I've seen some desperate stuff over the years...
...but that's so pathetic I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
"Please be my friend! I'll pay you! Pleeeeese...?"
Microsoft is so keen to attract users to its Edge browser that it will pay people to use it. Folks in the US can earn credits that can be spent in the Microsoft online store on things like three months of advertisement-free Outlook and Amazon cards. Microsoft won't let you just run Edge and cash in: it will monitor user's …
Oh, this is just an extension of what they have been doing with Bing for years (only available in the US of A). A bunch of people have created scripts which collect your daily points for you.... It makes you wonder if Microsoft has many thousands to millions of searches a day for Bing to artificially boost their market share which no one actually ever sees. Very likely. If they dropped that Bing program, or even alter it... which they are currently doing, they would see their not that high now market share fall off a cliff.... You would think marketers would discount a search engine where most of the users are either scripting searches or just entering random stuff in order to hit their daily point total to get their once a month or two cup of coffee. Not sure how it is viewed or if marketers even realize it it happening.
If there was evidence, I think it would be a big story... but put it this way, there are several extensions in Chrome (ironically) for Bing rewards bots which script searches. They all have several thousand *reviews* of the extension. Even if you assume that every user that uses the extension submits a review, not reasonable, we are talking about millions of aggregate searches a month... just on Chrome extensions.
While I click through the top stories (with two accounts, not strictly kosher) each morning to get my news fix (and pull in about $150/year in Amazon credits), I doubt Bing Rewards is bumping the numbers up that much. It's more the sheep who use defaults on their PC without thinking (and this also applies to Google/Chrome and Apple/Safari). Just look at the complaints about Outlook ads. With Firefox and uBlock, I don't see ads on Outlook (or Gmail or Yahoo) but only because I went beyond the defaults.
Just playing devils advocate here, but isn't this a tactic used by a massive number of companies these days? It's like I can barely shop anywhere without being incentivised with a points system to buy certain products or asked why I don't have a "loyalty card".
"My standard reply to that is that I'm not a loyal customer."
My reply at my local Waitrose supermarket is that I am a loyal customer - but I don;t like being tracked.
It slows down the checkout queue when people fumble for their loyalty card, and a bunch of mostly ineligible discount coupons. - and then have to decide if they want a free tea or coffee. Finally they remember they have a "free parking" token to validate - somewhere in one of their pockets/purse/handbag.
The "basket only" checkout is compromised by also selling lottery tickets. People stand there while their several previous lottery tickets are checked to see if they won anything - before they then want to buy new ones.
God yes! The guy with a dozen tickets check, cash in, or renew, plus he wants to buy five scratch tickets, no, not that one , THAT one there, and can I choose which one you give me, and no, I won't accept a ticket with a random generated number, I want my LUCKY number.
Really? So I guess when Domino's, Papa Johns, Pizza Hut and all the other pizza chains give coupons for their pizza, it must mean they're desperate and "really really want you to be your friend"? Or When Macy's offers you a rewards card to shop at Macy's it must be a sign that their products are lousy and they're about to go out of business any day now?
They are now beyond even the most extreme fucking parody of themselves you could possibly imagine.
They pissed away phones, pissed away all credibility in their desktop OS's since windows 7, pissed away their IE browser share market lead even though it was bundled by default with the OS everyone was using, and now want to pay people to use their new browser instead.
Like I've always said, when people have a choice, they choose not to use microsoft. Their entire history is based on the premise they could do what they wanted because their users had no choice.
Now they do. Bye.
Zika virus researchers have a similar deal like that of Microsoft getting paid to use Edge. Researchers looking for volunteers willing to be infected with Zika virus & they will pay you too! Intentionally getting the Zika virus & dealing with the side effects of the virus & medications sounds like the better paying deal compared to being required to use Edge!
"Microsoft's daily earnings restrictions which limit users to scoring 25 credits a day across 50 searches, 20 of which must be made on mobile."
So you have to use Edge, on mobile, to qualify?
And give up all privacy while doing so?
MS, Even you don't have enough money to pay me to do that!
The difference being that Microsoft only tracks you if you:
1) Sign up for Microsoft Rewards
2) Use the Edge Browser and
3) Sign into your Microsoft Account while doing so
Meaning that you can turn off the tracking any time you like simply by signing out of your Microsoft Account.
Of course Google tries to watch everything you do. It's in the disclaimer that everyone dismisses the first time they signed in to Chrome or "improved" their GPS settings.
The difference is that Google offers nice stuff for your soul. It's hard to feel like you're getting a good deal with Edge and Starbucks.
Do Microsoft even have 20 'active' Windows 10 Mobile Users left?, and by active, I don't mean having a Nokia Mobile to test the latest Windows 10 insider build, just in case they might actually write a Windows 10 Universal App, but never do.
I mean someone still using Windows Mobile day in, day out, and also using Edge (and Bing for that matter). That 'exclusive' (elusive) user seems to be about as rare as a misprinted Penny Black stamp.
I'm not sure how this came up, since you don't need to use Windows 10 Mobile to use Bing Rewards or its successor, Microsoft Rewards. The current version of Bing Rewards (sometimes) distinguishes between PC and mobile searches; currently users can earn 15 credits on the PC and 10 on mobile (regardless of device or OS used). That said it would be nice if Microsoft gave extra credits to those of us who do use W10 Mobile.
The current version of Bing Rewards (sometimes) distinguishes between PC and mobile searches; currently users can earn 15 credits on the PC and 10 on mobile (regardless of device or OS used). That said it would be nice if Microsoft gave extra credits to those of us who do use W10 Mobile.
Thank you, Cortana!
Please tell me more about Windows 10 mobile.
Starbucks? 3 Months of no ads on Outlook? WTF is this? I'd find ads on Outlook enough to stay away from Win10 and Outlook... but Starbucks is adding insult to injury. It's not coffee. It's something that's been burned to resemble coffee. Excuse me while I go gag....
Edit... they can pull all the happy horsecrap they want... no Win10 for me... ever.
I skimmed the article too and didn't catch this until I read Mark 85's comment.
Do people really get adverts in some version of Outlook? Hah, that's like having a special window that iterates through your spam folder. Kudos to MS in getting people to think that's a thing - and then getting them to sell their privacy to get rid of it!
How low can you go?
Microsoft started a Gmail competitor called Outlook.com years ago. That's what they are talking about.... It would be hilarious though if someone called up Microsoft and said "I want my three month of ad free Outlook... get all of these buttons about Skype and Delve and Sway off of Outlook."
I've been using outlook.com for years, well technically Hotmail, but that got switched over about a year ago (though thankfully it didn't change my email address) and it works great. I've also never seen a single ad in all that time, but maybe that's because I use NoScript and ADP?
"I've also never seen a single ad in all that time, but maybe that's because I use NoScript and ADP?"
But what about all the phishing spam pretending to come from Hotmail/Outlook/Live/whatever admin that they fail to filter out? Maybe an offer of Outlook without spam for 3 months would be better.
I'm sure it sends emails when you hit send, but no version of Outlook is as good as Gmail. Gmail is clean and intuitive, but beyond the surface simplicity... very powerful. There is no other email system in the world where you can do things like find an email from 8 years ago with only a vague remembrance of the subject in 4 seconds. I don't know who doesn't like the conversation structure as opposed to the old school random chronological structure (those set in their ways, I suspect), but I think it is clearly better too... Gmail organizes email where as others just give you a long list. There is nothing close to the social and promotional tabs in any other email systems either... not that I care about looking at them, but it is nice that I don't have to worry about listing my email on any site and getting spammed because Gmail figures out what I want to see and don't want to see almost perfectly. I don't think they will ever catch Google in email.
Having used Gmail extensively before switching to Outlook last year, I know for a fact that Gmail sends your e-mail when you hit send, but no version of Gmail is as good as Outlook. Its look is clean, modern, and intuitive, and I have never had a problem locating an e-mail in Outlook. Gmail doesn't even provide you a full screen to compose your e-mail; you're forced to use a little dialogue box in one corner. I know many people who don't like the conversation structure in Gmail, but for what it's worth, the same structure exists in Outlook and can be turned on and off as the user pleases. Gmail also generates advertisements based on the content of your messages and does not offer any paid version that can turn advertising off. Outlook.com, on the other hand, provides advertisements based only on demographic information you provide when you set up your account and, for $20 a year, will let you not be advertised at, at all. Then of course there is the fact that when you use Gmail you are forced to use Google Drive for cloud storage, which in my experience tends to mangle Office documents when they are uploaded.
You can definitely expand the Gmail compose window to make it larger. You can also pay to have Google not webcrawl your email for ad purposes or display ads, if you have the Google for Work Enterprise version of Apps. I don't really care if they scan my email for ad words. As nearly half the world population with internet access has a Gmail account (1.2 billion active Gmail users, 3 billion people on earth have some access to Internet), it doesn't seem to bother many people... but others may have different views of privacy. I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder, but I find the Outlook full client to be anything but "clean" or 'modern' with their ribbons, myriad of buttons, menus which I never used. It is a younger generation vs older generation thing too. 76 of the 100 largest unis in the US (probably similar globally, not sure) use Gmail and Google Apps. Most K-12 use Google Apps and Chromebooks in the US. If you are accustomed to Google Apps and then are thrown into Outlook having never used Outlook or Office (many people coming out of Uni have never owned either), you are thinking 'what is all of this? Delve?'. Many people who are older though have used Office applications for years though so they feel the opposite..... IMO, the killer feature of Gmail that Outlook has no answer for is the Google search of emails and never having to delete or archive an email..... Oh, and drafts. I always hated when I worked at a company that used Outlook that I might start an email on my phone and then want to pick it up on desktop or vice versa... you can't do that in Outlook as the draft files are saved to the local copy. In Gmail, like Chrome, they are real time synced.... I can't speak to the file format thing as we use Google Docs at work. Possible, but I would pin that one on MSFT's refusal to adopt the common standards to disrupt open source, not Drive.
Total, utter bollocks.
The search in Outlook and Gmail are both very good. Nothing between them.
Drafts are saved in Exchange, so I can start on a desktop and finish on my mobile.
You're confusing a company buying something and them using it at scale. A large college we support has 2 Chromebooks, but over 10,000 students. Your comment would include them, but 98% of their estate is traditional Windows and they aren't looking further at Chromebooks. Another large company we support flirted heavily with Google, pitching them against MS. Created a few accounts with GAFE etc. Opted to stay with on premise Exchange but got MS to toss them free O365 for hybrid stuff. Again your "figures" would included these as people buying and moving towards Google, but that's a spurious claim at best.
Like saying "over 80% of businesses have deployed Windows 10". Maybe factually correct, but all that means is 80% of businesses have deployed ONE copy of W10 for testing only to decide it's shite.
At best your information is severely outdated or you're simply talking nonsense. The last two versions of Exchange/Outlook stored drafts server side rather than client side, the last three versions (at least) do server side indexing and searching. Suggest you push your employers to invest in more modern versions of Exchange, or compare like-for-like by comparing Gmail (cloud service) with Office 365 (cloud service). Both have excellent search, server-side drafts, integration with various cloud storage providers etc. Biggest difference is around scanning the content of your emails and the user interface. Oh, and Google do that weird "Inbox" feature, although I personally don't like it.
Source - 16 years working for enterprise and education sectors directly or via a MSP deploying Exchange and O365 whilst comparing and competing with Google's offerings.
"You can definitely expand the Gmail compose window to make it larger." Larger is not the same thing as "full screen", and why should I have to expand the compose window to do this when every webmail provider for 20 years has managed to automatically give me a full screen to compose a new e-mail?
You can also pay to have Google not webcrawl your email for ad purposes or display ads, if you have the Google for Work Enterprise version of Apps." Not the same thing as ordinary, consumer-grade e-mail. Of course they would provide some ad-free version for corporate clients who pay them since no company is going to put up with having its internal e-mail scanned for advertising but that's not the same thing as the Gmail any ordinary consumer can sign up for. Google makes virtually all of its money but selling advertising so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they don't offer this simple option that its major competitors do.
"76 of the 100 largest unis in the US (probably similar globally, not sure) use Gmail and Google Apps. " I have no idea what your source for this is. When my university switched over to a Gmail based system for alumni e-mail addresses, I dropped my alumni e-mail address. They had a perfectly fine proprietary webmail system and instead they chose to put my e-mail in the hands of a company that has shown repeatedly it has no respect for privacy or intellectual property rights.
" As nearly half the world population with internet access has a Gmail account (1.2 billion active Gmail users, 3 billion people on earth have some access to Internet), it doesn't seem to bother many people... but others may have different views of privacy." 1.2 billion people have a Google account which is necessary for accessing all kinds of other Google services; how many of those people actively use their Gmail account for e-mail is unclear. Google has been slowly inuring the public to disregard privacy in all kinds of ways so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of the public no longer has the sense to be upset about having their private e-mail scanned to generate advertising.
"but I find the Outlook full client to be anything but "clean" or 'modern' with their ribbons, myriad of buttons, menus which I never used." You are comparing apples and oranges here. I am discussing Outlook.com, not the desktop version of Outlook, which I have never used and have no need for.
IMO, the killer feature of Gmail that Outlook has no answer for is the Google search of emails and never having to delete or archive an email..." All of which you can do on Outlook.com, which also comes with unlimited storage.
"Oh, and drafts. I always hated when I worked at a company that used Outlook that I might start an email on my phone and then want to pick it up on desktop or vice versa... you can't do that in Outlook as the draft files are saved to the local copy." Again you're comparing apples and oranges. I do this constantly with Outlook.com on my web browser and my Windows phone. You're describing the advantages of a cloud-based e-mail system, not any advantage unique to Gmail. Everything you're describing can be done equally well or better with Outlook.com and Microsoft web apps.
" I can't speak to the file format thing as we use Google Docs at work. Possible, but I would pin that one on MSFT's refusal to adopt the common standards to disrupt open source, not Drive." I have spent hours putting together beautiful PowerPoints only to upload them into Google Drive and have fonts and pictures absolutely mangled. Switched to Outlook.com and never had those problems again. Regardless of whose fault it is, Google advertises Drive as having compatibility with Office. If it doesn't it should stop advertising that.
get off my email ! ! !
yes, i am one of the troglodytes who prefer to have email SEPARATE and in chronological order... who said what, when, is often critical, and when it is all blobbed together in one mashup, it is becomes unwieldy...
i OFTEN want to refer to one particular email for some link, some info, some address, NOT a lump of undifferentiated text i have to wade through to pick out a nugget of what i want...
HATE one-blob email, HATE it...
The ads on Outlook are no different from the ads in Gmail or other web providers. Unlike Gmail, however, Microsoft does not use the contents of your e-mail to generate ads (only some very basic demographic info you give when you create your account) and will get rid of the ads together for a fee (currently $20 annually). One of the rewards you can choose on Bing Rewards is to have your Outlook account ad-free for a period of time.
Other Rewards currently offered are Amazon, Chipotle, and IHOP gift cards. There's a wide range of choices for the rewards so I don't understand this author's fixation on Starbucks.
Naw, they dropped the other third party rewards. It is down to Amazon and Starbucks, and they just raised the point value required for both as part of this little re-org. I bet they will eventually drop the third party gift certificates altogether and just use Windows Store gift certificates.
"Edge is at over 5% (combined all versions), not at 3.91%"
yeah being off by ~25% on a pathetically small market penetration was SO wrong, it deserves the deepest of apologies, and/or being whipped with a Cat5-o-nine-tails or caned with a cluebat...
So it's doing better than C-pound on the TIOBE index, then?
/me made a cat5-0-nine-tails once, with some old cat5 that would never be used. you basically use 5 cables, folding them in half, and the 10th strand wraps around the bent end using a 'noose knot', forming a nice handle in the process...
Edge is at around 5% of all browsing on all PCs worldwide. Take into account, though, that:
1) Edge is only available on Windows 10 computers. As only about a third of PC users have upgraded to Windows 10 thus far, that number is lower than it would be otherwise (and likely will be in a few years).
2) The statistics include Macintoshes, which do not offer Edge but do offer Google Chrome and Safari.
Most people I know don't bother with an OS upgrade until they either buy a new computer, have a software need that requires an upgrade, or find that their current OS is no longer supported.
Moreover, Windows 10 wasn't free to all users of Windows, just to those with a valid copy of Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 (about 70% of Windows users). The proportion of those eligible for an upgrade who took it is consistent with the uptake of previous editions of Windows.
"Moreover, Windows 10 wasn't free to all users of Windows, just to those with a valid copy of Windows 7, 8, or 8.1"
I don't think it was free to them either?
Presumably you have to convert a perfectly validy Win 7 (etc) licence to a Win 10 one? That's a cost. Pretty expensive one too.
Net Applications is in the tank for MSFT, one of their financial backers. They had to painfully "readjust" their algorithm earlier this year because they (seriously) had IE ahead of Chrome until six months ago... and everyone else in the world said "I think you're a bit off, because we have Chrome leading IE... by like 30%"... Even if it is 5%, that means the vast majority of Windows 10 users went out of their way to switch to Chrome, which MSFT made as difficult as possible... in violation of their anti-trust settlement. Not something similar to their anti-trust settlement, the exact thing they were not supposed to do which resulted in the anti-trust case in the first place.
Android has only this year reached 80% market share. Windows had that share (or better) on the desktop for the two decades from about 1990 to about 2010. I'm not a lawyer (*), so I don't know what sort of market share you need to have before anti-trust laws kick in, but Microsoft's troubles began in the early 90s, so Google may soon face an attack.
(* Actually, I think there are at least as many answers to that question as there are lawyers, since there are several jurisdictions where the question might be asked and no fixed rules in any of them to define either "monopoly" or "abuse".)
On the other hand, apart from the legal costs I can't see much evidence that MS were actually inconvenienced by losing the case.
Market share alone does not determine whether a company is a monopoly. That is determined by the company's ability to exclude rivals or would-be rivals. A company can have 100% market share in something and not be a monopoly if it has no ability to exclude potential competitors from the market. For example, the Department of Justice once went after a movie theatre chain for being a monopoly after it bought up all of the movie theatres in Las Vegas, but the case was dismissed because the chain had no power to keep someone else from starting a rival movie theatre. Despite the time and money the Department of Justice wasted going after Microsoft in the 1990s, Microsoft never was a monopoly for the simple reason that Microsoft had no ability to exclude would-be rivals in the operating systems market, the office suite market, or the browser market. The DOJ tried to fudge this fact by claiming that Microsoft had a monopoly in "the market for operating systems for personal computers using Intel's x86 chips", but this was legal chicanery on their part. Apple computers at the time did not run on x86 chips.
"Despite the time and money the Department of Justice wasted going after Microsoft in the 1990s, Microsoft never was a monopoly for the simple reason that Microsoft had no ability to exclude would-be rivals in the operating systems market, the office suite market, or the browser market"
False. The US government did declare Microsoft to be a monopoly. Convicted. Not only a monopoly, but an abusive monopoly which ran smaller competitors out of business (see Netscape). MSFT made a back room deal to avoid break up.
Go back and read the actual decision against Microsoft, as I have. The case was a political hatch job from beginning to end (as I've explained). The presiding judge in the case made various inflammatory statements about Microsoft while the case was still on trial that proved he was far from neutral. Microsoft appealed the case. Fortunately, a change of administration in Washington brought about a settlement from the Department of Justice, which knew it had little chance of winning an appeal.
Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer was not remotely illegal under antitrust laws. Nothing Microsoft did with Windows 95 or subsequent operating systems prevented users from purchasing or downloading and using another browser. It says a great deal that one of the people who testified on Microsoft's behalf in the suit was the president of a Microsoft rival, BeOS, which was itself bundling a web browser with its operating system.
In a classic monopoly, a company gets a dominating share in a market in order to constrict supply and raise prices. Microsoft didn't do this. Even the DOJ was forced to concede that during the 1990s, when Microsoft supposedly had a monopoly in the OS and office suite markets, the price of its core products kept falling.
It's a shame the American people's time and money were wasted with this suit.
Not necessarily. I regularly alternate among Edge, Firefox, and Chrome on my PC. I don't see why I shouldn't have a choice on my mobile device. Granted Microsoft is equally guilty here too as Windows Phone comes installed with IE/Edge. The lack of other browser options, however, is due to Google's refusal to provide a mobile version of Chrome for Windows not due to anything in the OS.
The U.S. Government's case against Microsoft was so weak that it should have been laughed out of court. It was a hatch job--literally a Hatch job, since the only reason it ever got off the ground was that Orin Hatch of Utah (where Netscape was based) pressured the Justice Department into pursuing it. The Justice Department defined the market in which Windows competed in a way that was patently absurd and ignored the existence of its main rival, Apple, claiming that Microsoft was a monopoly in "the market for operating systems for computers using Intel's x86 series of chips." It was farcically absurd to define the PC market that way since computers not using the x86 series could substitute for x86 series computers. The Justice Department conveniently ignored that computer users switched (and continue to switch) between MacOS and Windows all the time.
The Justice Department's argument rested on what it called the "applications barrier to entry"--essentially, there were so many more applications available for Windows than for anything else that no other OS could ever hope to gain a foothold in the market--and on "ecosystem lock", the assumption that, having purchased Windows software, a consumer would never switch to another operating system. This defied logic and experience, since consumers had done just that, repeatedly, with music formats, often repurchasing whole collection to move from vinyl/cassette to CD.
"The U.S. Government's case against Microsoft was so weak that it should have been laughed out of court."
It only looks that way now, because we are used to how things are right now.
Back in the day things were very different, and suffocating competitors' products in the cot by dumping products on the market (free browser, for example) was actually frowned upon.
Here's everything you need to know about the DOJ's case against Microsoft in a nutshell. The CEO of one of Microsoft's competitors, BeOS, testified on Microsoft's behalf because BeOS was also offering a free browser, NetPositive, with its operating system. What Microsoft did to Netscape was not only not illegal, it was not even unethical. Consumers wanted a plug-and-play solution in which a browser came with the OS, and Microsoft provided it. It is no more monopolistic than a car company providing headlights on its cars (which, believe it or not, were at one time an after-market accessory).
Nothing about Windows 95 or Windows 98 made it impossible to purchase or download and then install Netscape if the customer preferred it. It was no more difficult to install Netscape Navigator than it was to install any other piece of software. Nor did anything prevent purchasers of PCs from installing another operating system instead of or in addition to Windows.
If I was sufficiently motivated to try dump MS in all its guises from our systems at home- I think MS have just managed to find the tipping point here........ Life is too damn short. If my wife hadn't just bought (buggy) No Mans Sky for her laptop- we'd be totally eradicated here.......
MS are really taking taking the piss with this.
Actually I get the same or better search results using Bing and about $100 a year in Amazon gift cards. I don't know why whoever posted this article focused on Starbucks gift cards as if they were, or were going to be, the only rewards available. Just sticking within the world of Microsoft products and services, however, I could get:
1) A year of Microsoft's Groove Music ($99.90 a year, $20 a year cheaper than Apple Music or Spotify)
2) Office 365 ($70 a year) plus a TB of One Drive
"Or McDonalds coffee. I ended up buying one from a McD motorway service station (I was desperate for a drink) but ended up leaving it on the table. Undrinkable."
The only way to drink that and similar coffee-like beverages is to convince yourself that it's not coffee. It's a warm, brownish drink of indeterminate but probably sweet taste, preferable with other added flavourings. Thinking of it as actual coffee inevitable leads to disappointment.
Think Vimto, or Cola. Effectively "invented" flavours..
Are you talking about Chrome OS? The fastest growing segment, by far, of the PC market (really the only growing segment of the PC market as well). When Google Play is available next month, it should go into hyper growth as the 1.6 billion and growing Android user base will have all of their apps on Chromebook.
Chome OS? That thing that lets you browse the internet and do virtually nothing else? It has a niche market for schools that think their needs consist mainly of accessing the web, and even there it's losing ground as you can now buy sub-$200 computers running full Windows.
Apps are not a substitute for full desktop software for a wide variety of purposes needed by business and consumers.
Well it is a fact that Chrome OS is the fastest growing segment of the PC market by far. Growing rapidly in a declining overall market. Chromebooks overtook Mac to be second, albeit a distant second at this point, to Windows last year. The best part, or worst part if you are a Windows fan, the largest segment for Chromebooks was the education market where, in the US, they are a majority of PCs used. The next generation growing up on Chromebook. Now that Chromebooks will go from having just Google Apps to the entire Play store (way more apps and more recent apps than Windows), I bet that sales are going to skyrocket.
Businesses were naturally going to wait and see what happens before doing anything, but I think Chromebooks for the enterprise will take off too. If you are a business person, you cannot ignore the economic benefits. Zero dollar cost OS vs the millions many businesses pay for Windows on an EA (that's the big one). Secure by design, inherently more secure than Windows. Low cost and easy to manage as there is little to manage on the end user side.... and it is the future. Chrome is the dominant web browser. Every ISV and company will write Android apps, as it is by far the largest OS in the world and everyone now has a mobile first apps strategy (including Microsoft, officially).
Chromebooks don't run full desktop software and lack backward compatibility for existing Windows applications, all of which makes them a non-starter in the enterprise. The zero dollar cost OS means something to the OEM, not to the enterprise that purchases the computer. And when you pay zero dollars for something you generally get zero dollars worth of support for it. We've been hearing for 25 years now how Linux was going to take over the desktop because of its low cost, and we can see just how far that has gotten.
"IE and Edge" is five different mutually incompatible browsers supported by four different mutually incompatible operating systems. And only one of two of those operating systems for each IE or Edge.
What I'm getting at is that it makes no more sense to add these numbers together to make a "share" than it does to arbitrarily add Opera and Firefox together. The different versions of IE ought to count as entirely different browsers, and separate entirely from Edge.
You must not have Windows 10 yet... Microsoft will not let you forget it. They won't even let you remove Edge from the add/remove programs utility, like it is essential to the OS being able to run or something. They even write "Microsoft preferred browser" under it on the search bar... in case people couldn't figure out which browser they prefer.
You mean like the way iOS won't let the user remove Safari? Or Android won't let the user remove Chrome or the Google app store? I'm amazed that techy people waste so much time worrying about whether they can remove software that isn't doing their machine any harm and that they can simply choose not to use.
I've gotten $260 worth of Amazon $5 cards since February 2013 when I started this. I certainly don't mind the 5 minutes a day it takes. It usually takes around 3 weeks to acquire enough points for another gift card. Might be slower once they change though, since I am not on Windows 10.
You are obviously to young to know what bad coffee is if you think Starbucks is terrible. Before Starbucks American coffee was swill. I'm old enough, 62, to remember what coffee was like before Starbucks. We didn't know how bad it was and my parents generation, who had been through the Great Depression and WWII, didn't care. They only cared that it was cheap and plentiful and that's what was sold in the US. I found out what real coffee tasted like on a trip through Italy in 1980. I was young and staying in cheap pensiones. In the morning they gave you a cup of coffee and it was nothing like the mud that was served in the US. Even the most expensive restaurants in the US served awful coffee. The only place that I knew of that served a decent cup of coffee was a mafia hangout in the North End of Boston. Starbucks changed all that. Starbucks changed the culture so now there are craft roasters everywhere and anyone can make an excellent cup of coffee,
As for Microsoft, it's truely sad that they have to pay people to use their browser, and it's a sign of real desperation that they have to give away $5 cups of coffee, that's real money, as opposed to giving away cloud storage space which is virtual money.
"The only place that I knew of that served a decent cup of coffee was a mafia hangout in the North End of Boston."
Sounds interesting. Was it expresso based (Gaggia machine) or did they use mokapots for each order? Or filter? I assume that the - er - management were from Naples or Sicily.
PS: local franchised Starbucks in the coach station can do reasonable filter coffee when I swing through on the early morning commute. Depends who is on.
Then I guess my local coffee shop must be really desperate. Every time I go in I see a little pile of rewards cards that entitle the user to a free coffee after 10 or so coffees are purchased. And Macy's must be really desperate and hard up, since every time I buy a shirt there they try to get me to sign up for a rewards card. And don't get me started on United Airlines and their frequent flyer program. Must mean that all their planes crash and I shouldn't get on one, if they have to stoop to such levels to gain customers.
This is such a schoolyard retort! Anyone that defends someone like Microsoft's atrocious privacy invasion practices with the defense that Google/Android is "just as bad" is:
A.) Completely failing to address the point raised
B.) Presenting a false choice
People very concerned with privacy can leave that beaten path and install vanilla Android/ModOS/some clean ROM with little effort, or pay a techie to have it done. Nobody is making you install Google Play services. You can get apps from lots of places.
It's not remotely childish. I looked through the EULA for Windows 10 that has everyone up in arms and it was virtually identical to the ones Apple gives you when you buy an iPhone and the one Google gives you when you buy an Android phone. Yet I don't see 1000 stories all over the web about how Google and Apple don't care about your privacy.
As for installing another OS or ROM on my computer or phone, no thank you. I'll stick to the one that came with my computer, the one that provides me actual support with a real person on the phone, and not waste my time whining about the "Windows tax" of maybe $50 I paid for it.
While you are at it sort out the issues when printing pdf's from within edge.
I'm getting really pissed off at customers complaining about long \ more than 5 minutes to print pdf's. It works fine from foxit and acrobat reader and for some reason its extra clicks to set the default app to anything other than edge. Most users can't figure out how to do it, now it's part of our call out procedure to check that they are NOT using edge ffs, like I haven't got enough to do.
It is pretty crazy that MSFT can be paying any random person $100 a year to use their stuff and enter searches, probably more in some cases as if people are really into this they could get a bunch of accounts going at the same time and script searches, etc. This has to be costing them a fortune. It was just a US program so it was somewhat limited, but now they are opening it up to the internationals.... There is no way this can continue forever though, if you think about it. MSFT can dip into their Office and Windows cash pool for awhile to subsidize all of this other stuff, but they can't pay a billion people a $100 a year ($100 billion to Amazon and Starbucks). Even if they are paying a few million people that amount, they have to be running well in the red in these divisions.... If Google wasn't their competitor (and soundly beating them), this would be a big anti-trust issue.
It is just bad brand marketing on MSFT's part.... I guess there isn't much else they can do to get people interested, but they are basically establishing Windows, Edge, Bing as concretely inferior to Google's offerings. Also, they can never ever stop providing these "rewards" or people will feel cheated.
Right...so if one supermarket offers me green stamps and other doesn't, it must mean the second one sells better products?
Companies create and end rewards programs all the time. The only way they could make me feel cheated would be if they refused to honor rewards points I had already earned. So far Microsoft has not indicated any intention of doing so.
I would say that this move concretely establishes the superiority of Edge. I know Google is tracking me all the time when I use Chrome. With Edge I am tracked only if I sign up for a rewards program and am signed into my Microsoft Account. Meaning that I can turn the tracking off whenever I want to by simply signing out of my account.
"Right...so if one supermarket offers me green stamps and other doesn't, it must mean the second one sells better products?"
That's exactly what it means. Companies who are doing well don't give away cash to get you to come or use their service.
Notice MSFT doesn't have Office Rewards to get you to use Office, because they would just be giving away cash for little upside (even though Office is the brand that could easily afford to hand out cash to customers, certainly the brand that is paying for Bing Rewards).
"Companies who are doing well don't give away cash to get you to come or use their service." Or they are doing well and want to kill whatever competition they have. It amazes how in this whole discussion it's just been assumed that this rewards program "isn't working" for Microsoft. The numbers don't bear that out, as Bing's usage share has climbed from nonexistence 6-7 years ago to a third of the US search market. Microsoft has also made successful deals to have Bing power searches on other devices such as Amazon's Alexa.
"Notice MSFT doesn't have Office Rewards to get you to use Office, because they would just be giving away cash for little upside (even though Office is the brand that could easily afford to hand out cash to customers, certainly the brand that is paying for Bing Rewards)." Actually, in a manner they do, since Office is now bundled with OneDrive storage. I remember a few months back a lot of people got pissed off at Microsoft because they got rid of the "unlimited" OneDrive option bundled with Office and reduced the cap to 1TB. Someone I was talking to in a forum said he was going to switch to Google/Google Apps. I pointed out that the same service from Google Apps (1 TB of Google Drive space) cost $10 a month, or $120 per year. An Office 365 subscription, which includes the desktop version of Office, cost $70. It's amazing how some people are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
The first few weeks after foolishly upgrading to Win 10, I was actually quite impressed with the Edge browser. Many months and updates later, and it nearly unusable. I'll click on a link, wait a few fruitless minutes, open IE or Firefox, click the same link, and get the web page almost instantly.
Edge usually waits until I try filling out an online form several minutes later before stealing focus by finally popping up.
Even if MS were awarding free coffee every day, it still wouldn't be worth using that monstrosity.
Once again, ball dropped.
They should have leveraged the "free" Windows 10 mandatory download whether you want it or not technology and taken a leaf from the Chechnyan hacker mafia and gone the "use BING three times today or your hard drive will be encrypted" route.
Is everyone asleep at the wheel at Redmond?
Has anyone running the search bots to game this system checked to be sure it's not spam-searching PTHC and similar? I mean it'd be a good idea to know that before a van shows up outside your door.
Still... It'd be good for laugh. "Here's your $5.00 coffee and violent interrogation. Will there be anything else sir?"
Having people's scripts over-inflating Bing search numbers reminds me of the Silicon Valley episode where the skinny bloke (I forget his name, he is brilliant but his character is pure magnolia) where they are so happy when their user base is growing. Comedy is best when it is true
The Bing rewards program actually swayed me from Google. There really is very little difference in the quality of results between the two - each engine "wins" from query to query. As a part time photog I do like the Bing images and it is now difficult to use Google as my daily engine. So, point being, if I am rewarded for doing something I do everyday with a product that has equal quality to a product that doesn't reward me, then yes, I want the stuff.
So, on to Edge. I will say the anniversary update version is significantly better than the previous version. It is a very promising browser now that it has extensions (AdBlock Plus is the main one I use). I find Edge to be faster and of course we all know it sips your battery thanks to some MSFT tweets. So, I find it very good (not great) and am using it daily now. Give me the rewards.
Until I can open folder in a new tab group(which every other browser does including IE), Then Edge isn't even worth using for me.
A simple yet very useful function that many people use and are still requesting on win 10 forums/suggestions, But it's not there in Edge.
Also I want to open a new tab to my own choosing such as Google search, Not some top sites and suggested content, Top Sites or blank page crap.
So how about they fix Edge before even bothering to offer money to use it!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019