[1_player]

They make more off you if you have a regular licence and they can sell your data. You wanting to pay extra not to be spied upon is irrelevant, you have no choice in the matter.

Very simply, the money lost because some people have left Windows for greener pastures is being offset by the increased revenue.

[lukas099]

There must be some amount of money that someone could pay to make it worth it to Microsoft to not show ads or sell data. The problem is, I doubt many people would actually pay that amount.

[sylens]

There was an interesting interview on the Windows Weekly podcast with Chris Capossela (CMO of consumer at Microsoft) a little ways back I believe where the hosts asked Chris why there is no ability to do just this - I believe the answer was that Microsoft views these features as valuable to the user, so why would they think that a user would want to turn them off?

[marssaxman]

I wonder, do marketing types actually believe that kind of nonsense? Could it actually be true for them, personally, that they feel they get some benefit from intrusive communication? That would be such a different experience of the world that it's difficult to wrap my head around.

And yet... I was once griping about one or another of the many tricky ways excessively-clever web designers abuse javascript to impose their concept of a "user experience" on me when I would deeply prefer they simply left well enough alone, and my listener replied - "but what if I want the experience they're offering"? - Well, that thought had never occurred to me.

[tomc1985]

It's very difficult to get meaningful action out of people whose paycheck might depend on not acting.

[hackerfromthefu]

No, they do not. The ones who are making choices about it anyway. They just realise they can manipulate the masses.

[dend]

I don't disagree with this. It's the unfortunate reality that I hope changes, but that change needs to come from _a lot_ of dissatisfied customers.