backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by cjohnson2136.. on Aug 3 at 3:18 PM

Oh what could have been...

Today, Microsoft's Internet Explorer commands 65% of the browser market according to the WSJ. In years past, IE held as much as 95% of the browser market. Browsers like Firefox are growing quickly as IE is slipping. Microsoft wants to hold onto that market domination with IE and looked to make some significant changes in IE8 to set the new version of the browser apart from its peers in terms of privacy.

The IE8 design team proposed to use privacy as a means of gaining back the users that had started to migrate to other browsers. The 
WSJ Reports that the idea with the IE8 design team was to implement privacy measures that would completely block the tracking of a users actions online and prevent the installation of third party tracking software known as cookies onto the user's computer.

While the IE 8 team though the tactic to block tracking was a great plan for its browser, the ad sales executives felt very differently. A debate was sparked among executives like senior VP Brian McAndrews, the former CEO of aQuantivie, and the IE 8 team.

Microsoft ad execs like McAndrews were reportedly shocked at the IE 8 team's plans for privacy in the new browser. The privacy settings eventually showed up as InPrivate browsing. Originally, the IE8 design team had planned to design the browser in such a way as to ensure that almost everyone who installed IE8 was using the InPrivate feature.

The problem that McAndrews and other advertising execs had was that the blocking of tracking cookies would seriously undermine the ability to track a web users habits online and serve them ads that they were likely to click on. Some felt that the technology would possibly even prevent some ads from being served at all.

With the huge sum Microsoft spent purchasing aQuantitive and the hugely lucrative market for web advertising the marketing execs won out. In the final version of IE8, the user has to start InPrivate browsing each time the web browser is launched. The original version of IE8 was also going to have a feature that would block any third party software that was found on ten consecutive pages visited. The assumption was any software that prolific had to be a tracking application. This was supposedly an effort to ensure that third party software like YouTube videos embedded on a page would be left alone.

Had the IE8 team won, the privacy of web users would likely be more secure today.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hey FireFox...
By Hydrofirex on 8/2/2010 11:11:27 AM , Rating: 3
There is your next update -

InPrivate + Adblock.

HfX




RE: Hey FireFox...
By quiksilvr on 8/2/2010 11:38:55 AM , Rating: 4
You fail to realize that advertisements is what makes the world go round. It's what makes YouTube free along with all the amazing online Google software (how else did you think we'd get nearly 8GB of free space on Google?)

And as annoying as ads can get (that's what makes Adblock awesome), they are aiming to make them less obtrusive and annoying on most sites, making them minimally annoying rather than god awful.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By tastyratz on 8/2/2010 11:54:50 AM , Rating: 3
They? who is they?
Did you mean to say that people want them to be less invasive and annoying but in reality that is the polar opposite of marketing goals and concepts?

Nothing about subtle grabs your attention, and in a world of advertising the ones that grab your attention are the ones that stand out. Annoying ads are the only ones you see and the ones that are more annoying are the ones that stand out the best.

If anything piloting a maze of links in a text article that spawns full page videos is hardly less annoying - its a damn advertising booby trap.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By Paj on 8/2/2010 12:35:45 PM , Rating: 4
Lol, no advertiser worth their salt wants to make an ad that annoys people. Their goal is to alter the perceptions of the audience to make them alter their spending or habits in a way thats favourable to the client's objectives. The reason so many ads are annoying is because there are many incompetent advertisers.

You can have subtle ads that grab attention - many luxury/cosmetic products are marketed this way. It all depends on the audience. All the ads with BUY NOW 99% OFF FREE CHIHUAHA FOR THE FIRST 99 CUSTOMERS are the ads that target those from lower socioeconomic groups - or are made by unskilled advertisers. Less is more when it comes to many types of product and service ads.

Finally, the ads that stand out the best are the ones that are executed brilliantly - the ads where people send each other links to on youtube because they are so cool. Think the latest old spice ads, the Dark Knight virals, the Star Wars / Adidias crossovers. In this case, the market does most of the advertisiers work for them - word of mouth is one of the most powerful tools available, yet very difficult to harness effectively. When it is, the results are massive.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By fleabag on 8/2/2010 1:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well Kias already failed at that with their Kia Soul advertising. I liked their advertising on youtube/tv with the hampsters but when they went as far as to drive a car all over my web browsing experience, interfering with my reading of a news article, that drew the line between advertising and harassment.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By Mitch101 on 8/2/2010 3:07:34 PM , Rating: 5
Ads within text caused me to ad block. Thats where I drew the line. It was actually DT that caused me to install an Ad blocker.

I lose money on my own personal sites because of Ad Blockers but I understand them. I dont feel the ads on my sites ever crossed the line of good taste. Mine are never in the text and never embedded in the information they are properly out of the way unless you choose to follow them. There are no popups or sound based ads. Too bad other sites dont follow these rules but instead when the dollars disappear just stuff their sites with even more ads. I know Im losing out but I'm not going to stuff more ads on my site to punish those who aren't yet running ad blockers. That will only cause more people to ad block then where is the business model going to make money.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By JediJeb on 8/3/2010 1:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say this is the only site I visit that has the annoying in text popup ads, and it drives me nuts. I also always get the reminder at the top of my FF window that I need to install a plug-in to view all content, but at work I am not installing Flash or anything else like that so I guess advertisers that can't make a simple text ad are just out of luck. I will click through a simple text ad link, but any of the flashy, annoying, video and sound ads I will totally refuse to click on and will never purchase from that company. If everyone on the web would just ignore the stupid type ads then things like that would die as they should and we would once again have simple but effective ads that don't get in the way.

You hog my bandwidth with your ads, don't ever expect me to buy from you.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By quiksilvr on 8/3/2010 1:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
You could go the Google route and have text ads on the side. Like if you are reading an article on laptop reviews, it will give text ads on (hits forehead) laptops.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By bupkus on 8/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hey FireFox...
By Paj on 8/2/2010 3:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Apologies if I came off as condescending. But I work in the marketing and design industry, and wanted to address some of his points.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By hr824 on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Hey FireFox...
By sigmatau on 8/2/2010 1:55:18 PM , Rating: 5
Total BS!. I refuse to finish reading an article that has very annoying adds. I will even take the time to send some hate mail to the site because of them and never return.

The really annoying ones include any add that:

1. Starts playing a video with the volume all the way up.

2. Uses very sharp animations that distracts you from viewing the rest of the page, for example the stupid make up adds that swipe the image up and down or side to side to show a change in appearance

3. Banner adds that explode when your mouse even begins to touch them; They get over 10x larger and sometimes play a video or animation

4. Just about any add that never stops animating.

5. Adds that take up more of the page than the rest of the page.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By tastyratz on 8/3/2010 9:05:18 AM , Rating: 2
are we talking about the dailytech advertisements here? Notice my "subtle jabs" originally.

I have to admit, dailytech is what pushed me to install adblockplus too. Its mostly the landmine rollovers that piss me off the most, and obnoxious ads don't bode well when you are trying to read. Sorry I know they make their money off them but I never click any ads on any sites anyways, I'm not an ad clicker.

I am curious if the in text rollover ads were removed and side ads were more cherry picked to not be obnoxious if dailytech would start seeing people who wouldn't block their advertisements all together?
I read DT the other day on I.E. and felt like I was having an autistic panic attack.


RE: Hey FireFox...
By Fanon on 8/2/2010 12:14:52 PM , Rating: 5
You fail to realize that advertisements are a huge problem when it comes to malware. Scareware is big these days, and it's because websites don't take the initiative to ensure the advertisements served to their visitors are clean and malware free.


When will they learn.....
By jabber on 8/2/2010 11:20:53 AM , Rating: 2
....that most of us dont ever click on ads we see on the internet?

I setup AdBlock on all the PCs I make and never had a customer complain they couldnt see adverts.

Most folks see a web advert and probably think behind it is a sunami of spam in waiting.




RE: When will they learn.....
By Homerboy on 8/2/2010 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
I assure you many many people click them. How do you think these companies make money? And I also assure that that vast vast VAST majority of web users do not "think" before clicking ads.


RE: When will they learn.....
By Drag0nFire on 8/2/2010 12:20:19 PM , Rating: 4
I put up with ads for many years, because they were benign and I didn't care that whatever site I was visiting made a few fractions of a cent for my visit. But what finally got me to install AdBlock was that the ads invariably load slower than the page itself. Haven't looked back since.


By ZachDontScare on 8/2/2010 1:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
Look up the meaning of the advertising term 'branding'. Its not always about the click.


RE: When will they learn.....
By AlexWade on 8/3/2010 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
I suggest everyone read these articles from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487039...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487039...

I use AdBlock for two reasons. (1) Far too many ads are obtrusive and large. They purposefully do things to draw your attention. Simple banner ads are fine, they stay in one spot and don't take a long time to load. But many ads today use Flash. These take more time to load. Mobile internet is going metered. Why should I have to pay for your ads? (2) Ads are now tracking more intelligently now. No longer are ads seeing which ads you clicked on. Now tracking sees what pages you visited. That ain't right.

My worry is companies like NebuAd and Phorm will re-appear once the heat is off. Once people move on and are no longer concerned about deep-packet inspection advertiser tracking, I worry that such companies will try again but quieter.

If ads were simple, low-bandwidth, and non-tracking, I would turn off AdBlock.

Finally, whoever invented the pop-under and pop-up ad needs to be taken out back and be given a big paper cut and have lemon juice poured on it every single day for the rest of their life.


RE: When will they learn.....
By JediJeb on 8/3/2010 1:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If ads were simple, low-bandwidth, and non-tracking, I would turn off AdBlock.


Exactly. Why should anyone need a broadband connection just to get the ads to load. I went to sites before when I had dialup last year and some would take forever to load the ads, then the text of the site would load almost immediately.


But you can...
By Homerboy on 8/2/2010 11:08:57 AM , Rating: 4
...just create a "InPrivate" shortcut:

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/1277-internet...

Stinks that this happened to IE8 though. But I fully understand the reasoning behind it. MS is there to make money, not friends.




RE: But you can...
By Spivonious on 8/2/2010 11:15:00 AM , Rating: 5
It's also in the jump list if you're on Windows 7. This whole article is a non-issue.


RE: But you can...
By LostInLine on 8/2/2010 12:01:37 PM , Rating: 3
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee330728%2...

Doh, you beat me too it.

I guess this is the type of articles we can expect when there is not real editors to question stories. I expect better of you Shane!!!


IE 8 privacy
By frozentundra123456 on 8/2/2010 5:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
If all cookies were blocked, what about legitimate sites that remember your computer when you log in, such as banks, credit card sites, gaming sites, etc.

Wouldnt you have to re-authenticate your identity each time you log in?? I am all for privacy, but that could be a real pain.




RE: IE 8 privacy
By Lifted on 8/2/2010 8:18:07 PM , Rating: 3
This. The article is more than a bit sensational.

Think about how many users would stop using IE if it couldn't do simple things such as remember basic session and account data without "activating" that feature. 90% of IE users, clueless about cookies and the like as they are, would think IE is broke and many would end up using Google, Firefox, or Safari instead.

It's crazy to think Microsoft would default IE to operate in a "broken" state.


RE: IE 8 privacy
By cjohnson2136 on 8/3/2010 1:16:38 PM , Rating: 1
InPrivate does not default when you open up the browser you have to manually open it after a normal cookie receving browser is open.


RE: IE 8 privacy
By JediJeb on 8/3/2010 1:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
I never have my browser save user IDs or passwords, it just isn't a good idea. Besides shouldn't that be what identifies you to the site you go to, your user ID and password. How about sites store the cookies there and use it every time you log in instead of storing the information on your computer. That way your preferences follow you if you change computers instead of defaulting every time you change computers or browsers.

Make the servers keep up with this stuff and you will see it become far more streamlined than it is now. And it would save bandwidth also, and ever little bit adds up.


This would hose Microsoft, but ...
By jbwhite99 on 8/2/2010 11:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
wouldn't it hose Google even more if you couldn't store cookies? This would be a way to cut Google off at the knees - if Google couldn't serve up the types of ads that get clicked on, they would make less money, and this money is more important to GOOG than to MSFT.




By JediJeb on 8/3/2010 1:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
You can always go into your hosts file and reroute google-analytics to a dummy IP so that it never sends your data back to them. I also disable the ability of places like doubleclick and such so they can't return their data. Takes a little research into how to do it, but when it comes to privacy we are really at war with the advertisers.


By cjohnson2136 on 8/3/2010 3:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
If this would be so devastating to Google why would they put this same feature into Google Chrome. That is why Google does not care if IE has a privacy tab because Google has one. The thing is a majority of people just don't use the privacy tab a majority of the time, unless you are super paranoid or something.


What about the others
By bug77 on 8/2/2010 3:54:45 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, so in Microsoft's case, the ad execs made the choice. Still, that shouldn't prevent other browsers from starting in private mode. Yet none of them does. So, what's the catch?




This is a good thing
By Suntan on 8/2/2010 12:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly guys. You *want* the "standard install” of browsers to be relatively light on restrictions for this type of stuff. If the "standard install” made it a lot harder to get targeted ads pumped out to the "standard user” then the ad pushers would start looking at more invasive measures to force ads to people.

Personally, I would prefer that the "standard install” left all those people open to freely accept targeted ads, so that it is easy for me to do away with the ads and not have to deal with it further.

It’s just like the banking system. Prior to that regulation update that was signed, my bank happily let me do checking and ATMs and whatnot for free because they made enough money off the idiots that constantly got into trouble with overdraft fees and whatnot. Now that new laws make those fees much less lucrative to the banks, I’m getting shafted because the banks are reneging on a lot of the free perks. Basically, those of us that know how to use the system to our advantage get hosed by those of us that aren’t very bright. If default browser security increases marketedly, you’ll see the same thing happen in the online world.

-Suntan




The SEC fails again
By dgingeri on 8/2/2010 4:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly why the SEC should have prevented MS getting into such services.




Google Chrome
By cjohnson2136 on 8/3/2010 1:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm Google Chrome had this feature before Microsoft thought of it. From what I have seen from a lot of people I know the private browsing feature is used more often then not for adult entertainment so people can not go on their computers later and discover tehy have looked at it.




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki