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!

Microsoft to Buy DoubleClick?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the double-or-nuthin dept.

Microsoft 195

roscoetoon writes to tell us Bloomberg is reporting that Microsoft is in talks to buy DoubleClick. Seen as a move to compete against the Google advertising engine Double Click owners Hellman & Friedman are seeking a $2 billion payday. "The purchase would give Microsoft tools to battle Google Inc. for ads that appear on Web sites. DoubleClick works with advertisers to create online campaigns, such as streaming video clips to promote New Line Cinema's movie "The Number 23." The New York-based company's Dart technology monitors the performance of Internet ads for marketing companies."

cancel ×

195 comments

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

Micosoft? (2, Informative)

jamesl (106902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520505)

Edit please.

Micosoft.com is under construction (3, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520589)

"and coming soon"

I can't wait!

Re:Micosoft? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18520719)

No, it's correct. My company (named after me, Mico) is in talks to buy DoubleClick.

Re:Micosoft? (0, Offtopic)

sfled (231432) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520813)

That cracks me up. Someone please mod parent as funny.

Re:Micosoft? (1)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521351)

I thought you were in talks with DoobleClick.

Re:Micosoft? (3, Funny)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520793)

Slashdot "editors" do not "edit" submissions. This makes Slashdot "more real", according to CmdrTaco.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174297&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14502339#145024 84 [slashdot.org]

Re:Micosoft? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521783)

Maybe, but at least their dupes [slashdot.org] aren't usually word-for-word.

Re:Micosoft? (4, Funny)

313373_bot (766001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520795)

No, Mycosoft is better: from the greek mycos, for fungus, and soft, for software. Virus infections, DRM infections and now ad infections? It surely resembles a nasty case of mycosis.

Valuations (2, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520511)

Youtube = 1.6 billion
DoubleClick = 2?

Your thoughts?

Re:Valuations (2, Informative)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520749)

If the two were in the exact same segments, this is kind of how acquisitions go. The first one goes relatively cheap and the price of acquisitions rise in a given segment while the last few acquisitions are astronomically priced.

But they aren't the same sort of acquisitions so I think it's a coincidence.

Internet Bubble Mk.II (3, Insightful)

rve (4436) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520817)

Yet again, insane amounts of money are spent on things with very little substance but a high internet buzzword count.

Like last time, eventually investors will panic when they contemplate the very expensive pile of hot air they will have accumulated, and yet again the bubble will burst dramatically, sucking up billions of dollars that could have been invested in companies that actually make something and / or actually provide a service, and causing another European and North American recession.

Meanwhile, I'm investing all of my money in tulip bulbs.

Re:Internet Bubble Mk.II (2, Insightful)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18522115)

eventually investors will panic when they contemplate the very expensive pile of hot air they will have accumulated, and yet again the bubble will burst dramatically
In the mean time the people who orchestrated the event, having named themselves the execs and CEOs of both the investment firms and the hot air companies, will have portioned out to themselves a majority of the billions of dollars. The money doesn't just get sucked up--it gets laundered and funnelled back to the top of the pyramid.

Re:Valuations (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521133)


Youtube = 1.6 billion DoubleClick = 2? Your thoughts?

My copies of AdBlock don't block YouTube.

Re:Valuations (3, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18522079)

Nor do my squid filter rules.

I wonder if Doubleclick would get the prize for being the most blocked internet domain.

Re:Valuations (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18522145)

why doesnt adding a site manually block it? It works on my servers . . . .

Re:Valuations (2, Insightful)

yo_tuco (795102) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521901)

"Your thoughts?"

Is this the same doublclick that gets special treatment in my /etc/hosts file?

$ sudo cat /etc/hosts |grep doubleclick
127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 www2.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 ww3.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 ad.us..doubleclick.com ...

Just one more reason for people to hate MS (3, Insightful)

517714 (762276) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520523)

DoubleClick is not accessible from any computer I use. I don't believe a change in its ownership will change that

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (2, Interesting)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520655)

Perhaps the next IE update will add a new 'feature' to detect if ads are blocked/domains are localhosted and deny access to the webpage?

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520861)

Then it better learn to bypass the hosts file.

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (3, Interesting)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520927)

That is what I meant. If MS owns both the browser and the server, it could track whether pages visited also hit the real doubleclick servers and take 'appropriate' action. IE 7 already has 'Phishing' filter technology which sends your URL to a central server. Combine that technology with the doubleclick server and viola...

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521405)

I'm sure that I turned that off completely, but thanks for the reminder to do a quick check with Tcpview. The next time I run IE7, that is.

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521365)

And the router.

Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick? (4, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520709)

If you use Firefox, snag Adblock Plus [mozilla.org] and the Filterset.G Updater [mozilla.org] . If you're using Internet Destr-- Er, I mean Internet Explorer, woe is you, but at least snag the Google Toolbar [google.com] , which I think blocks DoubleClick ads.

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick? (5, Funny)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520857)

snag the Google Toolbar, which I think blocks DoubleClick ads
If it doesn't now, it will after the acquisition!

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick? (3, Informative)

ZiZ (564727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520889)

Or you could use the EasyList and EasyElement [adblockplus.org] filter subscriptions with Adblock Plus - no extra extension needed, and they're simpler and easier to maintain (and, at least subjectively, faster) than the Filterset.G is. I was a huge fan of Filterset.G for a long time, but I've been even happier with Easy*.

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick? (2, Informative)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521125)

Thanks for the tip, it was encouraging to hear that from someone who actually used Filterset.G.

I've been using Filterset.G for a long time too, but I just switched to EasyList and EasyElement. This [adblockplus.org] part of the Adblock Plus FAQ helped me make that decision (in summary, Filterset.G sometimes whitelists ads, and it uses complicated regexes that slow down browsing).

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18521075)

Yay, I finally get to tell my awesome Doubleclick story.

To back up all the way to the beginning, a couple of years ago, I got a call from a recruiter about a job with a small local company that was writing some software that would allow people to track advertising campaigns. I interviewed, and felt rather ambivalent about them... they seemed like they were writing decent software, but I'm over the whole startup thing, and spending 80 hours in the office. They passed on me. At the time I was a little upset, even though I wasn't all that interested in them. As my neighbor put it, "It's like when the ugly girl doesn't want to dance with you."

A while later, I saw some of the guys who interviewed me walking around the building I worked in. I checked the building directory, but the company wasn't on the list. So I hit their website, and lo and behold, they'd been bought by Doubleclick.

Whew. Dodged a bullet. I mean, Doubleclick. Yikes. I'm past the point in my life where I can walk out of a job on principle without another job already lined up, and I'm still paranoid from the bust.

So I tell the recruiter all this, and I don't really mince words about my opinion concerning Doubleclick.

He submitted me anyway.

I got a call a couple days later from someone. It was outside normal business hours, and I normally don't answer numbers I don't recognize during my off time, but a good friend of mine was expecting the birth of his son any day, so I answered just in case. I was in a guitar shop at the time, and couldn't hear too well, but they were talking about the opportunity at Doubleclick. I assumed it was another recruiter, so I went into my whole spiel about my history with the other company, how glad I wasn't working for them when they were acquired, and how distasteful I found Doubleclick.

I guess there's really no suspense here. Naturally, the guy I was talking to was the hiring manager over at Doubleclick, and I had just unloaded on him. In fact, I do believe I mentioned being "glad I don't have that stain on my resume."

I felt pretty horrible. It was an accident, and I'm sure the poor guy didn't want to work at Doubleclick any more than I did. But still... in retrospect, it was pretty funny.

Even funnier was the fact that Doubleclick had an office in our building. When I told a coworker the story the following day, she pointed out that, undoubtedly, someone on the second floor was telling the exact same story :)

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18521703)

This is hardly an awesome story. This is some idiot, that doesn't understand what Doubleclick does railing mindlessly on without a clue what he is talking about. Tell me what exactly Doubleclick does that is offensive to you? Serve up ads? Tell me how does Google get most of their money. Serving up ads.

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521777)

If you're using Internet Destr-- Er, I mean Internet Explorer,

You mean Insecure Exploder?

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick? (2, Informative)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521785)

If you use Firefox, snag Adblock Plus [mozilla.org] and the Filterset.G Updater [mozilla.org

FYI, Adblock Plus advises against Filterset.G [adblockplus.org] - they have their own sets of filters that work better.

I still use it out of ignorance because it works just fine for me TYVM.

Re:Seriously, who doesn't filter DoubleClick? (5, Insightful)

gertam (1019200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521959)

Have you thought about the fact that Microsoft doesn't just get access to the doubleclick domains, but doubleclick gets access to the microsoft domains. You gonna block all them, go ahead. Not many companies will.

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (1)

ReverendLoki (663861) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520739)

Yeah, I too have just about every Doubleclick server blocked on my browsers. I'm just hoping that they keep the Doubleclick functions separate from MS servers. Unfortunately, I have legitimate needs to visit MS sites, and it would be a pain if I had to go and start blocking various MS subdomains just to keep some of the more nefarious pop-ups at bay.

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (4, Informative)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520743)

Which makes them a perfect advertiser in my books. They are easy to block. Their ad spaces on client websites generally collapse very neatly, too.

That said, I wonder what Microsoft could bring to DoubleClick. I'd hate to see Microsoft add various "stealth" techniques that other advertisers use, e.g., frequently rotating hostnames, formats, etc.

If customers are going to block your ads, at least make it easy. They're going to do it either way. The easier you make it, the more those people will remain on those websites, which at least brings you minimal value as an advertiser. When I worked in media, we typically gave clients two different sets of stats for this exact purpose. You don't disclose your traffic count based on your advertising banners/etc, instead you tell them your server stats traffic, which is always higher. Of course, you're selling impressions/clicks/referrals, so the advertiser doesn't actually care if the site users are blocking their ad as long as they get what they paid for. The website, of course, may or may not care, depending on who they are.

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (1)

FLEB (312391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521209)

I don't follow you as to the "value". If ads are blocked, there's not even an "impression" made. The goodwill and pulling in other unblocking viewers might bring in some new revenue, but I doubt that would counteract the server usage from the lost hits.

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18522153)

It won't make up all the lost value, no. However, your site traffic can be a powerful bargaining chip, particularly in local markets, e.g., local television o local newspapers. While your paper may be selling the same 300,000 impressions for about the same cost as local competitors, you can use your higher server traffic as a "wow" factor. As in, "Wow, you guys get how many millions of hits a month? That's three times as many as the other paper...".

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (2, Interesting)

Yurka (468420) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520869)

This statement (about change of ownership not affecting accessibility) is clearly wrong for those people who use Windows. I am predicting a networking patch through WindowsUpdate soon after the deal is completed which, among other effects, suddenly makes the computer fail to acknowledge your "127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.com" entry in hosts.

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18520891)

but you're just a jerkoff so who cares what you do?

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521067)

DoubleClick is not accessible from any computer I use. I don't believe a change in its ownership will change that

This just in,
  • Microsoft announce plans to buy AddBlock!!!

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18522193)

If you are implying that a MS box will soon circumvent that, then this just in... I don't use Windows!

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (1)

rbochan (827946) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521131)

Yeah, and will Microsoft's anti-spyware detect doubleclick?

Re:Just one more reason for people to hate MS (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521223)

probably not, after all, it will become a 'valuable tool for the customer' or some such crap.

First twofo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18520527)

Morons [twofo.co.uk]

Execellent! One less advertiser... (1)

jhfry (829244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520551)

once MS gets through with them!

Re:Execellent! One less advertiser... (1)

Dark Kenshin (764678) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520597)

Yeah, it helps to read TFA, I first thought the term was literal, but the company paints a different picture on the title.

Perfect match (5, Funny)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520569)

The company that does bloated and hated software buys the company that does bloated and hated internet ads. Its a perfect match.

Privacy Issues? (3, Insightful)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520811)

Yeah, a bloated and hated company that has a huge amount of computers going to its site every day buys a company that has a huge amount of cookies on everybody's computers. Match the two together somehow and you probably have more of an issue than searching on google and using gmail at the same time...at least this would probably be able to tie a much lager portion of users to their surfing habits.

What could only add to the mix would be Microsoft + Double Click + Homeland Security (and maybe throw AT&T into the mix as well)

Transporter_ii

Not so bloated any more! (1)

taniwha (70410) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520953)

apparently they've done away with an "r" ....

MS should know when to give up (4, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520573)

MS have a very poor history of taking away market share from others, especially on a playing field that is stacked against them.

Their roaring success: DOS + Windows was not achieved by taking away market share from others (ie. Apple etc), but by going into a new market. They used illegal means to get Office in place.

Whenever they have tried to eat into an existing market where they cannot leverage Windows they have failed miserably: Zune, MSN, .... Their aquisitions are much the same: hotmail...

Doubleclick is likely to end up on the junk pile too.

Where did you go yesterday? (4, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520717)

Doubleclick is likely to end up on the junk pile too.
Looks to me like Microsoft has just decided to stop asking, "Where do you want to go today?" and decided to buy the company that has already harvested the answer. They now have access to a huge database of cross-site cookies tracking where people have gone on the web.

Nonsense (5, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520741)

Windows wasn't a foregone conclusion - in the early days there was GEM, and during Windows' development there was also OS/2. Office didn't just materialise either, there was Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect/WordStar/DBase III. Then there's Netscape - they killed Netscape-the-company completely by, despite the many myths, simply being better than Netscape v4.

Tried to eat into an existing market with Hotmail? Hotmail was the market - it's all the others that are the followers here. Some did it better of course, but MS were not trying to take away market share from others. They were trying to prevent losing users to web-based interfaces which they did not own.

Zune and MSN...yep, agreed. Doubleclick - different class. It's not an end-user product, and due to this I rather suspect they'll do well with it. MS do cater to developers and API users pretty well, and that's what you're talking about when it comes to an advert site. In the end it can only be good to have two vast firms competing for your site's space and offering you cash accordingly.

Well, good for the site creator of course. For me, I mutter a few words of gratitude for AdBlock and Pithhelmet and then carry on regardless.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18521033)

Tried to eat into an existing market with Hotmail? Hotmail was the market - it's all the others that are the followers here. Some did it better of course, but MS were not trying to take away market share from others. They were trying to prevent losing users to web-based interfaces which they did not own.

Hotmail was the market before they were bought by Microsoft. I don't think this example fits with the point you're trying to make. OTOH, it is somewhat similar to the doubleclick purchase.

Re:Nonsense (2, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521183)

You know what, as unfashionable as it is, you're right about netscape 4 and IE.

At the time I had no idea what Microsoft were doing. I just got so utterly sick of trying to use Netscape that I started casting about for any alternative. IE wasn't great, but it was faster. In 33/56k modem days the speed of IE was an awesome advantage, even if it didn't have the features. I didn't care about what was happening to Netscape, but at that point I had only just got back into computing after an eight year break.

I didn't change from IE until the first version of Firefox came out, or Firebird as it was then. Since that time I have never willingly used IE. If any site requires it I just stop using that site.

Re:MS should know when to give up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18520827)

What about the Xbox? Who would've thought 10 years ago that a Microsoft-produced videogame console would someday be the console to beat? "Leveraging Windows" had very little to do with that success.

Re:MS should know when to give up (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520903)

They used illegal means to get Office in place.

They did? And what would those be?

Re:MS should know when to give up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18521127)

Undocumented API calls in Windows that Office uses not shared with competitors.
Undocumented OS flaw workarounds used in Office and not shared with competitors.
Subtle changes to the OS to make rival applications run slower and with less reliability.
Lots of other stuff too. Here's a nice reference for you. [sonic.net]

Re:MS should know when to give up (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521171)

Let's see... adding incompatibilities into the OS that affected WordPerfect and SmartSuite in the last few RCs or in the GA copies of various versions of Windows... and taken to court for it.

Re:MS should know when to give up (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18522311)

incompatibilities into the OS that affected WordPerfect and SmartSuite

Cite? And I don't mean Novell suing Microsoft for their inability to prop up a product that fell behind Word in the early 90s - I mean one of these "incompatibilities" or mythic "hidden APIs" that actually caused WP to stop working on a given version of Windows.

Re:MS should know when to give up (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521023)

Whenever they have tried to eat into an existing market where they cannot leverage Windows they have failed miserably: Zune, MSN, ..xbox 360

Oh wait.

Re:MS should know when to give up (1)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521289)

MS have a very poor history of taking away market share from others, especially on a playing field that is stacked against them.
[sarcasm] Yes, exactly! As illustrated by Microsoft never achieving the dominant browser after Netscape's early lead...[/sarcasm] oh wait...

follows the MS motto (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18520583)

Do be evil.

Re:follows the MS motto (2, Informative)

jrockway (229604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521285)

What exactly is evil about DoubleClick? If you don't want the cookie, you can either not visit sites that use DoubleClick, or you can opt out of the tracking cookie:

http://www.doubleclick.com/us/about_doubleclick/pr ivacy/dart_adserving.asp [doubleclick.com]

DoubleClick is pretty darn non-evil, unless you hate advertising for some reason.

Re:follows the MS motto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18521431)

Cookies? Ads? The internet still has such things? Fancy that.

Re:follows the MS motto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18522007)

I believe their motto is more along the lines of:
"Be Evil! MwahahahaHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!"

Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18520587)

KDE users won't have to pay royalties to Microsoft for launching applications on the desktop!

Feel free, MS... (3, Insightful)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520593)

...I've had doubleclick's servers blocked in my HOSTS file for ages now.

Me too. Plus a question (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520647)

Wouldn't it be cool if a distro shipped an "ad-free" version of firefox, i.e. it comes with a hosts file of good repute and just asks you for root password to install it?

I think that should be an installation option on the new generation (Cf. ubuntu) of desktop distros.

Re:Me too. Plus a question (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520893)

The closest I've been able to come is by creating a "blacklist" in the NoScript extension, and by allowing all root-level JS to run by default.

Re:Feel free, MS... (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520649)

Maybe it's time then to find a way to secure your HOSTS file, for the next Windows Update might kindly remove any hostile addition to it.

Re:Feel free, MS... (2, Informative)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521689)

Get a cheap router, then throw all the DoubleClick domains into the "parental blocking" filter.

Re:Feel free, MS... (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520653)

I've had both doubleclick and google-syndication blocked in mine for some time as well. Sure speeds up my web browsing experience.

Re:Feel free, MS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18521219)

What do we need to add to our Hosts list?
Please Lettuce
Lettuce Know!

Re:Feel free, MS... (3, Interesting)

Taelron (1046946) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521227)

lol I blocked Doubleclick at home and on everyone of my client sites ever since they came out...

The only thing that concerns me is as someone else has said, they start rotating the hosts or even outright dropping "doubleclick" anywhere in the domain name so those filters no longer work.

If the ads suddenly start coming from Microsoft.com servers suddenly trying to block them would cause issues getting updates and patches.

I can see it now, the new Eula and Verification tool, in order to access MS Updates you must all access to our advertising service.

Opps we see your system blocks Microsoft Advertisement, sending a message with your information to our legal department, contact your administrator to unblock our messages in order to receive your free critical updates.

And then I'm sure that MS will try to sue people for blocking their advertisements just like they try to sue you for getting a computer without their software...

Re:Feel free, MS... (2, Informative)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521295)

Yeah, but they keep changing their domains from ad1.doubleclick to ad2.doubleclick or some such combinations to try and stay one step ahead of the host file blockers. This would not get by a regular expression of course, but the windows hosts system does not support regular expression based filtering. Fortunately, AdBlock [mozilla.org] does support regular expression based filtering and it manages to keep double click out despite the games they try to play.

Re:Feel free, MS... (1)

gertam (1019200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18522071)

So now you can block all of microsofts servers too, because doubleclick will have access to all of them.

like google (3, Interesting)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520623)

Will it be as repressive as google? Read their terms of service. There is a whole list of things you cant discuss on an adsence page. Guns and drugs to name two.

Re:like google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18520701)

Help, help! I'm being repressed!

Just what we need (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18520661)

Oh boy, the Zune of internet advertising. I'm sure the Google people are really worried.

did... (1)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520667)

...microsoft patent the use of commas and other punctuation marks - and i just didn't notice?
 
duh.

Just so long... (5, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520687)

Just so long as they don't patent the double-click.

What is Doubleclick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18520735)

Yours faithfully,

Joe (Firefox + AdBlock Plus) User.

Let's see... (2, Insightful)

Wireless Joe (604314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520745)

AdBlock Plus filter set to *doubleclick.net*? Yes. Purchase away Microsoft.

don't forget (1)

Phu5ion (838043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18520965)

*doubleclick.microsoft.com*
*doubleclick.msn.com*
etc.

Can msft "fix" the filtering? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521013)

Couldn't msft set it up so that the page won't load if filtering is enabled, or something?

I won't notice.... (1)

skogs (628589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521025)

SmoothWall Firewall [smoothwall.org]
DansGuardian Content Filter [dansguardian.org]
Domain Block of Ad-Servers [yoyo.org] .


Nope...I won't notice at all.

Re:I won't notice.... (1)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521561)

me too, i'm just plugging off the ac cab...

completely OT but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18521029)

I'm curious and eager to learn


stab_val(stab)->str_nok = 1; /* what a wonderful hack! */ -- Larry Wall in stab.c from the perl source code

(Quote from the /. footer.) Would someone care to explain?

learn to spell cmdrdildo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18521089)

don't be a dumb faggot, get that linux crap off your system.

This could be dangerous, actually (2, Insightful)

tacokill (531275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521185)

Imagine what you could do - if you were not limited - with all of the data MSFT could gather and combine it with the marketing/advertising data of DoubleClick.

Think operating systems, browser, and office "features" here, people. The features gather more and more information as time goes on. Its already been happening over the last 5-10 years so the trend is certainly in that direction. I mean, thus far, Mr. Softie has been pretty easy (all things considered) on how much data he sends back home but I am sure things could be configured differently to gather a whole new set of information. A much larger, complex, and more intrusive set of information. And then they can market based on that data (DoubleClick). Like Google, cept Google doesn't have an operating system sitting on every damn computer in the world.

It could get very very ugly. I can envision several nasty things that I would do and thats only thinking about it 5 min.

Access to customers (data) + Marketing/advertising = big revenues for the seller of marketing and advertising products. That's what we are talking about here -- selling ads.

Obligatory add-on: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18521823)

Like Google, cept Google doesn't have an operating system sitting on every damn computer in the world.
Yet.

Re:This could be dangerous, actually (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18522223)

thus far, Mr. Softie has been pretty easy (all things considered) on how much data he sends back home
My hypothesis is that Mr. Softie has been pretty comprehensive--and sneaky--about the data which is sent back home. With the extraordinary ease with which databases can be transferred, assimilated, indexed, combined, and mined, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a service out there which can correlate your Windows key with every cookie which has ever been on your system, every IP address you've ever had, every browser you've ever used, and every bit of personal information which can be gleaned from public tax records, DOT records, or lists available from insurance carriers.

Yawn (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521313)

I already block them in my hosts file. This changes nothing.

Re:Yawn (3, Informative)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521755)

I already block them in my hosts file. This changes nothing.

If you're using Windows and blocked Microsoft sites on your hosts file, Windows will ignore it and still connect to them [slashdot.org] . If they get DoubleClick, I wont be surprised if the same thing happens with their servers.

Ads on Web pages? (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521733)

Really? There's advertising on web pages? I hadn't noticed [adblockplus.org] .

23! Ah-ah-ah... (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18521737)

to promote New Line Cinema's movie ``The Number 23.''
Brought to you by the letter Q, and the letter E.

Wrong Half, M$ (5, Insightful)

AnonymousRobin (1058634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18522005)

Nobody goes to Google Whatever for the ads. They go there because they want to use a useful, well-made service. You don't compete by making better ads. Nobody likes ads. Google gets away with it because their ads are unobtrusive, and nobody minds seeing (occasionally useful) ads on the side of their Gmail inbox. People are going to mind seeing giant streaming videos playing at full volume when they're trying to read an e-mail from their niece. If Microsoft wants to compete, they're going to have to spend a little less time trying to think about how to steal money from you by annoying you enough, and a bit more on making applications good enough that people won't mind ads.

Re:Wrong Half, M$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18522315)

For the love of god, mark the parent up insightful.

M$ to BUY doubleclick?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18522135)

I thought they invented it...

doubleclick ?? (1)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 7 years ago | (#18522341)

oh yeah ad.doublick.* I vaguely remember them...I added a 127.0.0.1 dns entry for them loooong ago. That would probably explain the broken link on the ad-box on THIS VERY PAGE, now wouldn't it :)

Micosoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18522385)

Micosoft? Mi_c_o_soft?

Who the hell are they?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>