 'em as far up where the sun don't shine as is possible.

[Wrinkly]

I've been the first to defend Windows 10 but even I think this is a step too far. I realise Microsoft need to make money on the OS now but there must be better ways...

We once had the better way. They used to develop OS’s that we would pay money for.

[cheesemp]

We once had the better way. They used to develop OS’s that we would pay money for.

Yes but that market is ever shrinking thanks to iOS and Android. A reducing OEM and consumer market for full blown OSs is never going to make big bucks again and thats the problem MS have. Charge to much and keep pushing people to Linux/Android (and when I say people I mean regular users not techies like us). They've therefore decided to make the OS nearly free to try and sell services - problem is no one is really buying said services or using the marketplace (that I'm aware of)...

[scaryjim]

We once had the better way. They used to develop OS’s that we would pay money for.

They still do - for enterprise customers. Buy into the enterprise versions of Windows and you get massively more control over what does and doesn't appear for your users.

The thing is, back in the day home PCs were treated very much like office PCs - the assumption was if you had a PC at home your use case for it was probably similar to the uses in the office - word processing, email, productivity, along with, potentially, some PC gaming. That's changed dramatically over the last 5 to 10 years, where the assumption is that everyone has a PC of some description (mostly laptops nowadays) and they're mostly used as content consumption devices - far more a consumer electronics role rather than a traditional "computing" role. To an extent it leaves Microsoft in an awkward position - the consumer market is steadily moving conceptually away from desktop Windows, while still wanting access to all of its familiar Windows software, and Windows up to 7 looked like a system you'd use in the office, not a consumer electronics interface.

I can't help wondering if the next couple of years will be where MS finally split the consumer and enterprise versions of Windows. They half tried it with Win RT but the lack of emulation for Win 32 apps kind of killed that off. Now they've started playing with Windows 10 Cloud and the new ARM version for cellular PCs ... it looks like they're heading back down that road, but with better application support. And I can't see them being arrogant enough to try to foist all this stuff on enterprise customers, which suggests an increasing degree of product segmentation to me. Wonder if they'll be smart enough to release the Enterprise version in a form prosumer/power users can buy....

[AGTDenton]

It's for reasons like this we still aren't rolling out Win 10 en mass within a controlled environment. We would constantly have to battle changes to the user experience that Microsoft dream up at every opportunity. At least with Win 7 we're able to create a nice simple unintrusive environment that since the 'get Win 10 update prompt' fiasco that they forced down have rarely had to modify.

[scaryjim]

It's for reasons like this we still aren't rolling out Win 10 en mass within a controlled environment. We would constantly have to battle changes to the user experience that Microsoft dream up at every opportunity. ....

If you're using the Enterprise version, Group Policy and WSUS (which you should be in a controlled environment) then it really wouldn't be much of a battle...

[Ttaskmaster]

Jeez, if you think this is bad.... apparently some of our customers are refusing the new 'Smart-Meters' that bill you on just what you use rather than overpaying with rates, on the basis that we might be using such devices to spy on them!!

[Lord Midas]

What a load of rubbishing rubbishness. Ads in your apps is one thing, but ads in your OS? GTFO!!

[The Hand]

We could see the advent of a subscription version of Windows 10 without telemetry/spying and adverts. Antivirus/internet security already do it, so why not Windows 10? It could be a steady earner for Microsoft with a much smaller upfront cost to the customer and then gets renewed every 12, 24 or so months.

[Ttaskmaster]

What a load of rubbishing rubbishness. Ads in your apps is one thing, but ads in your OS? GTFO!!

Technically OneDrive still is the app, no?

[Saracen]

Jeez, if you think this is bad.... apparently some of our customers are refusing the new 'Smart-Meters' that bill you on just what you use rather than overpaying with rates, on the basis that we might be using such devices to spy on them!!

A Smartmeter "spying" on users is overstating it a bit, but nonetheless, such meters can be used to provide a granulatity of information from which it could be inferred, for example, when I'm away on holiday.

I already have a monitor on my mains which gives me a pretty good idea of my variations in usage, and while the inductive sensor no doubt is considerably less accurate than an actual meter, it's plenty accurate enough for me to 'tune' my usage. Also, I have nightly gas and electricity meter readings logged, every day, for about 20 years, the only exceptions being when I'm away for a period, and then total usage for that period is pro-rata'd equally, and marked as estimated not actual.

Add to that that I do, and prefer, to pay quarterly in arrears, and while a smart meter might offer benefits to the company in terms of meter reading, it offers NOTHING to me that I need or want, but risks giving that granularity of data that could compromise my privacy of movement.

So yeah, damn right I'll refuse a smart meter up to and until it is legally mandatory, and then, I will insist on tbe sampling rate turned down to the absolute minimum required solely for billing.

All a smart meter is to me is one more expensive white elephant we consumers are being expected to pay for, and one more item for opportunistic hackers to mess with. Conventional meters have worked perfectly well for me my entire house-owning life, and I see no point to or benefit in changing.

A water meter, on the other hand, is a damned good idea for SOME customers, and a horror story for others, depending on how the home's actual occupany compares to expected occupancy for a house that size. As we under-occupy, in those terms, paying by actual usage rather than on a rated basis, is much cheaper for us.