Aggressive negative advertising by Microsoft against Google. - <AUTHOR> http://scroogled.com <comment><USER2> This is embarassingly sloppy, but I agree with the kernel of the message.

Microsoft says Google "goes through" your email to target ads, whereas outlook.com only "scans" your email for spam filtering. This is a valid contrast, destroyed by the bullshit phrasing.

The important difference for me is that spam filter criteria are common to 99% of all recipients. My personal set (if google even has personal blacklists) is not that interesting.

Valuable advertising keywords are much more personal, and a) can be used by the advertiser, along with other metadata, to glue together a profile about me that is quite personal (and unreviewable, unfixable, probably incorrect in annoying ways), and b) are almost certainly retained by Google in my ad- profile that is then used elsewhere on their properties...maybe I'm naive, but I assume they do not let email keywords cross pollinate into Adsense on the wider Internet...

Of course, I don't trust either one of them. The notion of storing my mail spool on anyone else's servers is unfathomably derelict to me. I recognize that I'm in the minority here.

<comment><USER3> _The notion of storing my mail spool on anyone else's servers is unfathomably derelict to me. I recognize that I'm in the minority here._

I'm in the same minority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you login to Outlook.com (which is extremely slow btw), you'll also find the following settings page available from the bottom right cog icon: <https://data.choice.microsoft.com/mydata/UserInterests>

Under 'My Data' it stores Bing Searches and takes guesses as to your 'Interests'. How does it do that exactly? Operationally, how different is Outlook.com a.k.a Hotmail, compared to Google? Both are free, and nothing is for free in this world. So, Microsoft also have an angle.

Digging further you'll find information on Microsoft Advertising, which is something I don't remember actively opting in to, but I appear to be registered for: <https://data.choice.microsoft.com/MyChoices/MSAdvertising>

It states, and I quote:

> About Microsoft Advertising

> With the Microsoft Personal Data Dashboard (beta), you can choose not to > receive personalized ads on websites that use the Microsoft Advertising > Platform by not allowing Microsoft Advertising to use your information.

> Information used by Microsoft Advertising

> The Microsoft Advertising Platform customizes personalized ads based on > different types of information, including but not limited to:

> Bing searches

> Interests

> Profile

> What does it mean not to allow Microsoft Advertising to use your > information?

> Well, first, it doesn't mean you will stop getting ads or see fewer ads; > but, it does mean that the ads you get won't be personalized anymore by > Microsoft Advertising. Microsoft will continue to collect information for > other uses, such as delivering content that is personalized for you; for > example, the news articles displayed on MSN and the results you get when you > search for software updates.

I guess, at least I can opt-out. Google doesn't allow me to opt-out of their creepiness. Saying that though, even though GMail creeps me out, but I'm addicted to the user interface.

<comment><USER5> "Creepiness"? Are you a child?

You seem to comprehend how Google runs its business and pays for its services. Isn't it incredibly ludicrous to call it creepy?

<comment><USER6> No, reading personal email to deliver advertisements is creepy. It's better than it used to be but we all remember seeing things like casket advertisements when an email mentioned dead code, etc etc.

It's creepy, and I would gladly pay google monthly to prevent them from abusing my privacy.

But Google doesn't want money from me, it wants to abuse my privacy. That's far more profitable.

It's unfortunate but too many services point to my gmail for me to be able to switch.

<comment><USER7> Let's define what "read" means in this context. A computer program, most likely a C++ binary, takes the string of your emails, splits on U+0020 and sends the resulting array through a series of algorithms like Levenshtein distance to match to its database of ads.

<comment><USER8> Text mining has come a long way since 1985, so I don't think that's how it's done (in fact I know it's not done that way), but I guess what you mean is that no human ever looks at the data. That's possible, but not reassuring.

Many of the shady purposes this data could be misused for don't require a human to ever read it. Say, one day, that C++ binary computes a score that indicates how reliable, credit worthy, dangerous, healthy, honest or skilled you are.

Say another C++ binary makes a decision that influences your life based on such a score. A decision on health insurance, banking, job applications, security matters, etc. Is that better, just because no human ever looked at the data and giggled because you searched for some embarrassing disease?

<comment><USER9> But what business sense does it make for Google to sell the data directly? You can only sell data once; targeted advertising can be sold over and over again.

<comment><USER8> It could make business sense for someone like Google or LinkedIn or Facebook to provide a service to employers to score job applicants in terms of loyalty, skill, reliability, security risk or whatever. It could make business sense for Google to provide credit risk scoring to banks or lifestyle/health related scoring to health insurance companies. They would not have sell our personal data to do that. They would just compute scores.

Granted it would not make business sense for Google to do that right now. But the future might look very differently. What about a desperate future Google that has been deprived of ad income by regulation happy governments or threatened by anti-trust legislation? What about a Google disrupted and superseded by some other new and cool company, lead by someone put in place by activist investors to monetize its assets?

Things change, but our ability to react to such changes is very limited when it comes to taking back information that has been put out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think this is a sign of Microsoft's desperation to stay relevant.

Most of the Surface reviews have spoken poorly about the device. Windows RT hasn't been well received. They've tried to revamp their entire image -- with new hardware, software, and extensive marketing -- with limited success. "Look at how cool our product is" hasn't worked for them, so they're resorting to "look at how terrible their product is." You can tell they've been trying incredibly hard to stay fresh, but nothing has really taken off for them. I've yet to see a Surface in the wild.

<comment><USER11> "Most of the Surface reviews have spoken poorly about the device."

What reviews have you been reading?

Edit: Regarding the actual topic, this is just "normal" PR it's a way to scare people into swapping from gmail to outlook.com unfortunately it works better than many might think. Microsoft aren't the only ones doing PR like this it's a lot more common than you might think.

I think PR like this _can_ be good for two reasons: raise awareness of the issue that Google scans your e-mails and make people aware that there are other worthy alternatives to gmail.

I noticed that in one of the "cases" listed on the page by Microsoft one e-mail is about a credit card debt where someone might have overused their credit limit and might be in trouble. The ads that pop up from this is such ads giving advice on how to get new loans to cover the credit card debt which is really not a nice way of helping someone that is already in trouble.

I think that Microsoft could (and maybe should) have less aggressive PR about competitors and just focus on the good parts about outlook.com.

Anyways, I'm probably biased because I love Microsoft and whatever they do and I own all their awesome devices.

<comment><USER12> All of the original Surface reviews were negative. The Surface Pro reviews seem to be mostly positive.

<comment><USER11> "All of the original Surface reviews were negative"

No they're not? Then you haven't read ALL of them, mine weren't negative and most of the ones I read weren't negative either.

I don't think you want to remember the positive ones, but there are a lot of them.

<comment><USER13> Even if the reviews are positive, I've spoken to _many_ people about the Surface (techies and not) and very few spoke well of Windows 8/Surface.

<comment><USER11> I have both iPad and Surface and I've had the iPad for years. I've asked my girlfriend if she wants an iPad and she told me that she didn't because she didn't really find a use case for it.

When I brought home the Surface she said: "Wow, this I can use . Get me one!".

I don't really know why but she likes it and everyone that I've show Surface to and that have tried it out do infact like it, a lot.

<comment><USER14> That's some pretty anecdotal evidence. Just as anecdotally, I have heard to the contrary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's unfortunate that the marketing folks at Microsoft are looking to take this stance to unbelievable levels. I would rather see relevant ads than irrelevant ads.

I used to work at Microsoft. I heard second hand that some exec (I believe they said it was Ballmer) in the last couple of years made the decision that Microsoft would make privacy a competitive differentiator. This sounds great on the surface, but it has lead to seriously unfortunate behavior.

For example, I worked on one of the first server manageability products that was completely hosted on the web. I was really excited to apply what I was learning from HN and the Lean Startup movement to a real online product and not boxed software. Then reality sunk in when we wanted to implement some very common features like A/B testing, surveys, email open rate tracking, exposure control, et al. Our legal and privacy teams were highly reluctant to allow us to do these because it could violate Microsoft's stance on privacy.

Some of the most memorable arguments were:

* "A/B testing and exposure control are not acceptable for our paying customers. Every customer must see the exact same version of the software at the same time." [Would you rather have a bad feature affect 100% of customers or 1% of customers?]

* "Google is getting a lot of bad press for all of the data Chrome sends to Google so we should minimize the amount of data captured and stored from this product." [I heard this in an official privacy training the same day that Chrome overtook IE in market share. Also, my product was specifically meant to capture lots of data about servers and analyze it for potential problems.]

* "We understand that these practices may be common place at [name any internet company here, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Bingo Card Creator], but we are not them. You must find a precedent that is set inside Microsoft before we can proceed."

I hope that Microsoft does succeed in making privacy a competitive differentiator, but I feel they lack tact and common sense in many cases.

<comment><USER16> _I hope that Microsoft does succeed in making privacy a competitive differentiator, but I feel they lack tact and common sense in many cases.._

There is no love lost between them, and IMO Microsoft will get some traction because Google is desperate to increase revenue and keep their PE at over 20.

Their shopping is 100% ads and probably 90% of most transactional query pages are ads. Search for a commercial item and you are greeted by so many that "unbiased" search is drowned out. Google has ruined their product in search of short term profit thanks to Larry Page.

<comment><USER17> A sincere curiosity:

why do you think it would be in google's interest to bias search result ?

What kind of bias you expect exactly ? Showing paying customers first in search results? Or not showing results if there are similar ads to be displayed?

<comment><USER16> _why do you think it would be in google's interest to bias search result ?_

Ask a Googler or Larry Page, why did they do that?

 _Showing paying customers first in search results? Or not showing results if there are similar ads to be displayed?_

It's a lot more than showing a few ads next to search, it's almost all ads. Frankly even the "unbiased results" are mostly from advertisers. I do not trust them at all, their revenue keeps increasing with each change

<comment><USER17> > Frankly even the "unbiased results" are mostly from advertisers

What do you mean? I wonder if we are talking about the same search engine. For which queries? Can you please provide some data and examples and be constructive.

Of course if you search for "buy an ipad" I expected you to get web pages of people selling that thing, some of them will be ads, interesting...

Just to compare I searched for "insects in pleistocene", and guess what, no ads, zero, no sites from "advertisers" too. Ah, well there is an entry from google books, in 5th position, crap, I certainly didn't want to know that somebody wrote a book about that...

Btw, getting search results containing sites of people selling stuff (I guess that's what you mean by "advertisers in the unbiased results) is a proof that the search is unbiased.

Any kind of open and free search engine will give business the possibility to write sites that contain keywords that will eventually get to the search results and piss you off because "the internet is filled with crappy advertisement".

What are you criticizing ? The current search engine monopolist or "the capitalistic system" ?

\--

This article is about a borderline situation where the process of automatic scanning of your personal conversations is used to achieve a goal where you are the party that benefits the less.

Compare this with antspam scanning, which also has to analyze text of all your email, including all the training that you put in the system by actually reporting spam, or removing it from the spam folder.

You are grateful that somebody is filtering your spam. Of course the company offering the service also benefits from you, since it receives more conversions if it has an useful service which people love. But all in all, you have the feeling that it's you who benefit the most out of the deal, so have a machine parsing your email for that purpose doesn't bother you.

<comment><USER16> _Just to compare I searched for "insects in pleistocene", and guess what, no ads, zero, no sites from "advertisers" too. Ah, well there is an entry from google books, in 5th position, crap, I certainly didn't want to know that somebody wrote a book about that..._

Wow you got me, you are so smart. Google has no ads for those words so they put no ads. Proof that they are fair and unbiased.

Google makes most of their money in finance, insurance, e-commerce, hotels and the likes. Try a keyword and see

<comment><USER17> You are taking for granted that when you don't search for something you don't get ads. But that's something that's very specific about standard that was set by google with its non intrusive ads.

Most of the other commercial sites, including search engines, were filled with blinking banners trying to sell you anything, even if you just searched for boring entomology.

(The same pattern is repeating with ads in mobile aps btw)

Watching TV you are bombarded with ads you don't care about, consuming your time and infiltrating into your mind. How can this possibly compare with "80% OFF Hotels" message appearing when you are indeed searching for hotels. How can this fuck your brain? Most of anti-ad ideology comes from that aspect of ads, which cannot be applied blindly in this context.

I rarely notice search engine ads, unless what I'm looking is really something I'm expecting somebody to advertise and I'm actually searching for that thing! (you named hotels....) Why not?

Now please tell me what exactly is broken with this way of advertising. What damage does it cause? I'm all ears but please articulate your concerns and give examples.

What I want is that access to information is unbiased. I want that people around the world, no matter what is their income can know about stuff, have access to scientific education, and stuff like that, and this is basically how things are. Yes it works.

I've met a guy from remote african viallages, who self learned to be great developers (I mean great, not good). The knowledge wasn't blocked. There were no companies able to pay google to show only forums behind paywalls (like experts-exchange) basically cutting off people which not only don't have money but have no practical way to obtain credit card. And I'm sure that many companies would love to be able to do that! It would be great for them; just provide a site which offers some paywalled content and pay the search company to provide only links to them whenever this keywords come (and prune the normal results). Now, that would be search bias! I never saw anything like this with google or bing. Please point me to an example and I'll change my mind.

> Google makes most of their money in finance, insurance, e-commerce, hotels > and the likes. Try a keyword and see

What do you think would end up in the search results when you search for hotels?

You will find the same old crap of booking aggregators and resellers and cheap offers whatever. That's because the content is what it is. Companies would do nasty tricks to end up higher in that free-open search engine, exploiting fake content (I mean, there is already plenty of that stuff already, so I guess you know what I mean).

Is that what bothers you? Or the list of ads in the rights side? Are we talking about the same thing? Search bias = bias in the search result, not the ads side bar, right?

<comment><USER16> _standard that was set by google with its non intrusive ads._

The content is non-intrusive, ads are everywhere.

 _You will find the same old crap of booking aggregators and resellers and cheap offers whatever. That's because the content is what it is. Companies would do nasty tricks to end up higher in that free-open search engine, exploiting fake content (I mean, there is already plenty of that stuff already, so I guess you know what I mean).._

Google is supposed to be neutral, not force sites to advertise for traffic. In case you didn't know, aggregators like Expedia often have the lowest price. Not the 745223587 ads you see per page, and especially not Google travel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Aggressive, negative advertising is the violence of the marketing world, and as Asimov said "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

I don't have any problem with aggressive advertising if it's done well, creatively, thoughtfully, intelligently. This is none of those things. Creativity usually precludes aggressive negativity (not always, but usually).

I find the expectation that anyone would 'sign' such a ham fisted attempt at a populist petition, one clearly designed by a creativity starved agency to be offensive to all sentient beings online.

</comment><comment><USER19> I kinda liked old content at scroogled.com (now available at <http://www.scroogled.com/Shopping/> \-- see archive at [http://web.archive.org/web/20121201162336/http://www.scroogl...](http://web.archive.org/web/20121201162336/http://www.scroogled.com/) ) because it told me something I didn't know, that the Froogle service had become a set of paid product listings.

(I didn't know they were paid listings.)

This new message I don't find interesting because it tells me something I already know (Google reads all my Gmail mail).

</comment><comment><USER20> Microsoft has trotted their old friend "Get The Facts" out again! Back in the 2000s, they ran a very long anti-Linux campaign under the "Get The Facts" banner. Under this program they paid for many dubious "Total Cost of Ownership" studies, all of which found that Microsoft products were cheaper than those based on Linux.

It was a PR disaster for Microsoft as far as the geek community was concerned and they eventually pulled the plug. I can't believe anybody in Redmond actually gave the green light to bring this slogan back. This type of aggression just makes MS look like smug pricks.

<comment><USER21> This is probably going to be a bit more effective, email is bit less "geek" centric and far more mainstream. This type of PR/Shit talk looks more like a political campaign, so I imagine it will be very effective in the consumer market.

<comment><USER22> I think most people don't give a flying frak about Google "reading" their emails.

The only people it could be effective again are the ones spending time on HN, /., etc. who value their privacy.

Heck, I'm using Google and Google Docs for nearly everything and I don't give a crap about their tiny text ads related to what I write in my emails.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why should Google be exempt from criticism? I think its good that a big company like Microsoft is making this kind of privacy an issue.

<comment><USER24> What issue, though? That your email is scanned by an algorithm to determine relevancy for ads? Guess what, your email is scanned by an algorithm on outlook.com too, to determine whether it's spam. It's exactly the same thing.

<comment><USER25> No it's not. Because I WANT spam protection... I don't want ads.

Just like it's fine for an electrician to enter my house to fix a power point. It is NOT okay for anyone to enter my house in order to sell me random things.

<comment><USER24> If you don't want it, don't use Gmail. It's not fine to call an electrician to your house to fix the power point in return for you letting them sell you random things, and then say "no, I don't want the things, I just want the fix!"

It's not a breach of your privacy any more than spam filters reading your email is.

<comment><USER25> > If you don't want it, don't use Gmail.

I'm pretty sure that is exactly the point Microsoft are making with this campaign.

They are using the fact you can't opt out of a "feature" as an excuse to opt out of a "product".

They are leveraging peoples perception of 'Privacy' to do that.

Really do you think buying an Audi will mean you can kiss the girl at Prom? Or by wearing Calvin Klein you'll look amazing from every angle? ... No, Ads lie all the time... Chrome isn't technically "Faster" but they still run ads that say as much...

<comment><USER24> You are conflating two different issues, "I don't like seeing ads" and "algorithms reading my mail is a privacy breach". If you don't like seeing ads, I think even Gmail themselves would tell you not to use Gmail. But _it's not a breach of privacy_!

Or are you trolling?

<comment><USER25> I'm not conflating anything, I'm pointing our privacy was just a vehicle that was being used to deliver a message, and that message is valid:

"If you don't want gmail splashing ads all over your messages, switch to outlook."

No need to be a jerk about it and accuse me of trolling.

<comment><USER24> > I'm pointing our privacy was just a vehicle that was being used to deliver a > message, and that message is valid

The vehicle is not, though. There is no issue of privacy. They might as well have said "Gmail kills babies, switch to outlook", it's exactly as true (which is, to say, not at all).

<comment><USER26> You have been profiled, and the profile works over time and across content. That data exists, and is sold to advertisers. The profile is about you, including private discourse between, say, you and family, and numerous research papers have shown it ties to exactly you even if it's supposedly anonymous. This is absolutely a privacy "issue" even if it's not clear to you personally how this might be a privacy breach.

That's far different than spam, where the messages are profiled, not the people exchanging them.

<comment><USER24> There are two different ways ads can be displayed. Either the message is scanned for a topic and ads are displayed to you based on it, or they build a profile about you, like you described. You can opt out of that:

<https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/preferences/?hl=en>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So when DDG does it, it's awesome and ballsy.

But when Microsoft does it, it's pathetic and scammy?

<comment><USER28> Who said this is pathetic or scammy?

EDIT: And if someone did say that, who says they're the same people who were in praise of DuckDuckGo?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I find it hilarious that I emotionally support Google enough that my immediate reaction is "HEY ITS NOT SO BAD" when I see this page; and then roll my eyes at the petition. At the same time I don't use facebook for privacy issues and the thing I am always going to do tomorrow is set up my own mail server. Brains are funny like that.

<comment><USER30> Is it only an emotional reaction, though?

When an algorithm sifts through my e-mail the result is that I see a more targeted ad.

When I mess up and inappropriately share something on Facebook it is obvious to lots of people in my life. (And, of course, Facebook tends to vomit up some sort of privacy outrage every five months, so there is always the nagging worry that something one did share in a reasonable way is now being seen in a way one didn't intend under the old "rules of the road".

While some people may care about privacy as an abstract first principle, I imagine many people are more concerned about the consequences of other people knowing something about them.

<comment><USER29> Point taken, it's not _only_ an emotional reaction; I get that context based ads aren't the same as someone reading my email. I was really just making light of what is an obvious contradiction in my values. We would be naive to think that _all_ google is doing is spam filtering and context-based ads. They are also giving up personal info thousands of times a year at government request, etc.

The main thing is not _owning_ my own data. Google owns my data and I am powerless, more or less, against them. When other companies own data I get all indignant about it; but rationalize it when it's Google.

<comment><USER31> If you have an account you can delete everything (including your email), remove data from specific Google services, or adjust some of their ad targeting assumptions. I cannot remember how to get to the ad targeting settings, but you can find it if you need it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Microsoft has lost it. If "scanning email" is their only concern, they're doing it too, for the purpose of "prioritizing my privacy" or whatever. I don't get it why people make a big deal out of all this. As long as private emails are not being read by real people, I doubt most people (who know what "scanning email" is) care.

<comment><USER33> There's a difference. Microsoft is doing malware scanning, which does mean they access message content, but not in a way that is meaningful to privacy.

Google is scanning and indexing your material. They are using that index to build a dossier on you, and they are measuring the accuracy of that dossier by evaluating your responses to ads and content fed to you.

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure about that. I think that serving relevant ads for emails doesn't need to associate the person with the email with the ad. Or does it? I guess when you open an email, they just extract the keywords out of it, and then run a search against their ads index to serve relevant ads. If that's the case, I don't think extracting keywords from email is different from scanning it against malware.

Besides, building an index is just necessary for providing email search. I'm sure outlook mail does that too, if their search is any good. I haven't used it, so I don't know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> What I dont get is, how is a software scanning my email creepy? As it everyone scans every bloody email to seek out spam. Spam filters already use "known" spam styles to check for potential spam messages.

In this case they are scanning to show you ads. Pardon me if I am missing something, but I really don't understand wtf is wrong with people calling this creepy.

<comment><USER35> Well believe it or not but some people don't like the idea of targeted ads, which is the result of Google's scanning. Small anecdote, when my 66 year old father found out that a grocery store chain was sending him "personal deals" based on what he had bought using their card he immediately went home and cut it. He thought (and thinks) that no one should be keeping tabs on his buying patterns for commercial purposes, even though he might stand to gain from it. I was kind of suprised by his harsch reaction at first but later I was actually kind of proud of the fact that he cared so much about his personal privacy and integrity. This might seem shocking to the "web generation" but I think it can be a quite healthy and refreshing mindset sometimes.

On a personal note I have taken an interest in Xamarin's stuff lately and since Google is the all-seeing-eye of the web that means I now see Xamarin ads wherever I go (those not caught by adblock that is). Maybe I should care more as well, the more I think of it the less ok it feels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't get why context relevant ads are bad. If I am going to see ads, I would rather they be ads that might be useful.

As long as they aren't releasing my mail for all to see, and it's an automated thing... so what.

<comment><USER37> Exactly.

I think a lot of people on here somehow got the idea that Google is transmitting your personal information to the advertisers/clients, which is obviously nonsense.

All this does is build a rough profile of your interests and then shows you adverts relevant to those interests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's just an attack full of misleading information for those who are less informed, spam filters also "read" your messages. I don't see why a computer reading your messages to produce targeted advertisements is bad anyway, it's an automated process the same as spam filtering.

Does outlook.com still put adverts at the end of your emails like hotmail.com used to?

</comment><comment><USER39> Can you imagine how funny an anti-Microsoft ad campaign along the same lines would be? Microsoft is trying to start a gunfight and it's armed with a nerf axe.

As a cynical admirer of Google I don't care for the way advertising drives everything it does, but I cannot remember the last time I noticed an ad in gmail (Twitter, for example, manages to be far worse while still appearing not to have a business model.)

Meanwhile, Microsoft, the original f. you, f. everybody, software company is shipping an OS with advertising and junkware baked into it. Who else is doing that?

Are you sure this is where you want to go today Microsoft? Yes. No. Abort. Retry. Cancel. OK.

<comment><USER40> _Meanwhile, Microsoft, the original f. you, f. everybody aoftware company is shipping an OS with advertising and junkware baked into it. Who else is doing that?_

Canonical.

<comment><USER39> Haha. Well luckily they're not running these ads.

I note in another post in this thread that it appears MS is doing exactly what gmail does AS WELL so as usual MS wins the chutzpah award on top of everything else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> So I take it Microsoft is also going to disable their spam filters?

</comment><comment><USER42> Yes, because Microsoft never does anything like this:

[http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on- skydriveyou-m...](http://wmpoweruser.com/watch-what-you-store-on-skydriveyou- may-lose-your-microsoft-life/)

</comment><comment><USER43> Was this really by Microsoft? It looks unprofessional and scammy, like if someone wanted to make Microsoft look.bad.

Granted, from past MS behavior it would not be a surprise if this was really their work...

<comment><USER44> This is definitely by Microsoft. The site uses the following nameservers, which are under Microsoft control and cannot be forged.

        ns3.msft.net

        ns4.msft.net

        ns1.msft.net

        ns2.msft.net

        ns5.msft.net

Pathetic stuff.

<comment><USER25> But google DO go through every message to sell ads. How is this pathetic? Some people don't like the fact that their emails are used in that way, so focusing on that is just marketing.

No different to google running ads for chrome saying "it's faster"... it IS, and some people care about that.

<comment><USER43> Saying that chrome is "faster" is one thing.

Saying that IE is "slower" is another.

Likewise Microsoft could have made a ad that showed how they protect your privacy, instead of pointing how their biggest competitor don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This site suffers many ailments, but I think the biggest problem is that the examples are not very compelling. They all amount to Google's contextual ad algorithm not being perfect and getting the context a bit wrong. The (supposedly devastating) effect of that is that if you bother to read the ads, the ad won't be relevant like it's supposed to be.

It feels like this initiative came top-down at Microsoft, probably starting with Ballmer's quote about "Google reading your email." I wonder whether Ballmer has even used email. It feels as though they're fighting an imagined problem that doesn't end up being much of an issue in practice.

<comment><USER45> That was meant to read "I wonder whether Ballmer has even used Gmail". (of course he's used email!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This is just pathetic, first the whole Android virus thing, now it's the email. What the actual f*ck?

I'm not a pro product guy, I always choose the right tool for the job, but this stuff enrages me and makes me look at MS as scumbags.

</comment><comment><USER47> Will be pretty interesting. Feels like this is going to massively blow up in their face. Never been a fan of attack adds especially if you can improve your own product instead of making the other one look bad. Just a bad mindset to try to blame the other guy.

The irony of Microsoft using privacy/security to attack another company is not lost on me.

Guess what, those mails can be read if your OS gets exlpoited over and over and there's a backdoor on most joe shmoe home computers anyways :P

That being said the campaign obviously has a point. <insert rant on educating the masses about encryption>

<comment><USER48> > _Never been a fan of attack adds especially if you can improve your own > product instead of making the other one look bad. Just a bad mindset to try > to blame the other guy._

It's not a one-man product that had to decide whether to focus on improving or attack ads - product people will work on improving it regardless of whether the marketing people decide on positive or attack adverts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> This is surprising -- I know! -- but competing companies sometimes advertise against each other. Microsoft have been doing this for quite a while (see Gmail man [1]) and they seem to think that the privacy aspect is enough of a weakness in the Google armor that it's an effective campaign. So far I don't think Microsoft have had as many problems on the privacy front as Google or Facebook so this is probably not a rash decision on their part.

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXqrTfOWx60>

<comment><USER50> I don't think it is that unsurprising either, nor do I have a problem with this kind of advertising. My only gripe would be that I believe you can opt- out of targeted gmail ads now so it would appear this is either out of date or inaccurate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> In which a pot describes a few defining characteristics of a kettle.

</comment><comment><USER52> This is definitely not the best way to base a marketing campaign on privacy issues.

That said consumer products are traditionally ad supported, and regular consumer appear to tolerate it, mostly.

Internet advertising is quite unlike TV or print advertising though, and consumers are definitely not sufficiently informed of how much they're being tracked, particularly by products of companies like Google and Facebook, that live on advertising in one way or another.

Google Web Analytics (reportedly used on half of the websites on the net) and the "like", "tweet" and "+1" buttons are arguably much more likely to track your interests than GMail, even if you have never signed up for a single Google, Twitter or Facebook service. My guess is the creatives who build the campaign either had no idea or didn't know how to communicate it in a personified way, which has more emotional impact.

So Microsoft's campaign sucks, and I have a fundamental anti-Microsoft bias that stems from their despicable business conduct in the 80s and 90s, but Google isn't any better these days, Schmidt's comments on the "creepy line" make me shudder. Perhaps it can be a good starting point for discussing privacy issues.

Privacy shouldn't be a competitive advantage, it should be a sacred right of anybody who has children or financial/health/private issues.

</comment><comment><USER53> If you don't own your own email server, then those emails are going to get stored and processed on a third-party's servers. If you don't encrypt your emails, then even your ISP can read them.

I don't like Google's potential for evil. They got a little creepy lately. However, look who's talking ... if Microsoft wants me to ever believe something they say, then they must provide me with a contract, in writing, with terms that can't be changed whenever they feel like it.

</comment><comment><USER54> What the fuck is wrong with them? They keep doing this shit.

</comment><comment><USER55> Registrant: Domain Administrator Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond WA 98052 US +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329

        Domain Name: scroogled.com

            Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
            Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
            Registrar Homepage: http://www.markmonitor.com

        Administrative Contact:
            Domain Administrator
            Microsoft Corporation
            One Microsoft Way
             Redmond WA 98052
            US
             +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329
        Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
            MSN Hostmaster
            Microsoft Corporation
            One Microsoft Way
             Redmond WA 98052
            US
             +1.4258828080 Fax: +1.4259367329

        Created on..............: 2011-12-27.
        Expires on..............: 2014-12-27.
        Record last updated on..: 2012-11-27.

        Domain servers in listed order:

        ns1.msft.net
        ns4.msft.net
        ns3.msft.net
        ns2.msft.net
        ns5.msft.net

its Microsoft for sure...really Microsoft directly attacking Google..would be interesting to see Google's response..i dont think they will sit calm now.

<comment><USER55> Google may not care about it. Microsoft surely not a competition for Google now. Had it been Apple we may have seen a reply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Because Microsoft aren't co-operating with LEAs on request for Skype data.

I'd rather Google give me ads than turn over private conversations to The Met.

</comment><comment><USER57> You know what? This is good for Google - Based on the idea that "Any publicity is good publicity". So, Microsoft is shelling out huge dollars to make Google popular.

As far as searches are concerned, based on my experience using the two extensively, I think for atleast another decade, I will find myself 'Googling' more than 'Binging'.

</comment><comment><USER58> It's interesting to see major players beginning to compete on the level of privacy they offer to their users. "Personal information" has become one of the currencies on the web by which we "pay" for free services. Microsoft now seems to try a "low-cost" strategy to gain market share.

</comment><comment><USER59> Although this particular campaign is new, this has been going on for a while:

[http://www.webpronews.com/is-bing-right-about-people- getting...](http://www.webpronews.com/is-bing-right-about-people-getting- scroogled-by-google-2012-11)

</comment><comment><USER60> Fun fact for Microsoft here: Outlook's servers also read your e-mail. How else do they store, retrieve and transmit it?

I don't see how automatic scanning in order to display advertisements is any different. All machinery, no human ever reads your mail.

</comment><comment><USER61> When you have to run attack ads to try to win in business - you've lost the game. Microsoft will be around for ages - but quite frankly they are irrelevant and are in the process of being commoditized.

</comment><comment><USER62> There is also the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (<http://www.i-comp.org/>), a fairly neutral sounding lobby group which (according to Wikipedia) is sponsored by Microsoft.

ICOMP bought an amusing half page ad in a national UK newspaper in the Autumn, quoting the owner of Hot Maps in saying that Google Maps essentially destroyed his promising business. Look at <http://hot-map.com/> and judge for yourself..

</comment><comment><USER63> I think you can opt out: [https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/preferences/?hl=en#o...](https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/ads/preferences/?hl=en#optout)

</comment><comment><USER64> This is the worst advertising method possible, rather than making a good product and focusing on its advantages towards competition, they prefer to paint them in bad light.

<comment><USER25> That is focusing on your advantage, the message ends with "Why outlook.com is better"

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I don't like it as an advertising strategy, and I don't particularly like Microsoft in general, but at least their aim is right: Google has absolutely zero respect for privacy.

Microsoft's attempt to push Google down the same hole they dug themselves with monopoly abuse however is as tasteless as it is unnecessary: Google's own infinite arrogance will ensure they'll keep digging until they face a public and regulatory backlash.

</comment><comment><USER66> Funny MS suggest they'll do this themselves: "We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising." from <http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/default.mspx>

</comment><comment><USER67> Yeah, it negative, but with a funny twist to it. The problem is that most people lack a sense of humor and might take it too seriously. Though its quite ironic that MS is playing the privacy card. Its not like Google is a perfect company. They are the _new_ MS. Even PG mentioned it in one of his essays.

</comment><comment> marco-fiset It's not like everyone at Google is reading my email. No privacy intrusion here IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER68> [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft- battl...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battles- google-by-hiring-political-brawler-mark-penn.html?_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER69> I'd love to see the followup where she discovers Google's algorithm is smarter than it looks, and actually her husband has a huge gambling problem and has completely blown their life savings.

</comment><comment><USER70> May I suggest the #craprasoft tag on twitter to try to start a trend countering this advertising? Really dislike it.

</comment><comment><USER71> Hah, Microsoft positioning itself as having the moral high ground.

This is amusing in so many different ways.

How the world has turned upside down.

</comment><comment><USER72> Well as a user of both, it's certainly factual. I have no problem with this.

For reference, I hate both companies equally!

<comment><USER73> Why do you hate them? I love them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> If your emails are in plaintext the email host can always read/scan your stuff.

If that bothers you, use PGP.

</comment><comment><USER75> if facebook has taught us anything then it's the fact that most people don't really care about privacy. you are wasting your advertising money again, microsoft!

</comment><comment><USER76> Whoever green-lit this at Microsoft should be fired.

</comment><comment><USER77> Winning the hearts and minds, I see.

</comment><comment><USER78> Negative marketing never works.

</comment><comment><USER79> I don't care. Microsoft sucks.

</comment><comment><USER80> Fucking disgusting.

</comment><comment><USER81> If anyone doubts that this is anything other than a cynical PR attack do consider the source:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft- battl...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/microsoft-battles- google-by-hiring-political-brawler-mark-penn.html)

[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-03/did-mark- pen...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-03/did-mark-penn- swiftboat-google)

And are we to conclude that Microsoft doesn't provide spam/scam protection as we are led to believe that they don't scan email contents?! when they use terminology that suggests human intervention they lose all credibility.

It's also pathetic how increasingly they mention Google in their PR/marketing campaigns, it's as if they believe it's the only way for them to remain relevant.

<comment><USER82> There's more:

[http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is- an...](http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an-epic-fail- for-microsoft)

<comment><USER83> Surely I didn't read that right, MS have a $50 million budget just for Google smear campaigns!?

One of the biggest things that makes my blood boil is when corporations invest large sums of money to force consumers to use their crappy products instead of spending that money on making less crappy products that consumers choose to buy.

<comment><USER84> It should make your blood boil that our government operates in such a way that companies see this as just another vector for competing against each other.

Dan Lyon's piece is pure sensationalism. Reality is likely more like: 1) there is a government affairs group inside MSFT with a $50m+ annual budget (not crazy given the DOJ impact on the company) 2) they hire a connected political machinists and give him marching orders to drum up concern over Google in DC (the same way Oracle, Novell, Netscape did against MSFT--[http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/homeworks/Microsoft_Case.p...](http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/homeworks/Microsoft_Case.pdf)). 3) Guy needs a network of folks to do his deeds—he runs around DC recruiting people telling him he has a massive budget because money seems to be the most effective way to persuade people in Washington ([http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/461/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office)).

Meanwhile, there's a guy with a Google laptop bag doing the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Warn your friends! On Facebook!</comment>


Pokemon Go: Building experiences from the ground up (literally) - <AUTHOR> https://nianticlabs.com/blog/building-experiences-from-the-ground-up <comment><USER2> Pokemon Go really did something new when it came out. I'm glad to see it's still relevant and pushing AR technology forward.</comment>


Netherlands may extend assisted dying to those who feel 'life is complete' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/13/netherlands-may-allow-assisted-dying-for-those-who-feel-life-is-complete <comment><USER2> This is truely horrifying...

Anyone who did not believe legalised euthanasia could lead to a bad place, here is the thin edge of the wedge already at work.

Next is the Alzheimer's patients to be murdered.. then what?</comment>


Facebook Announces "Home", A Homescreen Replacement For Standard Android - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/04/facebook-home-launch/

<comment><USER2> My initial thoughts (without having a ton of time to really absorb this yet) is that Apple's closed operating system may have just become a liability. The open 'intent' model of Android is really at the core of making something like this possible. In turn though does this also allow Facebook to take over "too many" aspects of Android and cut into Google's revenue streams as well? All things I'm still pondering.

As an aside... I am a big HTC fan. Nice to see them able to get on board at the ground level of some new projects.

<comment><USER3> You seem to assume this is something people want. This is just an app trying to take over the whole OS experience. Being closed system is a good thing in this case as I don't want facebook to change my OS experience. I like apps to behave like apps. In fact I would go as far as saying that this is one way Android could become sucky over time - Too many apps trying to push for a new experience.

<comment><USER4> A good percentage of my friends spend 90% of their phone/tablet time inside of the Facebook app too. They don't use RSS or Twitter or go to actual websites. They just follow people or sites that post stuff, and then read it from Facebook. I can't see why they wouldn't want the Facebook app even more prominently featured.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The giant gap between the beautiful photos of beautiful people doing enviable things in beautiful places used in demos such as these (and in Apple ones as well) and the mundane, poorly-focused, washed-out, ill-composed photos and meme reposts that are most likely to appear on your FB feed at any given moment always takes the shine off of products such as these for me, despite how much more useful or technologically advanced they may be from their predecessors. Being reminded my life is not going to be as exciting as the floor model is never a good user experience.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. How terrible will this be when you're not in the mood to socialize or when something discouraging happens in your social life? This has a good use case for 10% of smartphone users maybe 80% of the time.

I'm going to predict that this will turn people off of facebook more than it creates more engagement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Facebook is betting that people don't want to interact with apps but rather with their friends, which is a bet they have to make because, well they're Facebook. This also sounds very good and "human" but I don't know how true to reality it is.

Apps are a way to gauge and guide intent. So if I want to send an email, I open an email app. If I want to check my schedule, I open the calendar app. These are established and agreed upon concepts and apps are just representations of those concepts. With Home, Facebook is saying that every time you turn on your phone "you probably want to see what your friends are up to." This assumes that we're all super social and are genuinely interested in people in our Facebook-lives. I think many people use Facebook out of a sense of obligation to be part of that scene (kind of like LinkedIn). But there probably are a lot of people who instinctively hit that Facebook app as soon as they turn on their phone and for them this will be great. I don't think it will drive more usage from that first group, though (and I think that should be Facebook's primary goal).

<comment><USER8> I don't think the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

I've noticed with myself that no matter what I'm doing, and what apps I'm using on my desktop, Facebook is _always_ open in a tab.

Which is to say, my high-intent and highly-guided behavior on the computer sits on top of a constant baseline social presence.

Personally I'd be happy if Facebook Messenger was built into the phone such that I can respond to messages without breaking my flow in my current app. But I'm on iOS, so I'm really not holding my breath.

Putting social networking into the background IMO aligns it closer to how I actually use it. Facebook as a high-intent application doesn't seem to work _quite_ right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Setting aside the Launcher replacement, the most technically surprising aspect of this demo was the messaging app: it showed avatars and a messaging window hovering above the currently-focused app.

As far as I know, this isn't possible on stock Android. You can make a non- fullscreen window, but you can't continue to interact with the layer behind it.

This may be the motivation for the "set of OEM guidelines" Mark very casually mentioned. I wonder what other enhancements they call for..

<comment><USER10> Actually chat heads works on stock Android! Not sure the exact wizardry that went into implementing it, but it's very impressive to use.

<comment><USER11> probably like explained here:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8073803/android-multi- tou...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8073803/android-multi-touch-and- type-system-overlay)

but imho, given they already downgraded the behavior in 4.0, this is really looking like a security hole that might be closed in a next Android release.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Facebook is touting Facebook Home as a "visually rich stream of media," but all it's going to turn out to be is a feed of filtered food and memes.

<comment><USER13> If you don't like what your friends post to Facebook then you should reconsider if you want to be friends with them, or if you should begin using the tools FB already provides to control the content in your feed.

<comment><USER14> > If you don't like what your friends post to Facebook then you should > reconsider if you want to be friends with them

That seems like an over-reaction. My friends posting stupid memes on facebook has little bearing to my friendship to them.

<comment><USER13> Correct. See the second part of my post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I only want this if Zuck's smiling face is at the bottom center of my phone, all the time.

Still, does Facebook having more integration into every aspect of our digital experience really improve our quality of life? I feel like we are already well into an uncanny valley of Facebook saturation.

<comment><USER16> I guess you could change your facebook profile photo to be Mark's face.

To your question it comes down to whether or not you feel like Facebook improves our quality of life, and whether or not its effects are not already maximized. If you answer yes to both those questions, having Facebook more deeply integrated into your phone might help to maximize the benefits.

Also, if you spend 90% of your time on your phone on Facebook (I don't but I'm sure most geeks are not an accurate representation of the normal user) then you might prefer to have a deeply integrated Facebook phone with _access_ to other apps/services on top of that.

<comment><USER15> I just want an app that actually makes me the person I appear to be on Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm really sad about the still-all-too-walled-garden:

The ideas of active information at a glance is cool, but honestly, for it to be really useful for me, I don't want just FB, and definitely not just photos. I'd be happier with some Flipboard-style article previews, and I'd like some of that information to come from Twitter, Reddit/HN, or even ( _gasp_ ) Google+.

Similarly chatheads are pretty cool, but with my current set of frequent conversation-partners, it wouldn't be all that useful to me without letting google talk/babble into the mix. (though I appreciate they at least included SMS).

I am also _REAL_ concerned about all the content visible on the lock screen: if you misplace your phone, suddenly all your friends' "friends only" posts are "friends + that guy who found/stole my friend's phone".

... and overall I'm just fundamentally torn. On the one hand the whole idea just screams "Digiphrenia". Their own advertisement supported this better than I could articulate. On the other hand, I still fundamentally am excited about the base idea of keeping people actively connected and am pretty onboard for the people-first focus.

<comment><USER4> Flipboard is certainly welcome to develop that. I'm not sure why Facebook would do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I do think replacing the launcher was a smart idea, but I'm just not sure if that kind of integration is useful in FB's case. Maybe I'm a minority, but I just don't route my life through FB and do not want to, at all. This only seems useful to people who exclusively use their phone for FB. Why would I want a layer of FB between me and the home screen where all my other apps live?

The UI did look pretty slick, though at times it seemed like some elements were quite tiny for touch targets.

Overall: I really loathe the term "chathead"

<comment><USER19> Depends on what sort of permissions FB asks for on install.

My suspicion is that they'll want everything they can get their hands on (location at a minimum). Eventually, they're going to want to replace your phonebook, etc.

The sad thing is, people will just let them.

<comment><USER9> > Depends on what sort of permissions FB asks for on install.

That's the nice thing about being pre-installed on Android: there's no asking for permission.

(And you get access to SIGNATURE_OR_SYSTEM permissions, too.)

<comment><USER19> Do I trust Google with that information? I used to and now it's probably too late.

Do I trust FB with that information? Oh, hells no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Homescreens definitely can improve on phones. A huge multipage listing of Apps I have seems very inefficient. And while I'm nervous with this being from FB, I hope we see more unique home screens popping up.

<comment><USER21> I think Facebook is moving in the right direction on this, but I do agree that it is concerning that Facebook could become the jump off point for users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Facebook Home IMO might as well have been targeted towards the teen crowd. They would eat this up. The most used apps on their devices usually are Facebook, Messaging, Twitter, Instagram, Browser.

</comment><comment><USER23> There are some interesting parallels to the Windows Phone UI here. As I understand it (and I don't own a Windows Phone), Microsoft's intent was to provide a UX that is more social and tied to user tasks rather than apps. Facebook Home looks like they use a similar underlying concept, with a stronger focus on social interactions rather than user tasks. Apps are still there, but are not the main focus.

I rarely use the Facebook app on my phone, so I'm not their target audience. However, I've seen a fair number of teens and young adults absorbed in the Facebook app on their Android phones (yup, Android, more than iPhones, because they're cheaper). So it will really be interesting to see if that audience takes to Facebook Home too.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think that this is a _smart_ move by Facebook building a layer over Android. At least at this stage anyway because, they've now positioned themselves in a great position because they've made it harder for Google to go back on the openness of Android which has allowed them to build Facebook Home in the first place. Likewise, if carriers and users devote a lot of time to the application then, Facebook have bought themselves time to eventually fork Android and create a new revenue stream like, Amazon have done with the Kindle.

</comment><comment><USER25> "Phones are communication devices and we spend all day message, in today's appcentric world, messaging is treated like another app."

Seems like I'm not the target audience. I've had some form of cell phone for 12 years now, and I always needed the cheapest possible account/prepaid thing, because I don't call/SMS enough. If they gave 1000 SMSes, I guess I had like 990 left at the end of the month.

Until now that is. Now suddenly there is a resource in the cell phone accounts I need lots of: data. Not to message and stuff, but to browse the internet. My most common form of communication on it is on forums and email replies I guess.

So phones got useful for people who don't communicate much over a phone? :)

<comment><USER4> For perspective, the target audience often will not even know a person's email address.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why?

EDIT: seriously, why? Were people really clamoring for _more_ Facebook in their lives?

<comment><USER27> I wouldn't mind Facebook messaging being more tightly integrated with my text messaging interface. My android phone lets me put text messages as a widget on my lock screen, for example -- but I can't do that with FB messages, which is something I use a lot more than SMS. Nearly everything else about Facebook I could care less about, but FB messaging is something that my wife and I use a LOT.

<comment><USER28> You can use their messenger app for SMS as well. Might solve your issue, but I'd imagine that there is some drawbacks. I have not tested it myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Interesting. So it is not an OS or UI layer baked into the OS, it is an app with deep integration. In theory you can do it on any Android phone. Starting out with only 5 phones though, so it requires probably a lot of testing and high end specs. They do a lot of things on Android now that you cant on iOS (background processing, replacing Lock and Home screen) that will make Android look better. A lot of interaction that is brand new, and will take time to get to like. In my view, it does turn your phone into a Facebook phone and that might be too much FB for some

</comment><comment><USER9> Those surprised that Facebook didn't "fork" Android are missing the point: A fork of Android from FB will not probably look like a new OS, but rather a new distribution channel (Play store).

Play is the biggest leverage Google has against OEMs, and FB has to consider that Google could drop any of these apps at a moment's notice (make up a reason).

Here, FB now has a pliant OEM (HTC) and the beginnings of an OEM integration program (it was mentioned in the talk).

How hard would it be for FB to build an app store, as a contingency if nothing else?

</comment><comment><USER30> Considering the craptastic experience the regular FB app is on Android (seriously, visiting FB in the _browser_ is a better experience), I feel a definite "meh" about this news.

</comment><comment><USER31> It will track all your data now, this app come installed from OEM's like HTC which would be hard to uninstall and would track all over information all the time. #privacyconcern

<comment><USER32> The promise with Ice-cream Sandwich was that you can disable any pre-installed app regardless of the skin. They would still take up storage space but for all intents and purposes, they don't exist. From an OEM's point of view, is there a way to circumvent this and still have access to Google Play Store?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I see some people in the comments mentioning, "This is like the native capabilities of a Windows Phone". Without using it I don't know for sure, but I can see that take.

</comment><comment><USER34> Facebook has always wanted to collect as much personal information from its users as possible. This is a brilliant move to get this data the easiest way possible - they didn't even need create their own phone or even their own OS. Android users - especially teens - will eat this up and FB will instantly be able to gather all the info they want without the target demographic even thinking about the privacy implications.

</comment><comment><USER35> Facebook has done a great job in recent years developing ways for individuals to absorb more content created by their friends. However, they don't seem to be doing much to encourage people to share or post engaging content....as a data point of one, I find myself sharing things on Facebook significantly less often than I did last year at this time.

</comment><comment><USER36> Seems like a first step towards a pure-play FB OS, no? Built on Android? Those of you with a significantly greater technical understanding than me (aka, everyone here) may have a better take of what's possible.

</comment><comment><USER37> Great, now Facebook can serve ads straight to my phone home screen too.

</comment><comment><USER38> Facebook's Segway moment?

</comment><comment><USER39> Wow, they built this when their Facebook app on android still consumes an ungodly amount of system resources?

I have no faith in this from a technical perspective.

<comment><USER40> I have to agree. This whole thing puzzles me. The Android FB app is terrible. Absolutely terrible. Some basic functions don't work. Like when someone tags me in a photo and a notification pops up, I click the notification and their app crashes. It can't display a friggin picture from a website. FB is just a website, how can they not get their own app to work with their own website?

Seriously if you cant make an app in Android that works, how are you going to roll your own version of the OS?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Looks interesting, but I don't really see it taking off. I just can't picture normal people thinking "wow, this is just what I needed, I'm so downloading this!"

</comment><comment><USER42> Is there any word on if facebook will be including advertisements in this at all? It looks very sleek, but having ads come up would be a huge deterant.

</comment><comment><USER22> The UI while being pretty and having cool animations is actually faulty. Touch targets aren't large enough (comment, like, etc as seen from the demo)

<comment><USER43> I agree with this, even though I have to admit I kind of like the way they designed and integrated interactions with FB functions (double taps, swipes, ecc) in a launcher.

Overall I think what they are doing here is a really smart choice both with creating something that could turn every android phone in a "FB phone", and with FB certified devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Before we all "lose our minds" keep in mind, FB is a slow player. There will be something, an extension of this that im sure will be simply awesome.

<comment><USER45> Are they a slow player? I can't think of many examples of them doing something that seemed like they were playing the long game (this is no doubt in part due to the fact that they're relatively young as a company).

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> At $99, that's a great offer. I wonder if you can install ICS instead of FB Home.

<comment><USER32> I would take the unlocked $349 Nexus 4[1] over a $99 device with a two-year contract.

[1]: [https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=nexus_4_16g...](https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=nexus_4_16gb)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> is anyone else getting a 404 not found when you click on "PRE-ORDER THE HTC FIRST" at <http://facebook.com/home>

</comment><comment><USER48> So does Google like this or hate this?

<comment><USER49> Hates it with the fire of a thousand suns. All those ad impressions, all skipping right over the Google-supplied (and now invisible) OS...

Now spending every moment they have with their device basically entirely in Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Some serious lack of imagination on Facebook's part.

They didn't go the hardware route since it is a lot of work.

They didn't go the route of forking Android, since then they would have to partner with hardware manufacturers and that is a lot of work

So what do they build instead? A deeply intrusive fork of their App that is not even going to be available on all Androids!

<comment><USER51> I don't have a great understanding of Android, but what would make them choose to limit the app's current phone options to a handful?

<comment><USER52> There is a big gap between the phones on Gingerbread (Android API level 10) and post Ice Cream Sandwich (Android API level 15). Supporting older versions requires a lot of support libraries which themselves have some bugs. I kind of have a feeling that pre-ICS level phones is going to be in someways be like supporting IE6 down the road, so Facebook is just avoiding that.

It's also definitely not a 'handful' of phones. As of right now 55% of users are on the post-ICS versions. (<http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html>). The ecosystem has somewhat consolidated post ICS as well. There are now fewer phones each with more users which makes testing easier.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find iPhone UI Templates for purchase? - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys,
I am not a designer. Is there anywhere I can purchase iPhone UI templates like themeforest have for websites? I understand styling in iPhone does not use CSS but I figured a standard background color or toolbar color or UIbutton color that can be integrated into your code as images.
UITableView can be customized using UITableViewCell and the background can be images.
I did a quick google search and nothing prominent stands out.
What design template do iPhone developers use? <comment><USER2> There really aren't that many good resources out there. That being said, here's some of the better ones to get you started:

<http://365psd.com/day/234/>

<http://365psd.com/day/2-16/>

<http://365psd.com/day/64/>

<http://365psd.com/day/308/>

<http://365psd.com/day/249/>

<http://365psd.com/day/iphone-music-player/>

<http://365psd.com/day/91/>

<http://365psd.com/day/70/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks dwynings! Amazing! Very nice PSDs. I am trying out Photoshop 30days and looked at one of the PSD.

My hope is that I can convert the different layers in the PSD into png and integrate it into my app as images.

<comment><USER2> Yep, it should be no problem at all. You can just use the slice tool in photoshop and export the PNGs by saving for the web.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Thank you very much. Although commercial PSDs for iPhone are still very rare. Hopefully it will pick up soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not exactly what you are looking for (at least not in terms of color or backgrounds), but may be of help: <http://cocoacontrols.com/>

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd be curious to see this too. Being an iOS developer, I realize that it's not a trivial task to abstract the UIKit classes so themes are created. Let's see if anyone did this.

<comment><USER5> Same, I'm not a good enough designer to be changing the default UI significantly so it's largely standard in my apps. I'd love a themeforest for iOS apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The closest I've found so far is here:

<http://www.tapptics.com/>

It mostly has resources similar to the Teehan+Lax template (<http://www.teehanlax.com/downloads/>) - useful to build your own themes, but not usable as out-of-the-box themes. There's only one pre-made iPhone theme on the site right now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks alex_c. This links takes you straight to the iPhone template version: [http://www.tapptics.com/design-templates-for-iphone- iphone-4...](http://www.tapptics.com/design-templates-for-iphone-iphone-4/)

It looks good. $99 or $199 per year so have to think it over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you have Illustrator: [http://www.mercuryintermedia.com/downloads/iphone_ui_vector_...](http://www.mercuryintermedia.com/downloads/iphone_ui_vector_elements.zip)

If you have Photoshop: [http://www.smashingmagazine.com/images/iphone-vector- pack/ip...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/images/iphone-vector-pack/iphone- gui.zip)

</comment><comment><USER8> <http://keynotopia.com/>

</comment><comment><USER9> Here are two that I use frequently:

<http://www.teehanlax.com/blog/iphone-gui-psd-v4/>

<http://www.teehanlax.com/blog/ipad-gui-psd-version-2/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. The iphone-gui-psd-v4 license says it can only be used for mockup and not as a theme to sell on the app store. A bummer. Not sure why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Check out Sensible TableView from <http://www.sensiblecocoa.com/> \- they make UITableView customization really easy now. They weren't ready until 2.0 so we rolled our own but wow...

</comment><comment><USER11> You could check out <http://www.mobilefoo.com/> They have a few things up but I think they're planning to add more.

</comment><comment><USER12> If you have Omnigraffle, you could try this:

<http://graffletopia.com/stencils/413>

</comment><comment><USER8> <http://pttrns.com/activityfeeds> is also a great iPhone design resource.

</comment><comment><USER13> 2nd for <http://keynotopia.com/> \- i use them and they are awesome!

</comment><comment><USER14> How about Keynote Kung Fu? <http://keynotekungfu.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> The iOS UI collection shows the standard UI elements. It's useful if you want for prototyping and showing in power points/keynotes.

But I want skins to replace the native "blueish" skins.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: From where can I get UI review? - <AUTHOR> I'm redesigning our old website. Want some feedback about the new design as well as copy writing. Any idea where to look? Are there any good free options? <comment><USER2> Ask your existing user base

<comment><AUTHOR> Will do that. Thanks.</comment></comment>


Show HN: I just redesigned my college newspaper's website (and it's responsive!) - <AUTHOR>

Link:
http://bupipedream.com/ -OR- http://bupd.me/
After a long winter break of coding and my first all-nighter in college, I've finally completed (sort-of) a redesign of my college newspaper's website!
It is now powered by WordPress and features a responsive design.
Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions! <comment><USER2> Nice! I've got to get on learning responsive design. I really like how it's laid out both on desktop browser and on the phone. Good work.

The only comment I have is a stupid nitpicky one. The logo and search bar seem to be placed too far to the right (desktop browser) and it seems to have pushed the search button beneath the search box. I guess this could have been intentional, but it looks a bit off. If you can pull the logo and search box left to fit the search button, I think it'd look cleaner.

Anyway, how do you like Binghamton btw? (I graduated in 2 years back. I wish I was still there!)

<comment><USER3> I like Skeleton[1] for responsive design, but for _that type_ of responsive design (where it scales with every pixel, instead of resolution milestones like Skeleton does), Ingrid[2] is a new project I saw here recently.

I can't speak for Ingrid as I haven't used it, but with Skeleton, the only thing I needed to learn was a 960-like grid framework (which you should probably know anyway.)

[1] - <http://getskeleton.com>

[2] - <https://github.com/robertpiira/ingrid>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Awesome job!! I need your guidance on wordpress as I am redesigning a site myself.. How did you get posts in different menu tabs. Are you using some post category plugin in wordpress?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: <http://bupd.me/>

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice! I like it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Great job!</comment>


IE 10x faster than Chrome for simple a+b func - <AUTHOR> http://jsperf.com/eval-func

<comment><USER2> The numbers are based on testing on visitor's computers, and the IE number in particular is based on a sample size of 1 (at the time that I'm writing this). So maybe the guy who was using IE was doing so from a very fast computer? That said, I got over 50k ops/sec on my laptop using Firefox and less than 10k using Chrome.

<comment><AUTHOR> I ran IE and Chrome on the same computer. In the end I went with a function that has the loop inside it and it's fast enough. I'm just surprised it's so slow.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have no idea why chrome is so slow at this.</comment>


Ask HN: Server Anti Virus - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I'm just about to transition my server from test into production and I'm thinking it's about time to get some kind of anit-virus installed.<p>What windows AV do people recommend? <comment><USER2> Is installing anti-virus standard practice on Windows servers? I always assumed that they (unlike consumer versions of Windows) were locked down enough that, just like with Linux servers, as long as you enabled a firewall and kept up with updates, you would be okay.

<comment><USER3> You should be kidding! Do you want to compare linux built-in security with Microsoft's security holes and vulnerability?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> kaspersky.</comment>


Something about the corona virus statistics doesn't add up in the Indian context - <AUTHOR> https://techtudor.blogspot.com/2020/04/something-about-corona-virus-statistics.html <comment><USER2> I read that the gestation period can be longer than 14 days (up to 28 days if I remember correctly). In addition, a good majority of these cases are asymptomatic or with very mild symptoms. This may explain a much higher spread than assumed by the numbers. It can also explain that a large number of cases, this time symptomatic, are highlighted after so long. Consider that the population in India is much younger than ours (I'm Italian)* and therefore this has allowed the virus to go unnoticed for a longer time. This is my guess obviously.

* [https://www.indexmundi.com/india/demographics_profile.html](https://www.indexmundi.com/india/demographics_profile.html) * [https://www.indexmundi.com/italy/demographics_profile.html](https://www.indexmundi.com/italy/demographics_profile.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Even assuming a gestation period of 28 days, the virus had all the free run to do its thing from January to March 20th in India, so why it didn't? That's a mystery. If most people were asymptomatic back then, then why did the virus specifically choose the time of March end to start showing symptoms in its hosts across the world (not just in India)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The author is right to bring up these points. We the people need to open our eyes and use our minds; don't believe everything you read but instead decipher it critically with your mind... and keep the entire big picture in mind.

</comment><comment><USER4> Umm, he's missing the obvious explanation that confirmed cases lag actual cases? Confirmed cases are still going up because testing is going up, regardless of whether infection is going up.</comment>


'Bitcoin will go to zero': Davos talks up the future of blockchain - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/bitcoin-price-going-to-zero-davos-future-of-blockchain-tech-.html <comment><USER2> > "I do believe it will go to zero. I think it's a great technology but I > don't believe it's a currency. It's not based on anything," Jeff Schumacher, > founder of BCG Digital Ventures, said during a CNBC-hosted panel in Davos, > Switzerland.

I can't believe we are still arguing these incredibly rudimentary points. Let alone that these quotes still get press coverage. Really, you're talking about cryptocurrency on a panel at Davos and you still haven't taken the time to reflect upon the nature of money?

What does "It's not based on anything" even mean? What is a dollar "based on"?

<comment><USER3> What is a dollar based on?

The need for the citizens of the most powerful nation on earth to pay their taxes in it; a legal and regulatory framework to support it; and the military and diplomatic might of the US to support it.

<comment><USER4> So it's based on a concept, a loosely defined one at that. Cryptocurrency is based on a strictly defined mathematical concept. It isn't a huge leap between the two.

<comment><USER5> All that math is not going to help you when your government puts you in jail for not paying your taxes.

<comment><USER6> Who isn't paying their taxes? Bitcoin can be sold for fiat and taxes can be paid.

<comment><USER5> Exactly. If I have to pay taxes in dollars, why should I accept anything but dollars in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 'Guy with investment firm that profits from buying low and selling high wants asset to go to zero' \- In other news, water wet.

<comment><USER8> This. When evaluating someone's claims, always take into consideration their background, career to evaluate for bias. This is the reason if, for eg, Spain plays against France in soccer finals, they won't put a world-class Spanish judge, however good he/she may be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > This sign is a pretty good indication that no one has any idea about what > they're talking about in Davos.

> "Using Blockchain to build the next generation grid for electric vehicles. > Business 4.0."

[https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1087679473535860737](https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1087679473535860737)

<comment><USER10> Did a quick online 'Company Values' training recently and sustainability and environmental impact where I work will be solved by:

1\. Blockchain

2\. Using approved partners for travel

No mention of considering taking the train or bus instead of the approved airlines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> So, a meeting of all of the most fiat-currency dependent people in the world produces a message saying that a potential alternative is going to zero. Maybe it will, but BTC is v0.1 crypto-currency and it's death will make way for whatever crypto v1.0 looks like. Unfortunately for the establishment, thoroughly represented at Davos, crypto-currency is here to stay.

</comment><comment><USER12> "On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

</comment><comment><USER13> Has anyone studied the rate at which bitcoin is lost forever? I imagine daily there's a wallet lost, HD destroyed, someone with private keys dying and btc permanently lost. Point is there is a much smaller supply of usable btc than what's actually reported in circulation. I wonder how that plays into the longevity of the project over time...

<comment><USER14> A bitcoin is divisible to 8 decimal places so what you are talking is not an issue whatsoever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Bitcoin has become quasi-irrelevant before, and it didn't go to zero even then.

And as long as there are zealots around, it won't.

</comment><comment><USER16> Every currency will go to zero unless it has some sort of instrinsic value. It's just a question of how quickly.

</comment><comment><USER17> "I am much less interested in investing around bitcoin as a currency unit or a currency equivalent, or even the blockchain as an accounting ledger. I am thinking much more about the protocols. In other words, what is the underlying protocol going to do as a consequence of which, which tokens are valuable or not," Hutchins said.

What nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER18> Methinks all this negative talk makes it look like a buying opportunity....</comment>


Ask HN: Why are predatory YT channels of astrologers, psychics, still operating? - <AUTHOR> just watched John Oliver's latest "Last Week Tonight"[0] on predatory psychics ... and wondered how this genre of scammers and predators manages to avoid scrutiny in the discussion about 'fake news' and fraudulent/radicalizing content on Youtube. It seems that this is no different and as toxic to already vulnerable peoples mental health, as are the newer conspiracy theories (QAnon, Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers, etc ...).<p>I did a quick search for channels on this topic and reported a couple, ... though this will have little effect. Many of them have been operating since a long time which is a indicator to moderators that "society has moved the goalpost" and provides an excuse to keep them alive for now.<p>[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhMGcp9xIhY <comment><USER2> The cultural precedent is long, see:

[https://gintama.fandom.com/wiki/Diviner_Arc](https://gintama.fandom.com/wiki/Diviner_Arc)

Ancient Romans, Chinese, and many others practices astrology and other forms of divination. In fact, until the last 3000 years or so, exorcism was the first line treatment for most medical conditions.

Those practices were the backdrop for religion as we know it today so if they come for the Astrologers now, when will they come for the Rabbis, the Imams, the Priests?

</comment><comment><USER3> Astrology is still defended by a lot of everyday people who should know better! A couple of times recently, smart people I know have said some astrology thing, to my astonishment. When I say "uh.....geez, you don't believe that do you?!" they say "It's fun" in defence of it. Probably they've never in their lives come across some Shermer/Sagan/Gardner/Dawkins/Harris etc mocking/writing against baseless beliefs.

It's just not a shameful thing to believe in, in the general culture. Astrology columns are in all newspapers, are 'fun'. Harmless entertainment. I guess newspapers had a role in continuing that till the present day.

p.s. Where exactly do you draw the line between allowable/not allowable?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> current discussion on the sting exposing the "psychics" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19256805](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19256805)</comment>


Dvorak, a superior keyboard layout - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0BN_Wdh4g

<comment><USER2> I set out to learn Dvorak in high school. It took me two weeks before I could more or less just touch type the way I did with qwerty layouts.

I switched back after a couple of months for a two main reasons:

1\. It became hard to use other machines. A friend's computer, a significant other's computer, and others became hard to use and my machine was hard to use for them.

2\. Keyboard shortcuts are designed with Qwerty in mind. You either change the shortcuts in almost every app, or you wind up stretching fingers for shortcuts that are now super awkward.

The typing was great, but in a way, typing is about more than just, well, typing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree about both points. I guess I was in the position where I use my own computer or one I can change to dvorak about 99% of the time. The keyboard shortcuts are not great though. Especially for things that are meant for left hand keyboard and right hand mouse simultaneous movement, like in photoshop or most games. I usually just switch to qwerty in a pinch.

vim, is also especially awkward in its movement commands. ST IMO doesn't have this same level of awkwardness.

<comment><USER3> I learnt dvorak and vim at roughly the same time and never found an issue with movement. It's probably a good thing to encourage you to use the more effective movement commands anyway rather than moving one step at a time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I kind of think that it should be renamed, just because initially I thought it was a foreign language keyboard until someone told me that it was an English keyboard with superior layout.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> There are other variants for other languages. There is Bépo for French.

The Dvorak layout is ideally suited to typing in english where you have a constant switching of vowels to constants. All the vowels are on the left hand so the idea is that you alternate and it is unlikely that you will type much more than 2 or 3 in succession and often only 1.

</comment><comment><USER5> The whole thing about Dvorak keyboards being faster to type on is a myth. See link for details: [http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing- errors](http://reason.com/archives/1996/06/01/typing-errors)

</comment><comment><USER6> I learned Dvorak a few years ago but for a totally different reason than most people. I used it to stop myself from looking at the keyboard and learn typing the right way.</comment>


Google Plus Is Irrelevant - <AUTHOR> http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2014/09/google-plus-is-irrelevant.html

<comment><USER2> Title might be true, but the analysis is really flawed. Why would you have to search for "Google Plus" on Google when you have a direct link in every google app. It does not make sense.</comment>


Great documents come from great discussions - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/great-documents-come-from-great.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FMKuf+%28Official+Google+Blog%29 <comment><USER2> This is why google wave wasn't a failure, despite it as a project failing, google docs, to mention one product is benefiting so much from this.

Looks amazing, and I use google docs so much for collaboration on notes, etc and this will just bring it to the next level.

</comment><comment><USER3> This looks interesting. Some of those features seem to come directly from google wave.

</comment><comment><USER4> Google Docs is differentiating itself from MS office fast. This is another feather in the cap</comment>


Ask HN: Maps for mobile and desktop web? - <AUTHOR> I've come across the need for a really highly interactive, performant, maps solution that works for desktop and mobile to include custom data and events. What should I start looking into first? Are there any good resources for a better high level understanding of the problem? <comment><USER2> Mapbox is really good.

[http://mapbox.com/](http://mapbox.com/)</comment>


"Internet Bar" Toku Toku Challenges Online Atomization - <AUTHOR> http://tokutokutoku.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Yo, I'm plugging the video chat site I made.

Basically, I was frustrated that there's no site that encourages people to make friends—there's no such thing as an "internet bar," where you can meet people without doing "networking" and "brand optimization." Facebook, hell no; Tinder/OKC, different vibe; Omegle/ChatRoulette, right concept but they sorta look like malware dispensers.

So: This website is centered around video chat, but it's account based, so you can pick whom you want to talk to I can ban the exhibitionist chaff that afflicts other sites. Also it's easier to stay friends with someone you meet.

Feel like you guys might enjoy this. I'll be online, let me know what you think.</comment>


Hacking WinRAR for fun and profit - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/taviso/rarvmtools <comment><AUTHOR> Related blog post [http://blog.cmpxchg8b.com/2012/09/fun-with-constrained- progr...](http://blog.cmpxchg8b.com/2012/09/fun-with-constrained- programming.html)

<comment><USER2> The screenshot at the bottom is one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is this article implying that their is the possibility of including a malicious application inside of a .rar format that would run upon uncompression? That is crazy if true. Also makes me think using 7zip might be a safer option than WinRAR if they handle the decompression differently.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but theoretically those applications wouldn't be able to do anything else than modify the data that you're uncompressing, which simply means that you have to decide whether you want to trust the data that you uncompressed.

Now of course there may be exploitable vulnerabilities here, but just as in any other piece of software.

So no, just because this runs a VM doesn't mean it's intrinsically more dangerous than anything else. Basically just any program that takes input from the outside world (a PDF reader, an MP3 player, you name it) is vulnerable to attacks.

<comment><USER5> But the fact that the VM has not seen much scrunity by the community together with the following snippet from the linked page:

"There are several known bugs in the RarVM.

[redacted as some have security consequences]"

makes it seem quite likely that there are some ugly vulnerabilities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If anyone sent me an .rar these days, it would go straight into the Trash. (Ditto for Koreans who insist on sending me .alz archives.) Sure, 7-Zip can probably open it, but I still prefer .zip which has much better compatibility overall.

I can understand why those who have used WinRAR for many years might keep using the .rar format out of habit even in 2012, but is there any other reason for anyone else to compress new files with .rar at this point? Sure, you might be able to shave a few more kilobytes off a large file, but small differences like that are becoming increasingly irrelevant compared to interoperability. Are there other technical advantages to the .rar format that other formats like .zip and .tar.gz lack?

<comment><USER7> > If anyone sent me an .rar these days, it would go straight into the Trash.

So, a customer sends you a RAR file and it goes straight to the trash? You sound like a swell guy.

<comment><USER8> We have customers who send .ace files.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why does WinRAR have it's own VM and what does WinRAR do when it creates a .rar file? I feel like this is missing a lot of elucidation.

<comment><USER10> (Not sure exactly what WinRAR does, but generally speaking for a compressor..) Backwards compatibility.

Let's say you're putting together WinRAR 4.5 and have a fancy new compression method you want to implement. .RAR files generated with Version 4.5 that use it, won't be compatible with earlier versions.

The way around this is to embed, in the .RAR file itself, a program (written in the WinRAR VM) to decompress the data using the new method. WinRAR 4.0 can just run this embedded program without knowing the precise details of the Version 4.5 algorithm.

So you get some of the advantages of a self-executable archive without the portability and security issues.

I think that WinRAR in particular implements a lot of pre-filters, which are things you run over the data before your main compression algorithm in order to make the data more compressible. This seems like a good use for such a VM - they're simple, less-speed-critical than your core compressor, and you can always write more of them.

Examples of prefilters are BCJ2 (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7z#Pre- processing_filters>) and the PNG image filters (<http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG- Filters.html>).

<comment><USER11> Why WinRAR team didn't add digital signing to the code for that VMs? Old WinRAR versions would contain VM interpreter, public RSA key and signature verification code; new WinRAR versions would embed already signed blobs of VM code into archive files; private RSA key would stay on WinRAR developers' computers only. And no one would be able to execute arbitrary VM code on end user PC.

<comment><USER12> What exactly is the drawback of executing arbitrary VM code on an end user PC? If there aren't security flaws in the VM, then the code is sandboxed, and worst case you extract a really big file or hang WinRAR.

Now, if there's a security flaw, that's a different story. But it looks like the VM just gets to play around with memory and registers and doesn't get any libraries or IO, and doesn't rely on type safety for correctness -- which eliminates the typical sources of security holes in more complex VMs such as JVM. And if you don't need great performance, then you can put bounds checks everywhere.

Safe as houses. Unless someone screwed up.

<comment><USER11> Because it's better to be safe than sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice to see more FOSS tools trying to dissect the RAR format.

Now if only a decompressor existed for current versions of RAR. A FOSS unrar tool exists that decompresses RAR 1, RAR 2, and some RAR 3 archives, but not current RAR 3 archives.

<comment><USER14> No, now there is unar, FOSS which will work for all rar versions.

<comment><USER13> Hadn't seen that one; thanks for the pointer! Since "unar" proved difficult to search for: <http://unarchiver.c3.cx/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Known Bugs There are several known bugs in the RarVM.

[redacted as some have security consequences]"

I wonder if torrent seeders have exploited this to spread malware/bots....

<comment><USER16> Doubtful when it is so much easier to get people with 'download this codec to play this video' or putting them in cracks/keygens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow, had no idea WinRAR contained a mini-VM. Cool, weird and maybe slightly disconcerting

<comment><USER18> It's funny, so does Bitcoin, Adobe Reader, a lot of things.

Maybe we need to rewrite that old law:

 _All programs expand until they contain a virtual machine. Those that cannot do so are replaced by ones that can._

<comment><USER19> What does Bitcoin do with virtual machine?

(If you don't take "running the bitcoin script" as "virtual machine".... then yes, it is technically a virtual machine, but very Turing incomplete.)

<comment><USER18> Yes, I meant the script. Not turing complete, sure, but still quite flexible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can someone explain exactly how WinRAR uses this VM to improve compression?

<comment><USER21> If you read the linked blog post you will see one example. For instance, calls to a foobar function are encoded with relative addresses. The preprocessor can detect this, calculate the absolute address, encode that, and calculate the original relative address at decompression time. I like the idea apart from the security concerns! I was excited to find an unknown aspect of such a prolific program!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> In somewhat related news, here is Russ Cox's excellent blog post about cool hacks with the zip format:

<http://research.swtch.com/zip>

</comment><comment><USER23> Didn't the winrar author pass away several years ago? Vaguely remember.

Is it still being developed?

Oh okay, it was the distributor, not author: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Dwight>

<comment><USER24> Eugene Roshal is the author, and from his other products I use everyday the FAR Manager for Windows (Midnight Commander / Norton Commander type of file manager) - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Roshal>

FAR Manager has been open-sourced - <http://www.farmanager.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Watch out, the linked post [1] is blocked by my TrendMicro.

[1] [http://blog.cmpxchg8b.com/2012/09/fun-with-constrained- progr...](http://blog.cmpxchg8b.com/2012/09/fun-with-constrained- programming.html)

<comment><USER26> It's probably picking up the text and assuming that it might be a malicious payload.

This sort of thing can happen to some virus scanners when they come across a page with the text of things like malicious VBScript, batch files, etc., even if it's text that's displayed on the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> For what it's worth, 7zip contains a virtual machine too. Not sure how capable it is compared to WinRAR's, though.</comment>