We should all (immediately) forget the old days, when Microsoft was just selling us the "Operating System" and then let us to our own devices. Now they realized that they lost the Smartphone game (the opportunity to siphon our data like Android and iOS do)(to some degree or another).

I am using Firefox because it doesn't belong to anyone. I have zero faith on the privacy of Chrome. I believe (haven't tested and I won't bother) that everything one does on Chrome ends up in Google's data-hungry machine. Microsoft is mirroring that. I find it disgusting enough that they "telemetry"-ze the shit out of everything one does with their Win10. Now they want to get that extra on our browsing habits to complete the tracking.

I don't know if it's just Microsoft's greed or the (proven) relationship with the 3-letter-agencies (not wearing tinfoil hat), but still, they become more intrusive and it is NOT for our benefit.

> I am using Firefox because it doesn't belong to anyone.

Others mentioned are in a different league, but even firefox is mostly developed for an organization, that seems to be pushing to enter the service industry.

Have you looked how many connections firefox makes without even opening a page? I tried to silence it, and it was a PITA - ended up using a firewall.

I'd donate to firefox development, like 3, maybe 4 digit numbers, but AFAICT they only accept donations to Mozilla, and don't let you specify types of activities you would like to support.

I am a great fan of SysInternals Suite since before they sold to Microsoft. I have been using TCPView since 2001 (or so)(just mentioning in case anyone who doesn't know the tools can find them useful). I also use Windows Firewall Control (WFC) a neat and cheap software that makes the Windows firewall management very easy. I know that FF on "idling" more has 4-5 open connections mainly to cloudfront, aws, akamai. Unfortunately FF prefers these CDN hosts over the true targets so I can't know more (and too lazy to use wireshark to find out).

that, and also we paid for the windows license.

Once, maybe; Windows' business model has changed, they are only charging for Windows 10 OEM now and have stopped trying to publish a new paid version every few years. Their business model is recurring payments now like Office365 and OneDrive, but also ads inside of applications and I presume selling your usage data to third parties.

Non OEM copies of Windows are like $200+ (unless you buy the fake/scam keys from amazon recommended windows sellers)

You can still run the 10 upgrade assistant and get it for free.

Were OS upgrades ever a significant profit center for Microsoft? Prior to the free Windows 10 upgrade, most users I know of would only get on a new version of Windows when it came with a new computer.

Those upgrades werent free, they were hidden in the cost of the machine

I never said they were-- those are new licenses, and accounted for by Microsoft as OEM sales.

I'm asking about Windows upgrade SKUs-- the kind that you'd buy in a box someplace like Best Buy or Circuit City or Office Max back in the day, completely separate from a computer. Were those ever a meaningful fraction of sales? Or, phrased differently, is Microsoft actually leaving any money on the table by making Windows 10 upgrades (both the Windows 7/8 to 10 and 10 feature releases) free for consumers rather than paid?

But it's never enough. Gotta get that growth.

So? There are free products with ads (like Gmail), paid products without ads (like Netflix and Windows 8), and paid products with ads (like Hulu and Win10 home edition). I'm not the biggest fan of the paid+ads business model, but it's a valid model and Microsoft has been pretty consistent - Win10 has followed this model since release, so nobody is being tricked.

People were tricked when they were forced to upgrade through confusing prompts. People were forced when Microsoft strong-armed processor companies to not support Windows 8 and instead force Windows 10’upgrades if you wanted new machines.

Disclosure: I worked for Microsoft during Windows 8 through early Windows 10 development on related teams.

> Microsoft strong-armed processor companies to not support Windows 8 and instead force Windows 10’upgrades if you wanted new machines

Do you mean to say that Microsoft clearly communicated Win8 EOL dates and OEMs choose to move accordingly? If not, can you cite a source?

Edit: after some googling, I think you mean - Microsoft didn't think it was worth the expense to pay engineers to backport processor support to Win8. Bit of a difference from "strong-arming" the processor companies