Seems anything but shady? On the start menu in full sight and just explicitly suggesting their browser over Firefox. Doesn't even claim anything about either browser, just suggests theirs! Seems as honest and upfront as any advertising could be? 'Try our band of coffee' effectively.
The wording "still using Firefox?" does suggest subtly that Firefox is outdated or passé... so no, their wording is problematic, as also is the placement of the ad. It is also unnecessary given Firefox's rather small market share and the fact that Edge will be bundled with Windows which means that almost everyone who doesn't use Chrome will likely use Edge.
If W10 is on 800,000,000 computers[1], and it costs each user 1 second of productivity, then every time that ad shows, Microsoft is stealing 222,222 hours of productivity from people and businesses around the world to advertise its subpar browser in an operating system they've already been compensated for.
I hate OS-level ads the same if not more than any other HN reader, but that's like saying we shouldn't be glancing out of the window for half a second because it would scale up to losing ~100,000 hours of productivity every day. It's a fraction of a ten-thousandth of a workday - anyone concerned with that level of optimization shouldn't be using humans to begin with.
I think you're looking at it from the individual's point of view instead of Microsoft's. Of course at the local level a person or even small business shouldn't be worried about a second of time lost. I'm not saying we should be concerned with employees glancing out the window. I'm saying any decision that affects 800,000,000 people has very tangible consequences.
I think an apt analogy would be the "Take a Penny, Leave a Penny" tray at convenience stores. Nobody cares if you take a penny from a gas station. But if someone figured out a way to take a penny from every tray in the world, that would raise some real questions about theft that would need to be answered.
It's certainly shady, given that they own both the product they're advertising and the medium they're advertising it through.
I don't expect that I'll be able to get them to give me a top spot for an ad saying "Concerned about Microsoft's tracking policy? Mozilla Firefox is here", or "Still using Edge? Why not just get the original -- Google Chrome is here'.
This seems pretty common, and I've not heard anyone consider it a problem before. For example radio stations commonly run promos for their own shows while not accepting ads for shows on other stations.
Do you consider that shady too? If not, how do to you distinguish the Microsoft case?
Rules for advertising on radio and TV are a lot older and consequently more comprehensive, and there's a lot of variation from one country to another, of course.
But at least where I'm from, it's explicitly forbidden for radio stations (in fact it's illegal for any company) to run any kind of comparative advertising that denigrates a competitor's product. It's OK to show off your product, and it's OK to compare your own product to another company's, as long as you're transparent about what's compared and under what conditions. But an ad that mentions a competitor's product just to denigrate it would be illegal.
It would be okay for KBBL to advertise its news program. It would also be OK for KBBL to run an ad saying "Our program has the fewest fake news on the market", as long as they they tell you how to verify the claim (i.e. what numbers they used, who came up with them, how they came up with them, and how you can get them, too). But if they ran an ad saying "Still listening to WQHG-FM news? Tune to KBBL instead!" they'd risk having their license withdrawn.
It's definitely not pretty common precisely because it's illegal :).
Ah, so it is because the ad can be seen as denigrating Firefox that you find it shady?
The way your comment was phrased I thought that you were saying the shadiness comes from it being a Microsoft ad on a Microsoft medium which does not accept ads for competing products.
No, not just because that. I was simply discussing it in the context of your analogy.
In wider terms, Windows is very much not like a radio station. A radio station doesn't broadcast advertising for their competitors' shows, but it doesn't broadcast competitors' shows, either. If we're to apply the same laws that apply for radio stations, then they should apply under the same conditions: Microsoft can advertise their programs all they want -- but then they shouldn't allow running their competitors' programs, either. Let's see how successful Windows is without Photoshop, AutoCAD, 3D Studio Max, Matlab...
Windows is marketed and sold as a general-purpose operating system. I think it's reasonable for users to expect that Windows will treat all legitimate programs the same, regardless of their origin. That should include access to the operating system's advertising channel.
Using your foothold in one industry (operating systems) to discourage competition in other spaces (browsers) certainly is a grey area. Microsoft has been through a pretty similar lawsuit before, on exactly this topic, and that didn't go very well.
So in US on TV and radio do you have say Pepsi commercials that mention Coca Cola in a bad way? I seen this kind of commercials on YouTube but I was under the impression that those never were on TV but maybe I am wrong and those are only illegal in Europe and other countries.
Comparative advertising is legal in some (most?) European countries -- it's definitely legal where I'm from (and AFAIK it's also been legal in Germany for a while, although it has been banned for a long time). However, in most cases, if you want to do it, you have to do it based on clear metrics that your audience can verify.
So for example it's legal to show an ad saying that Edge is faster than its competitors, but you have to write a small note somewhere that says who measured that and how.
(Technically I think you can even call the competitors by name, but virtually no one does it because the public doesn't really appreciate that. Most companies will, at most, give a subtle hint).
It is, however, illegal to show an ad which simply says or implies that Firefox is somehow worse than Edge, or that no one uses it anymore, or that it's old, or whatever, without explaining how you got to that conclusion. It's fine to say that Edge is the most popular browser and link to a page about the study that showed it (or the study itself). But without the numbers, you're not allowed to do it. The studies in question are rarely truly objective, but they do offer useful data points.
That's intended to ensure that a company which is perceived as reliable or trustworthy cannot abuse that position and engage in false advertising.
This is a pretty good example -- among non-technical users, who make up the vast majority of computer users in the world, Microsoft is perceived as a solid and reliable company (and, the whole ads and data collection thing aside, it's perceived that way among technical users, too, yours truly included). Their word carries some weight, and non-technical users are likely to take their word at face value.
No, but Google would be more than happy to put the later on their main search page. Not really any different. Microsoft controls Windows and uses it to advance corporate goals. Google owns their search interface and uses it to advance their corporate goals.
I disagree that it's completely different situations. I have not seen anywhere in the legal structure that allows such moves if advertisements are enabled. It is still a company abusing their monopoly situation to influence another market.
In fact Google did it worse by blocking browsers purely by user-agent to key google services like maps to block the entry or Fire devices or windows phone devices.
Both cases aren't acceptible and both should be punished imho.
People are complaining about Microsoft pushing Edge on Windows. Google pushes Chrome on google.com all the time. Frequently with some negative comment about your current browser. They may be less negative now than what I remember, haven't looked at one in forever.
I'm sure Google is shady in this, and many other ways, too, but I really don't see how it's important in this discussion. If Google is doing the same thing then I hope they choke on their Bacardi and Coke, too, but the news is that Microsoft is also doing it now.
I'm not sure what the adequate reaction here would have been. Should I have added a "P.S. oh yeah by the way Google is also doing this, don't forget to hate on them, too?" line in my original reply, for completeness?
Imagine if the real estate company that built your house installed speakers that talk about how much better the furniture also made by that company is every time you installed IKEA furniture.
It's bullying non-technical users into thinking that Firefox is old.
They can be shy to ask anyone if Firefox is viable in fear of being ridiculed and they might end up thinking that Firefox is bad for months or even years.
Perhaps they could have gone down a different road:
> Still installing browsers from internet ? Edgium is here, faster and pre-installed. Try it out!
Seems anything but shady? On the start menu in full sight and just explicitly suggesting their browser over Firefox. Doesn't even claim anything about either browser, just suggests theirs! Seems as honest and upfront as any advertising could be? 'Try our band of coffee' effectively.