Microsoft Slams Google Privacy Changes With "Putting People First" Ad Campaign(marketingland.com)
marketingland.com
Microsoft Slams Google Privacy Changes With "Putting People First" Ad Campaign
http://marketingland.com/microsoft-slams-google-privacy-search-changes-with-putting-people-first-ad-campaign-4887
6 comments
Let's see... Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
Yup, all right there.
Yup, all right there.
Yes, but are they wrong?
UPDATE: I should make it clear that I didn’t post the text to say I agree with it, but as a service for people like me who tend to read the comments first to decide whether to read the post second :-)
UPDATE: I should make it clear that I didn’t post the text to say I agree with it, but as a service for people like me who tend to read the comments first to decide whether to read the post second :-)
Mr. Raganwald, this is your friend Nickieben Bourbaki. They are mostly right about Google but partially wrong (as explained in another response). They are entirely wrong about it being a good idea about trying their products (also explained in another response). But more interestingly, they are entirely wrong about their business strategy here.
FUD was perfected by IBM when they were the Goliath of computing. When you’re the consensus #1, you are the safe choice. Therefore, if you can make something else appear unsafe, you are going to drive customers to your “safe haven.”
In search and data collection, Is Microsoft a safe haven? No. In the eyes of the marketplace, Google probably is, even if nerds and privacy wonks don’t agree. FUD is something Google could probably get away with, but it is going to backfire as a business tactic for Microsoft.
Although idealists like yourself would love it if users left both services for alternatives like Duckduckgo, what will actually happen is that anyone who reads the ads and becomes aware that these giant companies are collecting personal data is going to decide to go with someone they trust. Right now, that’s Google, not Microsoft. This is especially true in technical circles where Microsoft has absolutely zero moral credibility.
Therefore, I suggest to you that yes, they may be right about Google in some respects, but this is the wrong ad to run for Microsoft the business.
p.s. Next time, lock your screen before going for espresso :-)
FUD was perfected by IBM when they were the Goliath of computing. When you’re the consensus #1, you are the safe choice. Therefore, if you can make something else appear unsafe, you are going to drive customers to your “safe haven.”
In search and data collection, Is Microsoft a safe haven? No. In the eyes of the marketplace, Google probably is, even if nerds and privacy wonks don’t agree. FUD is something Google could probably get away with, but it is going to backfire as a business tactic for Microsoft.
Although idealists like yourself would love it if users left both services for alternatives like Duckduckgo, what will actually happen is that anyone who reads the ads and becomes aware that these giant companies are collecting personal data is going to decide to go with someone they trust. Right now, that’s Google, not Microsoft. This is especially true in technical circles where Microsoft has absolutely zero moral credibility.
Therefore, I suggest to you that yes, they may be right about Google in some respects, but this is the wrong ad to run for Microsoft the business.
p.s. Next time, lock your screen before going for espresso :-)
One of my least favorite things about working where I work (for another two days) is that I have to lock my screen all the time.
Maybe not wrong exactly, but definitely slimey.
This particularly: But, the way they’re doing it is making it harder for you to maintain control of your personal information.
That's maybe not strictly wrong, but it's definitely deceptive. In practice, changes to Google's privacy policy are going to make things easier to keep track of for normal users, not harder.
They don't actually state anything concretely wrong with anything Google's done. They even admit as much at the beginning of the third paragraph. But then they go on to paint it as somehow bad.
I imagine the reason they don't get specific is because MS's privacy policy is probably as bad if not worse. Also: see sek's comment below.
In a word: weaselly. I'm a home and work Windows user. I would really prefer if MS stuck to making their products better and telling me about how it's making their products better.
This particularly: But, the way they’re doing it is making it harder for you to maintain control of your personal information.
That's maybe not strictly wrong, but it's definitely deceptive. In practice, changes to Google's privacy policy are going to make things easier to keep track of for normal users, not harder.
They don't actually state anything concretely wrong with anything Google's done. They even admit as much at the beginning of the third paragraph. But then they go on to paint it as somehow bad.
I imagine the reason they don't get specific is because MS's privacy policy is probably as bad if not worse. Also: see sek's comment below.
In a word: weaselly. I'm a home and work Windows user. I would really prefer if MS stuck to making their products better and telling me about how it's making their products better.
They're probably not wrong.
However, I don't have much respect for a giant like Microsoft trying to win over customers with fear tactics instead of with vastly superior products.
However, I don't have much respect for a giant like Microsoft trying to win over customers with fear tactics instead of with vastly superior products.
It is difficult for Microsoft’s business actions to lose any further respect in my eyes, as I have so little of it to begin with. However, in this case there are two things:
1. Attack on Google.
2. Appeal to use Microsoft’s products.
I’m perfectly ok with agreeing with the substance of point number one while choosing to do my searching with Duckduckgo instead of Google Search,and collaboration with DropBox instead of Google Docs, and so on.
So perhaps we are in perfect accord.
1. Attack on Google.
2. Appeal to use Microsoft’s products.
I’m perfectly ok with agreeing with the substance of point number one while choosing to do my searching with Duckduckgo instead of Google Search,and collaboration with DropBox instead of Google Docs, and so on.
So perhaps we are in perfect accord.
they are wrong if they are trying to imply that they are any different. microsoft makes money by displaying ads on their web properties. google makes money by displaying ads on their web properties. they're both running the same business. microsoft collects your data too. they're no better than google. they're just slightly less competent.
On microsoft.com/dashboard you can organize all the personal data you have on Microsoft. Shame on Google for making it more difficult.
Yep. And the classy and timely commentary they make on these Google issues really makes me think they're not a reactive monothilic opportunistic megacorp trying to cynically manipulate me at all. Those Microsoft guys... maybe they're not so bad!
That page doesn't exist.
I think this was the intended URL: http://connect.microsoft.com/dashboard/
Edit: My bad. I think the OP was being sarcastic, and this link is barely relevant.
Edit: My bad. I think the OP was being sarcastic, and this link is barely relevant.
It doesn't show me any details and contains 3 tabs - "Feedback I'm Watching", "Feedback I've Submitted" , "Feedback I've Participated On". All three tabs are empty.
How is this helpful at all?
How is this helpful at all?
[deleted]
Microsoft don't exactly have a spotless track record for "putting people first" over the interests of advertising: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/ie8-waterdown-privacy...
Maybe attitudes have genuinely changed at MS in the ~3 years since IE8 came out?
Maybe attitudes have genuinely changed at MS in the ~3 years since IE8 came out?
Microsoft fights dirty, as always.
Won’t be the first time Microsoft used propaganda against a competitor (this manufactured brouhaha over the new privacy policy could be their doing for all I know).
I'm not sure what they find so objectionable about the new privacy policy seeing as Google isn't collecting additional data, isn't selling it and is not removing the tools they already have in place to control it; and they've significantly reduced the text involved and gave a notice more than a month in advance.
I think this is the best take on this whole issue: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/01/31/on-the-go...
I'm not sure what they find so objectionable about the new privacy policy seeing as Google isn't collecting additional data, isn't selling it and is not removing the tools they already have in place to control it; and they've significantly reduced the text involved and gave a notice more than a month in advance.
I think this is the best take on this whole issue: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/01/31/on-the-go...
> this manufactured brouhaha over the new privacy policy could be their doing for all I know.
Let's see if I've got this...
The world's largest web search provider, also a leading email provider, while also launching a social networking platform, makes sweeping changes to its privacy policy that affect millions with no opt-out...
And it's plausible to you that Microsoft is behind the arched eyebrows. You'd rather posit a Ballmer conspiracy than the simplest explanation.
Let's see if I've got this...
The world's largest web search provider, also a leading email provider, while also launching a social networking platform, makes sweeping changes to its privacy policy that affect millions with no opt-out...
And it's plausible to you that Microsoft is behind the arched eyebrows. You'd rather posit a Ballmer conspiracy than the simplest explanation.
Opt-out for a privacy policy!? and for a policy which aims at reducing the amount of policies!? read it and if you don't like it then don't use that product, there is your "opt-out".
As for the changes in question, my point is that they do not warrant that sort of reaction, and seeing as Microsoft is in the habit of hiring big DC PR firms to blast competitors it's not unfeasible that it's them behind all this, the difference is that this time it's public.
As for the changes in question, my point is that they do not warrant that sort of reaction, and seeing as Microsoft is in the habit of hiring big DC PR firms to blast competitors it's not unfeasible that it's them behind all this, the difference is that this time it's public.
"Google is in the process of making some unpopular changes to some of their most popular products. Those changes, cloaked in language like “transparency,” “simplicity” and “consistency,” are really about one thing: making it easier for Google to connect the dots between everything you search, send, say or stream while using one of their services.
"But, the way they’re doing it is making it harder for you to maintain control of your personal information. Why are they so interested in doing this that they would risk this kind of backlash? One logical reason: Every data point they collect and connect to you increases how valuable you are to an advertiser.
"To be clear, there’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting to improve the quality of an advertising product. But, that effort needs to be balanced with continuing to meet the needs and interests of users. Every business finds its own balance and attracts users who share those priorities. Google’s new changes have upset that balance, with users’ priorities being de-prioritized. That’s why people are concerned and looking for alternatives.
"If these changes rub you the wrong way, please consider using our portfolio of award-winning products and services…."