11 ms·

Aggressive negative advertising by Microsoft against Google.

133 points by marpi 14y ago

_pmf_ 14y ago
Winning the hearts and minds, I see.
speeder 14y ago
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...
- Jenk 14y ago
  http://whois.domaintools.com/scroogled.com http://whois.domaintools.com/scroogled.com 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
- RyanZAG 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.
    - simias 14y ago
      I feel like MS is trying to mislead people into believing that GMail employees go through your mail (they superpose inquisitive human eyes over the gmail video for instance). It's quite a different issue if it's just a computer program parsing your data. After all, SMTP programs go through your your email too. I'm all for people caring more about their privacy and be more educated about giving their personal infos online, but the solution to that is PGP, not Outlook.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- abrahamsen 14y ago
  It looks pretty much in line with last years anti-gmail campaign: http://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/2/2/2766215/gmail-man-video-microsoft-google-privacy http://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/2/2/2766215/gmail-man...
- nextparadigms 14y ago
  Microsoft makes Microsoft look bad, unfortunately for them. But it seems to be in their company's DNA to spread FUD about others. It's like crack to them.
jonchang 14y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXqrTfOWx60
- rojoca 14y ago
  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.
huhtenberg 14y ago
So when DDG does it, it's awesome and ballsy. But when Microsoft does it, it's pathetic and scammy?
- runn1ng 14y ago
  Because we like Google, of course, and hate Microsoft, of course.
- jstanley 14y ago
  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?
- undecisive 14y ago
  Maybe because DuckDuckGo differentiates themselves better. Microsoft is more of the same - maybe marginally better in one respect (allowing opt-out) but atrocious in many others - almost every article I've seen has had no trouble balancing the story with talk of Microsoft's past transgressions. On the flip side, I agree that Google should allow you to opt out of this, but it's pretty easy to use any email client to access your gmail e.g. Thunderbird, Apple Mail, even (shudders) Outlook / Outlook Express So the only thing those ads are actually paying for are Google's UI.
- praptak 14y ago
  When you judge someone this aggressively, expect your reputation to be taken into account when people evaluate your judgment. The difference in reputation between DDG and Microsoft is huge.
twelvechairs 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        > 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...
tomelders 14y ago
In which a pot describes a few defining characteristics of a kettle.
Sulfolobus 14y ago
So I take it Microsoft is also going to disable their spam filters?
kriro 14y ago
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_ 14y ago
  > 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.
itsbits 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Google may not care about it. Microsoft surely not a competition for Google now. Had it been Apple we may have seen a reply.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- Volpe 14y ago
  irony...
redguava 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
Jabbles 14y ago
Although this particular campaign is new, this has been going on for a while: http://www.webpronews.com/is-bing-right-about-people-getting-scroogled-by-google-2012-11 http://www.webpronews.com/is-bing-right-about-people-getting...
KaoruAoiShiho 14y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battles-google-by-hiring-political-brawler-mark-penn.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battl...
smashu 14y ago
I think you can opt out: https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/preferences/?hl=en#optout https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/preferences/?hl=en#o...
Pezmc 14y ago
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?
mherdeg 14y ago
I kinda liked old content at scroogled.com (now available at http://www.scroogled.com/Shopping/ http://www.scroogled.com/Shopping/ -- see archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20121201162336/http://www.scroogled.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20121201162336/http://www.scroogl... ) 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).
meaty 14y ago
Well as a user of both, it's certainly factual. I have no problem with this. For reference, I hate both companies equally!
- Kiro 14y ago
  Why do you hate them? I love them.
HannibalLecter 14y ago
Microsoft's example in the video proves Google doesn't actually READ the emails they just apply a computer algorithm. The example was of a cat named Calico, and then they showed a free pet exam advert, and then revealed the cat was put down in the email. They made a point to say you wouldn't need a free pet exam if the family pet died. But it proves Google doesn't invade your privacy; they merely apply a computer algorithm to connect ads with emails.
lucian1900 14y ago
What the fuck is wrong with them? They keep doing this shit.
pkorzeniewski 14y ago
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 14y ago
  That is focusing on your advantage, the message ends with "Why outlook.com is better"
junto 14y ago
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 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 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.
- junto 14y ago
  "You can also opt-out of getting personalized ads from advertising companies other than Microsoft, on the Consumer Choice page.": http://www.aboutads.info/choices/ http://www.aboutads.info/choices/
  - huhtenberg 14y ago
    Personalized ads is not an issue. Excessive and invasive email scanning and analysis is. It's really a bait-n-switch technique. They are substituting a bigger and more important issue with something tactile but of a superficial value. "Your tumor hurts? We have a Tylenol for that."
eof 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.
- deleted 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
csmattryder 14y ago
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.
orangethirty 14y ago
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.
Adaptive 14y ago
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.
siddhant 14y ago
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.
- Skoofoo 14y ago
  Agreed. It's annoying how Microsoft misleads the reader into thinking that they personally look through every email.
- Spooky23 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
- jnorthrop 14y ago
  If you have 15 minutes, Cory Doctrow wrote a great short story called Scroogled[1], that presents a possibly scary future and highlights potential risks with email scanning. It is science fiction but it is interesting to ponder. [1]http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-09-17-n72.html http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-09-17-n72.html
eaxbin 14y ago
Fucking disgusting.
PaulMest 14y ago
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.
- speeder 14y ago
  Even since when Microsoft was good at common sense? Microsoft is good in getting sales, not common sense. As you said, privacy to them is a strategy, not something that is really important or part of the company culture.
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  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.
dasil003 14y ago
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.
jcfrei 14y ago
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!
jfoster 14y ago
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 14y ago
  That was meant to read "I wonder whether Ballmer has even used Gmail". (of course he's used email!)
duncanwilcox 14y ago
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.
yanw 14y ago
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-battles-google-by-hiring-political-brawler-mark-penn.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battl... http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-03/did-mark-penn-swiftboat-google http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-03/did-mark-pen... 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 14y ago
  There's more: http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an-epic-fail-for-microsoft http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an...
  - laumars 14y ago
    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.
    - JPKab 14y ago
      Microsoft's huge smear budget is harmful to taxpayers too, because they actively have tricked large segments of the U.S. Federal Government (for example, the Dept. of Defense) into only using Microsoft software due to "the inherently insecure nature of open source." Even worse, they smear any browser that isn't IE. That holds back software adoption big time.
    - ruff 14y ago
      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.pdf http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/homeworks/Microsoft_Case.p...). 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/take-the-money-and-run-for-office http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...). Meanwhile, there's a guy with a Google laptop bag doing the same thing.
cowchase 14y ago
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.
valdiorn 14y ago
Yes, because Microsoft never does anything like this: http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on-skydriveyou-may-lose-your-microsoft-life/ http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on-skydriveyou-m...
HugoDias 14y ago
I don't care. Microsoft sucks.
alisnic 14y ago
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.
bad_user 14y ago
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.
kyro 14y ago
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 14y ago
  "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 14y ago
    All of the original Surface reviews were negative. The Surface Pro reviews seem to be mostly positive.
    - fekberg 14y ago
      "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.
neya 14y ago
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'.
Tloewald 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
- freehunter 14y ago
  Where is the advertising and junkware built into Windows?
  - Tloewald 14y ago
    There are apps built into windows 8 that display ads. http://www.zdnet.com/how-outraged-should-you-be-about-ads-in-windows-8-apps-not-at-all-7000007223/ http://www.zdnet.com/how-outraged-should-you-be-about-ads-in... Link to an article explaining how they aren't really part of windows 8 but merely an "experiment". Fact is, install windows 8 and some of your apps will show ads (and when we saw them we had no idea that these apps were part of some "experiment" and not really windows 8).
h2s 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
heroic 14y ago
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.
- raldi 14y ago
  More precisely, they are scanning in an attempt to improve the relevance of the ads.
- gebe 14y ago
  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.
quesera 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
lucb1e 14y ago
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 14y ago
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.
marco-fiset 14y ago
It's not like everyone at Google is reading my email. No privacy intrusion here IMHO.
jiggy2011 14y ago
If your emails are in plaintext the email host can always read/scan your stuff. If that bothers you, use PGP.
bluedanieru 14y ago
Warn your friends! On Facebook!
onemorepassword 14y ago
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 14y ago
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 http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/default.mspx
Justsignedup 14y ago
May I suggest the #craprasoft tag on twitter to try to start a trend countering this advertising? Really dislike it.
owksley 14y ago
There is also the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (http://www.i-comp.org/ 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/ http://hot-map.com/ and judge for yourself..
jasonhanley 14y ago
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.
sid02phi 14y ago
Negative marketing never works.
wdr1 14y ago
Whoever green-lit this at Microsoft should be fired.

133 points by marpi 14y ago

_pmf_ 14y ago

Winning the hearts and minds, I see.

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...

Jenk 14y ago
http://whois.domaintools.com/scroogled.com http://whois.domaintools.com/scroogled.com 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
RyanZAG 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
  - simias 14y ago
    I feel like MS is trying to mislead people into believing that GMail employees go through your mail (they superpose inquisitive human eyes over the gmail video for instance). It's quite a different issue if it's just a computer program parsing your data. After all, SMTP programs go through your your email too. I'm all for people caring more about their privacy and be more educated about giving their personal infos online, but the solution to that is PGP, not Outlook.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
abrahamsen 14y ago
It looks pretty much in line with last years anti-gmail campaign: http://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/2/2/2766215/gmail-man-video-microsoft-google-privacy http://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/2/2/2766215/gmail-man...
nextparadigms 14y ago
Microsoft makes Microsoft look bad, unfortunately for them. But it seems to be in their company's DNA to spread FUD about others. It's like crack to them.

jonchang 14y ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXqrTfOWx60

rojoca 14y ago
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.

huhtenberg 14y ago

So when DDG does it, it's awesome and ballsy. But when Microsoft does it, it's pathetic and scammy?

runn1ng 14y ago
Because we like Google, of course, and hate Microsoft, of course.
jstanley 14y ago
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?
undecisive 14y ago
Maybe because DuckDuckGo differentiates themselves better. Microsoft is more of the same - maybe marginally better in one respect (allowing opt-out) but atrocious in many others - almost every article I've seen has had no trouble balancing the story with talk of Microsoft's past transgressions. On the flip side, I agree that Google should allow you to opt out of this, but it's pretty easy to use any email client to access your gmail e.g. Thunderbird, Apple Mail, even (shudders) Outlook / Outlook Express So the only thing those ads are actually paying for are Google's UI.
praptak 14y ago
When you judge someone this aggressively, expect your reputation to be taken into account when people evaluate your judgment. The difference in reputation between DDG and Microsoft is huge.

twelvechairs 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      > 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...

tomelders 14y ago

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

Sulfolobus 14y ago

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

kriro 14y ago

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_ 14y ago
> 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.

itsbits 14y ago

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 14y ago
Google may not care about it. Microsoft surely not a competition for Google now. Had it been Apple we may have seen a reply.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Volpe 14y ago
irony...

redguava 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

Jabbles 14y ago

Although this particular campaign is new, this has been going on for a while: http://www.webpronews.com/is-bing-right-about-people-getting-scroogled-by-google-2012-11 http://www.webpronews.com/is-bing-right-about-people-getting...

KaoruAoiShiho 14y ago

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

smashu 14y ago

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

Pezmc 14y ago

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?

mherdeg 14y ago

I kinda liked old content at scroogled.com (now available at http://www.scroogled.com/Shopping/ http://www.scroogled.com/Shopping/ -- see archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20121201162336/http://www.scroogled.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20121201162336/http://www.scroogl... ) 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).

meaty 14y ago

Well as a user of both, it's certainly factual. I have no problem with this. For reference, I hate both companies equally!

Kiro 14y ago
Why do you hate them? I love them.

HannibalLecter 14y ago

Microsoft's example in the video proves Google doesn't actually READ the emails they just apply a computer algorithm. The example was of a cat named Calico, and then they showed a free pet exam advert, and then revealed the cat was put down in the email. They made a point to say you wouldn't need a free pet exam if the family pet died. But it proves Google doesn't invade your privacy; they merely apply a computer algorithm to connect ads with emails.

lucian1900 14y ago

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

pkorzeniewski 14y ago

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 14y ago
That is focusing on your advantage, the message ends with "Why outlook.com is better"

junto 14y ago

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 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 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.

junto 14y ago
"You can also opt-out of getting personalized ads from advertising companies other than Microsoft, on the Consumer Choice page.": http://www.aboutads.info/choices/ http://www.aboutads.info/choices/
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  Personalized ads is not an issue. Excessive and invasive email scanning and analysis is. It's really a bait-n-switch technique. They are substituting a bigger and more important issue with something tactile but of a superficial value. "Your tumor hurts? We have a Tylenol for that."

eof 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
deleted 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

csmattryder 14y ago

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.

orangethirty 14y ago

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.

Adaptive 14y ago

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.

siddhant 14y ago

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.

Skoofoo 14y ago
Agreed. It's annoying how Microsoft misleads the reader into thinking that they personally look through every email.
Spooky23 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
jnorthrop 14y ago
If you have 15 minutes, Cory Doctrow wrote a great short story called Scroogled[1], that presents a possibly scary future and highlights potential risks with email scanning. It is science fiction but it is interesting to ponder. [1]http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-09-17-n72.html http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-09-17-n72.html

eaxbin 14y ago

Fucking disgusting.

PaulMest 14y ago

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.

speeder 14y ago
Even since when Microsoft was good at common sense? Microsoft is good in getting sales, not common sense. As you said, privacy to them is a strategy, not something that is really important or part of the company culture.
OGinparadise 14y ago
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.

dasil003 14y ago

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.

jcfrei 14y ago

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!

jfoster 14y ago

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 14y ago
That was meant to read "I wonder whether Ballmer has even used Gmail". (of course he's used email!)

duncanwilcox 14y ago

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.

yanw 14y ago

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-battles-google-by-hiring-political-brawler-mark-penn.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battl... http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-03/did-mark-penn-swiftboat-google http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-03/did-mark-pen... 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 14y ago
There's more: http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an-epic-fail-for-microsoft http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an...
- laumars 14y ago
  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.
  - JPKab 14y ago
    Microsoft's huge smear budget is harmful to taxpayers too, because they actively have tricked large segments of the U.S. Federal Government (for example, the Dept. of Defense) into only using Microsoft software due to "the inherently insecure nature of open source." Even worse, they smear any browser that isn't IE. That holds back software adoption big time.
  - ruff 14y ago
    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.pdf http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/homeworks/Microsoft_Case.p...). 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/take-the-money-and-run-for-office http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...). Meanwhile, there's a guy with a Google laptop bag doing the same thing.

cowchase 14y ago

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.

valdiorn 14y ago

Yes, because Microsoft never does anything like this: http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on-skydriveyou-may-lose-your-microsoft-life/ http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on-skydriveyou-m...

HugoDias 14y ago

I don't care. Microsoft sucks.

alisnic 14y ago

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.

bad_user 14y ago

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.

kyro 14y ago

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 14y ago
"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 14y ago
  All of the original Surface reviews were negative. The Surface Pro reviews seem to be mostly positive.
  - fekberg 14y ago
    "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.

neya 14y ago

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'.

Tloewald 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
freehunter 14y ago
Where is the advertising and junkware built into Windows?
- Tloewald 14y ago
  There are apps built into windows 8 that display ads. http://www.zdnet.com/how-outraged-should-you-be-about-ads-in-windows-8-apps-not-at-all-7000007223/ http://www.zdnet.com/how-outraged-should-you-be-about-ads-in... Link to an article explaining how they aren't really part of windows 8 but merely an "experiment". Fact is, install windows 8 and some of your apps will show ads (and when we saw them we had no idea that these apps were part of some "experiment" and not really windows 8).

h2s 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.

heroic 14y ago

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.

raldi 14y ago
More precisely, they are scanning in an attempt to improve the relevance of the ads.
gebe 14y ago
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.

quesera 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

lucb1e 14y ago

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 14y ago

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.

marco-fiset 14y ago

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

jiggy2011 14y ago

If your emails are in plaintext the email host can always read/scan your stuff. If that bothers you, use PGP.

bluedanieru 14y ago

Warn your friends! On Facebook!

onemorepassword 14y ago

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 14y ago

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 http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/default.mspx

Justsignedup 14y ago

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

owksley 14y ago

There is also the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (http://www.i-comp.org/ 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/ http://hot-map.com/ and judge for yourself..

jasonhanley 14y ago

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.

sid02phi 14y ago

Negative marketing never works.

wdr1 14y ago

Whoever green-lit this at Microsoft should be fired.