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.
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."
I think we may be sure that Microsoft was less concerned with the tender feelings of porn consumers (and/or their spouses) and more concerned with striking a blow at Google.
But 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.
That last line kind of makes it sound like you're against the added feature. Am I reading it right?
I can already do this in firefox using Customize Google. Plus Ad Blocker and NoScript.
Nice to see Microsoft is only 2 years behind open-source innovators.
With luck we'll have a government again that knows what "antitrust" means.
I don't see how a privacy icon right up there next to your home/back/refresh icon would make things hard.
Click it and you're in stealth mode. Click it again and its off. Sounds good to me.
Of course, as a business user I actually like the google ads. It may help google and their advertisers because it will weed out the people who aren't shopping. If you're just doing a search on something you're not interested in buying those google ads are mostly wasted on you.
But if you're part of the population that has intentionally selected to get google ads, you're a gold mine because those advertisers know you're buying.
I've never understood how companies even make money off the adds. Like Matt B, I've been using Ad Blocker on Firefox for like 2 years now. But even when I do see the adds, I cannot remember the last time I clicked on one, let alone actually bought something.
I don't think the last paragraph is a compelling reason to oppose the feature. If your business model is dependent on it being difficult for people to manage their privacy, I think the solution is to find a better business model, not resist efforts to make it easier for people to manage their privacy.
Perhaps it may make sense to counter some of the hype about security so people won't push the "private" button by default, but that it screws up Slate's business model isn't a compelling reason.
I think the theory that this is a Google-killer is overstated. What Microsoft is basically doing is allowing users to block *persistent* (and third-party) cookies. There are already plenty of ways to do that and plenty of reasons people don't. I *want* my websites to remember who I am. That makes it an easier, better experience for me. If that means Google gets a little more data on me, that's fine.
Firefox has had this ability forever and no one except the extremely paranoid bother with it.
And speaking of wanting websites to remember me, please fix the "Remember personal info?" feature! It doesn't work and IT DRIVES ME CRAZY!
We don't need a new web browser making things even harder than they already are.
Markets for everything, Megan, markets for everything.
Apple's browser Safari has had this feature, which they call "Private Browsing", for a few years.
http://www.tuaw.com/2005/05/02/tiger-bits-safaris-private-browsing/
> With luck we'll have a government again that knows what "antitrust" means.
I would love to see the legal argument that connects this feature to an antitrust violation.
I doubt that this feature is intended to undercut Google. Remember that Microsoft is spending a very large amount of money attempting to build its own advertising business. This is done under the assumption that the advertising market generally is growing and will continue to grow.
It would not at the same time attempt to make the advertising market smaller.
Whatever, other browsers have had this feature for years. Allowing Google to access my personal information gives me better search results. Saving search history also allows Google to substitute for a bookmarking service such as delicious. People aren't about to give this feature up just because it is easy to do so on IE.
Re-reading Megan's post, I may not have been terribly charitable. "We don't need" doesn't necessarily mean, "someone has to do something to stop this!"
"We don't need"? Ahem. I'll judge that for myself, thank you very much. This notion that content providers seem to have that I have a God-given duty to endure their ads in exchange for their content is asinine. No, no I don't. And you're not obliged to provide the content. Can't make a living? OK, then ask me for money, and I'll decide whether to pay. But don't go around telling me what kind of browsers we "need."
So do you know how long it will take Google to come up with software that detects the privacy mode and then gives publishers the ability to BLOCK visitors who don't allow advertising?
I say in beta in 6 weeks.
I'm sorry but is anything in this post even true? Are Google ads even based on persistent browser cookies and trolling your history? Aren't they simply determined by what you're Googling for? I don't see how privacy mode is going to have anything to do with that.
Hey MS,
You write: Like Matt B, I've been using Ad Blocker on Firefox for like 2 years now.
I find your actions bizarre. You block the ads, is this because you want the ad sponsored sites that you visit regularly to go out of business, or are you looking to pay a subscription to view them or do you think you have some right that these bloggers should entertain you for free?
Aren't they simply determined by what you're Googling for?
Google ads are on a lot of websites, not just Google's. However, I'm not sure on these websites if it pulls the information from the readers of the site, or the content of the site.
You block the ads, is this because you want the ad sponsored sites that you visit regularly to go out of business, or are you looking to pay a subscription to view them or do you think you have some right that these bloggers should entertain you for free?
It's for the same reason I fast-forward over ads in stuff I record off TV. I don't like ads.
I actually have clicked on a couple of ads on Facebook, but their creepy spy-bots have figured out what I like more effectively than anyone else's.
Google should still be able to deliver ads based on search results (or a person's email, if they use gmail), though. After all, you have to give the keywords to the search engine to do a search.
I'd guess that this is more related to the display of Google Ads on the private sites. Some private sites consent to having Google Ads on the site in order to get extra pay. Those ads are likely targeted to the individual user using either cookies or Shared Objects from flash.
I'd guess that this is more related to the display of Google Ads on the private sites. Some private sites consent to having Google Ads on the site in order to get extra pay. Those ads are likely targeted to the individual user using either cookies or Shared Objects from flash.
I've been to a number of blogs that use Google Ads, and it doesn't seem to work that way, since we all wind up seeing the exact same ads. (I know this because, when the ad is wildly inappropriate for the website - like a Girls Gone Wild ad at Pandagon - people mention it.)
My impression is that Google is supplying ads based on the PageRank system, not individualized ads based on cookies. I could be wrong, though. But honestly narrowcast ads based on cookies is like 90's technology. It's impossible to imagine Google relying on such an antiquated system.
"I think we may be sure that Microsoft was less concerned with the tender feelings of porn consumers (and/or their spouses) and more concerned with striking a blow at Google."
I would think that Microsoft would chiefly be concerned with including a feature that will lead its browser share to rise, which I'm sure has all kinds of ancillary benefits for Microsoft.
What's good for the goose, Megan: you don't get what you need; you get what the market wants. If few people browse with this feature on, your business model will be validated. If most people turn this feature, you'll have to find a new business model.
Jeeze what an embarrassing post from someone spends their time cheerleading for free markets.
Another way to phrase your question Robert W. would be to say "What would you pay for most of the content available on the internet?"
My answer would be nothing and I enjoy it at that price.
Anyone is free to put up a subscription site in order to see if their content is good enough that people will pay for it instead of relying sheeple who willingly view ads.
Megan, you have a mac right? As the poster above said, Safari has had this for years.
Click on the Safari menu item, scroll down to "Private Browsing . . ." Presto! The same feature going into IE 8.
But 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 sounds suspiciously close to some of the trainwreck arguments I heard after national Do Not Call went into effect, protesting that people and jobs were at stake. Tough: I don't install expensive communications infrastructure in my residence, and then purchase the service that operates it at $X/month, so that anyone and everyone else can use it how they please.
Good grief. There is nothing, nada, zip, zilch, new about this, as many of the commentators have pointed out.
When is this going to sink in? Microsoft *never* does anything original. Their entire technological evolution has consisted of appropriating outside ideas, making them worse, and selling them as "innovations." It's the triumph of everything that's pernicious about marketing.
I would think that a libertarian we see this as a good thing. People can choose the InPrivate mode if they want or they can decide that ads targetted at them are actually a good thing.
With luck we'll have a government again that knows what "antitrust" means.
Where's the antitrust problem here? Microsoft no longer has anything like a monopoly on the browser market, and Google hasn't got a monopoly on either advertising or web searches.
Were you trying to say "with luck we'll have a government that regulates the internet" and it just came out wrong?
Um, this won't hurt google much at all. Google doesn't use persistent cookies to track you.
Google tracks the people who visit this site, and analyzes the site itself to determine what ads to show. I.e., if this side had google ads, then we would see adverts for veganism, economics-related products and biking (they can probably come up with better topics). Privacy mode won't change that.
All privacy mode will do is prevent advertisers from seeing "he went to youporn.com yesterday, lets show him a porn ad on lolcats.com today." Google doesn't do this (although doubleclick may, and doubleclick is now owned by google).
Where's the libertarianism? The free-marketism? Half the time your railing against 'the man' taking away choices from consumers. Where does Google get the sacred right to know (and profit from) my browsing history?
As a consumer I would love to have a browser that gives me more privacy. Who's to tell me the world is better off if I don't have that option. (And in any case, consumers will find a way - I for example use plug ins with Firefox, other third party software already exists to do this).
Sorry to ruin the party, but Private Browsing turns off your cookies, so when you're in Private Browsing mode you can't do things like log into gMail, Facebook, or Wordpress. So... you're going to use it sparingly.
when the ad is wildly inappropriate for the website - like a Girls Gone Wild ad at Pandagon
I don't think you can conclude the ad is inappropriate. Sometimes associations are counter intuitive but still true. I think grocery stores do this kind of analysis all the time and it leads to 'strange' groupings of products on the shelves.
Megan,
assuming for the moment that everything in the FT piece is true, I must say that I find your comment - " We don't need a new web browser making things even harder than they already are." - extremely dissapointing, not to say disgusting.
I couldn't care less what Microsoft's motives are, but IF there really is something new on the horizon that enables people to have more privacy on the internet then any decent person should welcome it.
This is a stellar example of how libertarians don't really care about people, their rights or their freedoms - only about "the market".
Sometimes associations are counter intuitive but still true.
You have a strange sense of what is appropriate, I think. Remind me not to invite you to my daughter's birthday parties.