42 replies to this topic 2 votes

[+techbeck]

Quote

Microsoft just came out with the second phase of its "Scroogled" campaign, a series of fearmongering attack ads aimed at Google that are very similar to the political attack ads that flood the airwaves during election season.

Dramatic voiceover. Vague implications of danger. Damning clips of the opponent saying something stupid (thanks, Eric Schmidt). "Email between a husband and wife or two best friends should be completely personal," a smooth-voiced announcer says in one spot. "But Google crosses the line and goes through every single Gmail."

As is typical when political campaigns go negative, there was a bit of a backlash. Critics say Microsoft is spreading FUD — fear, uncertainty, and doubt — when it should be focused on building great products that can compete with Google on quality. "What I don’t get is why Microsoft feels the need to run such a negative campaign," tech blogger Frederic Lardinois wrote at TechCrunch.
In other words, why does Microsoft have to be so mean?

http://www.theverge....-things-to-come

Lots more in the source. To big to post.

[Praetor]

Slash other's products so your own product gets higher praise. That's a typical argument that's used in politics; doesn't stick so well.

[siah1214]

The thing is Microsoft does make better products (Outlook.com comes to mind) but the media shuns everything Microsoft and spends most of its time and energy worshipping Google. The media and tech sites, does a fine job of tearing Microsoft a new one for everything they do, so I guess Microsoft decided if they wanted something done right (in this case, done at all) they were going to have to tear Google down themselves.

[Sonne]

This reeks of desperation and its not fooling anyone

[firey]

siah1214, on 13 February 2013 - 20:48, said:

The thing is Microsoft does make better products (Outlook.com comes to mind) but the media shuns everything Microsoft and spends most of its time and energy worshipping Google. The media and tech sites, does a fine job of tearing Microsoft a new one for everything they do, so I guess Microsoft decided if they wanted something done right (in this case, done at all) they were going to have to tear Google down themselves.

I'd use Gmail over Outlook.com any day.. and I am not the media.

[siah1214]

firey, on 13 February 2013 - 20:55, said:

I'd use Gmail over Outlook.com any day.. and I am not the media.

Do you want a prize?

[n_K]

I went to bing.com today and was greeted with this message;
'By using this site you agree to the use of cookies for analytics, personalized content and ads.'
...

I will never be visiting bing again in my life.

[firey]

siah1214, on 13 February 2013 - 21:02, said:

Do you want a prize?

Is the prize... magical?

[brianshapiro]

Hrrm... after years of Microsoft's competitors attacking them for not supporting standards, when they didn't support standards any better than MS did (ie Firefox wasn't good until 3.0), and with Google consciously alluding to the "Evil Empire" image of Microsoft created by competitors by saying "don't be evil", I don't think they have nothing to complain about.

Which isn't to say I don't think the worry over Google Ads isn't paranoid, and that Microsoft isn't spreading FUD by not presenting the issue in a more straightforward way.

[+techbeck]

siah1214, on 13 February 2013 - 20:48, said:

The thing is Microsoft does make better products (Outlook.com comes to mind) but the media shuns everything Microsoft and spends most of its time and energy worshipping Google. The media and tech sites, does a fine job of tearing Microsoft a new one for everything they do, so I guess Microsoft decided if they wanted something done right (in this case, done at all) they were going to have to tear Google down themselves.

That is your opinion. There is no proof that Outlook.com is better.

[jakem1]

n_K, on 13 February 2013 - 21:04, said:

I went to bing.com today and was greeted with this message;
'By using this site you agree to the use of cookies for analytics, personalized content and ads.'
...

I will never be visiting bing again in my life.

Are you based in the UK because I presume that's only appearing to comply with the UK's implementation of the EU's cookie directive.

[AJerman]

techbeck, on 13 February 2013 - 21:37, said:

That is your opinion. There is no proof that Outlook.com is better.

And I haven't played with it since the new Outlook.com (which, granted, does look nice), but for about a decade there hotmail was absolute dog ****. So to act like only Google worshipers use Gmail is beyond ridiculous. Gmail change email for a lot of people, myself included, and I have absolutely no interest in changing to Outlook or any other provider.

[RatherLargeBear]

n_K, on 13 February 2013 - 21:04, said:

I went to bing.com today and was greeted with this message;
'By using this site you agree to the use of cookies for analytics, personalized content and ads.'
...

I will never be visiting bing again in my life.

You do realise that pretty much every site you visit does this too. At least more and more sites are using a similar disclaimer.
You may as well just quit the internet if you don't agree with it.

[siah1214]

techbeck, on 13 February 2013 - 21:37, said:

That is your opinion. There is no proof that Outlook.com is better.

I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.thebestpa...u=boiling_blood

[AJerman]

siah1214, on 13 February 2013 - 21:45, said:

I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.thebestpa...u=boiling_blood

Almost as annoying as people who say "The thing is, Microsoft does make better products", when that's clearly an opinion but stated as a fact.