Microsoft blocks ads. what?
August 29, 2008
Hey there, planet mainstream here, are you in for some blockbuster scenarios?
After 2 peaceful years of gardening new products and shopping (still checking if Yahoo comes in the right size) Microsoft has apparently decided to go extrovert and check out the competition. The new internet explorer, IE8, marketed as the “discrete one’ comes with features like ‘In Private Browsing’ that help you block away some aspects of commercial intrusion such as cookies, history lists, and ads.
Wait a minute, are ads angels or demons? It depends on whose side you are, ads are actually multifaceted like mood rings: their use and value are subject to the judge’s role, critical spirit, need of information.
Web ads are mostly seen as angels: they do no evil, they function more elegantly than on other media, probably that’s why people put up with them and other people have based business and state funding models on them.
Demonizing web ads is not part of the ‘InPrivate Blocking’ goals, free will rules. But with privacy on internet becoming a hot topic for regulation, InPrivateBrowsing is actually a do-no-evil, democratic timebomb.
So, this is my scenario.
(late this summer, honey I’m home)
Microsoft is risking committing twice the same antitrust crime, expecting the ad-allergy to spread like a demon-ex-machina by means of ambient buzz (autumn leaves and dust).
(later this year, in the city)
In the same way we’ve rapidly become eco-aware, we begin paying more attention to our privacy.
(you’re just too good to be true)
As Google’s adwords becomes better and Google’s search engine becomes more personalized the results of these two tend to look alike. At some point, our contextual aesthetics react to the lack of difference in the typology of service. Allergy. (atsum)
(in the meantime, the trial)
Then, the second antitrust trial for Microsoft magnetizes ambient dynamics towards privacy awareness.
(whose side are we?)
People are mostly concerned with the direct impact of this issue on their lives rather than the health of the economic competition. This aspect works for Microsoft.
(in the spring, jingle bells blossom/ after the trial…)
As time goes by, behavioral reflexes are built on this awareness.
By highlighting that do-no-evil doesn’t equal do-good, the trial triggers the attitude of systematically using the ad-blocking features in IE or elsewhere (Firefox, Safari…)
(is the trial just a bad dream?)
Google on the other side is still our clean cut hero, our Brandon Walsh.. Fighting for free airwaves, for openness, for us, has chosen an original model of B2C partnership. Beyond a company it acts as a web NGO.
So what is the best path to protect its core business? The legal, the educational, the crowdsourcing or the self-transformational?
Will Brandon
a) complain to the highschool director ?
b) organize an ad-contest for the beach-club kids to campaign for homeless veterans ?
c) run for highschool president ?
d) or study hard to access UCLA?
…to be continued
Well, I also have some legal questions:
If InPrivateBlocking is banned, is the same feature declared non grata for other browsers as well ? What about other add-on programs-is size(impact) shaping legality?
How is the applicable legal domain chosen? Is it an issue of commercial or civil law and how is EU regulation restrictive in each case?
Piss o’ cake?
Georgia
Jeremy Fain
alexandrelucas
Kari Silvennoinen
Steve Danino
Lucien Huang
raphael encaoua
Leonard Sellem
Fidji SIMO
Matthias Schwenk
Remy MIRALLES
Emmanuel Perez-Duarte
Raj Sheelvant
Georgia
August 30, 2008 at 21:09
You’re right, it doesn’t make much sense. I don’t have much of an insight into browser-consumer-segments or reasons for wanting private browsing, but I’m guessing it’s to appeal to the same consumer as the Firefox-user. Or it’s a security-feature, I don’t know.
But what we can be pretty sure of is that it will be disabled by default, and only really be turned on by the type of person that doesn’t click on adverts anyway. Win-win for Microsoft?
August 31, 2008 at 08:50
Great post, but I have to disagree about this being about ads. There are only two reasons to use Private Browsing. The first is the hypothetical browsing (reading e-mail, etc.) on someone else’s computer and not wanting to leave logins or wha have you.
The other, of course, is browsing pr0n. Everyone knows how suspicious a empty web history is, so it solves this problem.
I don’t think ads are any issue. Also, I’ve not used Safari’s or Firefox’s similar feature at all, but IE8 desperately needs to play catch-up. My guess is that this is mostly a marketing ploy - Microsoft selling features for the sake of having “features”… no matter if they are relevant to anyone. (Microsoft Vista being a prime example)
About legality issues, first, the me-too feature isn’t default behaviour (and 99% won’t use it anyway) and secondly, there’s no agreement between content provider (ie. webserver) and client (browser) that how the latter has to render the website (sans ads or otherwise). But sure, this doesn’t stop starting lawsuits in the land of the brave.
August 31, 2008 at 10:37
Hey Kari, I completely agree with you that Microsoft has created a piano of features. Thank you from saving me the nasty job of revealing its effects and sideffects!
If after the ‘The Passenger’ and “You sexy thing” anyone decides to play ‘Bid it’, it hits the Achilles tendon. The potential of “anyone” growing to “everyone” creates the competition issue.
What I love about internet is that you cannot really tell if it is going to grow.
Vincent, consumers didn’t cross my mind at all, such a snob! I suppose you’re right, no harm done if you look it this way. Why did I go off with all these stories then?
In addition to appealing directly to consumers, I believe that Microsoft has actually transformed its browser as a ‘content control tool’. In a way MS is trying to reinforce its power in the value chain. I believe that it hasn’t done it earlier (like Firefox) collecting hahas because until now it was a B2C issue of customer relationships. But now internet security is passing as a priority in the policy makers agenda. Viviane Reding (‘agenda setter’ according to many) and EU commissioner on ICT issues has brought up security several times, the one that captured my attention was during the World Economic Forum, the latest was in June.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/336&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
So in my eyes Microsoft actually declares that its platform has all it takes to facilitate “Access to creative and informative contents” blocking away the rest of it. And this is an argument of civil law (check me on this please). And a path of B2P (policy) and B2B reinforcement in the value chain.
Google, depended on the platform, can claim that this design undermines its operations.
Yes In Private Blocking will be deactivated by default.
But, it is also triggered automatically if certain levels of pollution are detected in the feeds (stated in the Note in the presentation)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/beta/features/browse-privately.aspx?tabid=2&catid=1
The time-recipe is secret!
And this is a Google argument under commercial law. Even without an agreement it still offends competition principles.
Law relationships are apparently hierarchical. Bottom up: Antitrust is a topic of commercial law, Commercial Law is a domain of Civil Law. Whether and when you can reposition a case it is still a mystery to my geek eyes.