Google vs. Microsoft. Here We Go Again.
Hat tip to Megan McArdle .
Microsoft is unveiling IE8, Internet Explorer 8, which has privacy feature for browsing than will hurt Google's main business: targeted search ads.
From the Financial Times :
Microsoft has unveiled its Internet Explorer 8 browser equipped with a privacy feature that could threaten the advertising model of web search rivals such as Google.
Users of the browser can opt to access websites in private, hiding their personal details from search engines that use the information to target advertising at individuals.
The feature, called InPrivate, has been dubbed in some blog postings as "porn mode", because it also hides the browsing history from other people using the same computer.However, Microsoft points to examples of buying birthday presents or searching for medical ailments as areas where InPrivate was also of benefit to customers.
John Curran, a director at Microsoft UK, said: "Some people will always want to be 'InPrivate', but there is a trade-off."
Google has faced an outcry over the amount of information it collects from users of its services. David Mitchell, an information technology analyst at Ovum, said: "If the hype around privacy gains more credibility, more people will hit the private button. There is a potential threat here to click-through [display] advertising."
Says Megan:
this has broader applications than Google. Media companies are still trying to figure out how to make web advertising lucrative enough to support a full, print-style application--Politico is a rousing success, and yet makes 60% of its revenue from a cheat sheet it prints for a paltry few tens of thousands of readers. We don't need a new web browser making things even harder than they already are.
This could get interesting.
- John's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Much ado about nothing
Discriminating people have been using Firefox/Iceweasel with Adblock for a few years now. The day I see an ad on the Internet is rare.
Megan seems to think that software companies should help prop up the business models of online publishers. I think software companies should give their users what they want. And overwhelmingly, people want privacy/ad blocking functionality.
This also touches a bit on default choices. The average computer user uses Internet Explorer because its "good enough". A good deal of these users don't even know alternative browsers (Firefox, Opera, etc.) exist, much less where to find them or what features they offer. The Internet ad model has worked relatively well even with the growth of these alternative browsers because enough people used IE for the model to work. If IE adds this functionality, the ad model is essentially over.
You'll forgive me if I don't shed any tears.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
If I may play the countervailing puppet model for a moment...
;)
But what about Google?!? What about all the jobs this will kill off? Doesn't Google have the right to operate its business as it sees fit without interference from Microsoft??
Should we really be trusting people to know what's good for them letting them not watch ads? I think we need a regulation here that ensures the right of everyone to watch ads because they might miss something.
You can't just destroy business models on a whim. We have people to think about here and we need a plan to make sure Google and Microsoft can operate the way the want without hurting each other. Microsoft should not have the right to take Google's lifeblood away from it and its employees who've worked too hard. This is simply to risky. I think Google should subsidized for all the profits it loses from this. Sometimes giving surfers a choice simply isn't a good idea. It could ruin the livelihood of many Google employees....not to mention people who have stock in google as part of their 401K.
We need a plan. I'm gonna write to my congress man and tell him and tell him we need to save Google Jobs. This will hurt the median income. Congress needs to get off its butt and fix this and serve it's people. This is a democracy!
;)
As you say
everyone likes the free market until intervention makes them more money.
Not to mention any law would be inherently unenforceable. How could the government make sure I'm viewing the ads I should? I already use quite a few
patented 
technologies 
without a proper license. You think they could stop me from blocking ads? Heh. Nader has a better chance of winning the election.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Indeed....
And that represents the bulk of lobbying all the way around.
As you can see now starting from virgin territory, the idea that either would try to or need to go pleas their case before the overlords in DC is preposterous.
I love real-time examples that are totally emblematic of other special interest tensions. The difference is that this case doesn't fit into typical biases and people may be more lucid about it. Sadly, it will make no effect on their views of other activities.
And whether the law is unenforceable is almost irrelevant.
Intervention: Different matter, same subject
Picken's plan is nothing more than an attempt at a rigged market
.
But now you go too far
But the question is "Is a 'rigged market' in energy a good thing?"
I'm walking a fine line here, but intervention in energy is generally alright by me because energy is a necessity for survival. Web browsers aren't. In fact, energy is the precondition for all economic activity (and simply "activity" in general).
Moving toward clean fuels is good for the planet at large and we can't trust the market to "get this one right". We're looking at Armageddon
if the market doesn't adjust to non-renewable alternatives before the cost is prohibitively high to retrofit the economy to run on the now cheaper renewables.
Do I doubt Pickens is throwing his plan out there because he wants to make some more money? Not at all. But he still might have the right idea -- at least with respect to solar, that is. Running cars on natural gas is idiotic because natural gas is harder to transport than gasoline and we're near the natural gas peak as well.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
well said
As far as I can tell, this is just giving users what they want. This back-room strategizing may be interesting, but nothing to moan about.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
One addition
I should have added that this ad model will die if the InPrivate mode will be enabled by default. The model can still survive if the mode is disabled by default because your average user won't know how to turn it on.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
How about a law then that InPrivate
must not be set as default along with Microsoft not being allowed to instruct how to turn it off?
Maybe that'll help.
What good is choice when it hurts other people? People have the right to a job you know!
Unfettered greed.
;)
You silly guy
You mean like the DMCA
:
I can reasonably estimate that I owe several thousand dollars to various copyright holders if they did indeed want to sue me. Circumvention methods are required to read encrypted DVDs (nearly all commercial DVD movies) on my operating system of choice (Debian). In fact, I just did so the other day when I made a copy of my copy of Top Gun to my hard drive so that I could synchronize the RiffTrax audio I recently bought with the video and then watch the resulting product on my television.
Not so fast. To eliminate semantics, no people do not have the right to a job under current law. However, they should have the right to a job absent the program described below, but not necessarily a good job. Any job will do.
As I've said before, as long as the government does what is minimally necessary to keep its citizens alive, we can eliminate all other welfare programs and I'm a happy camper.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
As I've said before, as long
OK? Are you role plyaing here or are you serious?
Serious
No, I've said that several times. Don't ask me to find them again, but they're here on the site.
I expect the government to provide food, water, shelter, clothing, and medical care only to the extent that it will keep people alive. Theoretically, I could never work a day in my life and live to a ripe old age. I don't expect the food to be tasty, the clothing to be nice, the shelter to be spacious, or the medical care to be much more than preventative (excepting the odd acute aches, pains, and ailments), but I do expect it to exist.
I come to this conclusion because we give our prisoners exactly this care. Why we wouldn't give law abiding citizens at least equal care, I don't understand.
Edit: Found one
.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
McCain/Hutchinson?
Identity politics..gotta love it. Intrade has Romney's stock falling fast. Hutchinson is WAY up, and McCain says his decision is made. The bettors are going with McCain/Hutchinson. Yikes?
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Wrong!
Romney is at 66.5
, it has spiked and Romney is the guy McCain chose, watch.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Try Again?
66.5 was the closing price. Since the market closed, his stock is down to 30.2. I hope McCain would choose Romney, Hutchinson would probably tick off conservatives.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
So what happened from 3 am today?
I don't see anything anywhere re: Hutchinson....
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Intrade
Full field can be seen here
. Looks like Romney's rebounding a bit. Hutchinson still up 11.
My theory: McCain has already picked Hutchinson, and let his cronies know so they could make some quick cash on insider trading at Intrade. :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I checked it out...
...it was driven by an article in a US News & World Report
blog that said the Dems would label the ticket too elitist and hinted Pawlenty was the call.
I hope not!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I hope you are correct
I sincerely hope he chooses Romney.
Romney is the kiss of death to the McCain campaign in the South. Down here Mormonism is viewed in the same high esteem reserved for radical islam.
Republicans will stay home in droves in November and life will be good once again. :)
qui tacet consentire
Ha! Democrats talk so much junk!
Because he's exactly what they most fear, a conservative who can appeal to moderates. After all, this guy won an election for governor in Massachusetts. As a Republican.
He balanced an out of control budget without raising taxes.
His record on civil rights including for homosexuals is irreproachable, except for opposing judges who redefine marriage without the slightest attempt at democratic process, his stances on moral issues should make him completely acceptable to the religious right.
Unlike any of the other candidates, he has executive experience and has actually governed something.
He also saved the scandal ridden, heading for bankruptcy Salt Lake Olympics.
Plus, he's good looking, and all of his kids are married, church going people who aren't likely to cause any scandals.
This is the worst nightmare the Left (which includes the mainstream media) can conceive of.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
The weather vane from Utah.....
While Mitt may be a very nice man, he is the ultimate study in slickery politicians.
In Boston he was pro-choice.
....... but one day.....
The celestial heavens opened up, the clouds parted, the heavens whispered in his ear and Mitt had an awakening that he couldn't win as a National candidate unless he was pro-life.
Mike Huckabee's assessment of Mitt; He looks like the guy that's come to fire you.
I get the sense that Romney wants to be VP to get access to those no-bid private contracts.
As far as him as a governing executive, didn't he spend 50 mil to get one (1) electoral vote. I'd say that's not a very good return on the dollar.
It is the economy, stupid.
Back up, friend
You'll have to clarify several points for me.
Is it your opinion that a President needs to be "good looking" or do you believe that voters generally want a President who is "good looking"?
Is it your opinion that "married, church going people" are less likely to cause scandals or do you believe that voters generally believe this? Furthermore, do you have any evidence that church attendance or religion has a correlation with the presence of political scandals?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...