
Aggressive negative advertising by Microsoft against Google. - marpi
http://scroogled.com
======
quesera
This is embarassingly sloppy, but I agree with the kernel of the message.

Microsoft says Google "goes through" your email to target ads, whereas
outlook.com only "scans" your email for spam filtering. This is a valid
contrast, destroyed by the bullshit phrasing.

The important difference for me is that spam filter criteria are common to 99%
of all recipients. My personal set (if google even has personal blacklists) is
not that interesting.

Valuable advertising keywords are much more personal, and a) can be used by
the advertiser, along with other metadata, to glue together a profile about me
that is quite personal (and unreviewable, unfixable, probably incorrect in
annoying ways), and b) are almost certainly retained by Google in my ad-
profile that is then used elsewhere on their properties...maybe I'm naive, but
I assume they do not let email keywords cross pollinate into Adsense on the
wider Internet...

Of course, I don't trust either one of them. The notion of storing my mail
spool on anyone else's servers is unfathomably derelict to me. I recognize
that I'm in the minority here.

~~~
pdonis
_The notion of storing my mail spool on anyone else's servers is unfathomably
derelict to me. I recognize that I'm in the minority here._

I'm in the same minority.

------
junto
If you login to Outlook.com (which is extremely slow btw), you'll also find
the following settings page available from the bottom right cog icon:
<https://data.choice.microsoft.com/mydata/UserInterests>

Under 'My Data' it stores Bing Searches and takes guesses as to your
'Interests'. How does it do that exactly? Operationally, how different is
Outlook.com a.k.a Hotmail, compared to Google? Both are free, and nothing is
for free in this world. So, Microsoft also have an angle.

Digging further you'll find information on Microsoft Advertising, which is
something I don't remember actively opting in to, but I appear to be
registered for: <https://data.choice.microsoft.com/MyChoices/MSAdvertising>

It states, and I quote:

> About Microsoft Advertising

> With the Microsoft Personal Data Dashboard (beta), you can choose not to
> receive personalized ads on websites that use the Microsoft Advertising
> Platform by not allowing Microsoft Advertising to use your information.

> Information used by Microsoft Advertising

> The Microsoft Advertising Platform customizes personalized ads based on
> different types of information, including but not limited to:

> Bing searches

> Interests

> Profile

> What does it mean not to allow Microsoft Advertising to use your
> information?

> Well, first, it doesn't mean you will stop getting ads or see fewer ads;
> but, it does mean that the ads you get won't be personalized anymore by
> Microsoft Advertising. Microsoft will continue to collect information for
> other uses, such as delivering content that is personalized for you; for
> example, the news articles displayed on MSN and the results you get when you
> search for software updates.

I guess, at least I can opt-out. Google doesn't allow me to opt-out of their
creepiness. Saying that though, even though GMail creeps me out, but I'm
addicted to the user interface.

~~~
psbp
"Creepiness"? Are you a child?

You seem to comprehend how Google runs its business and pays for its services.
Isn't it incredibly ludicrous to call it creepy?

~~~
criley
No, reading personal email to deliver advertisements is creepy. It's better
than it used to be but we all remember seeing things like casket
advertisements when an email mentioned dead code, etc etc.

It's creepy, and I would gladly pay google monthly to prevent them from
abusing my privacy.

But Google doesn't want money from me, it wants to abuse my privacy. That's
far more profitable.

It's unfortunate but too many services point to my gmail for me to be able to
switch.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Let's define what "read" means in this context. A computer program, most
likely a C++ binary, takes the string of your emails, splits on U+0020 and
sends the resulting array through a series of algorithms like Levenshtein
distance to match to its database of ads.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Text mining has come a long way since 1985, so I don't think that's how it's
done (in fact I know it's not done that way), but I guess what you mean is
that no human ever looks at the data. That's possible, but not reassuring.

Many of the shady purposes this data could be misused for don't require a
human to ever read it. Say, one day, that C++ binary computes a score that
indicates how reliable, credit worthy, dangerous, healthy, honest or skilled
you are.

Say another C++ binary makes a decision that influences your life based on
such a score. A decision on health insurance, banking, job applications,
security matters, etc. Is that better, just because no human ever looked at
the data and giggled because you searched for some embarrassing disease?

~~~
Shooti
But what business sense does it make for Google to sell the data directly? You
can only sell data once; targeted advertising can be sold over and over again.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
It could make business sense for someone like Google or LinkedIn or Facebook
to provide a service to employers to score job applicants in terms of loyalty,
skill, reliability, security risk or whatever. It could make business sense
for Google to provide credit risk scoring to banks or lifestyle/health related
scoring to health insurance companies. They would not have sell our personal
data to do that. They would just compute scores.

Granted it would not make business sense for Google to do that right now. But
the future might look very differently. What about a desperate future Google
that has been deprived of ad income by regulation happy governments or
threatened by anti-trust legislation? What about a Google disrupted and
superseded by some other new and cool company, lead by someone put in place by
activist investors to monetize its assets?

Things change, but our ability to react to such changes is very limited when
it comes to taking back information that has been put out there.

------
kyro
I think this is a sign of Microsoft's desperation to stay relevant.

Most of the Surface reviews have spoken poorly about the device. Windows RT
hasn't been well received. They've tried to revamp their entire image -- with
new hardware, software, and extensive marketing -- with limited success. "Look
at how cool our product is" hasn't worked for them, so they're resorting to
"look at how terrible their product is." You can tell they've been trying
incredibly hard to stay fresh, but nothing has really taken off for them. I've
yet to see a Surface in the wild.

~~~
fekberg
"Most of the Surface reviews have spoken poorly about the device."

What reviews have you been reading?

Edit: Regarding the actual topic, this is just "normal" PR it's a way to scare
people into swapping from gmail to outlook.com unfortunately it works better
than many might think. Microsoft aren't the only ones doing PR like this it's
a lot more common than you might think.

I think PR like this _can_ be good for two reasons: raise awareness of the
issue that Google scans your e-mails and make people aware that there are
other worthy alternatives to gmail.

I noticed that in one of the "cases" listed on the page by Microsoft one
e-mail is about a credit card debt where someone might have overused their
credit limit and might be in trouble. The ads that pop up from this is such
ads giving advice on how to get new loans to cover the credit card debt which
is really not a nice way of helping someone that is already in trouble.

I think that Microsoft could (and maybe should) have less aggressive PR about
competitors and just focus on the good parts about outlook.com.

Anyways, I'm probably biased because I love Microsoft and whatever they do and
I own all their awesome devices.

~~~
fusiongyro
All of the original Surface reviews were negative. The Surface Pro reviews
seem to be mostly positive.

~~~
fekberg
"All of the original Surface reviews were negative"

No they're not? Then you haven't read ALL of them, mine weren't negative and
most of the ones I read weren't negative either.

I don't think you want to remember the positive ones, but there are a lot of
them.

~~~
firefoxman1
Even if the reviews are positive, I've spoken to _many_ people about the
Surface (techies and not) and very few spoke well of Windows 8/Surface.

~~~
fekberg
I have both iPad and Surface and I've had the iPad for years. I've asked my
girlfriend if she wants an iPad and she told me that she didn't because she
didn't really find a use case for it.

When I brought home the Surface she said: "Wow, this I can use . Get me one!".

I don't really know why but she likes it and everyone that I've show Surface
to and that have tried it out do infact like it, a lot.

~~~
abdulla
That's some pretty anecdotal evidence. Just as anecdotally, I have heard to
the contrary.

------
PaulMest
It's unfortunate that the marketing folks at Microsoft are looking to take
this stance to unbelievable levels. I would rather see relevant ads than
irrelevant ads.

I used to work at Microsoft. I heard second hand that some exec (I believe
they said it was Ballmer) in the last couple of years made the decision that
Microsoft would make privacy a competitive differentiator. This sounds great
on the surface, but it has lead to seriously unfortunate behavior.

For example, I worked on one of the first server manageability products that
was completely hosted on the web. I was really excited to apply what I was
learning from HN and the Lean Startup movement to a real online product and
not boxed software. Then reality sunk in when we wanted to implement some very
common features like A/B testing, surveys, email open rate tracking, exposure
control, et al. Our legal and privacy teams were highly reluctant to allow us
to do these because it could violate Microsoft's stance on privacy.

Some of the most memorable arguments were:

* "A/B testing and exposure control are not acceptable for our paying customers. Every customer must see the exact same version of the software at the same time." [Would you rather have a bad feature affect 100% of customers or 1% of customers?]

* "Google is getting a lot of bad press for all of the data Chrome sends to Google so we should minimize the amount of data captured and stored from this product." [I heard this in an official privacy training the same day that Chrome overtook IE in market share. Also, my product was specifically meant to capture lots of data about servers and analyze it for potential problems.]

* "We understand that these practices may be common place at [name any internet company here, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Bingo Card Creator], but we are not them. You must find a precedent that is set inside Microsoft before we can proceed."

I hope that Microsoft does succeed in making privacy a competitive
differentiator, but I feel they lack tact and common sense in many cases.

~~~
OGinparadise
_I hope that Microsoft does succeed in making privacy a competitive
differentiator, but I feel they lack tact and common sense in many cases.._

There is no love lost between them, and IMO Microsoft will get some traction
because Google is desperate to increase revenue and keep their PE at over 20.

Their shopping is 100% ads and probably 90% of most transactional query pages
are ads. Search for a commercial item and you are greeted by so many that
"unbiased" search is drowned out. Google has ruined their product in search of
short term profit thanks to Larry Page.

~~~
ithkuil
A sincere curiosity:

why do you think it would be in google's interest to bias search result ?

What kind of bias you expect exactly ? Showing paying customers first in
search results? Or not showing results if there are similar ads to be
displayed?

~~~
OGinparadise
_why do you think it would be in google's interest to bias search result ?_

Ask a Googler or Larry Page, why did they do that?

 _Showing paying customers first in search results? Or not showing results if
there are similar ads to be displayed?_

It's a lot more than showing a few ads next to search, it's almost all ads.
Frankly even the "unbiased results" are mostly from advertisers. I do not
trust them at all, their revenue keeps increasing with each change

~~~
ithkuil
> Frankly even the "unbiased results" are mostly from advertisers

What do you mean? I wonder if we are talking about the same search engine. For
which queries? Can you please provide some data and examples and be
constructive.

Of course if you search for "buy an ipad" I expected you to get web pages of
people selling that thing, some of them will be ads, interesting...

Just to compare I searched for "insects in pleistocene", and guess what, no
ads, zero, no sites from "advertisers" too. Ah, well there is an entry from
google books, in 5th position, crap, I certainly didn't want to know that
somebody wrote a book about that...

Btw, getting search results containing sites of people selling stuff (I guess
that's what you mean by "advertisers in the unbiased results) is a proof that
the search is unbiased.

Any kind of open and free search engine will give business the possibility to
write sites that contain keywords that will eventually get to the search
results and piss you off because "the internet is filled with crappy
advertisement".

What are you criticizing ? The current search engine monopolist or "the
capitalistic system" ?

\--

This article is about a borderline situation where the process of automatic
scanning of your personal conversations is used to achieve a goal where you
are the party that benefits the less.

Compare this with antspam scanning, which also has to analyze text of all your
email, including all the training that you put in the system by actually
reporting spam, or removing it from the spam folder.

You are grateful that somebody is filtering your spam. Of course the company
offering the service also benefits from you, since it receives more
conversions if it has an useful service which people love. But all in all, you
have the feeling that it's you who benefit the most out of the deal, so have a
machine parsing your email for that purpose doesn't bother you.

~~~
OGinparadise
_Just to compare I searched for "insects in pleistocene", and guess what, no
ads, zero, no sites from "advertisers" too. Ah, well there is an entry from
google books, in 5th position, crap, I certainly didn't want to know that
somebody wrote a book about that..._

Wow you got me, you are so smart. Google has no ads for those words so they
put no ads. Proof that they are fair and unbiased.

Google makes most of their money in finance, insurance, e-commerce, hotels and
the likes. Try a keyword and see

~~~
ithkuil
You are taking for granted that when you don't search for something you don't
get ads. But that's something that's very specific about standard that was set
by google with its non intrusive ads.

Most of the other commercial sites, including search engines, were filled with
blinking banners trying to sell you anything, even if you just searched for
boring entomology.

(The same pattern is repeating with ads in mobile aps btw)

Watching TV you are bombarded with ads you don't care about, consuming your
time and infiltrating into your mind. How can this possibly compare with "80%
OFF Hotels" message appearing when you are indeed searching for hotels. How
can this fuck your brain? Most of anti-ad ideology comes from that aspect of
ads, which cannot be applied blindly in this context.

I rarely notice search engine ads, unless what I'm looking is really something
I'm expecting somebody to advertise and I'm actually searching for that thing!
(you named hotels....) Why not?

Now please tell me what exactly is broken with this way of advertising. What
damage does it cause? I'm all ears but please articulate your concerns and
give examples.

What I want is that access to information is unbiased. I want that people
around the world, no matter what is their income can know about stuff, have
access to scientific education, and stuff like that, and this is basically how
things are. Yes it works.

I've met a guy from remote african viallages, who self learned to be great
developers (I mean great, not good). The knowledge wasn't blocked. There were
no companies able to pay google to show only forums behind paywalls (like
experts-exchange) basically cutting off people which not only don't have money
but have no practical way to obtain credit card. And I'm sure that many
companies would love to be able to do that! It would be great for them; just
provide a site which offers some paywalled content and pay the search company
to provide only links to them whenever this keywords come (and prune the
normal results). Now, that would be search bias! I never saw anything like
this with google or bing. Please point me to an example and I'll change my
mind.

> Google makes most of their money in finance, insurance, e-commerce, hotels
> and the likes. Try a keyword and see

What do you think would end up in the search results when you search for
hotels?

You will find the same old crap of booking aggregators and resellers and cheap
offers whatever. That's because the content is what it is. Companies would do
nasty tricks to end up higher in that free-open search engine, exploiting fake
content (I mean, there is already plenty of that stuff already, so I guess you
know what I mean).

Is that what bothers you? Or the list of ads in the rights side? Are we
talking about the same thing? Search bias = bias in the search result, not the
ads side bar, right?

~~~
OGinparadise
_standard that was set by google with its non intrusive ads._

The content is non-intrusive, ads are everywhere.

 _You will find the same old crap of booking aggregators and resellers and
cheap offers whatever. That's because the content is what it is. Companies
would do nasty tricks to end up higher in that free-open search engine,
exploiting fake content (I mean, there is already plenty of that stuff
already, so I guess you know what I mean).._

Google is supposed to be neutral, not force sites to advertise for traffic. In
case you didn't know, aggregators like Expedia often have the lowest price.
Not the 745223587 ads you see per page, and especially not Google travel.

------
Adaptive
Aggressive, negative advertising is the violence of the marketing world, and
as Asimov said "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

I don't have any problem with aggressive advertising if it's done well,
creatively, thoughtfully, intelligently. This is none of those things.
Creativity usually precludes aggressive negativity (not always, but usually).

I find the expectation that anyone would 'sign' such a ham fisted attempt at a
populist petition, one clearly designed by a creativity starved agency to be
offensive to all sentient beings online.

------
mherdeg
I kinda liked old content at scroogled.com (now available at
<http://www.scroogled.com/Shopping/> \-- see archive at
[http://web.archive.org/web/20121201162336/http://www.scroogl...](http://web.archive.org/web/20121201162336/http://www.scroogled.com/)
) because it told me something I didn't know, that the Froogle service had
become a set of paid product listings.

(I didn't know they were paid listings.)

This new message I don't find interesting because it tells me something I
already know (Google reads all my Gmail mail).

------
h2s
Microsoft has trotted their old friend "Get The Facts" out again! Back in the
2000s, they ran a very long anti-Linux campaign under the "Get The Facts"
banner. Under this program they paid for many dubious "Total Cost of
Ownership" studies, all of which found that Microsoft products were cheaper
than those based on Linux.

It was a PR disaster for Microsoft as far as the geek community was concerned
and they eventually pulled the plug. I can't believe anybody in Redmond
actually gave the green light to bring this slogan back. This type of
aggression just makes MS look like smug pricks.

~~~
taf2
This is probably going to be a bit more effective, email is bit less "geek"
centric and far more mainstream. This type of PR/Shit talk looks more like a
political campaign, so I imagine it will be very effective in the consumer
market.

~~~
martinced
I think most people don't give a flying frak about Google "reading" their
emails.

The only people it could be effective again are the ones spending time on HN,
/., etc. who value their privacy.

Heck, I'm using Google and Google Docs for nearly everything and I don't give
a crap about their tiny text ads related to what I write in my emails.

------
twelvechairs
Why should Google be exempt from criticism? I think its good that a big
company like Microsoft is making this kind of privacy an issue.

~~~
StavrosK
What issue, though? That your email is scanned by an algorithm to determine
relevancy for ads? Guess what, your email is scanned by an algorithm on
outlook.com too, to determine whether it's spam. It's exactly the same thing.

~~~
Volpe
No it's not. Because I WANT spam protection... I don't want ads.

Just like it's fine for an electrician to enter my house to fix a power point.
It is NOT okay for anyone to enter my house in order to sell me random things.

~~~
StavrosK
If you don't want it, don't use Gmail. It's not fine to call an electrician to
your house to fix the power point in return for you letting them sell you
random things, and then say "no, I don't want the things, I just want the
fix!"

It's not a breach of your privacy any more than spam filters reading your
email is.

~~~
Volpe
> If you don't want it, don't use Gmail.

I'm pretty sure that is exactly the point Microsoft are making with this
campaign.

They are using the fact you can't opt out of a "feature" as an excuse to opt
out of a "product".

They are leveraging peoples perception of 'Privacy' to do that.

Really do you think buying an Audi will mean you can kiss the girl at Prom? Or
by wearing Calvin Klein you'll look amazing from every angle? ... No, Ads lie
all the time... Chrome isn't technically "Faster" but they still run ads that
say as much...

~~~
StavrosK
You are conflating two different issues, "I don't like seeing ads" and
"algorithms reading my mail is a privacy breach". If you don't like seeing
ads, I think even Gmail themselves would tell you not to use Gmail. But _it's
not a breach of privacy_!

Or are you trolling?

~~~
Volpe
I'm not conflating anything, I'm pointing our privacy was just a vehicle that
was being used to deliver a message, and that message is valid:

"If you don't want gmail splashing ads all over your messages, switch to
outlook."

No need to be a jerk about it and accuse me of trolling.

~~~
StavrosK
> I'm pointing our privacy was just a vehicle that was being used to deliver a
> message, and that message is valid

The vehicle is not, though. There is no issue of privacy. They might as well
have said "Gmail kills babies, switch to outlook", it's exactly as true (which
is, to say, not at all).

~~~
Terretta
You have been profiled, and the profile works over time and across content.
That data exists, and is sold to advertisers. The profile is about you,
including private discourse between, say, you and family, and numerous
research papers have shown it ties to exactly you even if it's supposedly
anonymous. This is absolutely a privacy "issue" even if it's not clear to you
personally how this might be a privacy breach.

That's far different than spam, where the messages are profiled, not the
people exchanging them.

~~~
StavrosK
There are two different ways ads can be displayed. Either the message is
scanned for a topic and ads are displayed to you based on it, or they build a
profile about you, like you described. You can opt out of that:

<https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/preferences/?hl=en>

------
huhtenberg
So when DDG does it, it's awesome and ballsy.

But when Microsoft does it, it's pathetic and scammy?

~~~
jstanley
Who said this is pathetic or scammy?

EDIT: And if someone did say that, who says they're the same people who were
in praise of DuckDuckGo?

------
eof
I find it hilarious that I emotionally support Google enough that my immediate
reaction is "HEY ITS NOT SO BAD" when I see this page; and then roll my eyes
at the petition. At the same time I don't use facebook for privacy issues and
the thing I am always going to do tomorrow is set up my own mail server.
Brains are funny like that.

~~~
msabalau
Is it only an emotional reaction, though?

When an algorithm sifts through my e-mail the result is that I see a more
targeted ad.

When I mess up and inappropriately share something on Facebook it is obvious
to lots of people in my life. (And, of course, Facebook tends to vomit up some
sort of privacy outrage every five months, so there is always the nagging
worry that something one did share in a reasonable way is now being seen in a
way one didn't intend under the old "rules of the road".

While some people may care about privacy as an abstract first principle, I
imagine many people are more concerned about the consequences of other people
knowing something about them.

~~~
eof
Point taken, it's not _only_ an emotional reaction; I get that context based
ads aren't the same as someone reading my email. I was really just making
light of what is an obvious contradiction in my values. We would be naive to
think that _all_ google is doing is spam filtering and context-based ads. They
are also giving up personal info thousands of times a year at government
request, etc.

The main thing is not _owning_ my own data. Google owns my data and I am
powerless, more or less, against them. When other companies own data I get all
indignant about it; but rationalize it when it's Google.

~~~
JEVLON
If you have an account you can delete everything (including your email),
remove data from specific Google services, or adjust some of their ad
targeting assumptions. I cannot remember how to get to the ad targeting
settings, but you can find it if you need it.

------
siddhant
Microsoft has lost it. If "scanning email" is their only concern, they're
doing it too, for the purpose of "prioritizing my privacy" or whatever. I
don't get it why people make a big deal out of all this. As long as private
emails are not being read by real people, I doubt most people (who know what
"scanning email" is) care.

~~~
Spooky23
There's a difference. Microsoft is doing malware scanning, which does mean
they access message content, but not in a way that is meaningful to privacy.

Google is scanning and indexing your material. They are using that index to
build a dossier on you, and they are measuring the accuracy of that dossier by
evaluating your responses to ads and content fed to you.

~~~
siddhant
I'm not sure about that. I think that serving relevant ads for emails doesn't
need to associate the person with the email with the ad. Or does it? I guess
when you open an email, they just extract the keywords out of it, and then run
a search against their ads index to serve relevant ads. If that's the case, I
don't think extracting keywords from email is different from scanning it
against malware.

Besides, building an index is just necessary for providing email search. I'm
sure outlook mail does that too, if their search is any good. I haven't used
it, so I don't know.

------
heroic
What I dont get is, how is a software scanning my email creepy? As it everyone
scans every bloody email to seek out spam. Spam filters already use "known"
spam styles to check for potential spam messages.

In this case they are scanning to show you ads. Pardon me if I am missing
something, but I really don't understand wtf is wrong with people calling this
creepy.

~~~
gebe
Well believe it or not but some people don't like the idea of targeted ads,
which is the result of Google's scanning. Small anecdote, when my 66 year old
father found out that a grocery store chain was sending him "personal deals"
based on what he had bought using their card he immediately went home and cut
it. He thought (and thinks) that no one should be keeping tabs on his buying
patterns for commercial purposes, even though he might stand to gain from it.
I was kind of suprised by his harsch reaction at first but later I was
actually kind of proud of the fact that he cared so much about his personal
privacy and integrity. This might seem shocking to the "web generation" but I
think it can be a quite healthy and refreshing mindset sometimes.

On a personal note I have taken an interest in Xamarin's stuff lately and
since Google is the all-seeing-eye of the web that means I now see Xamarin ads
wherever I go (those not caught by adblock that is). Maybe I should care more
as well, the more I think of it the less ok it feels.

------
redguava
I don't get why context relevant ads are bad. If I am going to see ads, I
would rather they be ads that might be useful.

As long as they aren't releasing my mail for all to see, and it's an automated
thing... so what.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Exactly.

I think a lot of people on here somehow got the idea that Google is
transmitting your personal information to the advertisers/clients, which is
obviously nonsense.

All this does is build a rough profile of your interests and then shows you
adverts relevant to those interests.

------
Pezmc
It's just an attack full of misleading information for those who are less
informed, spam filters also "read" your messages. I don't see why a computer
reading your messages to produce targeted advertisements is bad anyway, it's
an automated process the same as spam filtering.

Does outlook.com still put adverts at the end of your emails like hotmail.com
used to?

------
Tloewald
Can you imagine how funny an anti-Microsoft ad campaign along the same lines
would be? Microsoft is trying to start a gunfight and it's armed with a nerf
axe.

As a cynical admirer of Google I don't care for the way advertising drives
everything it does, but I cannot remember the last time I noticed an ad in
gmail (Twitter, for example, manages to be far worse while still appearing not
to have a business model.)

Meanwhile, Microsoft, the original f. you, f. everybody, software company is
shipping an OS with advertising and junkware baked into it. Who else is doing
that?

Are you sure this is where you want to go today Microsoft? Yes. No. Abort.
Retry. Cancel. OK.

~~~
andyking
_Meanwhile, Microsoft, the original f. you, f. everybody aoftware company is
shipping an OS with advertising and junkware baked into it. Who else is doing
that?_

Canonical.

~~~
Tloewald
Haha. Well luckily they're not running these ads.

I note in another post in this thread that it appears MS is doing exactly what
gmail does AS WELL so as usual MS wins the chutzpah award on top of everything
else.

------
Sulfolobus
So I take it Microsoft is also going to disable their spam filters?

------
valdiorn
Yes, because Microsoft never does anything like this:

[http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on-
skydriveyou-m...](http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on-skydriveyou-
may-lose-your-microsoft-life/)

------
speeder
Was this really by Microsoft? It looks unprofessional and scammy, like if
someone wanted to make Microsoft look.bad.

Granted, from past MS behavior it would not be a surprise if this was really
their work...

~~~
RyanZAG
This is definitely by Microsoft. The site uses the following nameservers,
which are under Microsoft control and cannot be forged.

    
    
        ns3.msft.net
    
        ns4.msft.net
    
        ns1.msft.net
    
        ns2.msft.net
    
        ns5.msft.net
    

Pathetic stuff.

~~~
Volpe
But google DO go through every message to sell ads. How is this pathetic? Some
people don't like the fact that their emails are used in that way, so focusing
on that is just marketing.

No different to google running ads for chrome saying "it's faster"... it IS,
and some people care about that.

~~~
speeder
Saying that chrome is "faster" is one thing.

Saying that IE is "slower" is another.

Likewise Microsoft could have made a ad that showed how they protect your
privacy, instead of pointing how their biggest competitor don't.

------
jfoster
This site suffers many ailments, but I think the biggest problem is that the
examples are not very compelling. They all amount to Google's contextual ad
algorithm not being perfect and getting the context a bit wrong. The
(supposedly devastating) effect of that is that if you bother to read the ads,
the ad won't be relevant like it's supposed to be.

It feels like this initiative came top-down at Microsoft, probably starting
with Ballmer's quote about "Google reading your email." I wonder whether
Ballmer has even used email. It feels as though they're fighting an imagined
problem that doesn't end up being much of an issue in practice.

~~~
jfoster
That was meant to read "I wonder whether Ballmer has even used Gmail". (of
course he's used email!)

------
alisnic
This is just pathetic, first the whole Android virus thing, now it's the
email. What the actual f*ck?

I'm not a pro product guy, I always choose the right tool for the job, but
this stuff enrages me and makes me look at MS as scumbags.

------
kriro
Will be pretty interesting. Feels like this is going to massively blow up in
their face. Never been a fan of attack adds especially if you can improve your
own product instead of making the other one look bad. Just a bad mindset to
try to blame the other guy.

The irony of Microsoft using privacy/security to attack another company is not
lost on me.

Guess what, those mails can be read if your OS gets exlpoited over and over
and there's a backdoor on most joe shmoe home computers anyways :P

That being said the campaign obviously has a point. <insert rant on educating
the masses about encryption>

~~~
corin_
> _Never been a fan of attack adds especially if you can improve your own
> product instead of making the other one look bad. Just a bad mindset to try
> to blame the other guy._

It's not a one-man product that had to decide whether to focus on improving or
attack ads - product people will work on improving it regardless of whether
the marketing people decide on positive or attack adverts.

------
jonchang
This is surprising -- I know! -- but competing companies sometimes advertise
against each other. Microsoft have been doing this for quite a while (see
Gmail man [1]) and they seem to think that the privacy aspect is enough of a
weakness in the Google armor that it's an effective campaign. So far I don't
think Microsoft have had as many problems on the privacy front as Google or
Facebook so this is probably not a rash decision on their part.

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXqrTfOWx60>

~~~
rojoca
I don't think it is that unsurprising either, nor do I have a problem with
this kind of advertising. My only gripe would be that I believe you can opt-
out of targeted gmail ads now so it would appear this is either out of date or
inaccurate.

------
tomelders
In which a pot describes a few defining characteristics of a kettle.

------
duncanwilcox
This is definitely not the best way to base a marketing campaign on privacy
issues.

That said consumer products are traditionally ad supported, and regular
consumer appear to tolerate it, mostly.

Internet advertising is quite unlike TV or print advertising though, and
consumers are definitely not sufficiently informed of how much they're being
tracked, particularly by products of companies like Google and Facebook, that
live on advertising in one way or another.

Google Web Analytics (reportedly used on half of the websites on the net) and
the "like", "tweet" and "+1" buttons are arguably much more likely to track
your interests than GMail, even if you have never signed up for a single
Google, Twitter or Facebook service. My guess is the creatives who build the
campaign either had no idea or didn't know how to communicate it in a
personified way, which has more emotional impact.

So Microsoft's campaign sucks, and I have a fundamental anti-Microsoft bias
that stems from their despicable business conduct in the 80s and 90s, but
Google isn't any better these days, Schmidt's comments on the "creepy line"
make me shudder. Perhaps it can be a good starting point for discussing
privacy issues.

Privacy shouldn't be a competitive advantage, it should be a sacred right of
anybody who has children or financial/health/private issues.

------
bad_user
If you don't own your own email server, then those emails are going to get
stored and processed on a third-party's servers. If you don't encrypt your
emails, then even your ISP can read them.

I don't like Google's potential for evil. They got a little creepy lately.
However, look who's talking ... if Microsoft wants me to ever believe
something they say, then they must provide me with a contract, in writing,
with terms that can't be changed whenever they feel like it.

------
lucian1900
What the fuck is wrong with them? They keep doing this shit.

------
itsbits
Registrant: Domain Administrator Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way
Redmond WA 98052 US +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329

    
    
        Domain Name: scroogled.com
    
            Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
            Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
            Registrar Homepage: http://www.markmonitor.com
    
        Administrative Contact:
            Domain Administrator
            Microsoft Corporation
            One Microsoft Way 
             Redmond WA 98052
            US
             +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329
        Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
            MSN Hostmaster
            Microsoft Corporation
            One Microsoft Way 
             Redmond WA 98052
            US
             +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329
    
        Created on..............: 2011-12-27.
        Expires on..............: 2014-12-27.
        Record last updated on..: 2012-11-27.
    
        Domain servers in listed order:
    
        ns1.msft.net
        ns4.msft.net
        ns3.msft.net
        ns2.msft.net
        ns5.msft.net
    

its Microsoft for sure...really Microsoft directly attacking Google..would be
interesting to see Google's response..i dont think they will sit calm now.

~~~
itsbits
Google may not care about it. Microsoft surely not a competition for Google
now. Had it been Apple we may have seen a reply.

------
csmattryder
Because Microsoft aren't co-operating with LEAs on request for Skype data.

I'd rather Google give me ads than turn over private conversations to The Met.

------
neya
You know what? This is good for Google - Based on the idea that "Any publicity
is good publicity". So, Microsoft is shelling out huge dollars to make Google
popular.

As far as searches are concerned, based on my experience using the two
extensively, I think for atleast another decade, I will find myself 'Googling'
more than 'Binging'.

------
cowchase
It's interesting to see major players beginning to compete on the level of
privacy they offer to their users. "Personal information" has become one of
the currencies on the web by which we "pay" for free services. Microsoft now
seems to try a "low-cost" strategy to gain market share.

------
Jabbles
Although this particular campaign is new, this has been going on for a while:

[http://www.webpronews.com/is-bing-right-about-people-
getting...](http://www.webpronews.com/is-bing-right-about-people-getting-
scroogled-by-google-2012-11)

------
lucb1e
Fun fact for Microsoft here: Outlook's servers also read your e-mail. How else
do they store, retrieve and transmit it?

I don't see how automatic scanning in order to display advertisements is any
different. All machinery, no human ever reads your mail.

------
confluence
When you have to run attack ads to try to win in business - you've lost the
game. Microsoft will be around for ages - but quite frankly they are
irrelevant and are in the process of being commoditized.

------
owksley
There is also the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace
(<http://www.i-comp.org/>), a fairly neutral sounding lobby group which
(according to Wikipedia) is sponsored by Microsoft.

ICOMP bought an amusing half page ad in a national UK newspaper in the Autumn,
quoting the owner of Hot Maps in saying that Google Maps essentially destroyed
his promising business. Look at <http://hot-map.com/> and judge for yourself..

------
smashu
I think you can opt out:
[https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/preferences/?hl=en#o...](https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/preferences/?hl=en#optout)

------
pkorzeniewski
This is the worst advertising method possible, rather than making a good
product and focusing on its advantages towards competition, they prefer to
paint them in bad light.

~~~
Volpe
That is focusing on your advantage, the message ends with "Why outlook.com is
better"

------
onemorepassword
I don't like it as an advertising strategy, and I don't particularly like
Microsoft in general, but at least their aim is right: Google has absolutely
zero respect for privacy.

Microsoft's attempt to push Google down the same hole they dug themselves with
monopoly abuse however is as tasteless as it is unnecessary: Google's own
infinite arrogance will ensure they'll keep digging until they face a public
and regulatory backlash.

------
1in1010
Funny MS suggest they'll do this themselves: "We use the information we
collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the
display of personalized content and advertising." from
<http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/default.mspx>

------
orangethirty
Yeah, it negative, but with a funny twist to it. The problem is that most
people lack a sense of humor and might take it too seriously. Though its quite
ironic that MS is playing the privacy card. Its not like Google is a perfect
company. They are the _new_ MS. Even PG mentioned it in one of his essays.

------
marco-fiset
It's not like everyone at Google is reading my email. No privacy intrusion
here IMHO.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-
battl...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battles-
google-by-hiring-political-brawler-mark-penn.html?_r=0)

------
dasil003
I'd love to see the followup where she discovers Google's algorithm is smarter
than it looks, and actually her husband has a huge gambling problem and has
completely blown their life savings.

------
Justsignedup
May I suggest the #craprasoft tag on twitter to try to start a trend
countering this advertising? Really dislike it.

------
jasonhanley
Hah, Microsoft positioning itself as having the moral high ground.

This is amusing in so many different ways.

How the world has turned upside down.

------
meaty
Well as a user of both, it's certainly factual. I have no problem with this.

For reference, I hate both companies equally!

~~~
Kiro
Why do you hate them? I love them.

------
jiggy2011
If your emails are in plaintext the email host can always read/scan your
stuff.

If that bothers you, use PGP.

------
jcfrei
if facebook has taught us anything then it's the fact that most people don't
really care about privacy. you are wasting your advertising money again,
microsoft!

------
wdr1
Whoever green-lit this at Microsoft should be fired.

------
_pmf_
Winning the hearts and minds, I see.

------
sid02phi
Negative marketing never works.

------
HugoDias
I don't care. Microsoft sucks.

------
eaxbin
Fucking disgusting.

------
yanw
If anyone doubts that this is anything other than a cynical PR attack do
consider the source:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-
battl...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battles-
google-by-hiring-political-brawler-mark-penn.html)

[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-03/did-mark-
pen...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-03/did-mark-penn-
swiftboat-google)

And are we to conclude that Microsoft doesn't provide spam/scam protection as
we are led to believe that they don't scan email contents?! when they use
terminology that suggests human intervention they lose all credibility.

It’s also pathetic how increasingly they mention Google in their PR/marketing
campaigns, it’s as if they believe it’s the only way for them to remain
relevant.

~~~
nextparadigms
There's more:

[http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-
an...](http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an-epic-fail-
for-microsoft)

~~~
laumars
Surely I didn't read that right, MS have a $50 million budget just for Google
smear campaigns!?

One of the biggest things that makes my blood boil is when corporations invest
large sums of money to force consumers to use their crappy products instead of
spending that money on making less crappy products that consumers choose to
buy.

~~~
ruff
It should make your blood boil that our government operates in such a way that
companies see this as just another vector for competing against each other.

Dan Lyon's piece is pure sensationalism. Reality is likely more like: 1) there
is a government affairs group inside MSFT with a $50m+ annual budget (not
crazy given the DOJ impact on the company) 2) they hire a connected political
machinists and give him marching orders to drum up concern over Google in DC
(the same way Oracle, Novell, Netscape did against
MSFT--[http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/homeworks/Microsoft_Case.p...](http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/homeworks/Microsoft_Case.pdf)).
3) Guy needs a network of folks to do his deeds—he runs around DC recruiting
people telling him he has a massive budget because money seems to be the most
effective way to persuade people in Washington
([http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/461/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office)).

Meanwhile, there's a guy with a Google laptop bag doing the same thing.

------
bluedanieru
Warn your friends! On Facebook!

