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

Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

portswigger.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 307 posts

Re: Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

#261

Post by noisy_boy »

scj wrote: post #69
slimsag wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another said, the goal to increase revenue is per team. The Edge team must likely find proof for how they will drive revenue in the future. Suddenly you've got a full browser engineering team trying to figure out how to monetize a browser - tough sell. So they can't come up with anything, that's fine because a product manager is the owner of this task anyway. They propose a myriad of different ways to monetize Edg…

"The peripheral drivers team needs to increase it's revenue."

"View this ad to continue using your mouse"

Re: Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

#262

Post by soraminazuki »

erikerikson wrote: post #253
perryizgr8 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HTTPS can be implemented in a decentralized way How does that work? AFAIK there is always a root authority.

No. There are root s and you can install any root you like including one you create. Is that some amount of centralization? I don't think so though convenience and efficiency encourage it on a single and not very important dimension. Once a CA signs a cert they are no longer involved in the HTTPS protocol and really that's the bulk of the use case. As GP noted, it certainly includes "without a single party having acc…

You can install any root you like as long as your device lets you. TVs are less likely to let you install your own root.

Re: Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

#263

Post by tgv »

cebert wrote: post #140
tgv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not agree that maximizing profit is necessary. A company needs to take care of our customers and employees, and only make enough profit to keep doing so. More is just unethical.

I used to have similar thoughts until I got my MBA. We live in a capitalist economy. Investors consider where to invest by comparing an investment opportunity to a safe rate of return. They need some upside (greater returns) to offset the risk of less certain investments. Maximizing profits or at least ensuring hefty returns is important for a firm to continue to grow and receive investment dollars.

There's no need for investors to get an ROI that's just over the inflation rate. Why would they want that? Because they want to get rich quick.

So let me rephrase it like this: do you like paying too much?

Re: Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

#264

Post by charles_f »

spiderice wrote: post #45
deadbunny wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is still getting all your data.

Exactly. I don’t get how this is any better than what Google does. Google doesn’t sell your data either. They themselves consume your data, and use it to push ads in your face and track you across the web. In other words, collecting insane amounts of data is also bad. Not just the selling of it.

Their ad revenue is marginal and mostly limited to bing. if they use the data that's to tailor the product and sell more of it. On the other hand Google sells your profile to advertisers. Albeit, not you in particular, still leveraging what they know about you to put someone's commercial in front of you.

Ms sells to you, google sells you. I get a difference.

Re: Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

#265

Post by bleachedsleet »

afavour wrote: post #174
bleachedsleet wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m currently beta testing two paid browsers and I’m about to be trying a third. We are seeing a bit of a golden age for software right now where it seems a certain subset of the population has become not only comfortable paying for it, but also paying realistic (read not subsidized) pricing for it. I’m not saying this will ever be mainstream per se, but I am suggesting that enough people may be interested to make th…

How many of those browsers are Chromium based? Because if they are that’s still not actually an answer, they’re piggybacking off Google’s work.

One is Chrome, one is Webkit, and the third is completely custom. I do agree with your point below that unless the rendering engine is built from scratch, then the cost of the browser is still being subsidized, just higher up the chain.

Needless to say, it's that third browser I'm trying that interests me most.

Re: Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

#267

Post by charcircuit »

theHIDninja wrote: post #150

Hey, Microsoft, it's not your fucking job to serve ads. It is not your fucking job to be the middleman for payment transactions. Your only job is to provide an operating system.

It's not your job to tell Microsoft what they can and can't work on or what services they provide.

Re: Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

#268

Post by behnamoh »

enos_feedler wrote: post #200
slx26 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advantage of browsers is that they are becoming the de-facto "universal operating systems". That's why users like them, and that's why devs like them, despite all their defects. I kinda believe in that direction too. It's just the path that is a massive mess. Would I delete and rewrite? Yeah, but browsers and traditional OSes both, to become a single thing. ..and then regret it afterwards :D

Devs might like them, but it would be hard to find a user who grew up in a mobile native world that "likes" a web browser. That's the problem. It doesn't really do anything that 1st and 3rd party apps can't do. Much of the functionality around identity, payments, ad and ui rendering just works so much better in native apps. This is because of API crafting and data management by the platform and partnerships with 3rd…

>> They will learn that once they get into Safari things might not work very well based on prior experience.

Well, last I checked, Safari didn't support 4k YouTube videos. Apple may have fixed it, but it's an example for your argument.

Re: Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

#269

Post by Nevermark »

tgv wrote: post #263
cebert wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to have similar thoughts until I got my MBA. We live in a capitalist economy. Investors consider where to invest by comparing an investment opportunity to a safe rate of return. They need some upside (greater returns) to offset the risk of less certain investments. Maximizing profits or at least ensuring hefty returns is important for a firm to continue to grow and receive investment dollars.

There's no need for investors to get an ROI that's just over the inflation rate. Why would they want that? Because they want to get rich quick. So let me rephrase it like this: do you like paying too much?

What are you trying to say?

Public companies are going to be priced on the open market based on their growth prospects relative to other companies. Their management chosen to maximize their growth prospects.

I think it is a fair point to say that "good" companies may choose to maintain the wind of customer satisfaction, goodwill and trust at their back by not doing predatory "bad" things.

But saying public corporations are not going to maximize returns is like saying mother bears are not going to protect their cubs. If that was possible within their nature, they wouldn't exist.

Re: Microsoft pushes ahead with controversial ‘buy now, pay later’ feature for Edge

#270

Post by tomjen3 »

iamstupidsimple wrote: post #135
deergomoo wrote: post #118

I cannot stand how everything with internet access is just becoming a vehicle to shove ads down everyone’s throat. This web browser wants to sell me credit deals. My expensive TV has banner ads in the menus (well, it did until I blocked about two dozen domains). An increasing amount of apps are sending “offers” I never requested via push notifications on my phone. My belongings are not a fucking corporate billboard.

But what can we do? Ads provide employment for tens of millions of people and fund literally billions of hours of content watched a year. Even if you agree most is trash, it's also allowed some really high quality stuff to flourish while being able to stay relatively independent. It's strongly tied to economic growth, and thus everybody's pensions are tied up in the success of advertising. It seems illogical it makes…

Ads are more expensive than paying directly. Ads work because companies expect you to purchase their products based on their ads, which means you are now paying for the production of the ad, the sale of the ad, and for the product they expect you to buy, and you get a lot less out of it.

I say the solution is to move all ads to a dedicated space (ads.gov, say) and then when you have a problem as a consumer you can go there and search for a solution or a product.

Then it will become cheaper for the rest of us, and services will have to become more focused on consumers needs, not the needs of advertisers.

Post reply on HN