x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options

Microsoft’s “Scroogled” campaign just the beginning, kitchen sink on the way

0. phoneArena posted on 16 Dec 2012, 01:36

Microsoft is certain to turn up the heat against its competitors with this man behind the curtain...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 01:41 22

1. TheLibertine (Posts: 484; Member since: 15 Jan 2012)

And let the fanboy wars begin!

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 03:02 4

11. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)

The only reason as to why Google never retaliate or make mudslinging campaigns about competing products/services is pretty obvious to anyone that cares to think about it.

A.) Google don't want to put any light on the Microsoft campaigns that reveals the more shady side of Google's deceptive business ideology.

B.) Google want to keep up appearances as being "the do-no-evil Good Guy" even while actually being called out as being the real Bad Guy.

C.) *The most important one* Google do NOT want to make campaigns about competing products/services simply because they do NOT want people to know about Bing, Bing Maps, Office Web Apps, Office 365 or Windows Phone.

Why? Well, if people can't figure that out, they might as well not even bother having an opinion about this at all. The answer should be pretty obvious at this point.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 03:42 24

13. tedkord (Posts: 14120; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

As someone who has used Bing and Bing navigation, I can assure you that Google has nothing to worry about with people being made aware of them - to put it bluntly, they both suck.

As far as evil, Google does have it's evil side - all major businesses do. But when compared to MS, well there's a reason MS was known as the evil empire...

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 04:21 4

18. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)

You speak as a consumer, not as a business. Google don't look at Bing and Microsoft the way you do, because Google does business - they're not a consumer. And you got to be really biased or blindfolded to think that Google isn't watching Microsoft's steps closely.

Just because Google has a search engine and map service that is in some areas better than Bing today, does not mean it's automatically going to stay that way forever. Google know this very well, seeing as they know who they're dealing with, while you obviously choose not to acknowledge it.

MySpace was a cool place too, care to do a sign-up there today? Or perhaps a new Hotmail account? Why not Yahoo..? Or perhaps buy a Symbian phone, or a Windows Mobile 6.x?

Wasn't Apple dead and gone, too? Until Microsoft loaned them the money to get back on their feet?

So, with those examples given - do you still honestly think Google don't care? YOU might be confusing Microsoft with some small-time player short of cash, power and services, but Google sure don't.

posted on 17 Dec 2012, 11:04

74. jamrockjones (Posts: 345; Member since: 26 Oct 2011)

"Google don't" ..... that's terrible grammar. Honestly you lost all validity after writing that. Sorry, it was bugging me, just had to point it out.

posted on 21 Dec 2012, 03:38 1

77. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)

Not everyone is having English as their native language, bro. How many languages do you speak fluently without grammatical errors? Hmm?

"Honestly you lost all validity after writing that."
That sounds even more stupid than using a faulty grammar. Perhaps it was really the content of the comment that put you off, and not the grammar? Could be, could very well be ...

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 04:34 5

20. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)

My point is: Things change, and has always done so throughout history. Microsoft was untouchable, yet things changed. Yahoo was king, yet things changed. MySpace had 300 million+ users, then things changed.

Now people think Apple and Google are untouchable, but why should they be any different? Every brand got their loyal customers, but most people just don't give a F.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 06:19 7

29. MeoCao (unregistered)

Of course things will change, nothing lasts forever.

But Google is a very young company and it will be at the top for a very long time for sure.

Yahoo is young too but they are on decline, that's simply b-c they have to compete with Google.

Google has unique strength that guarrantees their success: ability to attract and use talents. That's why Google is so creative.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 08:58 3

40. Edmund (Posts: 656; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)

As someone who uses Yahoo search, Nokia Maps, Office, Outlook.com, X-Box Live, and IE10, I can assure you that google has a lot to worry about

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 10:49 2

49. Nadr1212 (Posts: 741; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)

I'd read the article if it wasn't so long

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 12:46 2

58. tedkord (Posts: 14120; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

Of course things can change. But today, December 16, 2012, if 100 people tried Bing or Bing Nav, 97 would be back to Google immediately.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 04:30 3

19. MeoCao (unregistered)

MS better have good products before attacking competition. Bing sucks so what's the point of paying so much money promoting it?

And Bing is a copy of Google Search and has the same business model.

so this is high hypocricy from MS as usual.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 04:46 3

22. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)

Google was a copy of Altavista and all the other large search engines before it, so what's your point? It's not as if Google came up with a new market all by themselves.

Although Bing too has advertisements, they are not using ads to the same extent as Google - as you would clearly see if you look into the Scroooogled campaign material.

Microsoft's business don't revolve around advertising and privacy-intrucive user profiling - because Microsoft got products and services that comes at a purchase costs that PAYS for the other Microsoft services you use for free. Google has no such products, and therefor relies entirely on you being willing to shell (and sell) out your personal information and being shown ads everywhere instead.

96% of Google's total profits comes from their advertising business, so how do you make that into being the same business model as Microsoft's, outside Bing? :-)

There's a reason as to why there's almost no ads at all on Outlook.com - and NO privacy-intrusion scanning of the emails "in order to serve up personalized ads". Because Microsoft don't have to - they get their money from elsewhere. Windows, Office, Azure, etc. But Google don't.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 06:04 4

28. MeoCao (unregistered)

One question comes up: why Google is successful and others are not?

Google has 1 revolutionary idea: targetted ads.

MS is pure COPYCAT, it does not offer anything radically better.

Yes there is difference in MS and Google business models: they have to earn money somehow but what is the bad influence on people lives that "privacy-intrucive user profiling" has?

I think most people prefer this to paying their hard earned money for superb Google's services.

I know MS loses big on search and advertising, but that simply is b-c they can't compete and nothing else.

MS is a giant COPYCAT: XBox, Zune, Bing, WP... you name it.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 08:22 4

38. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)

Tell me again, what product is Xbox copying? And Windows Phone? And Bing? Not even Zune was a copy, it was just an answer to the iPod. When you say "copy", you seem to automatically think that any competing product is a copy - even though they happen to operate and look very different, just because they are in the same category? Perhaps you should take down that pointing finger of yours, because Google is just as much of a copycat in that case. They have not been first with Anything, since all the products they serve have been available by other companies before them. They even bought a few instead of building them themselves.

Google is big because they can get away with releasing half-baked betaproducts, simply because they do not charge money for them. It has nothing to do with the products being better, because face it - they not always are. They are just "without purchase cost", and endorsed by everyones favorit house pet "Google". Instant success. But it makes a lot of competitors go out of business along the way, to sustain the monopoly Google is sucessfully trying to build. But people don't mind as long as it's not Microsoft doing it, which is clear to see in every Microsoft/Google related comment section. Trading one monopoly for another is OK, because "it's only Google". And Google is not a stock traded company responsible only to their shareholders and investors, right? :-)

Get off your "MS evil copycat" 1999 bulls**t. Microsoft spends billions of dollars on research every year, more than Google and more than Apple. And if you think Google is not copying/following Microsoft (and others), how come all their successful products not bought from other companies are direct answers/competiting services to Microsoft's most successful products? Hotmail/Gmail. Office/Google Docs+Apps. Internet Explorer/Chrome. MSN Maps (and earlier)/Google Maps. MSN Messenger/Gtalk etc. Windows Mobile/Android. Windows/ChromeOS. And so on and so forth. Even Google's search engine is a rip-off from Altavista and earlier.

Point is - Microsoft was around long before Google. And Google don't come up with ideas on their own any more than Microsoft do.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 09:15 2

42. MeoCao (unregistered)


IE: Netscape
Xbox: PS
Zune: iPod
Bing: Google Search
WP: iOS and Android

It's understandable that sometimes a company has to learn from competitors but MS only waits for a big successful ideas to copy w/o any substantial improvement.

Google is different, it's a young company so it benefits from the old system, but it's different from MS: it's creative.

Google is so creative it has to pay some price as innovating is not easy, but the world is much better with Google.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 10:40 4

48. Henrik (Posts: 141; Member since: 18 Feb 2012)

IE and Netscape battled hard back in the 90's. How about Chrome? Wasn't that invented 15 years later..?

Xbox and PS copied Nintendo as being home entertainment tv gaming consoles, but still none of them are the same. They got different approach, uses different technology and cater very different ecosystems. Not even their online gaming services or offerings are the same.

Zune and iPod copied earlier portable MP3 players in the MP3 prime time, so there's no point in doing that comparison. None of them were 1st, they just jumped in to capitalize on the lucrative moment.

Bing is MSN Search and Windows Live Search re-branded, and has very little to do with Google since Google was not the biggest during that time. MSN Search goes back to 1998, at a time when Altavista ruled the world and had Microsoft as partner.

Finally, Windows Phone is the least copycat of ANY mobile OS out there. It looks like no other, and if you try to clam it still does - you're straight-up lying. Microsoft had Windows Mobile (apps and all) long before Android was introduced, and although Windows Phone is a clean cut codewise from the aging Windows Mobile - it's certainly not Microsoft's 1st entrance into the smartphone world.

So what you really wanted to say was that Android copied Windows Mobile, and that Google copied everyone else, wasn't it? :-)

I'm tired of this. Google have made good services, but I'm sick of people treating them as some holy entity that should get a friendly pass in all areas of technology. As if they can do no wrong, and never follows.

People sadly seem to know as little about Microsoft as they know about the real Google.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 17:59

62. joey_sfb (Posts: 6600; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)

I just sick of M$ silly campaign, Its attack on competitor is unnecessary. If your service is good, good words will get around and people will start using it.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 20:58

66. MeoCao (unregistered)

Your still can't see the point here: It's no shame to learn from the competition, but you must add your own improvement.

Look at everything that Google did, they did not simply copied, they made things better

Look at MS did: they simply copied things w/o any improvement (Xbox may be a rare exception). And that's shame for a big company like MS.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 10:56 2

50. Dastrix (unregistered)

So what's your point? Are you objecting to the idea of competition and diversity? Of course Xbox came after PS, but that does not necessarily mean that it's a 'copycat' as you'd call it. Monopoly is good. Diversity, however, is much better. Learn to appreciate competition.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 21:01

67. MeoCao (unregistered)

My advise is to read carefully and understand what was written before lecturing to others

Look at my answer above.

posted on 17 Dec 2012, 09:37

72. Dastrix (unregistered)

Clearly, your definition of 'different' sounds eerily similar to 'similar.' Sorry buddy, but there's a fine line between the two, and 'COPYCAT' isn't the only word in the dictionary. I'd suggest you brush up on your vocabulary before you bark.

And, MY advice to you is to carefully pay attention to your grammar before enlightening others. You're using Chrome, right? Unless you're illiterate, it would seem that you need a better browser, buddy.

Your response to my comment is better suited to YOUR actual situation since you couldn't quite assimilate Henrik's discussion. You're THE one missing the point. Let me break it down for you. Whatever point you're trying to prove is subjective. Please stand from an objective perspective. It would be unproductive to have a biased discussion. Innovation is a broad term. Google is, indeed, an innovative company, in terms of introducing an open-source OS. Microsoft brought along a panoply of features unique to the Windows Phone ecosystem. When companies resort to competition, they certainly have a motive for doing so. Innovation is one of them. Microsoft is as innovative as Google.

AGAIN, monopoly is good. Diversity, however, is much better. Learn to appreciate competition.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 14:29

59. haseebzahid (Posts: 1853; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)

you knowwhat Android is copy of Symbian & IOS get over ur false and foolish blamegame

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 12:35

54. Zero0 (Posts: 592; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)

The whole Scroogled thing was practically built by Microsoft from the start.

Google Shopping wasn't based on ads until anti-trust suits started forming against Google's search expansion -- anti-trust suits endorsed by Microsoft. The solution was to change the service from a shopping search engine to a set of ads. And then Microsoft attacked.

Google gets screwed either way.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 08:54 3

39. nnaatthhaannx2 (Posts: 820; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)

I don't think there's that many MS fanboys.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 09:37 1

43. MetroPhase (Posts: 12; Member since: 24 Nov 2012)

The truth is MS "fanboys" rarely have time to be unproductive; we can't all become moguls if we're sitting behind screens slinging rubbish.

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 22:54

69. EclipseGSX (Posts: 1743; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)

moguls? LMAO keep dreamin'

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 01:41 13

2. SamsungFan (Posts: 201; Member since: 16 Apr 2012)

Do your thing but there is no use. Google will still be the number one

posted on 16 Dec 2012, 01:46 7

3. XPERIA-KNIGHT (unregistered)


posted on 16 Dec 2012, 02:23 9

8. eisenbricher (Posts: 973; Member since: 09 Aug 2012)

MS has always been a dirty player in the game. No matter whether they win or loose, nobody feels sympathy for MS. Also, nobody will criticize them, as being rude has always been a part of MS' personality.
Like a stereotype villain in some mainstream movie.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories