Is Microsoft Office Adware?

An anonymous reader writes "Office may fall under Microsoft's own definition of adware. It links to third-party commercial add-ons, includes up-selling promos, requires cookies for certain functions, and collects technical information. While this is like a normal day on the web, should the commercial office suite be held to a different standard and possibly be considered adware? The article also notes that clicking advertising links in Office will bring up Internet Explorer, regardless of whether or not it is the default browser. We discussed Microsoft's decision to turn Works into adware a few months ago.

Re:Sounds OK to me

[ScrewMaster]

It looks exactly like Word did a few years ago, and has all the features most people use.

Yes, and there are a lot of people that wish Word still looked like it did a few years ago.

Give me a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

An OpenOffice advocacy site talking shit about Microsoft Office? Didn't see that one coming. But I guess Slashdot just has to get their Two Minutes Hate from somewhere...

Of course if this were a Microsoft Office advocacy site talking shit about OpenOffice we would have the FUD-Nazis screaming at the top of their lungs.

But honestly, I can't make myself care about the hypocrisy anymore; I am tired and bored of it even more than I am tired and bored of the whole Roger Clemens thing.

Back on-topic for a second, "adware" is not really a useful term as it encompasses a number of different things, some of which are not malicious and others which are. As long as Microsoft discloses what the software is doing then there really isn't any malicious intent.

Re:I guess we need to consider...

[snl2587]

So any software which contains links to its creator's webpage (or its own, if one has been created) is adware?

You're right: based on the summary and Microsoft's description Leopard and office would fall under the category, but then again, so would nearly every piece of software I use to some degree. Who voted for this article to be featured, anyway? Just another excuse for pointless debate...

trolls gone wild

[xubu_caapn]

this is possibly the most incendiary, blatant attempt at microsoft-bashing that ive seen on slashdot. i mean... come on...

Re:I am shocked and apalled!

[ConceptJunkie]

I'm still wondering how many years this stupid tagging beta thing will be left running until the Powers That Be realize it's only another vehicle to make stupid (and occasionally clever) commentary, and is never actually used for "tagging".

Re:I guess I better use Open Office then

[Anonymous Coward]

Asking questions isn't FUD.

Bullshit. Asking questions can certainly be FUD. For decades it has been a common trick to phrase an opinion in the form of a question to avoid any personal responsibility for it. Watch CNN or Fox News to get a nice helping of this.

Let the market decide

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Perhaps the manufacture should just give a genuine itemized invoice rather than bundling and let the market decide.

Re:OOo

[irtza]

well, the problem is about how you define who MS's client base is... it certainly is not the consumers who end up buying their machines - those are just annoyances that they must deal with. Their clientbase is system builders and more recently content developers. They will cater to those making the content that moves the boxes. They are essentially no different than ASUS or any other component provider (except for their monopoly and willingness to abuse it). These companies do things according to what there clients (the computer builders) want so long as it fits there goals. The fact that these eventually move on is not there problems. if people want MS to lose there monopoly, pressure needs to be put on companies like Dell and HP to push pressure upstream for better hardware support in alternative operating systems. Right now, the lockin ability that MS provides these people is important (i.e. Dell software that ships with there systems isn't so portable thanks to measures taken by MS). This is also why they can push adware on one hand while simultaneously sell software that takes other peoples adware off your system.

Re: What MS wants to own

[thewils]

they hate their customers

they hate their licensees

There, fixed it for ya. The term "customer" leaves me with the impression that you've actually bought something and you can do want you want with it. I don't think this is how M$ sees it. Bill lets you use his s/w for a while if you behave and follow the rules.

Re:Don't think so

[cp.tar]

I remember buying MathType in 1997 or so because I found it in Word. I was grateful as I wouldn't have known about MathType otherwise (then).

I guess my point is that it was helpful (for both me and the third party) since it led me to find a program I used a lot from a small 3rd party.

It is no less adware just because the ads may be useful.

I hated having to find programs ($20 or $30 for something I needed to use once so I didn't do it) though that did what Office should have been able to do (I really can't remember what now but I remember being really angry because they were simple things).

And these ads, if they are indeed useful and not annoying (and remember, all ads in any kind of adware are useful to somebody; if nobody ever clicked them, they wouldn't exist in the first place or would die out soon), only make it easier to find that kind of functionality elsewhere, for if it were built in into Office, there would be no need for the ads.

Re:OOo

[ShieldW0lf]

Ok, here's an example:

Trusted Computing support in Vista, which brings nothing to the public, but causes their computer to cease to be under their control, allowing such things as:

Remote censorship after the fact
Unbreakable vendor lock-in
Draconian digital rights management
Inability to use custom software on your own hardware

Who demanded this? The US Department of Defense and the large media corporations.

Does it serve the public or the end user? No.

Aside from the dangers of what it does when it works right, does it inconvenience the user in unrelated ways? Yes, it consumes resources with no return and causes general bugginess in such a large variety of software that Vista is being refused by the general public despite their ignorance of these larger issues, simply because of the side effects.

Does it tie into a larger agenda to control the worlds information, tax every creative work, rewrite history, and create a system of control that would give would be despots wet dreams? You're fucking right it does.

If you were to take a random sample of a hundred people out of your typical mall and explain the technology and what it does, do you think anyone would ask for it? Anyone at all?

Yet they spent billions of dollars over many years conspiring to bring this technology to our homes. Why do you suppose they did that?

Because they were motivated by interests who wish to control the population at large without regard for what is legal.

They think of their customer base as cows, to be owned, controlled and sold to private interests.

That example about selling ad space in IE is so benign compared to what's going on these days that it actually makes a person wistfully think of how nice Microsoft used to be, relatively speaking.