Microsoft's Scroogled campaign is successfully driving people away from Google [Update]

Microsoft's Scroogled campaign seems to actually be having a decent effect on the public's perception and trust in the Google brand. In fact, it's even pushing some to make the switch from Google services like search and Gmail over to Microsoft's Bing and Outlook email.

According to research by (GfK Roper) Answers Research, once people visit scroogled.com, Google's favorability gap over Bing shrinks to just 5 percent compared to 45 percent before visiting the website. While Google does still have the slight edge here, there's definitely noticeable gains in Microsoft's favor. After watching the Scroogled video, the likelihood of someone recommending Google drops by 10 percent, while the likelihood of someone recommending Bing rises by 7 percent, as discovered by Microsoft's own data.

"The 'Scroogled' campaign is having a huge impact as consumers learn the stark difference between what Google says and what Google does," said a Microsoft spokesman. Meanwhile a Google spokesman humorously stated, "Don't think we have a comment on this one."

The campaign aims to convince people that they're getting screwed by Google for its advertisements and invasions of privacy. The website has sections targeting email, schools, spam, the app store, and shopping. Microsoft uses the offensive tactic to get users to switch over to Outlook email or Bing, which essentially promises to stay true to its users.

Update: A Microsoft spokesperson reached out with the following statement to address an inaccuracy in the research source: "Microsoft clarified that this was research conducted by Answers Research, not gfk Roper."

Source: Ad Age

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft talks about merging SkyDrive programming in Windows 8.1

Next Story

Microsoft reveals future plans for Yammer division

115 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I have never, and will never switch to a product that bashes their competitors. If you have so little confidence in your product that you have to bash the competition, I have no confidence in it either.

then dont hesitate to tell us where's the "bashing" in stating true facts? facts that may not be pr-approved so of course they hurt google; however, this isnt an "im a mac, im a pc" type of bull

so if the scroogled campaign takes root in some people its not bashing... ms just states the facts written down in the google products EULA, which the same people simply ignore

_-Psycho-_ said,
I have never, and will never switch to a product that bashes their competitors. If you have so little confidence in your product that you have to bash the competition, I have no confidence in it either.

So you must not use any Google or Apple products.

YEE HAW! So glad Google is now eating Groogle. Left them after the privacy change. Only going to worse get for the ones that stayed on.

Can't say I've even seen one of those commercials, but all I can say is YAY!!

Anything that brings Google down a notch is cool in my book!

Never have and never will like them.

Google is driving people away from Google.

Their behavior with the YouTube Windows Phone App is ridiculous, and then this change of terms and service so they can use your name and photo in Ads. Sure you can opt out, but still, no thanks Google.


I still use Google.
Gmail for spam emails (when I sign up for an account somewhere.. because no way am I letting Gmail have access to my friends details), and Google search because here in Australia, it's better than Bing.
And YouTube, for now, because it has funny stuff on it. Ad blocker ftw though.

I bet that Microsoft paid Answers Research for the research. And what company in their right mind would find adverse info on someone paying for their services?

I never liked how Microsoft did their stuff over those 8 years, but what Google has done recently is screwed up.

I have gmail as primary and live at the same, so I don't think i will switch to Microsoft anytime soon. Prob MS comes of with own figure.

This is how companies makes money, by selling something or using something of theirs.

Shadowzz said,
MS sells software, devices and services.
What does Google sell?

Software (Gapps licensing to OEMS), devices (Nexus, Motorola, Pixel, Chromecast...) and services (Google Apps for Business, GoogleDrive, App Engine).

Selling ads is part of the services business for both Google and Microsoft.

They both basically sell stuff in similar areas, the difference is where their core business resides.

ichi said,

Software (Gapps licensing to OEMS), devices (Nexus, Motorola, Pixel, Chromecast...) and services (Google Apps for Business, GoogleDrive, App Engine).

Selling ads is part of the services business for both Google and Microsoft.

They both basically sell stuff in similar areas, the difference is where their core business resides.

Check the revenue reports. Google makes almost all their money off ads while Microsoft makes almost all their money off software and service. They all have crossover but they're small beans in comparison to their main business.

Spicoli said,

Check the revenue reports. Google makes almost all their money off ads while Microsoft makes almost all their money off software and service. They all have crossover but they're small beans in comparison to their main business.

And that's exactly what I said: the core of their business is different, although they still sell stuff in similar (often overlapping) areas.

OP's question was "what does Google sell?", which is what I replied to.

I used to be 100% pro google. Just had a falling out with them. I don't hate Google, I just don't use their services as much. Obvious exception is YouTube but that is a giant technicality.

Makes sense. You spread fear into the minds of the simple minded/ignorant who will take anyone's word for fact without knowing what actually is happening....yea, I guess MS campaign would of an impact. So congrats I guess

I'm really not a fan of what Google have been getting up to recently, but I'm also not very impressed with Microsofts performance over the last five years.

The thing is, these companies need to make money and turn a healthy profit. There is a line though!

I think it's just more people moving away from privacy concerns they hear mainly about google through the media not through the scroogled campaigns

Im usually against throwing mud, can enjoy companies sticking it to each other though. But the MS-Apple, Apple-MS, MS-Google, Google-MS ads and slander its generally the same typical bull.
But I don't like the way Google has been going last bunch of years and the blind faith people have in Google as the Lord Almighty Savior of IT was scaring me. So MS taking this to the media IMO was a good move. Just like people supporting Mozilla/Netscape 15-20 years ago. Which eventually I think stopped MS from going the wrong way. And hope the same goes for Google.

Nice! No one speak of negative advertising when Apple is wholly guilty of it (NOT giving them a break on that, sorry.) and Google do it too.

Dot Matrix said,
Nice! No one speak of negative advertising when Apple is wholly guilty of it (NOT giving them a break on that, sorry.) and Google do it too.

Were not you around here when Apple aired "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" or you just have a "filtered" memory? Lot of people were, correctly IMO, blaming Apple for the campaign. Unfortunately the same people are very quite nowadays....
Typical "Pasdaran" syndrome .

Sure, let's constantly bring up ads that came out seven years ago, and ignore the ones out now. That's probably why no one speaks of it...because they're over 2006...

Also, what Google ad slams the competition? The one about the Nexus 7 where the kid asks it a bunch of questions...yeah, no mention of Apple or Microsoft there. Now Samsung and Microsoft ads..well, you can tell they're trying to compensate for something.

benthebear said,
Sure, let's constantly bring up ads that came out seven years ago, and ignore the ones out now. That's probably why no one speaks of it...because they're over 2006...

Also, what Google ad slams the competition? The one about the Nexus 7 where the kid asks it a bunch of questions...yeah, no mention of Apple or Microsoft there. Now Samsung and Microsoft ads..well, you can tell they're trying to compensate for something.

Guess you haven't caught any of the Motorola 'Lazy Phone' ads...

Mobius Enigma said,

Guess you haven't caught any of the Motorola 'Lazy Phone' ads...

You mean those where they don't mention the competition either?

Spicoli said,
How? Microsoft makes its money selling software and services while Google makes its money selling your information.

They don't sell your information, they never have. They target the ads, just like Microsoft does with Bing Ads. Is it really so hard to understand the difference?

fobban said,

They don't sell your information, they never have. They target the ads, just like Microsoft does with Bing Ads. Is it really so hard to understand the difference?

They sell targeted ads with your information which means they're selling your information. That's the source of the value.

Spicoli said,

They sell targeted ads with your information which means they're selling your information. That's the source of the value.


No, they don't sell targeted ads with your information. They use the information they have about you to show ads that might interest you. The advertisers never gets any info about the users clicking their ads.

However you're not alone: it's a common misunderstanding that Google/Yahoo/Microsoft sells the information to advertisers, but they don't.

Why to blindly and wrongly attribute this to Microsoft.

If anything is driving people away from Google it would be the whole NSA freakout.

nub said,
Why to blindly and wrongly attribute this to Microsoft.

If anything is driving people away from Google it would be the whole NSA freakout.

Yes but everybody know that both Google and Bing are NSA-"Certified." so to jump from Google to Bing is pretty much the same.

Brony said,

Yes but everybody know that both Google and Bing are NSA-"Certified." so to jump from Google to Bing is pretty much the same.


You know I love how people blame the companies for this.

When the government shows up with a secret court order, you have to do it. There is no "no I'm not going to". I mean yes you probably could tell them no but then good luck to ever doing business in that country again. I'm sure that will go down well with your employees, their families, your shareholders.

So for companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft etc they don't really have a choice. It's you either do it, or you close up shop. It's easy for you to sit in your nice comfy chair at home and pass judgement, but you aren't responsible for those employees that will have to find jobs elsewhere, you aren't responsible for the massive loss in value of the company, and you aren't responsible for the billions of dollars the company would have to spend in a secret court.

The people to blame here are the governments, not the companies that don't really have a choice in the matter. And it's not like this doesn't happen in other countries.

-Razorfold said,


The people to blame here are the governments, not the companies that don't really have a choice in the matter. And it's not like this doesn't happen in other countries.

No, the fault is not of the government but of the people who keep voting them.
As for other Countries doing the same.... it seems that the US are not when someone else spy on them .....Jonathan Pollard docet.

-Razorfold said,

You know I love how people blame the companies for this.

When the government shows up with a secret court order, you have to do it. There is no "no I'm not going to". I mean yes you probably could tell them no but then good luck to ever doing business in that country again. I'm sure that will go down well with your employees, their families, your shareholders.

So for companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft etc they don't really have a choice. It's you either do it, or you close up shop. It's easy for you to sit in your nice comfy chair at home and pass judgement, but you aren't responsible for those employees that will have to find jobs elsewhere, you aren't responsible for the massive loss in value of the company, and you aren't responsible for the billions of dollars the company would have to spend in a secret court.

The people to blame here are the governments, not the companies that don't really have a choice in the matter. And it's not like this doesn't happen in other countries.


This ^. It's kind of sad people are too blind to actually see this.

Actually, unless I'm reading this wrong, they asked people their opinion about Google, then showed them scroogled site, then asked them their opinion again. So... it can be attributed to MS in this situation.

-Razorfold said,

You know I love how people blame the companies for this.

When the government shows up with a secret court order, you have to do it. There is no "no I'm not going to". I mean yes you probably could tell them no but then good luck to ever doing business in that country again. I'm sure that will go down well with your employees, their families, your shareholders.

So for companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft etc they don't really have a choice. It's you either do it, or you close up shop. It's easy for you to sit in your nice comfy chair at home and pass judgement, but you aren't responsible for those employees that will have to find jobs elsewhere, you aren't responsible for the massive loss in value of the company, and you aren't responsible for the billions of dollars the company would have to spend in a secret court.

The people to blame here are the governments, not the companies that don't really have a choice in the matter. And it's not like this doesn't happen in other countries.

Maybe that blood shed would wake people up and something would be done. Right now it's like nobody cares. All these crazy issues going on that are challenging our democracy. Yet, next year when it comes to the the ballot box people will be voting for polarizing social issues and not the ability of a person to govern and protect the rights gaurnteed under the constitution.

Run on sentences aside, I get what you are saying. You are right, I've never had to face the burden of a decision that large before. Beyond that, i would guess that most folks signed away their privacy to whatever Apple, Google, and Microsoft put in their EULAs anyway.

"According to research by GfK Roper Poll, once people visit scroogled.com, Google's favorability gap over Bing shrinks to just 5 percent compared to 45 percent before visiting the website"

How they know that?.

IMHO, it sounds like a BS.

Marketing effectiveness is a hell of hard to determine. So it is not strange that some companies cheat it "the popularity of your product increased in x percent or the competitor decreased in y percent".

Astra.Xtreme said,
"As discovered by Microsoft's own data." Righttttttt........

But when they announce some number on stage at an Apple conference, showing how they are supposedly beating Windows (such as how OSX was outpacing Win8) those we should believe. And we should give Apple a break when they do that.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

But when they announce some number on stage at an Apple conference, showing how they are supposedly beating Windows (such as how OSX was outpacing Win8) those we should believe. And we should give Apple a break when they do that.

SoylentG, who said that we should just listen to the numbers Apple gives us and ignore the ones from Microsoft? Actually, who said anything about Apple?

omgben said,

SoylentG, who said that we should just listen to the numbers Apple gives us and ignore the ones from Microsoft? Actually, who said anything about Apple?

Ignore the whiner.....

It might be driving people away from Google but it is also damaging the Microsoft brand. I'm personally sick of all the negative advertising that Microsoft has been engaging in recently.

theyarecomingforyou said,
It might be driving people away from Google but it is also damaging the Microsoft brand. I'm personally sick of all the negative advertising that Microsoft has been engaging in recently.

Microsoft loves to sling mud. I agree with you.

NeoPogo said,

Microsoft loves to sling mud. I agree with you.

And when people complained about Apple slinging mud for years, the response was "Please, give Apple a break" because they were the underdog. Now when Microsoft is the underdog in a number of areas, they are slinging mud and they must stop the negatitivy now.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

And when people complained about Apple slinging mud for years, the response was "Please, give Apple a break" because they were the underdog. Now when Microsoft is the underdog in a number of areas, they are slinging mud and they must stop the negatitivy now.

I wonder if the people who were complaining about Apple tactics are, as well, complaining now that MS is the one in action....

Agree 100% with you. For a while I am hating Microsoft with passion just because their annoying, superior, sneaky, trolling bull**** attitude towards (better) competitors like Google and Apple.

It seems that Microsoft suffers very much from the "sour grapes" syndrome.

Scroogle you, Microsoft!

WhatTheSchmidt said,

And when people complained about Apple slinging mud for years, the response was "Please, give Apple a break" because they were the underdog. Now when Microsoft is the underdog in a number of areas, they are slinging mud and they must stop the negatitivy now.

I hated the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads (if that is what you are referring to). Whether or not "they got away with it" then isn't really fair. There were a ton of articles blasting them for how far off and how bad they were. Justifiably so. Just like how people should be blasting MS for this advertising campaign.

Right now, Apple probably has the strongest smartphone commercials out of anyone. These recent Apple ads are brilliant at establishing the iPhone brand as iconic. No need to advertise a new iPhone model, just The iPhone.

theyarecomingforyou said,
It might be driving people away from Google but it is also damaging the Microsoft brand. I'm personally sick of all the negative advertising that Microsoft has been engaging in recently.

I am not sure how you classify this as negative advertising if it's true. Everything they state is true.

Mortis said,
Agree 100% with you. For a while I am hating Microsoft with passion just because their annoying, superior, sneaky, trolling bull**** attitude towards (better) competitors like Google and Apple.

It seems that Microsoft suffers very much from the "sour grapes" syndrome.

Scroogle you, Microsoft!

Google is better than MS? in what area other than search? Even Bing is catching up. Heck I have 2 years without using Google's search engine and I always get the search results I am looking for.

Doubtful. Those ads won multiple awards such as AdWeek's "Campaign of the Decade" and calls the campaign "beloved" and wrote:
The series of 66 humorous Get a Mac spots offer transparent understanding of the aspirations of its audience and how people identify - and connect emotionally - with technology.

Get a Mac won the Grand Effie Award. The NYT (Sept 10 2008) gave up the front page of their paper to proudly display a Get A Mac article. The Get a Mac ads received 11 nominations from One Show awards, which is considered the "Oscars of advertising" (as one Mac site wrote).

And they could not have been too disliked because the campaign increased sales. From Wikipedia:
Prior to the release of this campaign, in March 2006, Apple had a downward spike of sales for the 2005-2006 period. One month after the start of the ‘Get a Mac' campaign, Apple saw an increase of 200,000 Macs sold, and at the end of July 2006, Mac announced that it had sold 1.3 million Macs. Apple had an overall increase in sales of 39% for the fiscal year ending September 2006.

With every ad that Apple put out, sites like Engadget, MacRumors, and more would rush to be the first to have the ad on their page where the Apple fanboys would laugh about how great it was, sticking it to the "man" (aka Microsoft). But when Microsoft fights back, well, we know how the story goes. Even when Microsoft sligly tried taking on the Get a Mac ads with the I'm A PC ads, they were attacked for being mean to poor Apple. Apple fanboys even stalked one of the women, Lauren, and were hate rageing when it was found out she was an actress. As if Long and Hodgeman were not.

WhatTheSchmidt said,
And when people complained about Apple slinging mud for years, the response was "Please, give Apple a break" because they were the underdog. Now when Microsoft is the underdog in a number of areas, they are slinging mud and they must stop the negatitivy now.

Simply claiming you have a better product is not "slinging mud". Microsoft's MO in the "Scroogled" campaign is, essentially, that Google does unscrupulous things, and Microsoft does not. While the former is true, the latter leaves a lot to be desired.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

And when people complained about Apple slinging mud for years, the response was "Please, give Apple a break" because they were the underdog. Now when Microsoft is the underdog in a number of areas, they are slinging mud and they must stop the negatitivy now.

Hi nohone/SoylentG. Welcome back. You're canned responses of, "but when Apple does it, it's OK," even though no one mentioned Apple gave it away...Will this account join the others on the banned list?

Edited by benthebear, Oct 15 2013, 10:59pm :

omgben said,

Hi nohone/SoylentG. Welcome back. You're canned responses of, "but when Apple does it, it's OK," even though no one mentioned Apple gave it away...

I don't know what you are talking about. My replies are in the context of the editorial this morning where we were told by a writer of this site that we are supposed to just give Apple a pass on everything. I never really posted here before but after reading that article it puts much into perspective where you can attack one company all you want but another one is somehow off limits. And I guess you proved that is true when I post a comment and then the personal attacks start against me. I guess dissention and therefore my opinion is not welcome here.

WhatTheSchmidt said,
And when people complained about Apple slinging mud for years, the response was "Please, give Apple a break" because they were the underdog. Now when Microsoft is the underdog in a number of areas, they are slinging mud and they must stop the negatitivy now.

That's not true. I criticised Apple when they ran negative ads too.

coderchi said,
I am not sure how you classify this as negative advertising if it's true. Everything they state is true.

Negative ads are those that attack a competitor rather than promoting their own products. Scroggled is a negative advertising campaign.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

I don't know what you are talking about. My replies are in the context of the editorial this morning where we were told by a writer of this site that we are supposed to just give Apple a pass on everything. I never really posted here before but after reading that article it puts much into perspective where you can attack one company all you want but another one is somehow off limits. And I guess you proved that is true when I post a comment and then the personal attacks start against me. I guess dissention and therefore my opinion is not welcome here.

Personal attacks? Where? Show me. How did I personally attack you? I didn't. I shouldn't be surprised that you think I did because fabricating stuff out of something no one said is what you do.

And you know exactly what I'm talking about. You're the guy who hops onto every article and when someone makes a slightly negative comment about Microsoft, you jump all over it with your typical, "oh but when Apple does it's OK," act, even though no one mentioned Apple, or gave Apple a free pass. You know because the people supposedly said it at one time. Supposedly. I mean, look at your reply to theyarecomingforyou and Astra.Xtreme. Where was it mentioned that Apple did it, and it was OK? You play this game for a few weeks, then you stop posting on that account, hang low for a few weeks, then flare up again under a new name using the exact same tactics. nohone, SoylentG, StevenBratz, (all banned) and now WhatTheSchmidt. It's all the same person.


omgben said,

Personal attacks? Where? Show me. How did I personally attack you? I didn't. I shouldn't be surprised that you think I did because fabricating stuff out of something no one said is what you do.

And you know exactly what I'm talking about. You're the guy who hops onto every article and when someone makes a slightly negative comment about Microsoft, you jump all over it with your typical, "oh but when Apple does it's OK," act, even though no one mentioned Apple, or gave Apple a free pass. You know because the people supposedly said it at one time. Supposedly. I mean, look at your reply to theyarecomingforyou and Astra.Xtreme. Where was it mentioned that Apple did it, and it was OK? You play this game for a few weeks, then you stop posting on that account, hang low for a few weeks, then flare up again under a new name using the exact same tactics. nohone, SoylentG, StevenBratz, (all banned) and now WhatTheSchmidt. It's all the same person.


You personally attacked me by immediately claiming I am some other person. Apparently you like to watch every person, examine them, and stalk them on the web. Very of creepy you are so infatuated with other people like that. I see other users here making the same comments that I did, about how Apple made the same commercials and how people thought those commercials were great, but somehow Microsoft is wrong for doing it.

I started reading here because I thought it was a good place to get information about software that I use everyday. I knew that there was some Apple users here and that was great because I could what the other side is doing. But apparently I walked into an Apple site where Apple is given a break, but Microsoft and their users are not afforded the same treatment.

I guess I will leave you to your site, and go find one that is more appreciative of Microsoft users.

Shadrack said,

I hated the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads (if that is what you are referring to). Whether or not "they got away with it" then isn't really fair. There were a ton of articles blasting them for how far off and how bad they were. Justifiably so. Just like how people should be blasting MS for this advertising campaign.

Right now, Apple probably has the strongest smartphone commercials out of anyone. These recent Apple ads are brilliant at establishing the iPhone brand as iconic. No need to advertise a new iPhone model, just The iPhone.


Seems a bit like the Surface ads with all the dancing..
The 5c tanked... That's why they went to generic ads. All they can do is try and sell the "IPhone" name and hope it hides the debacle called the 5c.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

I don't know what you are talking about. My replies are in the context of the editorial this morning where we were told by a writer of this site that we are supposed to just give Apple a pass on everything. I never really posted here before but after reading that article it puts much into perspective where you can attack one company all you want but another one is somehow off limits. And I guess you proved that is true when I post a comment and then the personal attacks start against me. I guess dissention and therefore my opinion is not welcome here.

I do not know what you smoke but... send it here...

WhatTheSchmidt said,

Apple made the same commercials and how people thought those commercials were great, but somehow Microsoft is wrong for doing it.

I read a single post that said they thought these new Microsoft commercials are great. Therefore, *everyone* must think they are great.

Yeah, thats how flawed your logic is. Or perhaps you are just daft.

Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions. Most folks here have exclaimed that they didn't like the negative ads Apple were doing, and they don't like these negative ads Microsoft are doing. Yet, here you are *harping* away like everyone and their dog loves Apple and completely approved of their ads but have a double-standard when it comes to Microsoft. That is no the case, so stop carrying on like it is. Nobody is giving anyone a "pass" except in your mind.

Some folks have the opinion that they like these Microsoft ads.

Some folks have the opinion that they don't like these Microsoft ads.

Leave it at that.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

You personally attacked me by immediately claiming I am some other person. Apparently you like to watch every person, examine them, and stalk them on the web. Very of creepy you are so infatuated with other people like that. I see other users here making the same comments that I did, about how Apple made the same commercials and how people thought those commercials were great, but somehow Microsoft is wrong for doing it.

I started reading here because I thought it was a good place to get information about software that I use everyday. I knew that there was some Apple users here and that was great because I could what the other side is doing. But apparently I walked into an Apple site where Apple is given a break, but Microsoft and their users are not afforded the same treatment.

I guess I will leave you to your site, and go find one that is more appreciative of Microsoft users.

More than Neown? Does MS_Pasdarans.com exists?

WhatTheSchmidt said,
And when people complained about Apple slinging mud for years, the response was "Please, give Apple a break" because they were the underdog. Now when Microsoft is the underdog in a number of areas, they are slinging mud and they must stop the negatitivy now.

You're so full of it. Apple's Mac vs. PC commercials were heavily criticized here, including be people like myself. Maybe your memory doesn't serve you well, but nobody's forgotten about anything Apple's done. We DO live in the present however, and pretending Microsoft is some sort of angel is hysterical.

Mortis said,
Agree 100% with you. For a while I am hating Microsoft with passion just because their annoying, superior, sneaky, trolling bull**** attitude towards (better) competitors like Google and Apple.

It seems that Microsoft suffers very much from the "sour grapes" syndrome.

Scroogle you, Microsoft!

How would you propose that Microsoft educates the populace of the tactics Google and others user that are invasive and borderline nefarious?

If Microsoft shoved out an information campaign, under another name, people like yourself would be complaining that they are hiding.

The issues Microsoft is bringing up should be discussed and are things users do need to be aware.

Just like GMail and the legal backlash that is happening.

Users need to know that if they email a contract or corporate privacy communication to a client with a @gmail.com address, they are often violating their company's policies and even breaking the law in many instances.

There is a reason Google services are being blocked by enterprise/business, and it isn't some mindwashing done by Microsoft, they are based on true legal and privacy concerns.

Mobius Enigma said,

Users need to know that if they email a contract or corporate privacy communication to a client with a @gmail.com address, they are often violating their company's policies and even breaking the law in many instances.

Not any more than sending such mails over any other mail provider. Even if both ends were using Exchange, admins would be able to access inboxes for every user.

And then mails are travelling in plain text. If you are sending NDA, confidential or otherwise sensitive stuff in your emails without any kind of encryption you are asking for trouble, Gmail being the least of your concerns.

Amazing as most of the things mentioned in those Ads Microsoft has been also guilty of. Still, every time I try bing it just annoys me so I don't think I would switch.

Worked on me! But then again, I abandoned Google products before the campaign. I still use Youtube, but in an ad-free way. Sorry content providers!

Lurking_Grue said,
Amazing as most of the things mentioned in those Ads Microsoft has been also guilty of. Still, every time I try bing it just annoys me so I don't think I would switch.

Actually, Microsoft hasn't been guilty of them... When it comes to protecting user privacy, Microsoft is the leading major advocate, and have been for many years. (Do some homework on various privacy and internet restriction issues. Microsoft is the one pushing back against Google. Apple for a while was agnostic to many of these issues, but after getting burned in several world courts over what Google was doing on their phones have stepped back and decided to push back against Google as well.)

Google has actively worked against protections Microsoft has proposed and implemented. It was IE7 announced in 2005 that brought forth the creation of Google Chrome, as IE7 was designed to block nefarious advertiser and cookie tracking. Google was afraid of not being able to track users, as Firefox was also implementing some of the same IE7 protection concepts, which is why Google dropped their funding of Firefox. Chrome still doesn't block these things, and circumvents their own plugins to allow information access to Google.


The reason these ads had an 'impact' is it made users question what Google is really doing, and in Google's own words, they didn't like what they found.

Just a simple example: An employee at Google can query and read your GDrive content, this is IMPOSSIBLE with Microsoft SkyDrive - employees have no human readable access.

Mobius Enigma said,

It was IE7 announced in 2005 that brought forth the creation of Google Chrome, as IE7 was designed to block nefarious advertiser and cookie tracking.

You're gonna spam that crap in every Chrome-related thread? Microsoft had MSN AdCenter back then (now Bing Ads). I'm pretty sure they didn't want to kill that business considering how successful Google was. (There might be a reason privacy-related features are off by default--even in IE.)

I'm not sure which protection concepts in IE7 you're thinking of, but Chrome had incognito mode (IE8 got InPrivate), Chrome, as the other browsers allows for blocking third-party cookies but IIRC Safari is the only one blocking them by default. Chrome had AdBlock available over a year before tracking protection was introduced in IE9 (TPL is a nice feature, but most people don't even know about it). I'll give IE a plus for enabling DNT by default, it can be enabled manually in Chrome though.

Mobius Enigma said,

Chrome still doesn't block these things, and circumvents their own plugins to allow information access to Google.

Sounds like a nice conspiracy theory. What 'things' are you referring to?

fobban said,

You're gonna spam that crap in every Chrome-related thread? Microsoft had MSN AdCenter back then (now Bing Ads). I'm pretty sure they didn't want to kill that business considering how successful Google was. (There might be a reason privacy-related features are off by default--even in IE.)

I'm not sure which protection concepts in IE7 you're thinking of, but Chrome had incognito mode (IE8 got InPrivate), Chrome, as the other browsers allows for blocking third-party cookies but IIRC Safari is the only one blocking them by default. Chrome had AdBlock available over a year before tracking protection was introduced in IE9 (TPL is a nice feature, but most people don't even know about it). I'll give IE a plus for enabling DNT by default, it can be enabled manually in Chrome though.


Sounds like a nice conspiracy theory. What 'things' are you referring to?


Yeah because Microsoft always pushed their advertisement divisions to make lots and lots of money. So that advertisement becomes a major part of their revenue....
Oh wait, no they don't. Its something extra they do, but hasn't got a single focus of attention like advertisement does for Google.

Chrome had adblock available, oh wow. Comparing a 3rd party addon with a native function...really dude? There have been activeX scripts/addons that blocked ads well back in IE6 days... please try again.

Also Tracking Protection came with IE8. Not 9 or 7.

Shadowzz said,

Yeah because Microsoft always pushed their advertisement divisions to make lots and lots of money. So that advertisement becomes a major part of their revenue....

Not to become a major part of their revenue but they certainly have pushed tracking to increase their ad business, eg. with their autospawning supercookies up until a couple of years ago.

Also the so much dreaded change in Google's policies where they would cross match data from their different services that turned out to not be actually any different than Microsoft's own privacy policies for their different services.

Don't let Microsoft's campaign against Google fool you into thinking that MS isn't serious about their ad business.

MS is carried by the Office, Windows and Server divisions. Bing still makes a massive loss. They're just keeping an online presence to keep these divisions alive and well.
Their advertisement income is a laughable joke compared to Bing's upkeep.
Also MS releases its browser with a build in ad blocker and AFAIK MS follows the DNT header when enabled.
Similar bull when people cries privacy concerns when Vista started tracking how people use their system. As a result we've gotten Windows 7 btw.

Shadowzz said,

Yeah because Microsoft always pushed their advertisement divisions to make lots and lots of money. So that advertisement becomes a major part of their revenue....
Oh wait, no they don't. Its something extra they do, but hasn't got a single focus of attention like advertisement does for Google.

Chrome had adblock available, oh wow. Comparing a 3rd party addon with a native function...really dude? There have been activeX scripts/addons that blocked ads well back in IE6 days... please try again.

Also Tracking Protection came with IE8. Not 9 or 7.


I'm not sure Microsoft had a crystal ball back in 2007-2008 telling them that their ad division wouldn't bring in as much revenue as they'd hoped.

Remember I answered Mobius to his 'theory' on why Chrome was created. Just feels counterproductive to create a browser with the same privacy mechanisms as its competition, and with an API that allows to block ads...

Lastly, tracking protection came with IE9. IE8 had InPrivate filtering which wasn't designed to block ads. http://windows.microsoft.com/e...rfing-to-yourself#section_5

fobban said,

I'm not sure Microsoft had a crystal ball back in 2007-2008 telling them that their ad division wouldn't bring in as much revenue as they'd hoped.

Remember I answered Mobius to his 'theory' on why Chrome was created. Just feels counterproductive to create a browser with the same privacy mechanisms as its competition, and with an API that allows to block ads...

Lastly, tracking protection came with IE9. IE8 had InPrivate filtering which wasn't designed to block ads. http://windows.microsoft.com/e...rfing-to-yourself#section_5


Ah was wrong on that then, I have practically skipped IE8 (and IE7) as I only used them at work or when required.

And Mobius isn't the first, nor the last (he somehow reminds me of thenetavenger) bringing up that theory. I remember once reading a whole report somewhere on why Chrome started, and MS trying to counter tracking was just 1 of the many reasons.
Main reason is the same why they roll out Google Fiber, to track individuals even better.

The SOLE reason why projects like such get so much front center attention.
Anything that makes it from the Google Labs to consumer somehow always seems to be about improved and better tracking of individuals.

Hehe. It's kinda like watching politic debates. One bad guy bates another bad guy and thinks that makes him a good guy. And it's just ironic seeing Microsoft speaking about privacy rights.

Facebook is a different deal because you put stuff on there specifically for others to see it. Email like snail mail comes with the assumption that the mail handler is not paging through it.

ShockD said,
Facebook sniffs around sites you go so it can offer you more relevant ads. That's enough of a intrusion to me.

That's the conspiracy theory at least but there isn't much evidence except for they could technically store the information. It does require the site you're visiting add code to their page to do it.

Sites do add a piece of fb code, even this very site has one. Facebook pays to gather information about you. They store information about you and can create you a profile based on where you go. That's not a conspiracy, friend, that's the widely-known truth, any website dev can tell you that. Now if you're ok with that, fine. But you must be blind not to see they're everywhere you go.

ShockD said,
Sites do add a piece of fb code, even this very site has one. Facebook pays to gather information about you. They store information about you and can create you a profile based on where you go. That's not a conspiracy, friend, that's the widely-known truth, any website dev can tell you that. Now if you're ok with that, fine. But you must be blind not to see they're everywhere you go.

With things like adblock becoming more wide known. becomes less and less of an issue. Browsers like IE come default with these functionality to block all this tracking.
ShockD said,
Hehe. It's kinda like watching politic debates. One bad guy bates another bad guy and thinks that makes him a good guy. And it's just ironic seeing Microsoft speaking about privacy rights.

MS has done a lot of sh*t, but what has it done wrong when it comes to our privacy?
The anonymized little data they use of me? Only identified to my IP which isn't static, at least here everyone moves around 1 IP a year or so. Those with static ones know how to block em anyways.
Its one of the few strong points Microsoft has, so ofc its trying to use it as leverage.

coderchi said,

No one uses Google Plus

It must be Google then who's posting the 99+ new items I'm getting every day in each of the seven comunities I'm following.

anothercookie said,
but no one even uses microsoft so.cl

...and might not ever as it was a research project.

However, if Microsoft uses the tech to centralize just their gaming community around it or a similar construct with Xbox Live, it could be a reasonable success.

Facebook has been hedging bets lately, and instead of focusing on the partners and investors that could be giving them down the road user retention, they could become another myspace.

Microsoft dumped money into Facebook and built Facebook native services into their WP platform, yet Facebook decided to build their own Phone that was more of an Android'ish imitation of WP than something new.

Yeah well that's what both Google and Microsoft do and that's what's called privacy issue. Now of course they're not FBI informants, but that "little information" that they got on you could have bigger impact on your life. Now you probably think Google is much worse in this aspect, but if you look more deeply into it, you'll find out Microsoft are doing pretty much the same. And same goes to Twitter and so on...

ShockD said,
Yeah well that's what both Google and Microsoft do and that's what's called privacy issue. Now of course they're not FBI informants, but that "little information" that they got on you could have bigger impact on your life. Now you probably think Google is much worse in this aspect, but if you look more deeply into it, you'll find out Microsoft are doing pretty much the same. And same goes to Twitter and so on...

How is comparing anonymized data that the only connection to you is a browser cookie and your IP address (which both are temporary) from Microsoft with Google/Facebook etc where they log all data they got tied to your account.

Shadowzz said,

How is comparing anonymized data that the only connection to you is a browser cookie and your IP address (which both are temporary) from Microsoft with Google/Facebook etc where they log all data they got tied to your account.

Firstly, in English you need to use a verb in order to form a sentence. Secondly. Anonymized? Don't be ridiculous. I'm sure they told you it's anonymous, yeah. Of course you're being logged. Be it over at Google+ or Facebook. That's why I'm saying it's the same thing.