So this could be one reason why Google has released its new browser Chrome.
Google’s greatest fear (is) that Microsoft will turn off ads in IE.
Microsoft can’t do that, can they?
Microsoft can do pretty much whatever it wants in this area. There is plenty of browser competition. They can hobble their own product if they like, though it would drive users away from IE — from a product that brings Microsoft no direct revenue anyway — so what’s the risk?
Microsoft turns off the ads in IE and what happens? Google takes a huge revenue hit, is knocked down three pegs in the eyes of Wall Street, while pretty much nothing happens to Microsoft, which would have just shown the world who is still the sheriff.
I am not saying this is going to happen, but I AM saying that it COULD happen — and that very remote possibility is, by itself, enough to make Google have to produce its own browser.
Let me be clear that there doesn’t have to be any subterfuge here on Microsoft’s part. They can simply turn off the ads in IE, declaring it a non-commercial product. If you don’t like it, get another browser — there are plenty to choose from. Microsoft’s revenue would go almost unchanged while Google’s would plummet, if only for a few weeks or months — just long enough for Microsoft to come through with a second punch, that is if they have thought that far ahead.
If you are wondering whether people really sit around Google asking if Microsoft would actually do something like this, well they do.
Problem is, Microsoft has been trying to make money off online ads itself for years; if they turned off all ads it would be legal, but if they turned off everyones but *theirs* antitrust law would kick in swiftly in my opinion.
They would have to pretty much fight against a portion of their own company to do this. That said, they aren’t making much from online advertising so they could definitely do this without giving themselves much of a hit.
Uhh… MS makes lots of money from advertising shown in browsers. If you’re suggesting they turn off all ads -except- for their own then I think the gov’t of several countries would take issue with such non-competitive practices.
Several of fails in this logic.
IE displays web content – how can it distinguish between valid content or an add?
If they simply “remove” any display from a particular domain, that is owned by Google serving ads, Google can simply use another domain, or even it’s IP address.
Take this blog – I see no adds at all – due to Firefox Adblock with lots & lots of custom rules and my edited Hosts file.
John C Dvorak – should he want me to see these ads in spite of this – would have to copy the contents (script, html, images) to a directory on this web server, and serve the ad from this web server.
I’ve seen some tech-savvy blogers start to do this. The not-so-smart made from the root directory “/banners/” or “/ads/” so it’s super-easy to block with Adblock.
However, if the sub-directory name is random, or the content directly at the root….Bingo, I will see ads.
I can’t block directories that changes name every day, or block the root.
IOW, Google and other Ad agencies would adapt.
“Uhh… MS makes lots of money from advertising shown in browsers.”
Read the column. MS does make a lot of money in advertising. More than I’ll ever make. But compared to the sales of its OS and Office products, MS makes hardly anything in advertising. Advertising for MS is just a drop in the bucket.
Look at the Xbox, the original lost 4 billion dollars in an attempt at to hurt Sony and claim the living room. You don’t think MS would give up the piddly amount it gets in advertising to get Google out of the way?
Google, on the other hand, is almost entirely dependent on advertising. It wouldn’t last a month.
I’ve been using Firefox with an ad-blocker and flash-blocker add-on. When I look at this page (or most web-sites) I don’t notice any ads.
When I tried Chrome recently I suddenly noticed all these ads, all over the place. Wow is that annoying! So I dumped Chrome and went back to Firefox.
What would be interesting is if Google rigged Chrome so it only displayed Google ads, and Microsoft rigged IE so it only displayed MSN ads.
The lawyers would have a good time with that.
I would like to see something like this start rearing it’s ugly head anyway. While I can certainly understand that ads run websites, like this one, I have become less and less a reader of sites that have tried to “sneak” in their ads inside the article you are trying to read.
That, on top of Comcast introducing a byte cap, will only pressure browsers to start having an ad blocker that will actually block MOST ads the same way I’m doing it now: via the hosts file (thank you msmvps.org). I realize that this is not the best option for website owners, but people will easily think that the ads, especially the ones that seem graphics intensive, are eating up their monthly bandwidth and they will retaliate with the hosts file hack or another way to stop the page from ever downloading those ads.
Then websites will have to figure out a way to “host” the ads themselves which will only increase their own bandwidth use that the ad servers are now incurring just to try and spoof the user into accepting the ads as well as the content. Now the website’s costs have gone up and the likelihood of the site going out of business has just increased.
Maybe we’ll figure it out before it gets that bad.
Maybe not.
Sorry but that article is junk, If microsoft did that, wouldnt that fall under anti-competion.
Also wouldnt that make microsoft liable for the content that ie displays, hmm let me see pirated movies, child porn etc.
People like to control stuff, but dont like to take the responsibilities for the other things that come with it.
I’m sure that will work great. Lots of legit content gets killed because IE “thinks” it is an ad. MS did so well with their Genuine Windows Validation Tool, and that that a million times easier than trying to interpret web content.
When NO ONE is able to gain from people visiting their blogs/websites, everyone will start posting huge signs saying “USE FIREFOX” or “USE CHROME”… you’d expect even to see sites that simply block you from viewing content if coming from IE.
Sure, go ahead… instead of a slow, painful death, it would be like a headshot for IE. Quick, and subtle.
That’s a hot picture.. I love it!
I like the idea of turning off all the ads. We’ll be right back after this;
Join the Pepsi ReGeneration. It’s good for your cells and it makes you smarter than competing energy drinks. Because Pepsi loves you.
So if Microsoft does figure a way to do this that simply can’t be beat, they will have proved once again… but first;
The new Chevy Volt is the future of automotive engineering. Its dashboard solar cells are all you need to get you going. Buy one, today.
…that they define “The American Way”. Even to the point of ruining any competitive institution that occupies a market niche they wish to inhabit. In the public interest.
#6 – Chuck
>>I’ve been using Firefox with an ad-blocker and
>>flash-blocker add-on. When I look at this page
>>(or most web-sites) I don’t notice any ads.
I use Firefox also, and I see ads up the wazoo. “Lose belly fat”, “Muslima dot com with Muslim brides for sale”, and so on. Plus, I get pop-unders from the Weather Channel. Very annoying.
“So this could be one reason why Google has released its new browser” – One and only reason for Google browser is attempt to collect more data/behavior of end users which is the core of the Google business. They did it in innovative way, trying to hook us on the “features” which are nothing more than spyware tools (omnibar?), but that is how all the spyware started anyway (WeatherBug anyone?).
#5 — while this may be true today Ballmer hisself says that most of the money MSFT will be making in the future will be from ads.
Insanity, but that’s the goal.
If we move to the pay by the bit model of internet service like Dvorak wants, turning off ads only makes sense.
#14 – Insanity indeed – they can’t market their own products, and somehow they’re planning on marketing everybody else’s?
#6 is spot-on.
Ad-block and Flash-block should be selectable with all browsers. Some correctly argue that this is where some rare “internet money” is hiding, but remember all that “dancing baloney” we had to endure with IE 5, that drove us to Firefox!
We can also go the other retaliation way.
Google blocking or messing with IE html support if they suddenly made IE add free.
Now if IE really wanted to mess with them, do it by third party.
Make IE support or something to addblock noscript/flash blocker and the like.
Less heat for Microsoft, and same result.
Currently over 95 % add and crap free browsing.
Would say 99% but probably something i don’t even notice normally is left sometimes..
Technical ignorance is the source and substance of this article. There are a great many ways to insert publicity into web pages besides pop-ups, which by the way everybody’s been blocking for years now. Anything MS could try to block publicity would be difficult, cumbersome, and would take them time to develope and distribute. On the other hand, modifying the code or script on the server to overcome this would take minutes. MS has problems and now is not the time for browser wars.
I just want to know who “chrome-woman270.jpg” is.
She’s hot.
They could make it an option which would make users happy.
It would reduce their own income….not going to happen.
#5 – SN, don’t be a git. I read the stupid article… and stupid it was. As the venerable Mr. Dvorak brings up, MS has a large desire to compete in the ad-serving industry.
Bob Cringely feels he has his own brand of insight (see masthead). Clearly it’s his own brand of something, but whatever it is it’s not insight.
Just admit you were a fool for posting this piece.
I’ve not believed everything Cringely says, since he left out the Commodore Amiga, in the early competition between Apple vs Microsoft. Windows clearly “borrowed” ideas from both Amiga and Apple’s GUI. As Microsoft once made basic for them both, just long enough to have prototype of each. So Bob simplified the contest to just the two. Pretending that millions of users never bought anything else. Screw that. I went from Apple(II) to Amiga to PC clone. As for browsers. Is Cringley forgetting Firefox too? I don’t use FF to block all ads. Just the flash ads that eat up too much time, before the rest of the page graphic can be seen. Keep the damn ads as PNGs or JPGs. Not flash and animated GIFs.
Ow, I almost forgot. Is there more to the chrome girl? I’d like to see the rest of her story, if any.
does google make any money from blocked ads? That is the question (honestly it is I don’t know). Technically the site is hit that has the ad. Albeit it doesn’t load, but the site visit count goes up. Does the ad itself have a counter? I am just curious. Right now I am using ad block plus with add-art to replace ads with art on my computer.