Leaked Microsoft Video Parodies Chrome Ad 243
First time accepted submitter Stratus311 writes "An article from The Verge shows a video leaked from Microsoft that parodies Google's Chrome ad. From the article: 'Microsoft and Google have been locked in a war of words over a YouTube Windows Phone app, but in the midst of the arguments a new Scroogled ad has emerged. Designed to be an internal-only video, a copy has somehow managed to find its way onto the web right in the middle of Google's I/O developer conference.'"
"Somehow" leaked.
Re:Insightful video (Score:4, Informative)
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Re:Insightful video (Score:5, Informative)
Astroturfer or ignorant?
Microsoft tracks you everywhere for contextual ads as well. And they value your privacy far less than Microsoft.
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/microsofts-new-outlook-mail-welcome-hotmail-replacement-917473 [nbcnews.com]
https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013 [eff.org]
Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers, which is the worst offense.
http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/ [rt.com]
And they have a patent specifically covering selling your personal private data to advertisers, allowing advertisers to bid on that data.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2010/02/gates_ozzie_other_microsoft_execs_patent_personal_data_mining.html [bizjournals.com]
Re:Insightful video (Score:5, Informative)
I'll focus on documented facts instead.
Microsoft and Google both track you to serve up contextual ads. However, the key differences are:
* Microsoft handed over search data to the US government without a warrant while Google refused.
* Microsoft SELLS YOUR PRIVATE DATA to third-parties without telling you. Google never gives your private data to someone else.
* The EFF ranks Microsoft as having a worse record for protecting your privacy.
The fact that Google makes more money from advertising doesn't make them evil or nefarious. It means consumers prefer them.
You're right but.. (Score:5, Informative)
Thet post troll has unintentionally stumbled on something interesting.
See how Google started removing borders around ads and made the shading super light in order to get ad clicks from older people and people with bad monitor calibration:
http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it [ppcblog.com] [ppcblog.com]or-maybe-not/
http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/ [blumenthals.com] [blumenthals.com]
Those carefully and scientifically calibrated colors must be worth atleast few hundred million of extra revenue from their cash cow by making gullible people click on ads mistaking them for real search results.
"Study:Contrast sensitivity gradually decreases with age"
http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=818&strict=0&morphologic=0&query= [eyeworld.org]
Re:Insightful video (Score:4, Informative)
Please check my first link. Even with their new service, they still mine the data in your email for ads. Microsoft openly admits it.
"Microsoft tells me that the data mined by the Outlook mail service won't go as deep as others, so while ads served will be contextual"
Historically, Microsoft tried mining the body of the email, but their contextual ads were less effective, which is why they couldn't make much ad revenue. Their newest service mines subject and sender, but not body. You are correct there, but this move doesn't seem to be motivated by Microsoft's concern for your privacy. They do this because they couldn't mine the body of your email effectively when they tried.
Microsoft's Scroogled ads suggest PEOPLE are actively reading your email, which is FUD. And Microsoft claiming they don't mine you for personal data for contextual ads is just a pure lie as well.
All of your posts are defending Microsoft mining data while blasting Google for the same. I hope you enjoy your paid position.
F. U. D. (Score:5, Informative)
From the video, Microsoft wants you to think that Google is an evil oppressor that takes money out of your pocket by selling data on your behavior. They also want you to think that Google is "watching" you like some nosey neighbor who rather than blabbing your secrets all over town, will instead sell all your dirty secrets to the highest bidder.
And hey, if you think of it like that, it's pretty scary.
But seriously. Have you ever tried to actually sell your personal data to someone? Like, if you went to Starbucks and said, "Hey, I like coffee, I'm single, have a full time job, and disposable income. I'll let you tell me how great Starbucks is if you just pay me a dollar!" I'm sure that they'd probably look at you with some understandable confusion. Nothing is worth more than you can sell it for. That's simply the reality of economics. So your personal information generally has 0 monetary value to you and would probably cost you more to sell than it would cost you in time and energy to affect that sale.
Google is providing you a service. You're "paying" for that service by allowing Google to monetize your personal information ON YOUR BEHALF. It's a sort of barter agreement. Google will give you something at no monetary cost in exchange for the opportunity to sell your data to third parties. They're not selling your emails. They're not selling your text messages. They're not "reading" your data in any real sense (no actual person ever sees your data without an appropriate reason). They're effectively acting as your agent to monetize your demographic information. And rather than paying you in cash, they're paying you in services.
This is actually no different than how broadcast television works. They use companies like Nielsen to determine aggregate demographic information on the viewership for a given show. Then they sell that information to third parties (advertisers), who supply the necessary capital to run the TV channel and produce new content, which the network then gives to you for "free". Google's model is identical. Just because Google can fine-tune that demographic information does not alter the basic structure of the model.
All the FUD about "big data" relies on some over-zealous anthropomorphization of large scale data processing systems. Microsoft likes to use phrases like "Google reads your email" to scare you into thinking that there's some overworked engineers at Google that do nothing all day except sit around and chuckle about those emails you sent to your wife. But that just doesn't happen. It's scare tactics put out by people who have either never worked with large data sets or are purposefully obfuscating the truth with the intent to scare you.
In the end, you ultimately have a choice: You can simply stop using Google's services and thereby refuse to opt-in to their tracking. Humankind lasted millions of years without Google. You can avoid Google today if you don't want to pay for their services. But to freak out and say that Google is somehow operating nefariously by monetizing their services in a way that doesn't cost you cash out of pocket comes across as a bit obtuse.
Re:Insightful video (Score:4, Informative)
Do SEC filings count as credible references? Or Microsoft's own statements?
Google made over 43 BILLION dollars in ad revenue last year.
http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html [google.com]
Microsoft made 1.45 billion in ad revenue last year.
http://marketingland.com/microsoft-q4-2012-earnings-online-advertising-revenue-up-12-16740 [marketingland.com]
Microsoft themselves have admitted repeatedly to trying and largely failing in the contextual ads in your email business, and have publicly stated they've tried other tactics, such as these "deals" ads instead.
http://marketingland.com/seeking-to-banish-distraction-microsoft-replaces-hotmail-display-ads-with-deals-4790 [marketingland.com]
I just read technology news daily and pay attention. And again, EVERY one of your posts on your account (a fairly newer account) is defending Microsoft data-mining while blasting Google and Apple for the same thing. So I ask again if you're an astroturfer or just ignorant?
I've had the same online identity since BBS days. I praise Microsoft when they do well (such as their surprisingly good anti-virus products as of late) and I blast Google when they fuck up (logging the SSIDs of wireless networks). I call them as I see them.
Re:Insightful video (Score:5, Informative)
Google gets warrants to hand over data, just like everyone else. There are some differences however in how Google handles government requests.
1. Google tries to be very transparent about what requests they get from the government, and how much they are forced to hand over.
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/ [google.com]
2. When George W. Bush asked for search data tied to IP addresses, all the major search provides just handed it over without a warrant and Google refused. Google's response was to go one step further and alter their policies to anonymize their logs even sooner to help protect their users.
3. Google has even considered moving data centers to the ocean to keep your private data away from government demands.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/googles-search-goes-out-to-sea/ [nytimes.com]
Re:The difference between all three (Score:4, Informative)
You are being tracked when you use iOS, unless you opt out [apple.com].