Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'Fuck You' Pattern

cedwards.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 619 posts

Re: The 'Fuck You' Pattern

#521

Post by errantmind »

jandrese wrote: post #70
axbytg wrote: post #5

Reddit is full of these patterns in order to drive users from mobile web to app. Reddit mobile web really sets the bar for user-hostile UI in my opinion.

Reddit's new UI is still hilariously terrible. The day they remove old.reddit.com is the day I stop using the site. Who the hell thinks what I want when I click on an article is to bring it into a related article feed with 1.5 comments showing? If I accidentally click outside of the article area the whole thing vanishes with no way to get back where I was. I had thought these issues would be obvious and they would cl…

What is really boggling is people paying to 'gild' posts, which is very profitable, while the company also employs all these dark patterns / user tracking / data selling

Re: The 'Fuck You' Pattern

#522

Post by phreeza »

privacythrow1 wrote: post #473
6502nerdface wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess someone could argue that it only costs $150 because of the ads. Windows 95 cost well over twice that when it was launched (inflation adjusted). Maybe in the same way that airfares are way cheaper than they were in the 90s, but with much crappier included service.

Certainly the costs in the 90s were tied directly to physical distribution and comparatively lesser market demand. Whereas nowadays digital distribution is king and market demand is ubiquitous. I'd consider those factors to be responsible for driving prices down before I'd give a multinational corporation credit for allowing me to use their product (that I paid for) in return for pervasive advertising.

A music CD has very similar physical distribution costs, and those often sold for less than 20$ if memory serves.

Re: The 'Fuck You' Pattern

#523

Post by truth_ »

behnamoh wrote: post #484
XorNot wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does this explain why Windows 10, which I have paid like $150 for per license, is now infested with ads, tracking and online presence - and close to impossible to buy without that. They aren't even trying to put a $ figure on what they think it's worth - because they can't be stopped from doing it. There is no implied agreement, it's exactly as stated.

While I don't like Windows 10 telemetry and other shady diagnostics services that lurk in the background, I've never seen any ads "infesting" the OS at all, and I'm online almost all day. Which part of Windows displays ads?

> I've never seen any ads "infesting" the OS at all

That is about to change with Windows 11 "Feeds".

Re: The 'Fuck You' Pattern

#524

Post by msravi »

6502nerdface wrote: post #445
XorNot wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does this explain why Windows 10, which I have paid like $150 for per license, is now infested with ads, tracking and online presence - and close to impossible to buy without that. They aren't even trying to put a $ figure on what they think it's worth - because they can't be stopped from doing it. There is no implied agreement, it's exactly as stated.

I guess someone could argue that it only costs $150 because of the ads. Windows 95 cost well over twice that when it was launched (inflation adjusted). Maybe in the same way that airfares are way cheaper than they were in the 90s, but with much crappier included service.

Ok, so why isn't there an option to just buy the thing at its actual cost without the subsidy and without ads? Are they unable to put a $ value on how much the ads will garner them over, say, a 3-year period?

FWIW, I have Linux Mint on all laptops at home, including the ones used by the kids and the elderly, even though I've already paid for the Windows 10 license by virtue of having purchased them default installed.

Re: The 'Fuck You' Pattern

#525

Post by sheinsheish »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #57

"Wow, fuck you. I just wanted to look at cats." "Well, fuck you, too. We're here to sell ads." It's not about dark patterns, that's just a second-order effect. It was never about dark patterns. This is the implied agreement. You understand it, or you don't. And if you don't, I guess you haven't been on the web in the past decade or something. What? You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical i…

“Wow fuck you, I don’t.”

Re: The 'Fuck You' Pattern

#526

Post by jollybean »

I don't think that's a dark pattern.

A dark pattern is trying to trick you into something silly.

Like buying something extra you didn't even know about.

This is just them saying 'login' and when you try to get around it, they're saying 'login' again.

Re: The 'Fuck You' Pattern

#528

Post by gorgoiler »

e12e wrote: post #174
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #57

"Wow, fuck you. I just wanted to look at cats." "Well, fuck you, too. We're here to sell ads." It's not about dark patterns, that's just a second-order effect. It was never about dark patterns. This is the implied agreement. You understand it, or you don't. And if you don't, I guess you haven't been on the web in the past decade or something. What? You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical i…

> You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure and staffing so you can sit at home and spend your time looking at cats for free? No, they have your attention and they're going to connect you to organizations who will pay for it. "The infrastructure" to share cat pictures cost peanuts. It's the addictive dark patterns and montezation/tracking that costs millions. That's the irony.

You need content, which means you need to become popular.

This drives up complexity of the business operation overall, not just the infrastructure.

Re: The 'Fuck You' Pattern

#529

Post by watwut »

_trampeltier wrote: post #502
XorNot wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does this explain why Windows 10, which I have paid like $150 for per license, is now infested with ads, tracking and online presence - and close to impossible to buy without that. They aren't even trying to put a $ figure on what they think it's worth - because they can't be stopped from doing it. There is no implied agreement, it's exactly as stated.

What I don't undestand, even Win 10 Pro has XBox and candys all over the place .. serious in a pro version?!? With the terrible EULA it all felt just like a joke to me and I deleted all my Windows installations and I'm Linux only now at home. I'm not using Linux because it is free. I have 4 unused Win10 Pro licenses at home now. But I just can't say yes to the EULA. So I dumped them all. In the late 90s I also bought…

The XBox game bar is useful for work actually - it is easy to make videos of bugs or how to use app with it.

Re: The 'Fuck You' Pattern

#530

Post by pronlover723 »

l33t2328 wrote: post #496
jokethrowaway wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The single killer feature of windows, unrivaled by Mac or Linux, is playing video-games. Expensive professional software is often available on Mac. Probably the target market for windows evolved to become people who tolerate advertising (or at least that's what PMs at M$ think). Half the price is paid in the license fee. The other half is a lifetime of ads exposure.

What advertising is there?

Googling "ads in windows 10" shows lots of examples.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ads+in+windows+10&tbm=isch

Does that answer your question?

Post reply on HN