Leaked Microsoft Video Parodies Chrome Ad

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.

Comments

Insightful video

[sprego]

I feel like Microsoft is truly correct with this video. Google is monetizing you, and worse yet, tracking everything you do in unseen scale.

At least with Microsoft I know they will value my privacy. I pay for their product and that's it. But Google's business model is around the monetarizion of its users.

Did you know that just like Zynga (the facebook game company), Google uses professional human psychologies when building their services. They don't just track, but they go directly after the science of human behavior. All done in a warm, fuzzy feel that Google is somehow your very best friend. It's entirely psychological.

Re:Insightful video

[Antipater]

Did you know that just like Zynga (the facebook game company), Google uses professional human psychologies when building their services. They don't just track, but they go directly after the science of human behavior.

So does every other company in the world with an advertising department.

Re:Insightful video

[zlives]

which clearly makes it perfectly right!?

Re:Insightful video

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly correct fore sure. The part that is missing though is "we would do it if we had the chance".

Re:Insightful video

[Anonymous Coward]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Re:Insightful video

[UnknowingFool]

MS values your privacy? You mean how they read encrypted Skype messages? Don't kid yourself about MS motivations. They would monetize you in every single way they can and they will sell data to third parties. They are just not as good as Google yet. Google makes no pretense about it; it's how they make money from the free services they provide.

Re:Insightful video

[iamkake]

Have you even read the article you link to?

Re:Insightful video

[lemou]

And watch the astroturfing moment start... Microsoft is doing the same. They are less successful than Google, that's it.

Re:Insightful video

[Enderandrew]

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

https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013

Microsoft has been caught selling DATA to advertisers, which is the worst offense.

http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/

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

Re:Insightful video

[Enderandrew]

You agree that Microsoft respects your privacy more than Google?

[citation needed]

Re:Insightful video

[poetmatt]

do you have any idea how much this is a pot calling the kettle black?

The difference between MS and google is very, very explicit.

1: you can take everything out of google. they pretty much enable it. No such thing exists for MS.
2: you choose to opt into google in the first place. MS does not give you such an option, and defaults to you being opted in (windows, IE, bing).

Google is not a completely innocent company, but this entire article is the biggest fucking strawman ever (and the laziest).

Re:Insightful video

[poetmatt]

I don't recall people opting in to MS having a log of people's URLs in skype, even if it's under the bullshit excuse of "security".

Re:Insightful video

[recoiledsnake]

but they go directly after the science of human behavior. All done in a warm, fuzzy feel that Google is somehow your very best friend. It's entirely psychological.

Hello first post troll, but you 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-itor-maybe-not/

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/

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.

Re:Insightful video

[LordLimecat]

Google is monetizing you, and worse yet, tracking everything you do in unseen scale.

Correct up until the last 3 words. Google has ALWAYS been clear that data collection and advertising are their business models, and that thats the price of their service. They also tend to fight VERY strongly against government attempts to grab that data, and to anonymize data that can be anonymized.

Compare to Microsoft, who plays the defender of privacy despite the fact that Bing has the EXACT SAME MODEL as google, and they used to scan email in the EXACT SAME FASHION as gmail until criticism got them to change it-- and now they act like its some low move.

Of course, thats all well and good until you realize that they also have cooperated with Chinese authorities in their attempt to censor and prosecute activism, through a number of platforms (Bing, Skype, etc). Compare to Google, who has publicly fought China over censorship and information requests for the last 5 or 6 years now, including a very public fight against the GFW RST attacks directed against certain google searches.

So yea, sure buy into the FUD. Enjoy trading an open and transparent ad network for Microsoft and their ongoing not-so-clean record.

Re:Insightful video

[mystikkman]

Why are your URLs containing account information? Seriously? Example site that uses such info?

Anyway, that has been debunked at multiple places, and people have reported that even HTTP URLs can be scanned. Also, there is no GET request, only a HEAD request to check mimetype etc.

Re:Insightful video

[LordLimecat]

Skype is worse than you think. Research the partnership that Skype has with TOM in china. Hint: If you plan on using skype in china, you probably dont want to download their version: It reports every word you say directly to the CCC.

Call me when Google Talk starts shipping with backdoors for one of the more politically repressive governments out there.

Re:Insightful video

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Insightful video

[Immerman]

>At least with Microsoft I know they will value my privacy. I pay for their product and that's it. But Google's business model is around the monetarizion of its users.

How exactly did this get modded Insightful instead of Funny? Microsoft values your privacy exactly as much as Google - i.e. not at all. In this day and age you can pretty much guarantee that *any* information you provide to a company will be leveraged for profit in any way they can think of. Regardless of whether you've paid them for the product you're using to give them said information.

Re:Insightful video

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Insightful video

[Enderandrew]

Again, citation needed. Anonymous, empty anecdotes are not evidence.

Re:Insightful video

[Enderandrew]

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

Microsoft made 1.45 billion in ad revenue last year.

http://marketingland.com/microsoft-q4-2012-earnings-online-advertising-revenue-up-12-16740

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

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

[Enderandrew]

I am who I am. I've had the same handle since BBS days. If you take a few seconds Googling me, you can likely found out just about anything you want about me because I have nothing to hide.

You are correct that I'm pedantic. I focus on facts and I truly detest FUD. I do try to stamp it out. I thought Slashdot appreciated that.

I do always find it odd when an AC questions me when I have the courage to sign in and stand behind my statements.

Re:Insightful video

[Enderandrew]

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/

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/

Re:Insightful video

[gtbritishskull]

Please elaborate. I don't see how Google tracking me (or anything else they have done) has cost me money or negatively impacted my life in any way. I could go on and on about how Microsoft has cost me money or negatively impacted my life. And I don't think the fact that I don't get shown tampon ads (targeted advertising) harms me. I actually consider it a positive.

Re:Insightful video

[slashmydots]

Did you know that just like Zynga (the facebook game company), Google uses professional human psychologies when building their services. They don't just track, but they go directly after the science of human behavior.

So does every other company in the world with an advertising department.

Just because the pot called the kettle black doesn't mean the kettle isn't completely, utterly jet black.

Re:Insightful video

[gtbritishskull]

I recently bought a computer with Windows 7. While I was going through the setup dialog, it asked me to agree to allow the computer to send search data to Microsoft (and Bing). But, the decline option had in parenthesis next to it that if I declined then I basically was not going to be able to use Windows. So, I had to agree to be opted in, and then go behind it and opt out (by uninstalling the Bing bar or whatever it was). But, I ended up installing a vanilla Windows 7 installation which didn't have the phone home ridiculousness.

Re:Insightful video

[gtbritishskull]

Uh... you might want to read my post closer. I said that I do not get tampon ads, and am happy about that fact (I am male).

But, back to your original point, are you trying to say that all advertising is wasted money?

I have never understood the mindset that ads force you to buy products. Maybe I am a particularly strong-willed individual, but I have no problem comparison shopping after I see an ad to make sure I am getting a good product. For instance, I was looking at getting flying lessons, and came upon an ad for an RC airplane for a very decent price. I still wanted flying lessons, but I would not mind also having an RC airplane. I looked online (Amazon reviews, forums, ect.) and that RC airplane was rated pretty well and the consensus was that it was a good starter model. So, I bought it. It was more than worth the cost (it is a lot of fun to fly). Looking back, it is a product that I wanted, but I did not know it because I did not think that there was an RC airplane in my price range that would provide enough performance to be worth it. Google helped me to find out that there was. Do you feel like I was bamboozled or ripped off? Because I feel like Google provided a good value to me, and I am more than happy with any commission they got off of providing that value.

If Google does not provide a valuable service, then people will buy the cheaper products that do not have the advertising cost built in. Capitalism has its limitations, but that is where it works well. The only reasons that I can think of that would support your assertion that Google does not provide value to the customer (not Google's customer, i.e. the company doing the advertising, but the end customer, i.e. you and me ) is that either you think that capitalism does not lead to efficient markets in this case, or you think that people are naturally weak willed and will buy the inferior product because the see an ad. Or, is there a different reason I did not think of? I would really like to know why you have this view that ads are evil.

Re:Insightful video

[ozmanjusri]

So does every other company in the world with an advertising department.

Some are better than others.

And according to the EFF, Google is better at protecting your privacy than Microsoft..

https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013

Microsoft are hypocrites as well as liars? Who'd have thought...

FFS Slashdot....

[bazmail]

Stop calling quiet press releases "leaks" FFS. We all know people yawn at press releases so they call it a leak and you look like an investigative journalist. Everyone wins right? Bleh fuck it. Slashdot has officially joined The Great Stupiding.

Re:FFS Slashdot....

[i kan reed]

I'm not trying to be "that guy" who's more cynical than everyone else in the thread, but does that surprise you?

There's a poisonous low-attention span, taking everything at face-value thread in the internet, where the end user is expected to the only layer of bullshit detecting that occurs. Content aggregators echo and repeat anything that sounds interesting or will get clicks. Cynical marketers exploit that kind of behavior to spew bullshit over the internet without it looking like its coming from them. None of the sites do anything more than ask their users to filter out the crap. If it's disguised effectively enough to fool 55% of people, the advertiser wins.

I don't have a solution other than avoiding content aggregators, which is far from sufficient.

The difference between all three

[ArcadeMan]

Apple wants to sell you hardware, services and content. You pay for everything.
Microsoft wants to sell you hardware, services and content. You pay for everything.
Google wants you to use their services. You're being sold to pay for everything.

Re:The difference between all three

[Enderandrew]

With Apple, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
With Microsoft, you pay for services, but are still tracked and sold contextual ads.
With Google, you get services for free, but are tracked and sold contextual ads.

Re:The difference between all three

[Enderandrew]

Search engine: Microsoft and Google
Desktop OS: All three
Mobile OS: All three
Music service: All three
Messaging service: All three
Email: All three
Maps: All three
Videos: Microsoft and Google
Cloud storage: All three

It isn't like Microsoft isn't in these other markets.

Re:The difference between all three

[Anubis IV]

Pardon my ignorance, but when has Apple ever provided contextual ads? The only ad network they run is iAds, and as far as I've heard, they don't tailor the ads for the user. A developer who includes iAds in their app can tailor the ads for their app (e.g. only allow ads for techie things), but that isn't user-specific.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Microsoft also offers a number of free services (e.g. search engine, e-mail, etc.). As such, it makes sense why both they and Google would seek to monetize more effectively through the use of targeted ads, while Apple would not, since Apple is receiving its payment in other ways (e.g. paying for the service or paying for the hardware necessary to access the service).

TL;DR: I have no doubt Apple tracks its users (they've said as much). I'm merely asking for a citation that they have ever sold that data or used it to tailor ads for their users, since I can't think of an example where they have done so.

Re:The difference between all three

[BasilBrush]

This is simply not true. I use Apple's products every day, and I am neither tracked not advertised to by them.

When I used to have a Google account, I was tracked with every action I did, and advertised to with most.

Re:The difference between all three

[AmiMoJo]

According to Apple:

"Each ad is shown only to the audience you want to reach, in the apps they love and use the most. Our highly-effective targeting can leverage demographic data, as well as unique interest and preference data that taps into user passions that are relevant for your brand."

That is pretty much the same as Google. Personal data is not given to advertisers, but they can make use of it by asking for ads to be targeted at specific groups. It is a lot better than Facebook that lets advertisers identify users.

Re:The difference between all three

[AmiMoJo]

You are being tracked when you use iOS, unless you opt out.

Internal only?

[Apathist]

Designed to be "internal-only", my ass. Designed to be "leaked" is more like it...

Re:Internal only?

[Lord Grey]

Microsoft's internal videos have made it out into the wild before. The iPod box video was eventually confirmed real.

This Scroogled video, on the other hand, feels like a transparent marketing ploy.

Jealous

[EMG at MU]

It just seems like MS is jealous that Google is making money hand over fist. Microsoft tried to do the same thing Google did. They have a search engine and advertising business. They just aren't as good at it as Google. Tracking is pretty independent of what browser you use anyways. Besides, people don't give a shit that they are being monetized. People still use facebook don't they? And people do realize, to some probably limited extent, that facebook is all about monetizing them.

Re:Jealous

[BasilBrush]

Slashdot. The site where people make excuses for Google.

Negativity?

[ashvagan]

Don't we have ads on Bing? Don't we ads on Hotmail/Outlook.com? Don't we have ads on every service out there from Microsoft that's free? If you can't trust Google, you will never trust Microsoft either. Birds of a feather ...?

A video showing how Google tracks your every move!

[RevWaldo]

Quick! Put it on YouTube so everyone ... can... see... it.

.

Brilliant

[Yebyen]

The ad is simply brilliant. I never thought I'd see Microsoft looking out for my best interests.

It doesn't make me want to use Internet Explorer, but it had me laughing, and got me thinking.

Which is more than I can say for these comments!

Microsoft internal videos

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Microsoft makes lots of these internal videos.

I worked as a temp at Microsoft a few years back, and there was a screen in the building that showed videos on loops. There was a pretty cool ad showing the wonders of an "ultra-mobile PC" being used in tablet mode, for example. (It didn't mention cost or battery life, just the cool stuff you could do.)

Anyway I saw a video, something like ten minutes long, that was a parable about outsourcing IT: This C-level guy (maybe the CEO but I'm not sure) wakes up and starts his day; his car comes by to pick him up, but it isn't his usual driver. "Where's my usual driver?" "He's... not here." The driver introduces himself as "Charles" and the C-level guy immediately starts calling him "Chuck" (which annoyed me right there). They get to the office building and all the people are gone. C-level guy: "Where is everyone?" Charles: "You forgot them." It turns out that the company decided to outsource IT to save money, not thinking about the effect this would have on the workers, so now this is a magical "A Christmas Carol" sort of situation where Charles is taking the C-level guy on a tour to show him what is bad now. A sales guy lost a sale because he didn't have a Windows Mobile smartphone. Other things... the one I remember is that they visited the server room, and it was empty, because the IT was outsourced to the cloud (this was pre-Azure so cloud meant non-Microsoft and therefore bad). A kid, maybe nine years old, rolled slowly past on a skateboard. "Who's that?" asked the C-level guy. "Oh, that's Linux." At the very end, the C-level guy wakes up for real and of course the people aren't missing, and he bumps into Charles who it seems is actually in his IT department. "Oh, can we get those Windows Mobile phones now?" Happy ending! Heart-warming!

I've searched YouTube a few times to see if this was ever leaked, but I don't know what it was called and I've never found it.

Dont really care if I am commercialized.

[saboosh]

Whats the big deal with getting ads for things I may actually care about (as opposed to crap I dont care about)? Its really on me to decide whether I want to spend the money on it so if it really ends up costing me a lot of money then thats my fault, not the advertisers. Either MSFT has nothing else to hit the competitor with or they truly believe that everyone has gotten so bad at moderation (Which I guess is true in the US) that they cannot get out of their own way and not spend money on everything that flies infront of their face. As far as the cost of having to "Deal" with ads getting in the way or other advertisers having more information on me. I would like to see some examples of how this has resulted in any significant cost to anyone because the most it has ever "cost" me is a click or two to close the ad or a call to the national directory to remove my number from the list. Thats not much cost to me, especially compared to what I get from Google (Mail, Maps, Android, machine learning in all those things to make them more tailored to my life.).

You're right but..

[recoiledsnake]

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]or-maybe-not/

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/ [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=

Re:You're right but..

[dimeglio]

Personally, I feel Microsoft is frustrated Google succeeded in changing the rules they worked so hard to establish.

Re:You're right but..

[cheater512]

Or rather jealous of Google since they make money from free products while Bing makes losses every single quarter.

*They* want to track you just as much, they are just incompetent at the implementation.

F. U. D.

[Geldon]

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.

A Microsoft tradition?

[AllTheGoodNamesWereT]

Microsoft seems to have a tradition of doing this kind of ad parody. I remember seeing one in the early 1990s that was a parody of the You Will television ads that AT&T was running at the time. There was a scene with a woman walking along a beach while wearing a large straw hat. The hat suddenly beeps, the woman takes it off her head, and there is a piece of paper sticking out. Voice over narration: "Have you ever received a fax in your hat on the beach? You will.... and the company that will bring it to you is..."

Bottom line

[Stratus311]

Absolute bottom line is if you use any online services whether free or pay, it can easily be assumed that you have no online privacy at all. If that bothers you, then maybe the interwebs aren't for you.

I have been using Google services for as long as they've been available for me to use. My life has had absolutely NO negative effects because of this and no money has left my pocket. If I've been sold to other companies for marketing purposes then I sure as shit haven't seen it or felt it. I also have a Windows Live (or MSN, Hotmail, Outlook or whatever the fuck they're calling it now), email account that is almost entirely filled with spam/junk email from none other than Microsoft themselves. I cannot say the same for my Google account.

Microsoft could win me over.

[Seumas]

If Microsoft positioned themselves as not only critics of Google's disregard for privacy (see countless statements by Schmidt, for example) but as actual champions of lobbying, legislation, standards, and technologies that always favored the consumer's right to privacy, security, and choice/notification, they could really win me and a few other people over.

Merely pointing out how someone else is super shitty and shady, alone, isn't enough.

So what?

[thegarbz]

Google is monetizing you, and worse yet, tracking everything you do in unseen scale.

So what? No I mean really so what? If I wasn't getting anything in return I'd be outraged, but I am.

In return for something that MANY other companies take from us without anything in return, Google takes our information and gives us THE world class search engine, incredible experiences across multiple platforms, productivity applications, services many other companies didn't offer, and all this in exchange for what we give other companies anyway and often with a price attached.

If this is so bad, why do I not feel Scroogled?