5 ms·

"It's not google" is probably their #1 value proposition (DDG offers the same, but MSFT has better mainstream brand awareness). This is meant without snark. It

"It's not google" is probably their #1 value proposition (DDG offers the same, but MSFT has better mainstream brand awareness). This is meant without snark. It's probably the first alternative people will go to if they're wary of the level of tracking Google is capable of.

vsareto 6y ago
MS is just as capable of tracking as Google through the operating system. It's definitely branding and the only substance to it is that Google is the bad guy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- smt88 6y ago
  I often see this "both sides" argument and don't agree. Google has Google Analytics, YouTube, libraries, or even fonts in almost every single webpage. They have billions of email users, which means all human email users can have a profile built about them without having any relationship with Google. If that weren't enough, they have a near-monopoly on low-cost smartphone OS installs and are a massive chunk of all installs. Android is the most-used operating system. The scope of Google's reach is breathtaking and inescapable. Microsoft can only track via Windows, which is diminishingly important to consumers as Android wins the OS wars across platforms. Also, unlike Google, Microsoft doesn't rely on AdTech and tracking for its survival. Google has no businesses that can replace tracking for them.
  - vsareto 6y ago
    >Microsoft can only track via Windows Office 365? The thing that a whole host of businesses rely upon for email, spreadsheets, presentations? MS has just as much of an opportunity as Amazon does for spying on its cloud customers through Azure too. Google is more consumer focused. MS has a good split between consumer, business, and gaming - those combined will rival Google.
    - smt88 6y ago
      You're getting at exactly my point: Microsoft mostly charges its users. We are users and customers. Google has many services where the customers are advertisers, and we are the product. Their actual paid services (G Suite aka Workspace, Google One, etc.) are not their bread and butter, so tracking us is an existential issue for them. > Google is more consumer focused. No, they're not! See above. I would call them one of the least consumer-focused companies out there. They don't follow through with products, and most of their products aren't even for consumers! They're for advertisers.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    > Microsoft doesn't rely on AdTech and tracking for its survival. Well, it advertises to you in its start menu and even has scummy ads in its built-in browser homepage. And it makes you log in with a Skype/Outlook/Windows account to install Windows 10 (maybe you can bypass it by avoiding wifi during installation? I didn't check). Whether or not it needs these for its survival doesn't seem like much of a distinction, and possibly even more of a fuck-you that it doesn't need to do this for its survival. In fact, that it does this at the operating system level is worse to me than it being done when I use applications that work by talking to remote servers because you simply can't escape it. Meanwhile I can simply avoid Google products. The HN discourse around Microsoft these days really just shows that Microsoft's attempts to buy back goodwill with things like VS Code must be working. Often we talk here as if Bing is some indie underdog.
    - smt88 6y ago
      > Whether or not it needs these for its survival doesn't seem like much of a distinction Of course it is. If you let someone into your home, and one of them is going to die if they don't steal food from you, which person is more likely to steal food from you? Google's business model literally does not allow it to be ethical. > The HN discourse around Microsoft these days really just shows that Microsoft's attempts to buy back goodwill with things like VS Code must be working. I see a lot of people with your point of view. Are you still influenced by your perceptions of Microsoft from the Ballmer and Gates days? I was also in the industry at that time, and today's Microsoft is just a different company. It's leadership is different, most of the Baller/Gates people have left, and their policies are completely different. VS Code is great, but Microsoft isn't doing anything to lock you into it. I don't use it at all. TypeScript and .NET are both IDE-agnostic, for example. Companies aren't people. They don't have consistent cultures, personalities, or beliefs. Microsoft sucked in the past, but they're the only large tech company that I'm not actively angry at on a daily basis anymore.
    - ksk 6y ago
      The alternative explanation is that your view is simply an opinion, one that is not shared by others. Why must it be some kind of conspiracy theory of Microsoft trying to "buy" goodwill? They certainly have goodwill from our company. We're in biotech and the backwards-compat of Windows has saved us from re-buying new versions of very expensive LOB software. No other OS has the level of binary compatibility of Windows, and commercial software is not guaranteed to work across OS versions. Windows as a dev box is a tiny niche use-case that is over-represented on HN. >Meanwhile I can simply avoid Google products. That maybe true for you, but for most people, its far easier to avoid Windows than Google.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  I built my first PC recently and was surprised that you have to give Windows 10 a Skype/Outlook/Microsoft account just to initialize the OS installation, even if you want to switch it into "local login only" after installation is complete.
alewi481 6y ago
On that note, Bing doesn’t serve AMP links on its mobile search results, which was a driver for me to switch over.

vsareto 6y ago

MS is just as capable of tracking as Google through the operating system. It's definitely branding and the only substance to it is that Google is the bad guy.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
smt88 6y ago
I often see this "both sides" argument and don't agree. Google has Google Analytics, YouTube, libraries, or even fonts in almost every single webpage. They have billions of email users, which means all human email users can have a profile built about them without having any relationship with Google. If that weren't enough, they have a near-monopoly on low-cost smartphone OS installs and are a massive chunk of all installs. Android is the most-used operating system. The scope of Google's reach is breathtaking and inescapable. Microsoft can only track via Windows, which is diminishingly important to consumers as Android wins the OS wars across platforms. Also, unlike Google, Microsoft doesn't rely on AdTech and tracking for its survival. Google has no businesses that can replace tracking for them.
- vsareto 6y ago
  >Microsoft can only track via Windows Office 365? The thing that a whole host of businesses rely upon for email, spreadsheets, presentations? MS has just as much of an opportunity as Amazon does for spying on its cloud customers through Azure too. Google is more consumer focused. MS has a good split between consumer, business, and gaming - those combined will rival Google.
  - smt88 6y ago
    You're getting at exactly my point: Microsoft mostly charges its users. We are users and customers. Google has many services where the customers are advertisers, and we are the product. Their actual paid services (G Suite aka Workspace, Google One, etc.) are not their bread and butter, so tracking us is an existential issue for them. > Google is more consumer focused. No, they're not! See above. I would call them one of the least consumer-focused companies out there. They don't follow through with products, and most of their products aren't even for consumers! They're for advertisers.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  > Microsoft doesn't rely on AdTech and tracking for its survival. Well, it advertises to you in its start menu and even has scummy ads in its built-in browser homepage. And it makes you log in with a Skype/Outlook/Windows account to install Windows 10 (maybe you can bypass it by avoiding wifi during installation? I didn't check). Whether or not it needs these for its survival doesn't seem like much of a distinction, and possibly even more of a fuck-you that it doesn't need to do this for its survival. In fact, that it does this at the operating system level is worse to me than it being done when I use applications that work by talking to remote servers because you simply can't escape it. Meanwhile I can simply avoid Google products. The HN discourse around Microsoft these days really just shows that Microsoft's attempts to buy back goodwill with things like VS Code must be working. Often we talk here as if Bing is some indie underdog.
  - smt88 6y ago
    > Whether or not it needs these for its survival doesn't seem like much of a distinction Of course it is. If you let someone into your home, and one of them is going to die if they don't steal food from you, which person is more likely to steal food from you? Google's business model literally does not allow it to be ethical. > The HN discourse around Microsoft these days really just shows that Microsoft's attempts to buy back goodwill with things like VS Code must be working. I see a lot of people with your point of view. Are you still influenced by your perceptions of Microsoft from the Ballmer and Gates days? I was also in the industry at that time, and today's Microsoft is just a different company. It's leadership is different, most of the Baller/Gates people have left, and their policies are completely different. VS Code is great, but Microsoft isn't doing anything to lock you into it. I don't use it at all. TypeScript and .NET are both IDE-agnostic, for example. Companies aren't people. They don't have consistent cultures, personalities, or beliefs. Microsoft sucked in the past, but they're the only large tech company that I'm not actively angry at on a daily basis anymore.
  - ksk 6y ago
    The alternative explanation is that your view is simply an opinion, one that is not shared by others. Why must it be some kind of conspiracy theory of Microsoft trying to "buy" goodwill? They certainly have goodwill from our company. We're in biotech and the backwards-compat of Windows has saved us from re-buying new versions of very expensive LOB software. No other OS has the level of binary compatibility of Windows, and commercial software is not guaranteed to work across OS versions. Windows as a dev box is a tiny niche use-case that is over-represented on HN. >Meanwhile I can simply avoid Google products. That maybe true for you, but for most people, its far easier to avoid Windows than Google.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
I built my first PC recently and was surprised that you have to give Windows 10 a Skype/Outlook/Microsoft account just to initialize the OS installation, even if you want to switch it into "local login only" after installation is complete.

alewi481 6y ago

On that note, Bing doesn’t serve AMP links on its mobile search results, which was a driver for me to switch over.