Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Leaked Microsoft Video Parodies Chrome Ad

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the fighting-for-evildoer-crown dept.

Google 243

First time accepted submitter Stratus311 writes "An article from The Verge shows a video leaked from Microsoft that parodies Google's Chrome ad. From the article: 'Microsoft and Google have been locked in a war of words over a YouTube Windows Phone app, but in the midst of the arguments a new Scroogled ad has emerged. Designed to be an internal-only video, a copy has somehow managed to find its way onto the web right in the middle of Google's I/O developer conference.'" "Somehow" leaked.

cancel ×

243 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Insightful video (4, Insightful)

sprego (2925147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743035)

I feel like Microsoft is truly correct with this video. Google is monetizing you, and worse yet, tracking everything you do in unseen scale.

At least with Microsoft I know they will value my privacy. I pay for their product and that's it. But Google's business model is around the monetarizion of its users.

Did you know that just like Zynga (the facebook game company), Google uses professional human psychologies when building their services. They don't just track, but they go directly after the science of human behavior. All done in a warm, fuzzy feel that Google is somehow your very best friend. It's entirely psychological.

Re:Insightful video (5, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743101)

Did you know that just like Zynga (the facebook game company), Google uses professional human psychologies when building their services. They don't just track, but they go directly after the science of human behavior.

So does every other company in the world with an advertising department.

Re:Insightful video (4, Insightful)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743129)

which clearly makes it perfectly right!?

Re:Insightful video (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743173)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

You're right but.. (4, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743681)

Thet post troll has unintentionally stumbled on something interesting.

See how Google started removing borders around ads and made the shading super light in order to get ad clicks from older people and people with bad monitor calibration:

http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it [ppcblog.com] [ppcblog.com]or-maybe-not/

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/ [blumenthals.com] [blumenthals.com]

Those carefully and scientifically calibrated colors must be worth atleast few hundred million of extra revenue from their cash cow by making gullible people click on ads mistaking them for real search results.

"Study:Contrast sensitivity gradually decreases with age"
http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=818&strict=0&morphologic=0&query= [eyeworld.org]

Re:You're right but.. (5, Insightful)

dimeglio (456244) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743967)

Personally, I feel Microsoft is frustrated Google succeeded in changing the rules they worked so hard to establish.

Re:You're right but.. (1)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744091)

I have seen my parents struggle with this. For highly monetizable queries, the ads are placed without any border right on of the organic search results and people end up unintentionally clicking them = more money for Google, more money leeched off people by businesses.

Re:Insightful video (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743145)

Truly correct fore sure. The part that is missing though is "we would do it if we had the chance".

Re:Insightful video (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743157)

Did you know that just like Zynga (the facebook game company), Google uses professional human psychologies when building their services. They don't just track, but they go directly after the science of human behavior. All done in a warm, fuzzy feel that Google is somehow your very best friend. It's entirely psychological.

Wow. That sounds like the most desperate rationalization of "that's why the Metro interface sucks and everyone hates it" that I've ever heard. I'm impressed.

So is Windows 8 considered "a noble victory in not giving a shit what customers like"? Is Clippy "the epitome of your ambiguously protected, highly nebulous privacy"? How about Vista's UAC stuff, was that "a triumph in ignoring marketing research and focus groups"?

Re:Insightful video (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743871)

UAC was an answer to one of the largest and loudest security complaints (especially on /.) leveraged against Windows XP and how it had no equivalent to SU and how every user (and therefore every user process) ran as Administrator by default.

This was usually followed by several sympathetic comments about how Microsoft needed to get their security house in order and implement SU etc. Unfortunately, Microsoft has always had a thing about maintaining absurdly long backward-compatibility trails, and simply switching directly to the non-default-administrator model would seriously wreck a shitload of in-place legacy corporate applications. So building UAC was the way for them to have their security cake and still provide a means for legacy installations to function.

Of course, as soon as UAC came out, the /. crowd suddenly forgot all about how they'd been bitching for YEARS for this kind of privilege segregation, and started right in on bemoaning how egregious it was that they had to endure UAC prompts all the fucking time (though this interruption had never been mentioned wrt using SU)... A perfect object lesson in how "haters r always gonna hate"...

The only real problem with Win8 was having Modern (nee Metro) FORCED on you (along with how poorly/non-intuitively it's implemented). It's slightly less bad on multiple displays since the Modern/Metro idiots apparently decided that nobody used those anymore and just forgot/neglected to implement Metro in a multiple-display-friendly way. Ironically, that meant that all displays except the "Primary" retain the old Windows 7 desktop sans Start Button (which is pretty redundant / unnecessary anyway)... making Win8+Metro a lot less obnoxious than on a single-display system.

There's nothing wrong with looking for ways to improve the UI (although I'm not really thinking the current Metro/Modern implementation necessarily accomplishes that) but most of the time, MOST of the people, will be against having ANY sort of change imposed on them, even if such change ultimately proved to be beneficial (see Welfare for Americans, Americans and the Metric System, or Americans vs Socialised Medicine for a few of similar examples). At those times, even though it's unpopular, the people need to be pushed/dragged into the future...

-AC

Re:Insightful video (1)

AJH16 (940784) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744153)

That's a nice theory, but I make my living off of MS products. I love MS as a company. I loved UAC. I think they were off their nut completely when they designed Metro. Sure it's great for Tablets and Touch interfaces, but Touch isn't what I want when I want to use my desktop for desktop things, like word processing and writing code and doing graphics design or a/v work.

Re:Insightful video (5, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743175)

MS values your privacy? You mean how they read encrypted Skype [slashdot.org] messages? Don't kid yourself about MS motivations. They would monetize you in every single way they can and they will sell data to third parties. They are just not as good as Google yet. Google makes no pretense about it; it's how they make money from the free services they provide.

Re:Insightful video (2)

Robert Noack (2883097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743225)

Have you even read the article you link to?

Re:Insightful video (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743339)

A Microsoft server accesses URLs sent in Skype chat messages, even if they are HTTPS URLs and contain account information

Did you?

Re:Insightful video (2)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743501)

I don't recall people opting in to MS having a log of people's URLs in skype, even if it's under the bullshit excuse of "security".

Re:Insightful video (2)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743575)

Why are your URLs containing account information? Seriously? Example site that uses such info?

Anyway, that has been debunked at multiple places, and people have reported that even HTTP URLs can be scanned. Also, there is no GET request, only a HEAD request to check mimetype etc.

Re:Insightful video (5, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743591)

Skype is worse than you think. Research the partnership that Skype has with TOM in china. Hint: If you plan on using skype in china, you probably dont want to download their version: It reports every word you say directly to the CCC.

Call me when Google Talk starts shipping with backdoors for one of the more politically repressive governments out there.

Re:Insightful video (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743663)

Not only that, they check your Skydrive for imagery, they check your own damn computer for imagery as well. Nope and DOUBLE Nope.
I'm not having you thrash my hard drives so you can try to find kiddy porn that doesn't exist!
Go bother actual pedos with that noise, I pay for my drives, they are mines to thrash and break on my own.
Not only that, most full-on dodgy types like that would know to turn that crap off. (Or use Linux because all the pedos and terrorists use that, amirite?)
All they would catch is probably some low-tier guy frightened for his life at the thought of even going near a little girl.
So worth it though, because like, pedos are bad and junk. Microsoft are innovating the market, they boosted hard drive sales a million percent!
But seriously, no, just no.

Microsoft are worse than Google in those cases, even though I am beginning to hate Google more and more each 6 months it seems.
They aren't even remotely innocent.

I cannot believe people think Microsoft give a damn about their privacy. It is hilarious.
Way to fall for Microsoft lies GP. Let me guess GP, you use IE as well because it "protects my privacy"?
Hilarious when IEs privacy mode is one of the worst there is.
I have seen those new IE ads on TV a few days ago really pushing the whole "privacy" thing.

Re:Insightful video (1)

MHolmesIV (253236) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743775)

Um, what? Citation needed.

They scan and flag pictures you send via outlook.com and hotmail.com, and probably upload to skydrive. If they didn't, they could be legally liable for distributing kiddy porn. they do not randomly scan your PC or thrash your hard drives, unless you're talking about the system indexer, but that isn't searching or flagging anything, and you can turn it off if you prefer long-ass slow filesystem searches.

Re:Insightful video (1)

Black LED (1957016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743949)

You do know that you can specify which locations Skydrive looks at, right? I have mine setup with a series of blank directories for public, friends and private upload and just drag and drop stuff into them as needed. You can also upload encrypted files, such as encrypted 7-zip archives containing whatever you want. The Google Drive client behaves in much the same way. Box.com is really my favourite because you can use it via WebDAV and map it like another drive on your PC, no additional software needed.

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743707)

MS values your privacy? You mean how they read encrypted Skype [slashdot.org] messages?

What a complete, bald-faced lie. They don't read your "encrypted Skype messages", they check URLs that are sent between Skype users to protect them from malware and phishing scams. That is a good thing.

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743915)

it's how they make money from the free services they provide

They provide no free services, it's just that what you pay them with doesn't cost you any money ...

-AC

Re:Insightful video (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743259)

Too scary to be false. That's the reality now, google is bleeding you everywhere...

Re:Insightful video (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743289)

It's obvious you're a paid Microsoft shill based on the fact that you're on a brand new account, but I'll bite anyway.

- Google does not use psychologists, they use data. They're constantly experimenting with things and use the data from those experiments to make change.
- Microsoft has an ads division, too. You're a fool if you think they're not doing tracking as well.

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743335)

Not just new, but ~30 minutes new as of this posting.

Microsoft valuing privacy? Puh-leeze. They're just pissed El Goog beat them to the punch on nearly all fronts and is now eating their lunch. It's easier to tear down an opponent than stand on one's own merits.

Re:Insightful video (0)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743349)

I'm not a paid shill and I wholeheartedly agree with this video's message.

Re:Insightful video (2)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743449)

You agree that Microsoft respects your privacy more than Google?

[citation needed]

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743533)

You agree that Microsoft respects your privacy more than Google?

[citation needed]

If you take the 'follow-the-money' approach, Google gets 90%+ of their revenue through data-mining their users, Microsoft gets around 5% of their revenue from this. Who has the bigger stake?

Re:Insightful video (5, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743597)

I'll focus on documented facts instead.

Microsoft and Google both track you to serve up contextual ads. However, the key differences are:

* Microsoft handed over search data to the US government without a warrant while Google refused.
* Microsoft SELLS YOUR PRIVATE DATA to third-parties without telling you. Google never gives your private data to someone else.
* The EFF ranks Microsoft as having a worse record for protecting your privacy.

The fact that Google makes more money from advertising doesn't make them evil or nefarious. It means consumers prefer them.

Re:Insightful video (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743997)

I'll focus on documented facts instead.

Microsoft and Google both track you to serve up contextual ads. However, the key differences are:

* Microsoft handed over search data to the US government without a warrant while Google refused. * Microsoft SELLS YOUR PRIVATE DATA to third-parties without telling you. Google never gives your private data to someone else. * The EFF ranks Microsoft as having a worse record for protecting your privacy.

The fact that Google makes more money from advertising doesn't make them evil or nefarious. It means consumers prefer them.

Jumping in on something different here, but that last conclusion is really thin. Microsoft is in no way trying to become Google and get all of their revenue from advertising, their main business is selling software. Google's main business is selling targeted advertising. As for your other points, the EFF point I agree with is important. The "they sell your data" I would like to see citations on. This is frequently claimed of several companies, like fx Facebook, but as frequently debunked if you bother. As for refusing search data to US government, that is an interesting one, the relationship between Google and 3-letter agencies, including common employees, is a topic in itself.

Re:Insightful video (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744197)

Google gets warrants to hand over data, just like everyone else. There are some differences however in how Google handles government requests.

1. Google tries to be very transparent about what requests they get from the government, and how much they are forced to hand over.
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/ [google.com]

2. When George W. Bush asked for search data tied to IP addresses, all the major search provides just handed it over without a warrant and Google refused. Google's response was to go one step further and alter their policies to anonymize their logs even sooner to help protect their users.

3. Google has even considered moving data centers to the ocean to keep your private data away from government demands.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/googles-search-goes-out-to-sea/ [nytimes.com]

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743709)

If you take the 'follow-the-money' approach, Google gets 90%+ of their revenue through data-mining their users, Microsoft gets around 5% of their revenue from this. Who has the bigger stake?

Oh, please what a horrid line of reasoning. Only because they are so miserable at it. MS is desperately trying to ape google at every turn. And has been for years. They are just wretched at it and can't quite crack the market -- bing, phones, online ads -- you name it ... #fail. And to add to their misery, they take to attacking those that they can't compete with ... bacause ... well, because they can't compete. Its worse than watching the shit that goes on in DC.

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744171)

If you take the 'follow-the-money' approach, Google gets 90%+ of their revenue through data-mining their users, Microsoft gets around 5% of their revenue from this. Who has the bigger stake?

Oh, please what a horrid line of reasoning. Only because they are so miserable at it. MS is desperately trying to ape google at every turn. And has been for years. They are just wretched at it and can't quite crack the market -- bing, phones, online ads -- you name it ... #fail. And to add to their misery, they take to attacking those that they can't compete with ... bacause ... well, because they can't compete. Its worse than watching the shit that goes on in DC.

This is just plain wrong. You are ignoring what 95% of Microsoft business is - selling software. One of their smallest divisions, of around 10-15, is trying to ape Google, yes.

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743671)

You agree that Microsoft respects your privacy more than Google?

[citation needed]

Having worked at both, I can absolutely assure you this is true.

Re:Insightful video (2)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743715)

Again, citation needed. Anonymous, empty anecdotes are not evidence.

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743837)

I see SOMEBODY modded your post back down to zero. I also see that the original shill post zoomed up to +5 insightful (with a little help from his friends), then down to zero Troll, and now back up to 2 Insightful.

I wouldn't have thought Microsoft was so concerned about its image on Slashdot. The clumsy attempts to game the modding system that I am witnessing are costing Microsoft a lot of credibility, at least in my eyes.

Re:Insightful video (2, Insightful)

lemou (2654725) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743383)

And watch the astroturfing moment start... Microsoft is doing the same. They are less successful than Google, that's it.

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743389)

Nice new account you've got there. AC posts are statistically more credible than 29xxxxx posts ....

Re:Insightful video (5, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743431)

Astroturfer or ignorant?

Microsoft tracks you everywhere for contextual ads as well. And they value your privacy far less than Microsoft.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/microsofts-new-outlook-mail-welcome-hotmail-replacement-917473 [nbcnews.com]

https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013 [eff.org]

Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers, which is the worst offense.

http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/ [rt.com]

And they have a patent specifically covering selling your personal private data to advertisers, allowing advertisers to bid on that data.

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2010/02/gates_ozzie_other_microsoft_execs_patent_personal_data_mining.html [bizjournals.com]

Re:Insightful video (1)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743615)

Tired of this constant copy paste Google Ad talking points.

For one last time:

Microsoft, does not, repeat DOES NOT, use the content inside your email to target ads. However they do use the sender(if it's a company like say JCPenny) and the subject line of the email to target ads, as well as other Bing related ads.

Google, on the contrary, looks INSIDE your email body to target ads. That's what the scroogled ads were about.

Now, stop spreading bullshit FUD links with no real meat in them.

Re:Insightful video (3, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743689)

Please check my first link. Even with their new service, they still mine the data in your email for ads. Microsoft openly admits it.

"Microsoft tells me that the data mined by the Outlook mail service won't go as deep as others, so while ads served will be contextual"

Historically, Microsoft tried mining the body of the email, but their contextual ads were less effective, which is why they couldn't make much ad revenue. Their newest service mines subject and sender, but not body. You are correct there, but this move doesn't seem to be motivated by Microsoft's concern for your privacy. They do this because they couldn't mine the body of your email effectively when they tried.

Microsoft's Scroogled ads suggest PEOPLE are actively reading your email, which is FUD. And Microsoft claiming they don't mine you for personal data for contextual ads is just a pure lie as well.

All of your posts are defending Microsoft mining data while blasting Google for the same. I hope you enjoy your paid position.

Re:Insightful video (0)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743995)

Historically, Microsoft tried mining the body of the email, but their contextual ads were less effective, which is why they couldn't make much ad revenue. Their newest service mines subject and sender, but not body. You are correct there, but this move doesn't seem to be motivated by Microsoft's concern for your privacy. They do this because they couldn't mine the body of your email effectively when they tried.

Do you have any credible references to back that up or did Larry Page tell you all that inside information from MS? :)

Re:Insightful video (3, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744127)

Do SEC filings count as credible references? Or Microsoft's own statements?

Google made over 43 BILLION dollars in ad revenue last year.

http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html [google.com]

Microsoft made 1.45 billion in ad revenue last year.

http://marketingland.com/microsoft-q4-2012-earnings-online-advertising-revenue-up-12-16740 [marketingland.com]

Microsoft themselves have admitted repeatedly to trying and largely failing in the contextual ads in your email business, and have publicly stated they've tried other tactics, such as these "deals" ads instead.

http://marketingland.com/seeking-to-banish-distraction-microsoft-replaces-hotmail-display-ads-with-deals-4790 [marketingland.com]

I just read technology news daily and pay attention. And again, EVERY one of your posts on your account (a fairly newer account) is defending Microsoft data-mining while blasting Google and Apple for the same thing. So I ask again if you're an astroturfer or just ignorant?

I've had the same online identity since BBS days. I praise Microsoft when they do well (such as their surprisingly good anti-virus products as of late) and I blast Google when they fuck up (logging the SSIDs of wireless networks). I call them as I see them.

Re:Insightful video (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744105)

I hope you enjoy your paid position

....clearly you're enjoying yours.

But, if you're not just a paid Google schill out here trying to tamp this down (and hypocritically calling others out for doing the same) then you're just a rabid fanboi pedant and your opinions should be (dis)regarded with due respect to those conditions.

Re:Insightful video (2)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744159)

I am who I am. I've had the same handle since BBS days. If you take a few seconds Googling me, you can likely found out just about anything you want about me because I have nothing to hide.

You are correct that I'm pedantic. I focus on facts and I truly detest FUD. I do try to stamp it out. I thought Slashdot appreciated that.

I do always find it odd when an AC questions me when I have the courage to sign in and stand behind my statements.

Re:Insightful video (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743783)

Microsoft is correct. They do the same thing. That is also correct.

But what I'd like to see is Facebook Vs. Google Vs. Microsoft Vs. Apple.

Let them all call each other out and show everyone how bad it sucks!

Re:Insightful video (1)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744157)

Bullcrap, stop this nonsense.

The RT link which you give as a reference for selling data says this:

In recent campaigns, and its believed that even in the current race for the White House, politicians have paid good money to target specific crowds by purchasing ads through Microsoft and Yahoo that will reach a certain group of users that meet specific criteria, such as location and political affiliation. By creating a rough profile of Internet users based on all available information, campaigns can purchase niche advertisements that are only sent to certain users based on what is known about them.

So they showed ads to people based on criteria the advertizer provided and if the ad viewer was interested they clicked on the ad and went to the advertizers site. This is not the same as "SELLING DATA".

Do you want to see just a sample of Google's Adwords sale pages for advertizers?

http://blog.protocol80.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Topic-Targeting-Adwords.jpg [protocol80.com]
https://www.dentalplans.com/content/images/adwords-targeting_3.gif [dentalplans.com]

OMG I JUST CAUGHT GOOGLE SELLING DATA TO ADVERTIZERS, WHICH IS THE WORST OFFENSE.

Wtf man, have some integrity.

Re:Insightful video (1)

jovius (974690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743457)

The psychological manipulation and citizen monitoring have been going on since the beginning of organized societies, because the rulers needed to secure their position and so know everything. It's build in the human psyche.

This has since turned into a science since the 1920s at least, when Edward Bernays came up with the whole new field called Public Relations and successfully applied Freudian psychoanalysis in his consulting business for large corporations. His book 'Propaganda' is worth reading, and the documentary series The Century of The Self explores it too.

I'd say it's not reasonable to trust any corporation, because they only seek to create more profit at your expense.

Re:Insightful video (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743487)

do you have any idea how much this is a pot calling the kettle black?

The difference between MS and google is very, very explicit.

1: you can take everything out of google. they pretty much enable it. No such thing exists for MS.
2: you choose to opt into google in the first place. MS does not give you such an option, and defaults to you being opted in (windows, IE, bing).

Google is not a completely innocent company, but this entire article is the biggest fucking strawman ever (and the laziest).

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743505)

I think that it's admirable that you felt so strongly about this advert that you felt compelled to sign up to Slashdot and make your very first post. Bravo!

You might be surprised that you've had so many up-mods - but that's just Slashdot's legendary hospitality. When we see a newcomer to the site, we try to make them feel welcome by modding their posts up to 5, no matter what the content of the post is.

A very warm welcome from all of us here at slashdot! I'm sure this will be the first post of thousands, covering a wide range of topics.

Re:Insightful video (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743509)

but they go directly after the science of human behavior. All done in a warm, fuzzy feel that Google is somehow your very best friend. It's entirely psychological.

Hello first post troll, but you unintentionally stumbled on something interesting.

See how Google started removing borders around ads and made the shading super light in order to get ad clicks from older people and people with bad monitor calibration:

http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it [ppcblog.com] or-maybe-not/

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/ [blumenthals.com]

Those carefully and scientifically calibrated colors must be worth atleast few hundred million of extra revenue from their cash cow by making gullible people click on ads.

Re:Insightful video (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743553)

Google is monetizing you, and worse yet, tracking everything you do in unseen scale.

Correct up until the last 3 words. Google has ALWAYS been clear that data collection and advertising are their business models, and that thats the price of their service. They also tend to fight VERY strongly against government attempts to grab that data, and to anonymize data that can be anonymized.

Compare to Microsoft, who plays the defender of privacy despite the fact that Bing has the EXACT SAME MODEL as google, and they used to scan email in the EXACT SAME FASHION as gmail until criticism got them to change it-- and now they act like its some low move.

Of course, thats all well and good until you realize that they also have cooperated with Chinese authorities in their attempt to censor and prosecute activism, through a number of platforms (Bing, Skype, etc). Compare to Google, who has publicly fought China over censorship and information requests for the last 5 or 6 years now, including a very public fight against the GFW RST attacks directed against certain google searches.

So yea, sure buy into the FUD. Enjoy trading an open and transparent ad network for Microsoft and their ongoing not-so-clean record.

Re:Insightful video (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743643)

>At least with Microsoft I know they will value my privacy. I pay for their product and that's it. But Google's business model is around the monetarizion of its users.

How exactly did this get modded Insightful instead of Funny? Microsoft values your privacy exactly as much as Google - i.e. not at all. In this day and age you can pretty much guarantee that *any* information you provide to a company will be leveraged for profit in any way they can think of. Regardless of whether you've paid them for the product you're using to give them said information.

Re:Insightful video (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743661)

Fucking AWESOME!
Sure. Microsoft does not use the information they have from windows, bing, office, live, xbox to target ads or to sell.

At least with Microsoft I know they will value my privacy. I pay for their product and that's it. But Google's business model is around the monetarizion of its users.

You can be wary of Google if you want. But that line right there makes you either retarded or a shill.
You choose.

Re:Insightful video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743857)

You're absolutely right. That's why MS keeps boasting how they won't reach the customers because they wouldn't want a share of google's cake.

Oh, wait! [microsoft.com]

Re:Insightful video (1)

kryliss (72493) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743943)

Microsoft is just upset that they didn't do it first.

Re:Insightful video (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744039)

After Google changed their privacy policy I don't see how anybody could disagree with you OR this video, at the end of the day Google wants to know what you had for breakfast because that is how they make their money. You the user are not their customer, you are the product, the advertisers are the customers. I wouldn't mind this if they were just upfront about it but as you say they employ an army of shrinks to give you a 'warm fuzzy feeling" instead of just being honest about it.

That is why in the interests of full disclosure I switched to Bing search as not only is their privacy policy easy to follow but I get a cut of what they are making off of me in the form of Amazon gift cards. If you wanna make money off me? Fine give me a cut, even a little cut is better than what I get from Google which is a big fat nothing. At least this way all those little things i go through at the shop like CD sleeves,cables, and adapters are paid by my share of what MSFT is making off my search, so as long as they do give me a cut I'll stick with 'em as well as recommend them to my customers. Hell if they are gonna make money off you either way you might as well get a percentage, don't ya think?

FFS Slashdot.... (4, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743121)

Stop calling quiet press releases "leaks" FFS. We all know people yawn at press releases so they call it a leak and you look like an investigative journalist. Everyone wins right? Bleh fuck it. Slashdot has officially joined The Great Stupiding.

And microsoft would never do the same... (1)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743155)

I'm pretty sure Microsoft used to insert adverts into the footer of hotmail emails.

Re:And microsoft would never do the same... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743451)

I'm pretty sure Microsoft used to insert adverts into the footer of hotmail emails.

They did, but it wasn't based on profiling you by analyzing the content of the mail, and what you and the recipient have been doing on the net. Not saying this is a bad thing, just the difference.

Re:And microsoft would never do the same... (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743727)

they still do :) on the side now

Re:And microsoft would never do the same... (1)

tylsa (2924267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744179)

they're talking about the bottom of email messages sent out by the user.

The difference between all three (5, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743177)

Apple wants to sell you hardware, services and content. You pay for everything.
Microsoft wants to sell you hardware, services and content. You pay for everything.
Google wants you to use their services. You're being sold to pay for everything.

Re:The difference between all three (1)

CodeReign (2426810) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743371)

Apple and MS both have vast tracking tools as well. They just are vast within a small empire. Google has a much larger online empire and therefore more capabilities to track you.

Re:The difference between all three (5, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743513)

Search engine: Microsoft and Google
Desktop OS: All three
Mobile OS: All three
Music service: All three
Messaging service: All three
Email: All three
Maps: All three
Videos: Microsoft and Google
Cloud storage: All three

It isn't like Microsoft isn't in these other markets.

Re:The difference between all three (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743925)

Microsoft is in Zombie Management mode. Keep doing what worked before!

Copy the other company's products and offer them for free, then wait for the other company to go bankrupt.

Somebody should tell Microsoft - that doesn't work when you aren't the biggest company any more.

Re:The difference between all three (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743753)

remember, it is spelled M$

Re:The difference between all three (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743427)

And the question is: if you could get all the services Google now offers for free, but guaranteed without any tracking at all, how much would you be willing to pay per month?
 
And there's the rub.
 
.

Re:The difference between all three (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743735)

I could throw a little of my disposable income at that business model. However, most people who would consider "No tracking" to be a tangible benefit would not believe that Google was capable of guaranteeing such a thing.

Anybody who goes out of their way to avoid being tracked is going to worry about the three letter agencies looking SPECIFICALLY at their Google account - because they obviously have something to hide... better getting lost in the noise of billions of searches a day.

Re:The difference between all three (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743461)

With Apple, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
With Microsoft, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
With Google, you get services for free, but are tracked and sold contextual ads.

Re:The difference between all three (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743799)

Nearly every website on the 'net pings back to google-analytics.com. They track nearly every link you click on and how long you were on each page, with a high degree of accuracy. For those that use the gmail web interface, they tie that into the email contents and addresses of everyone you've had email correspondence with.

MS and Apple don't do that. In fact you can turn off app ad tracking right in the iPhone settings.

Re:The difference between all three (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744007)

Microsoft has a service like Google Analytics, it just happens that no one uses it:

http://www.bing.com/toolbox/webmaster [bing.com]

Microsoft does keep track of email correspondence, see the link I posted earlier in the thread.

I know that Google data-mines me to provide me free services. But they're not giving my data to anyone else. I'll gladly deal with seeing ads to get free services that I like. If you don't like that arrangement, then no one forces you to use their services. But you won't find a web services provider that doesn't data-mine you.

Re:The difference between all three (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743985)

Apple makes the most of its annual revenue stream from iTunes and iApp skimming, followed by hardware sales. Very little of their annual revenues are derived from selling "tracking" information about their users.
Microsoft makes the most of its annual revenue stream from Licensing, followed by software sales, and then Hardware/Games. VERY little (if any, does Bing actually show a profit yet?) of their annual revenues are derived from selling "tracking" information about their users.
Google makes ALL of it's revenue by selling profile and tracking information about their users.

Re:The difference between all three (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744165)

Pardon my ignorance, but when has Apple ever provided contextual ads? The only ad network they run is iAds, and as far as I've heard, they don't tailor the ads for the user. A developer who includes iAds in their app can tailor the ads for their app (e.g. only allow ads for techie things), but that isn't user-specific.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Microsoft also offers a number of free services (e.g. search engine, e-mail, etc.). As such, it makes sense why both they and Google would seek to monetize more effectively through the use of targeted ads, while Apple would not, since Apple is receiving its payment in other ways (e.g. paying for the service or paying for the hardware necessary to access the service).

TL;DR: I have no doubt Apple tracks its users (they've said as much). I'm merely asking for a citation that they have ever sold that data or used it to tailor ads for their users, since I can't think of an example where they have done so.

Re:The difference between all three (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744201)

This is simply not true. I use Apple's products every day, and I am neither tracked not advertised to by them.

When I used to have a Google account, I was tracked with every action I did, and advertised to with most.

Re:The difference between all three (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743699)

This isn't quite right. It makes sense like 5 years ago.

Google now owns Motorola Mobility. They sell hardware.

Google wants you to buy Android tablets and phones, some of which they sell on their website. Again, hardware.

Google is now charging for subscriptions on YouTube.

Google is more than just an advertising company now. It's still the majority of what they do, but clearly they're branching out. All three companies do the same thing. (Apple has iAds and Microsoft has ad services and bing)

Google == Microsoft == Apple

Apple only needs to buy a search engine like Yahoo to make this a real mirror match.

Re:The difference between all three (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743737)

google is there fore just much more efficient, and capable by necessity. not sure if I think thats good or bad!

Internal only? (2)

Apathist (741707) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743183)

Designed to be "internal-only", my ass. Designed to be "leaked" is more like it...

Re:Internal only? (2)

Lord Grey (463613) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743277)

Microsoft's internal videos have made it out into the wild [youtube.com] before. The iPod box video was eventually confirmed real [ipodobserver.com] .

This Scroogled video, on the other hand, feels like a transparent marketing ploy.

Re:Internal only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744021)

I see you got modded back down from 3 to 2 for no reason whatsoever. Maybe I wasn't paying attention before, but the Microsoft shills are really spending their mod points in force today - and in quite a subtle way, as per your post being downmodded. Perhaps it's time to stop accounts from Redmond IP addresses having mod points to misuse.

Jealous (5, Insightful)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743241)

It just seems like MS is jealous that Google is making money hand over fist. Microsoft tried to do the same thing Google did. They have a search engine and advertising business. They just aren't as good at it as Google. Tracking is pretty independent of what browser you use anyways. Besides, people don't give a shit that they are being monetized. People still use facebook don't they? And people do realize, to some probably limited extent, that facebook is all about monetizing them.

Re:Jealous (0)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743639)

So we're supposed to be cheering that Google tracks people all across their lives better?

Easy way to get Slashdot to agree with something - say Microsoft opposes it.

Headline: Microsoft opposes killing kittens!

Slashdot: KILL THE DAMN PUSSIES!

Re:Jealous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743831)

How much would you pay for gmail?

Re:Jealous (1)

inputdev (1252080) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744075)

I'd pay $10 a month - the problem is this: I know that if they charged $10 a month, most people would leave, and the email service would stagnate. The whole reason gmail is the best is because they have so much continual improvement. As soon as that stops, I'm going to move on to the new best thing. I did that when MS stopped being the best, and I will when google does as well. At the moment, I think the best thing going is Google Apps, running in Chrome, on a Macbook Pro. I'm not religious about it, I just haven't found anything I like better. I'm open to change though.

Negativity? (3, Insightful)

ashvagan (885082) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743311)

Don't we have ads on Bing? Don't we ads on Hotmail/Outlook.com? Don't we have ads on every service out there from Microsoft that's free? If you can't trust Google, you will never trust Microsoft either. Birds of a feather ...?

Re:Negativity? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743527)

Don't we have ads on Bing? Don't we ads on Hotmail/Outlook.com? Don't we have ads on every service out there from Microsoft that's free? If you can't trust Google, you will never trust Microsoft either. Birds of a feather ...?

I think it's fairly notable that Eric Schmidt regularly expresses his disdain toward the concept of privacy and the people who want it. Microsoft CEO may have a bad image, too, but since this discussion is about privacy I think that Schmidt is basically asking us to condemn Google in that regard and laughing at us when we do.

Re:Negativity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743733)

Schmidt isn't CEO of Google, Larry Page is. The common quote from Schmidt about privacy is always taken out of the context it was in, which is the fact that Google is required by law to provide some information to the government when subpoenaed.

meh. (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743407)

double meh.

A video showing how Google tracks your every move! (5, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743473)

Quick! Put it on YouTube so everyone ... can... see... it.

.

Mhm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743491)

Diablo is calling Mephisto evil. How novel.

Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743503)

I am remembering a story. Its about a Pot, and a Kettle, and an accusation,

Brilliant (2, Interesting)

Yebyen (59663) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743537)

The ad is simply brilliant. I never thought I'd see Microsoft looking out for my best interests.

It doesn't make me want to use Internet Explorer, but it had me laughing, and got me thinking.

Which is more than I can say for these comments!

Use Tools to block ads. (1)

goblinspy (2738809) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743579)

google lets you turn off tracking for most services. Login to facebook and go to bing and now make it not log you in to facebook connect.

Link to original ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743625)

For those of you who don't have all google adverts committed to memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEFNh4qEJTA

Microsoft internal videos (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743627)

I think Microsoft makes lots of these internal videos.

I worked as a temp at Microsoft a few years back, and there was a screen in the building that showed videos on loops. There was a pretty cool ad showing the wonders of an "ultra-mobile PC" being used in tablet mode, for example. (It didn't mention cost or battery life, just the cool stuff you could do.)

Anyway I saw a video, something like ten minutes long, that was a parable about outsourcing IT: This C-level guy (maybe the CEO but I'm not sure) wakes up and starts his day; his car comes by to pick him up, but it isn't his usual driver. "Where's my usual driver?" "He's... not here." The driver introduces himself as "Charles" and the C-level guy immediately starts calling him "Chuck" (which annoyed me right there). They get to the office building and all the people are gone. C-level guy: "Where is everyone?" Charles: "You forgot them." It turns out that the company decided to outsource IT to save money, not thinking about the effect this would have on the workers, so now this is a magical "A Christmas Carol" sort of situation where Charles is taking the C-level guy on a tour to show him what is bad now. A sales guy lost a sale because he didn't have a Windows Mobile smartphone. Other things... the one I remember is that they visited the server room, and it was empty, because the IT was outsourced to the cloud (this was pre-Azure so cloud meant non-Microsoft and therefore bad). A kid, maybe nine years old, rolled slowly past on a skateboard. "Who's that?" asked the C-level guy. "Oh, that's Linux." At the very end, the C-level guy wakes up for real and of course the people aren't missing, and he bumps into Charles who it seems is actually in his IT department. "Oh, can we get those Windows Mobile phones now?" Happy ending! Heart-warming!

I've searched YouTube a few times to see if this was ever leaked, but I don't know what it was called and I've never found it.

Dont really care if I am commercialized. (2)

saboosh (1863538) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743647)

Whats the big deal with getting ads for things I may actually care about (as opposed to crap I dont care about)? Its really on me to decide whether I want to spend the money on it so if it really ends up costing me a lot of money then thats my fault, not the advertisers. Either MSFT has nothing else to hit the competitor with or they truly believe that everyone has gotten so bad at moderation (Which I guess is true in the US) that they cannot get out of their own way and not spend money on everything that flies infront of their face. As far as the cost of having to "Deal" with ads getting in the way or other advertisers having more information on me. I would like to see some examples of how this has resulted in any significant cost to anyone because the most it has ever "cost" me is a click or two to close the ad or a call to the national directory to remove my number from the list. Thats not much cost to me, especially compared to what I get from Google (Mail, Maps, Android, machine learning in all those things to make them more tailored to my life.).

F. U. D. (5, Informative)

Geldon (444090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743717)

From the video, Microsoft wants you to think that Google is an evil oppressor that takes money out of your pocket by selling data on your behavior. They also want you to think that Google is "watching" you like some nosey neighbor who rather than blabbing your secrets all over town, will instead sell all your dirty secrets to the highest bidder.

And hey, if you think of it like that, it's pretty scary.

But seriously. Have you ever tried to actually sell your personal data to someone? Like, if you went to Starbucks and said, "Hey, I like coffee, I'm single, have a full time job, and disposable income. I'll let you tell me how great Starbucks is if you just pay me a dollar!" I'm sure that they'd probably look at you with some understandable confusion. Nothing is worth more than you can sell it for. That's simply the reality of economics. So your personal information generally has 0 monetary value to you and would probably cost you more to sell than it would cost you in time and energy to affect that sale.

Google is providing you a service. You're "paying" for that service by allowing Google to monetize your personal information ON YOUR BEHALF. It's a sort of barter agreement. Google will give you something at no monetary cost in exchange for the opportunity to sell your data to third parties. They're not selling your emails. They're not selling your text messages. They're not "reading" your data in any real sense (no actual person ever sees your data without an appropriate reason). They're effectively acting as your agent to monetize your demographic information. And rather than paying you in cash, they're paying you in services.

This is actually no different than how broadcast television works. They use companies like Nielsen to determine aggregate demographic information on the viewership for a given show. Then they sell that information to third parties (advertisers), who supply the necessary capital to run the TV channel and produce new content, which the network then gives to you for "free". Google's model is identical. Just because Google can fine-tune that demographic information does not alter the basic structure of the model.

All the FUD about "big data" relies on some over-zealous anthropomorphization of large scale data processing systems. Microsoft likes to use phrases like "Google reads your email" to scare you into thinking that there's some overworked engineers at Google that do nothing all day except sit around and chuckle about those emails you sent to your wife. But that just doesn't happen. It's scare tactics put out by people who have either never worked with large data sets or are purposefully obfuscating the truth with the intent to scare you.

In the end, you ultimately have a choice: You can simply stop using Google's services and thereby refuse to opt-in to their tracking. Humankind lasted millions of years without Google. You can avoid Google today if you don't want to pay for their services. But to freak out and say that Google is somehow operating nefariously by monetizing their services in a way that doesn't cost you cash out of pocket comes across as a bit obtuse.

Microsoft on the other hand... (1)

ATestR (1060586) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744099)

hasn't quite figure how to implement these features into their software. Otherwise, you can be certain that they would be just as intrusive as they say Chrome is... or worse.

Very thankful for this (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744107)

I can only speculate on what kind of kind, generous and benevolent entity would produce such an informative production. Surely a non-profit of course? Regardless, they must _clearly_ must have the interests of the general populace at heart!

And I do look forward to a similarly insightful exposee on the likes of Facebook, Amazon, and the many other, lesser known advertising/tracking groups in the internet...

Wait... (1)

Aaron H (2820425) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744143)

Wait, how is "tracking me" taking money out of my pocket?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?