I'm objecting to the claim that users are "powerless to stop this [data collection] even if they knew what was happening, and they don't." To the contrary, it's very clear what is being collected and how to turn it off. As well as what you can't disable in cheaper versions, and which versions you need to buy in order to get that option.

Obviously consumers would like Microsoft to sell them a product with more features for cheaper. But that's no different from any business ever, yet people are throwing a shitfit all over the internet based primarily on misinformation.

Not having your privacy violated is not a feature, it's a form of extortion. Being violated is not the default state, they specifically added code to the product I pay for to do so. I should be able to disable or remove it.

That's the core of Stallman's point. He's an extremist, but there's merit. If it's my software, I need to be able to turn parts of it off.

As I pointed out, I view his attitude to some degree as extremist. But if I am going to pay $200 for a piece of software, I do rightfully expect to be able to configure how it works, and it not to include privacy abuse traps.

I understand that if you choose to use Google, you are paying for it with your privacy, which is why I avoid using it. But when I pay real money for a piece of software, it should not be violating my privacy anyways.

You can "configure how the software works" to some extent even if you only get the free version. As a rule, more expensive licenses give you more features. If you don't think windows 10 pro is a good enough value, that's fine. But characterizing it as some kind of immoral violation of your rights makes me not take you seriously.

I use VS Pro and wish it had the testing tools that Enterprise did. Not enough to pay that much, though. Should I be mad about a violation of my right to IDE test suite integration?

I pay for Pro. Still can't set Telemetry 0. And no, consumers can't buy Enteprise.

For an stupid, arbitrarily chosen definition of consumer. Microsoft primary business is selling enterprise licenses.

Complaining that the professional license doesn't have all features available in response to my own analogy with VS makes me think you have no interest in the actual truth and just want to argue for its own sake. Is that accurate?

No, it's that your constant defense of Microsoft makes no sense. It's not a logical decision for Microsoft to make. It's hurting their business and their reputation, for almost no appreciable gain. Microsoft has the best chance in the last decade of retaking their market share and their position of power in the tech industry, but they're shooting themselves in the head.

It doesn't matter what their 'primary business' is. What matters is that their reputation plays into decisionmaking. What someone has to deal with at home is going to remind them of their irritation when it's time to make up their mind on a purchase at the office.

My "constant defense of Microsoft" is correcting a single way in which people are misinformed. I have never taken the stance that this is or isn't the correct decision for them. Just explaining what the factors are and what the decision actually did because so many people can't be bothered to look it up themselves.

The shitfit is this sort of cognitive dissonance. As Apple does a lot of this shit without discussing it and has for years, but mysteriously people are comfortable with OSX.

And of course, mobile apps are saturated with complex metrics collections. Every major phone app ships with a huge sum of metrics embedded that can be monitored and almost no mobile apps discuss this.

Need we even mention web sites and their inescapable universal surveillance of their users? Even if cookies are turned off, there is so much we can (and do!) use to track users with startling specificity.

Microsoft is just a brand people like to yell about. It's a well-known brand name and people who want to express but not actually show education about digital privacy desperately cling to it to signal they are "IN THE KNOW."

OSX example: Even 7 years ago Little Snitch on OSX was reporting to me every Apple App was trying to establish a connection home every time I opened it.

I just blocked it and didn't bother to inspect the packets.

The part you are missing is the more users use Microsoft than OSX. See how many of these people are complaining about being Microsoft users and feeling like they need to ditch Windows. These people probably didn't complain about Apple as much (or at all) because it didn't affect them. Now Microsoft has brought it to their front door, and they are forced to deal with it head-on (note: just accepting / ignoring the situation is also a form of "dealing with it").

I did intentionally write "valuable" instead of "intrusive," as you're right -- that is very useful data to aid Microsoft in developing Windows. But as a user, I ought to be able to at least opt out. But typical Windows users cannot, even if they might think that they are by downgrading from Enhanced to Basic.

I think the fact that they call it "basic" rather than "none" makes it abundantly clear that some basic data is still being collected, and you're not completely opting out. Surely there's a limit on how stupid a user can be before you're allowed to stop designing for them.

Is it my machine, or is it theirs?

If they want to do research they can use their own resources.

Why can't you be collaborative for mutual benefit?

If they asked nicely, I might consider it. Microsoft is not asking nicely, with Windows 10, so far as I can see; they're just... taking what they want.

Have you ever worked on consumer software?

Yes, but it's not my preference.