I know we've been saying it for years but WHY is anyone at all trusting MS with all their shit when they can't help but act like a dodgy sharp-practice startup?

WHY is anyone at all trusting MS with all their shit when they can't help but act like a dodgy sharp-practice startup?

Because they don't understand or don't care about data privacy. We of this forum are sooooo unrepresentative of the rest of the market though.

I got the 365 + AI bundle at the old cost because my annual family sub renewed a week or two back so I'm able to say what it can do, none of which will surprise you. For people like us, the AI does nothing we'd pay extra for. But if (say) letter writing isn't your thing, the Copilot drafts a pretty damn good letter based on a short request. It burns my soul to write that, but it's true. I challenged Copilot "write a letter asking for a refund for a faulty toaster, referencing relevant UK consumer law", and it did. Admittedly it made up the specifics of the toaster fault, but it correctly referenced the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the relevant elements of that, and gave a clear, structured letter, defining the problem, and the outcome I wanted. A few other moderately complex letter requests were pretty well handled - for example drafting letters for my MP, either protesting about a lack of control over illegal migration, or protesting about the government's inhumane approach to illegal migrants.

However, going back to your question, who better to answer your question (albeit more politely phrased) than Copilot:

Why Do Consumers Trust Big Tech Companies with Private Data Despite Evidence of Misuse?

An Exploration into the Paradox of Data Privacy and Consumer Trust

Introduction

In the modern digital landscape, data has become one of the most valuable commodities. With the rise of big tech companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple, the collection and utilization of private data have reached unprecedented levels. Despite numerous scandals and revelations about the misuse of personal information, consumers continue to place their trust in these corporate giants. This document delves into the reasons behind this paradox, exploring the psychological, sociological, and practical factors that underpin consumer behavior.

The Illusion of Control

One of the primary reasons consumers continue to trust big tech companies is the illusion of control. Many companies offer privacy settings and customization options that allow users to manage their data to some extent. This sense of control can create an illusion of safety and transparency, even if the underlying data practices remain opaque. By giving consumers the ability to tweak their privacy settings, tech companies provide a reassuring facade that their data is being handled responsibly.

The Convenience Factor

Another significant factor driving consumer trust is the unparalleled convenience offered by big tech companies. Services like Google Maps, Amazon Prime, and Facebook Messenger have become deeply integrated into daily life, providing unparalleled ease and efficiency. This convenience often outweighs concerns about data privacy, as the immediate benefits of using these services are tangible and significant. Consumers are willing to trade some level of privacy for the comfort and accessibility these platforms provide.

Brand Loyalty and Reputation

Big tech companies have spent years building their brands and cultivating a sense of reliability and trustworthiness. Apple's emphasis on user privacy and security, for instance, has bolstered its reputation as a safe choice for consumers. Even when there is evidence of data misuse, the overall brand image and loyalty can mitigate the impact. Trust in a brand is often built over time and through consistent positive experiences, making it resilient to individual scandals or breaches.

The Normalization of Data Sharing

In recent years, the sharing of personal data has become normalized to the point where it is an expected part of digital interaction. Social media platforms encourage users to share intimate details of their lives, while online retailers track purchasing behavior to offer personalized recommendations. This normalization reduces the perceived risk associated with data sharing, as it becomes a routine aspect of using digital services. When everyone is sharing data, the practice feels less dangerous.

The Complexity of Data Practices

The technical complexity of data collection and analysis is another factor that contributes to consumer trust. Most users lack the technical expertise to fully understand how their data is being used, and the intricate nature of these processes can make them seem abstract and distant. Big tech companies often leverage this complexity to their advantage, providing vague or convoluted privacy policies that are difficult for the average consumer to decipher. This opacity can lead to a sense of helplessness or resignation, where consumers trust the companies because they have no practical alternative.

Regulatory Assurance

Government regulations and industry standards also play a role in fostering consumer trust. Laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States are designed to protect consumer data and hold companies accountable. The existence of such regulations can reassure consumers that there are external checks and balances in place, even if they are not always aware of the specifics. This regulatory framework can create a baseline level of trust in the system as a whole.

Psychological Factors

Several psychological factors also contribute to the continued trust in big tech companies. The optimism bias, for instance, leads people to believe that they are less likely to be affected by negative events than others. This bias can make consumers downplay the risks associated with data sharing, assuming that breaches or misuse will not happen to them. Additionally, the principle of cognitive dissonance suggests that once consumers have committed to using a service, they are likely to justify their choice and overlook negative information to reduce mental discomfort.

Social Proof and Influence

Social proof and peer influence are powerful motivators in the digital age. When consumers see that their friends, family, and peers are using and trusting big tech services, they are more likely to follow suit. The widespread adoption of these platforms creates a sense of legitimacy and acceptance, making it easier for individuals to overlook privacy concerns. The influence of social networks can thus reinforce trust in big tech companies, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion

The trust that consumers place in big tech companies with their private data, despite evidence of misuse, is a multifaceted phenomenon. It is driven by a combination of psychological factors, the convenience and integration of digital services, brand loyalty, regulatory assurance, and the normalization of data sharing. Understanding these underlying reasons can provide insights into consumer behavior and highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in the tech industry. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, addressing these trust issues will be crucial in fostering a more secure and ethical environment for data privacy.

Here is another subheading for you, since you seem to have an essay there - Free Tech Support. In the Olden Days there were a lot of knowledgeable Windoze users who would learn stuff at work & do free work for their families.

Of course these days those numbers are dwindling, and many of these users have been exposed to Unix via Mac & Linux, many of them working in DevOps (I've never written that down before!) where Windoze doesn't get much of a look in. Many of these will have bought MacBooks, Raspberry PIs or just installed Linux on old machines. Their relatives, friends etc. are the ones left up shit creek without a paddle, who will be devoured by the (shit-eating, natch) cloud piranhas one by one . . .

In the modern digital landscape, data has become one of the most valuable commodities. With the rise of big tech companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple , the collection and utilization of private data have reached unprecedented levels.

I have to admit, Copilot is surprisingly well programmed: it deliberately omitted mentioning its own master in a derogatory-toned sentence.

Because they see the opportunity to do this now while (f)Elon Musk is wreaking havoc on the other side of the pond. A perfect distraction allowing Microshaft to up its prices. They have to make up all that money MS [cough][cough] to Trump's Presidential Library (yet to even have a location let alone being built).

Get out now people. Don't buy anything with a 'Made in USA' label.

Curious minds want to know...just what do Microsoft intend to do with all those arms and legs.

Opt-out only for current licences. No opt out for new purchases. You have to have it at the new over the top price or no Office software for you.

At £85 per year the "buy once" Office 2024 Home and Business looks viable again at £240. But bizarrely there is no Access in there. Are they finally killing the old database?

It used to be part of Office Professional but that's not being sold any more. You have to get Office LTSC or standalone Access ($$$).

"You have to get Office LTSC or standalone Access ($$$)."

Surely that's easily fixed by a licence key for the Office version of your choice, from the key reseller of your choice. Cheap, works, legit.

Eg, about £20 for an Office 2019 Professional Plus licence from a licence reseller I've done business with and would trust.

If they truly believed that the Copilot AI feature were worth paying for, they wouldn't have to use dark patterns to try and convince people to upgrade to use it by hiding the current standard plan behind a cancel subscription button.

Its about time such practices were made illegal.

I never opted in and never will do.

So it is 'opt out' not 'opt in'. So is this not a form of [1]Unsolicited Goods and illegal under the Inertia Selling rules ?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolicited_goods