Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Microsoft's Anti-Google Video Campaign 304

Posted by samzenpus
from the if-you-don't-have-anything-nice-to-say dept.
eldavojohn writes "As the presidential race heats up, the smear ads on TV are also increasing. But Microsoft isn't going to site idly by and let the politicians engage in all that song and dance — and Microsoft really does employ both song and dance. Their Youtube channel appears to be slowly transforming from trade show videos and launches into a marketing attack or propaganda campaign that only targets Google (both videos I've watched seemed to have nothing positive about Microsoft in them). Under a month ago, they launched a spoof called GMail man, a creepy guy that flips through all your GMail and serves up super personal ads that are wrong (although they never say if Hotmail engages in targeted marketing). And a few days ago Googlighting shows up to spread fear and uncertainty about Google Docs. Most amusing to this viewer was that I found no such trace of 'Googlighting' on Bing's video service."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Anti-Google Video Campaign

Comments Filter:
  • Youtube (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @07:54PM (#39131543)

    Who owns youtube?

    • Re:Youtube (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hcs_$reboot (1536101) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:00PM (#39131599)
      That's what I always liked about Google, so far: they are pretty fair regarding search results and other contents in general.
      • Re:Youtube (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Toe, The (545098) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:14PM (#39131717)

        Content is content. Google doesn't care what it is as long as you consume it (and of course they track you and advertise at you).

        Ever seen the Simpsons talk about Fox? Same deal.

        • Content is content. Microsoft doesn't care what it is as long as you consume it (and of course they track you and advertise at you).

          The Alternative is no better ..

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tharsman (1364603)

        They have no choice. The minute they start controlling the content they lose the "web host" IP protection status.

        • Re:Youtube (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anthony Mouse (1927662) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @09:29PM (#39132277)

          Where do people come up with this nonsense? They can control the content all the like. But if they do it in a way that is detrimental to their users, people will switch to something else. That is what keeps them from censoring Microsoft and anyone else critical of them, not whatever "'web host' IP protection status" is supposed to mean.

          Of course, that doesn't mean Microsoft isn't running a FUD campaign against them. (It seems that they are.)

        • Re:Youtube (Score:5, Informative)

          by poetmatt (793785) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @09:45PM (#39132377) Journal

          Umm, microsoft still filters results about things involving google and microsoft so that they are favorable to microsoft. This has nothing to do with "IP protection status", and considering that such a phrase doesn't exist, please don't make such a claim.

          DMCA protection has nothing to do with choosing to filter content in any way.

      • Re:Youtube (Score:5, Interesting)

        by symbolset (646467) * on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:59PM (#39132085) Journal
        Hosting videos ads that attack you is such over-the-top fairness that it's remarkable. I hope Google makes more off the ads than Microsoft paid to produce them.
      • The other day I found a message from google in my gmail spam box. However it was the notice that privacy policy was changing for my apps domain, I put this down to fair algorithm rather than intent since the privacy change was otherwise pretty well advertised. I guess I could have gone the other way depending on my temperament at the time.

  • by Anne_Nonymous (313852) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @07:56PM (#39131567) Homepage Journal

    Don't ever change.

    • by Squiddie (1942230) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:04PM (#39131631)
      They're kind of right on this one. I wouldn't trust google docs to run a business. I mean, I might venture to do libreoffice, or other free software, not only because it is a better software model, but it's good for the company, but MS is right in this case. Not so sure about the gmail thing, though I don't appreciate being scanned, which is why I don't use it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Grishnakh (216268)

        They're right like Karl Marx was right. Marx wrote about the problems with capitalist systems, and he was absolutely right on many of his points. Then he came up with his own system which was a complete disaster and even worse (much worse) than the system he wanted to replace. This is just like MS: they might have some valid points about Google, but anything they offer up as an alternative is going to be even worse.

        • by Squiddie (1942230)
          That's true. The MS alternatives suck, but let's not be blind to the problems that google has. Plus we already have good alternatives. It's called FOSS.
          • by Grishnakh (216268) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @09:00PM (#39132091)

            True, unlike with political systems, we actually have a great alternative in Free software. No one's come up with a better system that capitalist republics yet, and the alternatives are all horrible: Marxism, feudalism, etc.

            In fact, MS criticizing Google is a lot like Feudalists criticizing the Communists.

            • by Anthony Mouse (1927662) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @10:14PM (#39132551)

              No one's come up with a better system that capitalist republics yet, and the alternatives are all horrible: Marxism, feudalism, etc.

              I came up with one once. It looks a lot like capitalism, but not exactly.

              If you think about why capitalism works, it's because power has competition. (And when you think about where it fails, it's where power doesn't have competition.) Because where there is competition, efficient companies succeed and inefficient companies fail.

              But you can have competition without greed. Suppose you have corporations chartered for purposes other than maximizing shareholder value: For example, if the goal of a corporation is to engage in commercial activity and use the profits to operate soup kitchens and homeless shelters, or to fund basic scientific research, or to break into consolidated markets with high barriers to entry, whether or not doing those things is profit-maximizing. So for example, you have a drug company like Pfizer, but instead of having shareholders who take profits as dividends, they use the profits to subsidize healthcare for the poor.

              And I always wondered why no one had ever tried that before. I actually found out the answer last year. They did try that. In the early 20th century. And it worked. And one of the reasons it worked really well was that if you weren't a profit-seeking corporation, you could incorporate as a non-profit and you didn't have to pay taxes, so all the money that a for-profit corporation would have paid in taxes could instead go to either expanding the enterprise or to doing a larger amount of unprofitable charity work. Which made the IRS very unhappy -- if not-for-profit corporations start successfully taking over industries and using the margins to do charity, the government loses out on a lot of tax revenue. So they banned it. They prohibited tax exempt organizations from doing business commercially in order to raise money to do their charity work.

              So you can still do it, but you have to organize as a taxable corporation. And then you have no way of raising the initial capital, because investors will want an ownership stake (which makes you a traditional for-profit corporation again) and donors want a tax deduction (which the IRS disallows if you're a commercial enterprise, profit-seeking or otherwise). So those kinds of corporations effectively no longer exist.

              But they could if we wanted them to and changed the law.

              • by 404 Clue Not Found (763556) * on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @11:27PM (#39133019)

                Why can't they do something like Newman's Own [wikipedia.org]?

                Quote:

                Newman's Own is a food company and for-profit corporation founded by actor Paul Newman and author A. E. Hotchner in 1982. Newman received all of the profits from product sales and donated 100% of the proceeds, after taxes, to various educational and charitable organizations of his own selection.[1] Newman's Own has inspired other business, including Give Something Back Business Products, to adopt his social enterprise model.[2] In 1982 Newman summarized his initial intentions regarding distribution of his company's profits:

                        My profits will be divided between a number of tax-deductible charities and causes, some church-related, others for conservation and ecology and things like that.[3]

              • by mwvdlee (775178) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @04:34AM (#39134471) Homepage

                In judging any political systems viability, you should not look at how the system would operate according to the proposed model.
                You must look at how corrupt and unscrupulous sociopaths could abuse the system to the detriment of others.
                Most proposed political systems can only deal with a very small percentage of citizens undermining the system, in reality much more people will disagree with atleast some parts of it.
                IMHO, political systems like marxism and communism seem to work well in small communes of a few dozen willing people, but they fail when introducing enough unwilling people into the system, as has been widely demonstrated.

              • by bazorg (911295) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @06:58AM (#39134991)

                If you are interested in "alternative" types of organisations, be sure to check out the Social Enterprise movement in the UK. Essentially, they are like cooperatives. They are meant to be profitable from selling their services, but a part of the profit needs to be reinvested in the community where they belong. www.socialenterprise.org.uk/

                Some of these organisations are healthcare companies, started by doctors and nurses who get their funding from the National Health Service for the first year or 2 and then are expected to become self-sufficient from their sales to individuals and to the NHS. The NHS becomes smaller and hopefully easier to manage, and the local branches independently provide health care within their community.

          • by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @10:01PM (#39132473) Homepage Journal

            That's true. The MS alternatives suck, but let's not be blind to the problems that google has. Plus we already have good alternatives. It's called FOSS.

            I'm a fan of F/LOSS, but there really isn't a F/LOSS alternative to Docs. What I mean is that while LibreOffice, for example, does a bunch of things that Docs doesn't do, Docs also does some really compelling things that LibreOffice et al don't do. Specifically, Docs is a really powerful collaboration tool. I work for Google, so I've obviously been forced to use Docs extensively, for all of my design docs, presentations, etc. I briefly found Docs' limitations annoying, but the first time I sent a design doc out for review and saw the power of the collaboration model, I knew I'd never go back.

            Unless you've tried it, it's hard to understand just how powerful it is to be able to have multiple people all working on a document in real time. Even if you don't need real-time collaboration, it's much better to have everyone commenting on and tweaking the same copy of the document, rather than sending copies around and then having someone try to pull all of the disparate changes together. And when that can happen in real-time, and you have either text chat or even full multi-party video conferencing (Google Hangouts) integrated into the collaborative document system... it's an amazingly effective way to get multiple detailed opinions and quickly arrive at consensus decisions, even when people are scattered around the world.

            My kids' school uses Google Apps, including Docs (no, I had nothing to do with that decision; they made it before I joined Google and before I moved here) and I love it for that as well. My kids share their papers with me and I fix minor errors (and later go over the changes with them -- the markup on the revision view makes that easy), or add comments about more significant things I think they can improve, then later I see what they changed. My wife does the same. Sometimes all this happens more or less in real-time, while we're talking about it. Other times, due to schedule mismatches, the automatically-generated e-mails about comments and responses drive the process. It works well either way, though I prefer the interaction.

            Of course, when the assignment is complete, turning it in is as simple as sharing the doc with the teacher, and the teacher's comments and corrections show up in the same way, via the same process. It's very powerful.

            My wife often writes letters to various entities, and while she has good ideas she doesn't always structure them well, and her grammar, punctuation and spelling sometimes leave something to be desired. So, she writes her letters and shares them with me, and I fix them up. Sometimes I also significantly change the content. Usually she agrees, but not always, and she can always see exactly what I did and easily revert what she doesn't like. Often, we do these steps in parallel, with her still writing the end of the letter while I'm fixing up the beginning. Sometimes I'm even working right behind her, fixing up just a few words behind her.

            Perhaps it's just my life, but about the only "documents" I write which aren't collaborative in at least some degree are slashdot posts and the like, so I find that I'd nearly always rather use Docs than anything else. Even if the feature set is rather anemic compared to a "real" office suite (though getting less so all the time).

            • by Gribflex (177733)

              "Usually she agrees, but not always, and she can always see exactly what I did and easily revert what she doesn't like."

              How?!
              I've started using it a ton for collaboration, but I haven't been able to find a reasonable replacement for Track Changes that you'd find in Word.
              Sure, I can comment, or I can just change the text. But, if I want to make changes to the text and have someone be able to see what was changed and accept/reject, I can't seem to do that.

              • by drkstr1 (2072368) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @12:03AM (#39133243)

                Go to File -> See Revision history.

                I've been using Docs like a hipster... before it was cool... and it was love at first sight! I have also set up multiple small businesses on Google Apps, and have heard nothing but good things from them. IMHO, it really is a superior model to passing a file around like a chump.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by EdIII (1114411)

          Anything that Microsoft offers is going to be vastly superior.... in at least one sense as it relates to Google Docs.

          Office 365 is a paid only service where the users would be the customers and not the product. That's MS current alternative to Google Docs, and really, they had it up before Google Docs. At least, AFAIK, they did internally. I am not really sure when they officially starting offering it as SaaS.

          Google Docs, the free version, is not something I would ever use for business for one second. Y

          • by Grishnakh (216268)

            The number of businesses that can't make it because they can't compete against Google's free is quite large.
            I don't have any particular answers to that. I just know Google causes a lot of problems for business simply because they leverage their advertising revenue to drive products from a paid model down to a free model.

            Right, but how many companies is Google really driving out of business? There aren't exactly a lot of competitors in the office suite space any more, and I certainly wouldn't be sad seeing

            • by Grumbleduke (789126) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @09:52PM (#39132425) Journal

              And then there's Google Maps, but again there wasn't that much competition before they came along anyway, and Yahoo and Bing still have their maps products (in fact, Bing maps frequently do better than Google IME).

              Some map companies, such as Streetmap or Multimap, would counter that point, arguing loudly that Google unfairly drove them out of business (or to a significantly lower level of business) by promoting Google Maps over their services via search, in breach of EU competition law.

              At least, they did, a couple of weeks ago, at a meeting about "search neutrality" (Google* the term if you're interested...) in the UK Parliament last week (I happened to be there - it's not quite as insane as it sounds). That said, recent anecdotal experiments I performed indicated that in most ways Google does actually provide a better service (although I do like some things Bing maps does).

              Google has caused quite a lot of problems for small businesses trying to "compete" with Google, particularly when Google has a "rival" service and promotes that via their search. That said, it remains to be seen whether or not Google has crossed the line into unjustifiable anti-competitive behaviour over this sort of thing (and the EC/CJEU, and US FTC etc. will likely be ruling on that soon). Not that MS is a strange to anti-competition lawsuits, iirc it's Windows Media Player-related one in the EU is still ongoing, with MS trying to get out of its >€1bn fine...

              *See what I did there?

              • by dkf (304284) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Thursday February 23, 2012 @10:59AM (#39136403) Homepage

                Some map companies, such as Streetmap or Multimap, would counter that point, arguing loudly that Google unfairly drove them out of business (or to a significantly lower level of business) by promoting Google Maps over their services via search, in breach of EU competition law.

                I used to use Multimap when finding locations in cities before my first visit to them (little things like hotels, stations, where my conference/business meeting was going to be, etc.) and I found it to be a useful service. However, I switched to using Google not because of any cross-promotion with search, but rather because Google's service was significantly better. It was faster, it used more of the screen, it was more usable in general. Could Multimap have competed? I don't see why not, but they seemed at the time to be technologically resting on their laurels, making it easy for Google's better service to steal their lunch.

                The moral of this? Nobody owes you a living. Keep up!

        • by Tharsman (1364603)

          Not entirely true. This is just email we talking about, and any paid email service that has no ads is a viable alternative, not a disaster (unless you consider paying a small fee a month to be a disaster.)

          But the Gmail Man video is right in many aspects, specially the Gmail Man's own arguments, like "who care" or "it's business" and "I'm just skimming for keywords." It IS a funny video, and I have a Gmail account that I keep active until the day I find a decent and viable replacement for Reader... until the

        • by radarradar (2565457) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @10:52PM (#39132769)

          If you had actually read Marx you'd know that he avoided laying out a blueprint for an alternative system. There are multiple reasons for that: his dislike of utopian socialists, his focus on analysis & critique of capitalism, & his hegelianism come to mind right away. He tended to think that the Paris Commune got a lot of stuff right. It's true that some of the problems of the analysis negatively influenced actually existing socialism, but still, there's no plan for the Soviet state in Capital or anything like that.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hitmark (640295)

          except that the kind of "marxism" that they tried to implement in Russia and elsewhere (honestly, China and later are reinterpreted "Stalinism") may well be quite contrary to what Marx actually envisioned.

          First off, the envisioned a nation like Germany, that was heavily industrialized via capitalism, to be the starting point. Not Russia that at the time was mostly still agrarian.

          Also, he did not envision centralized state control. More likely he envisioned worker run factories and such. That is, the board r

      • by danomac (1032160) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:28PM (#39131857)

        Microsoft is just very upset that they didn't think of it first.

        Just like most of their other projects, except Google won't sell to them.

      • by Kagetsuki (1620613) on Thursday February 23, 2012 @01:43AM (#39133695)

        I use LibreOffice AND Google Docs for business. Google Docs is great for collaboration and you can import/export to LO easily. For final formatting I use LO though. Google Docs has some weird issues with images still and there are some random tweaky things too (font handling, bullets in lists have tweaky formatting issues) but in the end it's only little things and they're easy to fix before you print them or package them in a pdf.

      • by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@keirstea d . o rg> on Thursday February 23, 2012 @07:57AM (#39135245) Homepage

        With HTML5 browsers, Google Docs works offline now. You don't have to worry about connectivity or Google going down when working on something critical. For al intents and purposes, it is an offline suite - so I fail to see why someone should not "trust Google Docs to run a business" any more than Microsoft Office.

        Secondly - there is no "Gmail man" scanning your mail. It is just a computer. And if you think there is no simmilar algorithm analyzing your hotmail, yahoo mail, or nay other webmail - you have rocks in your heard. If it is really that big of a problem, then use IMAP, where you have no ads and thus no scanning.

  • ... has a video service?

    Seriously though, it isn't good for one service to weild as much power as youtube over which videos will be promoted to fame and which are left lingering in obscurity.
    • by andydread (758754)

      ... has a video service? Seriously though, it isn't good for one service to weild as much power as youtube over which videos will be promoted to fame and which are left lingering in obscurity.

      Better Google than Microsoft. We have seen what Microsoft does when they wield that much power in other areas. One shudders to think what it would be like if youtube was run by Microsoft and Bing was our only choice of a search engine.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Grishnakh (216268)

        According to a YouTube video I stumbled upon earlier today, if you buy a Verizon Android phone, Bing will be your only choice of a search engine on that device thanks to a half-billion dollar deal MS made with Verizon.

        I guess I won't be getting my next phone with Verizon...

        • by nschubach (922175)

          I just bought a Droid 4... Google search provider.

        • Re:Bing... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sexconker (1179573) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @09:02PM (#39132111)

          According to a YouTube video I stumbled upon earlier today, if you buy a Verizon Android phone, Bing will be your only choice of a search engine on that device thanks to a half-billion dollar deal MS made with Verizon.

          I guess I won't be getting my next phone with Verizon...

          According to the phone in my pocket, Google is the only choice of a search engine on that device thanks to a fundamental conflict of interest between the Android part of Google and the search part of Google.

          What's your point?

  • by Daniel Phillips (238627) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @07:58PM (#39131585)

    Sincere thanks to Microsoft of entertaining me. Ranks right up there with Bill's infamous butt wiggle [skamarakas.com].

  • FUD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:00PM (#39131597)
    The points the Googlighting video try to make is that Google has an unknown track record with office applications, their products lack features compared to the competition, and they have a track record of starting projects and abandoning them without much warning, especially cloud applications. So when Microsoft asks, "is this a product you want to bet your business on?" while it may be FUD, it's a pertinent question.
    • Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by semi-extrinsic (1997002) <<asmunder> <at> <stud.ntnu.no>> on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:15PM (#39131731)
      I agree with your sentiment, Google do change/abandon projects quite often. But Microsoft suggesting that with their software, you could never "come into the office one day and the software looks completely different" is quite frankly hilarious to anyone who had to suffer the upgrade from MS Office 2003 to 2007 or 2010.
      • Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

        by unencode200x (914144) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:23PM (#39131799)
        What they're saying is your company chooses when the ugprades are done and can give employees a heads up. Not to mention how they publish betas, have a published roadmap, developer conferences, etc. etc. The other argument is that you only have to pay for Office once not on a month-to-month basis. Not to knock GoogleApps, but who's to say they don't raise the price next week?
        • Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)

          by scdeimos (632778) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:28PM (#39131851)

          What they're saying is your company chooses when the ugprades are done and can give employees a heads up.

          And all that's off the table with Office 365 - upgrades happen when Microsoft wants them to.

          • Well, I'm not directly involved but our company manages Office 365 and Google Apps for other companies (we're an outsourced IT company). Microsoft has been very, very proactive on the ugprades sides. Even letting customers push their upgrades (moving from BPOS to O365) by six months or more. However, it remains to be seen how they'll do with O365. Also, O365 is server components only (SharePoint, Exchange, etc.). The client-side software you use with it Outlook, Word, Excel, etc. doesn't necessarily have to
        • Re:FUD (Score:4, Informative)

          by semi-extrinsic (1997002) <<asmunder> <at> <stud.ntnu.no>> on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:40PM (#39131959)
          Fair points. But we should really compare apples and apples here. MS's own Office 365 (which this is an advert for, I think) also auto-updates on a 90 day schedule according to this [wikipedia.org].

          What I think is MS's problem with Office 365, however, is that it falls between two chairs. It is not as powerful as real Office, for businesses wanting the power of, say, Excel and Access. It is also not free, so more casual users (say, a barista who owns his own coffee shop) would rather have Google Docs for free. Or, again, she would buy a copy of Office Home&Business.

          Seems to me that the "Medium/Large business that solely wants to do Office in the cloud", which is what this is designed for, is pretty much a mythical creature.
        • What they're saying is your company chooses when the ugprades are done and can give employees a heads up.

          Only to a very limited extent. When Office 2007 came out, the next thing everybody knew, people from other companies are sending them .docx files they couldn't open. Then you're running around having to install the compatibility pack on everybody's machine, which doesn't actually work properly on a lot of files (and tends to convert formulas into uneditable pictures). The only real solution to that is to go out and pay for Office 2007 and retrain all your users. The fact that you might have a period of time

      • Re:FUD (Score:5, Funny)

        by Tanktalus (794810) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:27PM (#39131849) Journal

        But Microsoft suggesting that with their software, you could never "come into the office one day and the software looks completely different" is quite frankly hilarious to anyone who had to suffer the upgrade from MS Office 2003 to 2007 or 2010.

        What are you talking about? Microsoft is completely in the right on this one. That type of rollout would take weeks at least. More if you have a second employee!

    • Re:FUD (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:16PM (#39131735)
      I gave a very similar argument to a CEO at a company I was consulting on in the construction of a small datacenter. He wanted all Apple servers because he was sold on the ecosystem. After explaining to him that they also have a track record of abandoning their corporate customers, I was given the okay to deploy an almost completely Linux rack (they have one Exchange server). Like everything else it's a matter of the right tool for the job. I'm not sure if I'd ever trust Google Docs for a business, but in fairness Microsoft is pushing just as hard with their Office Online apps. I will say that Google Docs was quite useful in my last year as an undergrad and in grad school as a colaboration platform.
    • Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bgarcia (33222) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:24PM (#39131811) Homepage Journal

      they have a track record of starting projects and abandoning them without much warning

      Sure, Google will sometimes abandon projects that they offer for free to users. But Google Apps for Business [google.com] is a product that they sell. They won't be abandoning a revenue stream like that any time soon.

      • Sure, that's the counter claim. But when you remember Google makes 96% of their revenue (and probably close to 99% of their net income) from advertising, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that Google could pack up their Google Apps for Business division (or any other division really) at the drop of a hat, and not really feel the blow. On the other hand, Microsoft's Business Division earned them 52% of their net income last year. You can bet your ass they're not going anywhere.
    • Google Labs has a track record of starting projects and then abandoning them without much warning, especially cloud applications. Google Labs is the group that puts out all the "beta" stuff. They often release projects to the public to test if there will be wide acceptance. If the test projects aren't accepted they get killed off. Other projects are widely used, like gmail and Google Docs, and they lose their beta tags and don't seem to get killed off. The problem with cloud services is that there is never
    • by swillden (191260)

      Google has an unknown track record with office applications, their products lack features compared to the competition

      This is true... but the competition also lacks the collaboration features of Docs. Which is more important to you will vary, of course.

      and they have a track record of starting projects and abandoning them without much warning

      I think this is overstated. Google has definitely abandoned a large number of projects that never achieved significant usage, but have they ever abandoned something with millions of active users like Docs? Even more, have they ever abandoned a product that they actively and profitably sell to thousands of enterprise customers? That they could is clear. But avoiding the

  • Have to love the american way of advertising!! The Gmail man was kinda funny though. They would had a better effect with, " So Mr. Anderson you've been searching for Hemorroids!!!"

  • by j33px0r (722130) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:04PM (#39131633)

    Ok, Microsoft has done countless "evils" in the past and still does, but with that being said, they do a wonderful job of pointing out the privacy issues of Gmail and the risks of implementing Google Apps. Googlighting was an excellent and humorous video as well.

    Maybe if Google and MS duke it out enough, all of their little wrong-doings will get pointed out, fixed, and society may actually advance! Or perhaps we will just sit around and watch some mudslinging while our privacy is further reduced. I'm feeling pessimistic at the moment and leaning towards the latter.

    • by migla (1099771)

      >Maybe if Google and MS duke it out enough, all of their little wrong-doings will get pointed out, fixed, and society may actually advance!

      Interesting point and probably true to some extent, but I can't help but think of R and D of american politics. They'll bash each other over certain things, but many things they do agree on silently (like having a 2-party system, probably, for example) and those things will not improve.

      They may be different in many ways and one may be better or worse than the other, b

    • The thing is, pretty much everything they point out is equally applicable to their own services. The privacy implications of Gmail are no more severe than those of Hotmail, and the updates for web-services like Google Docs are no more problematic than for Office 365.

  • Not Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wbr1 (2538558) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:06PM (#39131651)
    While I am not a fan of google's practices of late, how often has Microsoft not been a FUD spewer?
    It is ingrained in their culture.
  • ...but it sure does rhyme -- Mark Twain

  • by Qwavel (733416) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:08PM (#39131669)

    you wouldn't know it.

    Apple is no longer the company that MS had to prop up (with a cash investment and an MS Office port) for the pretence of competition - they are now the biggest company in the world.

    But MS seems OK with that - they still act like Google is their real competitor. Is it because Google is competing in the online space and Apple isn't? Or is because Apple has enormous margins and MS sees this as a positive development in the industry - whereas Google tends to offer things for free and push MS towards lower margins?

    I have no idea, but one of these days MS should get over their Google fixation and start thinking about competing with Apple too.

    And BTW, Kudos to Google. One of the reasons I'm a fan of theirs is that they seem to compete fiercely with everyone!

    • by Mountaineer1024 (1024367) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:21PM (#39131779) Homepage
      Microsoft don't need to compete with Apple.
      Microsoft are primarily interested in the corporate market - business and government.
      Everything else just flows on with that due to the need to be compatible.

      Apple has spoken recently of their inroads into business as a "collateral win", an unintended bonus.
      They are putting zero effort into replicating or replacing the core feature set that any large business relies on (exchange, active directory, etc).

      The reason that Microsoft is scared of Google is that they are actively attempting to make the underlying system immaterial as the Google services become the compatibility glue.
      Who cares if the underlying system is running Windows, OSX, Linux or something else when the end user gets exactly the same experience?

      That's what Microsoft is scared of, not a high end device manufacturer that interoperates with them.
      • Microsoft don't need to compete with Apple.
        Microsoft are primarily interested in the corporate market - business and government.

        Have you seen all the screenshots and videos of Windows 8?

      • by swillden (191260)

        The reason that Microsoft is scared of Google is that they are actively attempting to make the underlying system immaterial as the Google services become the compatibility glue. Who cares if the underlying system is running Windows, OSX, Linux or something else when the end user gets exactly the same experience?

        This.

        Microsoft can compete with Apple, because the two companies use roughly the same model. Apple prefers to sell hardware and more or less give the software away, while Microsoft sells the software, but it's basically the same deal to consumers. Even more important, both companies build their business around the lock-in game, making consumers pick between the two ecosystems and to buy (with $) into one or the other. The friction provided by lock-in means that neither has to worry about being out-inno

      • I agree and disagree. The main threats to Microsoft's business model is Linux and LibreOffice (or any other free office suit, really). The scariest thing, for Microsoft, about these things is that they're free. That's not small margin, that's no margin. Since Google facilitates open source by making platforms irrelevant, as you've pointed out, they're seen as a menace. But they're also a menace because they're a dominant player on the internet, which is where pretty much all computing has moved that's MS's

    • by PapayaSF (721268)
      Interestingly, OS X Mountain Lion will include some built-in sharing features, and while Vimeo is included, YouTube is not. [pocket-lint.com] Ever since Android, Google has not been getting much love from Apple....
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by andydread (758754)
      It is because MS is still fixated on stifling open source software from the market place. They see Google as a HUGE threat because they see Google as having let the open source horse out of the barn and now you have companies such as Samsung, Motorola, Amazon, Barnes and Noble among others that are deploying this on devices all over the place. They don't see Apple as a threat that way. Microsoft has always wanted to see their OS on everything ....everything. The widespread use of open source in the mark
  • by Alain Williams (2972) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:14PM (#39131725) Homepage

    who slag off the opposition. What I really want to hear is why they are better, not rude reasons why the opposition is bad. This sort of thing is a complete turn off -- no matter who does it. Mud sticks to the hands of those who throw it.

  • When I see articles like this, I cannot stop thinking it seems familiar of way back when kings and emperors from different countries get in a tizzy which leads to economic, political shifts and/or wars that impacts commoners (that never had a say on the whole matter anyway).
    • by forkfail (228161) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:24PM (#39131805)

      More like guild rivalry.

      Not in the MMROPG sense, where guilds are glamorized, but rather, in the medical sense, where you had to be a member of a guild to practice your trade or you lost not only the fruits of your labors but body parts as well, and which feuded with each other over their domains.

      These days, we call them mega-corporations, and instead of guild charters, we've got copyright and patent laws, but the model of how the field does things would be recognizable by a stone mason from the sixteenth century.

  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:20PM (#39131773)

    If you are upset about the idea of a computer reading your mail, then how can you justify using email at all?

    Does the MS-Word spelling checker "read" your Word documents?

    • So you'd be fine if I scanned all your personal documents and stored on them on my computer. I promise I won't let any humans read the original scans. I'll just take out the pieces I think someone might want and sell them separately.

      Last I checked the spell checker didn't send the data off to Microsoft when it checked my spelling. If it ever did they would lose all their corporate customers because the use of it would violate privacy laws in many countries.
      • by swillden (191260)

        So you'd be fine if I scanned all your personal documents and stored on them on my computer.

        Unless you run your own mail server, your ISP stores all of your e-mails on their computers. If you do run your own mail server, all of your e-mail transits dozens of machines, and all in cleartext (unless you encrypt -- which no one does). Any of those machines can grab a copy -- and you don't even know who they are and have no privacy commitments from any of them.

        I'll just take out the pieces I think someone might want and sell them separately.

        Your ISP could be doing that, unless their privacy policy says they don't. Google's policy commits to never selling your data. You may choos

  • Say what you will about google or MS... but the ads themselves were hilarious.

  • YouTube (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slasho81 (455509) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:23PM (#39131797)
    I love it that Microsoft uses YouTube (owned by Google) for this. The use of negative ads is tasteless. Then again, it's an election year so it's fashionable.
  • Just watching the videos and reading comments on them. Wow... this SERIOUSLY looks like it is backfiring for Microsloth.
  • I've seen this sort of video before from Microsoft. This is classic, not really anything new.

    These sound more interesting than they really are. Both of those videos are like Saturday Night Live sketches that have thirty seconds of humor padded out to two-and-a-half minutes.

    steveha

  • Yeah, That's Because (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @08:38PM (#39131927) Homepage Journal
    Moble's the next market and Android's already beating Microsoft there. Not to mention that if Google decided to bring Android to a PC environment it would start up immediately with easy access to all the apps in the Anrdroid Marketplace. No other MS competitor has ever brought that many potential ready-to-run applications with their environment. Google could trounce Microsoft across all the markets they service, if Google were so inclined. That idea is bound to be making some sphincters clench in Redmond.
    • Isn't Android already available for PC? Isn't it also supported by Intel?
  • News to me (Score:2, Funny)

    by viperidaenz (2515578)
    Bing has a video service?
  • Since all these major corps are so happy to sue each other for every stupid thing (including patents), isn't this sue-worthy? I don't live in USA, so I can't be sure in detail, but in Argentina, google/gmail would pretty much be able to prove that MS is degrading their image, and making them loose potential money. Isn't this so in USA as well? I'm pretty sure it probably is.
    An, since some of the thing implied are actually non-true, there's a major point there.

    Besides, since when do companies need a REAL mot

  • by epp_b (944299) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @11:29PM (#39133047)

    How is it that one of the wealthiest corporations in the world always manages to find the most pathetic ad producers?

    This is hysterically lame (just like all their other campaigns), and not in a self-aware, ironic sort of way; more of a Microsoft is that "special" kid in the class and doesn't realize it ... sort of way.

    Sorry Microsoft, you're not the cool kid and you never will be.

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?

Working...