Microsoft is selling "Scroogled" mugs and T-shirts

[Jas00555]

No, nothing in the title is a typo

Shop Scroogled | Microsoft Store

 

[jlzimmerman]

LOLOLOL.

Wow, talk about burning bridges.

 

[coip]

"Keep Calm While We Steal Your Data." I almost bought that coffee mug because I thought that was hilarious, but then I decided not to because I don't want anything with a Google logo on it.

 

[gsquared]

I like the mug.

 

[tgp]

Google responded, "Microsoft?s latest venture comes as no surprise; competition in the wearables space is really heating up."

Brilliant!

 

[xandros9]

they need to step off the gas on that, it looks like negative PR for them

never mind apple did it before, i think MS needs to realize where they stand, acknowledge people's bias and ask to just try or something
idk
im not a marketing major or anything

 

[coip]

Google responded, "Microsoft’s latest venture comes as no surprise; competition in the wearables space is really heating up."

Brilliant!

Sorry, but I don't get it. I don't get Google's response and I don't get why you think it's brilliant (where was this response posted, by the way?). What does Microsoft's decision to sell Scroogled merchandise--which is about Google's hypocritical data-stealing practices in Gmail, Search, and other services--have to do with competition in the wearable spaces. I first thought they meant wearable devices like smart watches, which makes no sense, but I assume the joke is that wearables refers to the T-shirts they are selling in the Scroogled campaign. If so, Google's response--since they state that clothing competition is heating up and that the Scroogled campaign is not a surprise--makes it sound like they think the T-shirts will be popular, otherwise it would be a surprise that they would be selling them. Nevermind the fact that Microsoft is selling more than just 'wearables', adding to the confusion of Google's response, if it is, in fact, their response.

 

[Ek-Balam]

Sorry, but I don't get it. I don't get Google's response and I don't get why you think it's brilliant (where was this response posted, by the way?). What does Microsoft's decision to sell Scroogled merchandise--which is about Google's hypocritical data-stealing practices in Gmail, Search, and other services--have to do with competition in the wearable spaces. I first thought they meant wearable devices like smart watches, which makes no sense, but I assume the joke is that wearables refers to the T-shirts they are selling in the Scroogled campaign. If so, Google's response--since they state that clothing competition is heating up and that the Scroogled campaign is not a surprise--makes it sound like they think the T-shirts will be popular, otherwise it would be a surprise that they would be selling them. Nevermind the fact that Microsoft is selling more than just 'wearables', adding to the confusion of Google's response, if it is, in fact, their response.

Think about it a bit.......... a brilliant answer to a potential PR road bump.........

 

[Harshana Abeysinghe]

LOL... anyway just a Question,
Do they sell Microsoft T-Shirts too?? I really wanna buy Microsoft T-Shirts or Hoddies.. but i cant find them anywhere.. .

 

[coip]

Think about it a bit.......... a brilliant answer to a potential PR road bump.........

I didn't think it was that witty of a response. I'd much rather have seen them admit they are hypocrites, spouting off this "Do No Evil" mantra in public and then driving around Europe illegally filching people's data in private. Google is the worst.

 

[pseudoware]

I didn't think it was that witty of a response.

It's a clever way of saying "that's cute, now take your 3% market share and run along."

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Reflexx]

I love this back and forth. It's all light hearted lined with some truth.

Notice that Google didn't respond by denying MS's accusations. It's kind of like..

Wife: "Is that lipstick on your collar?"
Husband: "Ummm... Look over there! A bird!"

 

[coip]

It's a clever way of saying "that's cute, now take your 3% market share and run along."

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Well that would be pretty myopic. These two companies are about way more than smartphone operating systems. Google may dominate smartphones, Search, and YouTube, but Microsoft dominates them in many categories too: PC operating systems, productivity software (i.e. Office), servers, gaming, and so forth. Microsoft's Scroogled campaign may be questionable, but what is not questionable is that it's right: Google is the biggest hypocrites of all the tech companies, for their the only ones that continually preached their, clearly bull****, Do No Evil mantra.

 

[ag1986]

I didn't think it was that witty of a response. I'd much rather have seen them admit they are hypocrites, spouting off this "Do No Evil" mantra in public and then driving around Europe illegally filching people's data in private. Google is the worst.

i.e. exactly what MS want to do with Bing and tried to do with aQuantive before failing miserably?

 

[coip]

i.e. exactly what MS want to do with Bing and tried to do with aQuantive before failing miserably?

You are misinformed. Bing is the fastest growing search engine now in terms of market share, nearing 20% and only going up while Google has dropped into the upper 60s. As for aQuantitative, perhaps if they had adopted a Google approach of abusing their users' privacy in order to capitalize on the data, they'd have turned a profit. Regardless, every big company has an acquisition or two that didn't pan out. Not every buyout can be a Skype or a YouTube. Some turn out to be an aQuantitative or a Motorola. What's your point?

 

[ag1986]

You are misinformed. Bing is the fastest growing search engine now in terms of market share, nearing 20% and only going up while Google has dropped into the upper 60s. As for aQuantitative, perhaps if they had adopted a Google approach of abusing their users' privacy in order to capitalize on the data, they'd have turned a profit. Regardless, every big company has an acquisition or two that didn't pan out. Not every buyout can be a Skype or a YouTube. Some turn out to be an aQuantitative or a Motorola. What's your point?

Yes, just like WP is the fastest growing platform - percentages and growth mean nothing without absolute values for context. Also that's US-only, in Europe and other markets it's well above 90%.

My point is that MS has a history of abusing their customers and they have been convicted in court of such practices. Nobody has ever successfully accused Google of abusing their users' privacy. And I don't understand how they are 'abusing' it either - they serve ads based on your interests, but they do not sell personal data. Google knows you're interested in baseball. Some advertiser tells Google hey, show my ads to people interested in baseball. None of your data leaves Google. How is this abuse?

 

[etad putta]

Yes, just like WP is the fastest growing platform - percentages and growth mean nothing without absolute values for context. Also that's US-only, in Europe and other markets it's well above 90%.

My point is that MS has a history of abusing their customers and they have been convicted in court of such practices. Nobody has ever successfully accused Google of abusing their users' privacy. And I don't understand how they are 'abusing' it either - they serve ads based on your interests, but they do not sell personal data. Google knows you're interested in baseball. Some advertiser tells Google hey, show my ads to people interested in baseball. None of your data leaves Google. How is this abuse?

oops...Google pays $7M fine to settle Wi-Fi privacy case | Fox News

 

[etad putta]

Google wasn't nice here either...Media Alliance : Google Pays $17 Million Fine for Privacy Violations

 

[coip]

Yes, just like WP is the fastest growing platform - percentages and growth mean nothing without absolute values for context. Also that's US-only, in Europe and other markets it's well above 90%.

My point is that MS has a history of abusing their customers and they have been convicted in court of such practices. Nobody has ever successfully accused Google of abusing their users' privacy. And I don't understand how they are 'abusing' it either - they serve ads based on your interests, but they do not sell personal data. Google knows you're interested in baseball. Some advertiser tells Google hey, show my ads to people interested in baseball. None of your data leaves Google. How is this abuse?

oops...Google pays $7M fine to settle Wi-Fi privacy case | Fox News

I was going to post the same response to the na?ve post above. What Google did there was the most egregious violation of privacy I've ever seen in a tech company--and this is coming from a company that for years has boasted about it's "Do No Evil" mantra, making them the ultimate hypocrites. They weren't just stealing customers' data, protected by some Terms of Service agreement; they were literally stealing strangers' personal information and using it for personal profit! Lone Wolf hackers have done this and have had to serve jail time on top of massive fines. This was criminal behavior and Google should be punished accordingly. They have no credibility.

 

[ag1986]

I was going to post the same response to the na?ve post above. What Google did there was the most egregious violation of privacy I've ever seen in a tech company--and this is coming from a company that for years has boasted about it's "Do No Evil" mantra, making them the ultimate hypocrites. They weren't just stealing customers' data, protected by some Terms of Service agreement; they were literally stealing strangers' personal information and using it for personal profit! Lone Wolf hackers have done this and have had to serve jail time on top of massive fines. This was criminal behavior and Google should be punished accordingly. They have no credibility.

a) If you broadcast data over open, unencrypted Wifi you should have no expectation of security. That is like using a megaphone in Times Square and then getting angry that people heard you.

b) That it was an accident rather than a planned occurrence is denoted by the triviality of the fine - clearly the AGs knew they didn't have much of a hope of winning and so settled for the ridiculous amount of $7m.

c) Canada and Europe found that that data was not used, was not even looked at. How much data do you think it is possible to capture driving through a street? Not like they stood outside houses for hours on end recording stuff.

d) Explain how Google made "personal profit" out of fragments of millions of unrelated Wifi packets. Hardly like they need to steal your online banking password and get to the few thousand in the current account...