Forum Moderators: open
The newest version of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer browser will be able to send Web page readers to other sites without the permission - or even the knowledge - of the page's owner.article here by Nando [nando.net]
"And Microsoft will provide free software code that lets Web site owners bar Smart Tags from appearing on their sites, Sullivan added."
And another story from The Wall Street Journal [public.wsj.com]
Yes Microsoft, I will be banning your crappy tag generator (I'm already on the ball). The good thing about all this is the backlash your company is going to suffer as a result of your (continued) arrogance. All for what- these types of services having met the hype (Remember a little startup called NBCi). Go on, shoot yourself in the foot for all I care.
The Web is moving very fast to losing one of its major competitive advantages - the reasonably free Web press - the ability of all to publish and distribute information without having a fat wallet or being part of the establised publishing club. (I mean free in terms of ability to publish and distribute not in terms of cost)
MS can spin all they want about not being default, the ability of all publishers to use it (no doubt at a cost - which is another Ms strategy - to make functionality which was always free before Ms entered the Internet scene something you have to pay for, just by monopolizing a technology), that it wont ALL be MS sites! (wow- thanks MS!)
There is very little here to provide service for the customer, its all about directing traffic to a reasonably small number of owners, and increase profits at the expense of the broad and free distribution of information.
The fact is that at first the Internet as a whole and then the Web was a major threat to the publishing oligarchy, and their profits born of monopoly. As we all expected I guess, this powerful elite business force could not let that continue and lose their monopoly on the distribution of information. So they bring in the key monopolist of the new economy (MS) to a share of the profits of this Mafiosa like biz, and they can all settle back with the cigars and Scotch in the leather backed seats at the gentleman's club again.
Excuse the neo-Marxist perspective, but its useful in understanding what exactly is going on out there.
Pretty much sums up the strategy.
It looks like it will be the next GoTo or Real Names hybrid only on a much higher bid scale.
Some of the requirements in the article (such as having office installed) must be relaxed in IE 6.
Not much info on the Smart Tag though, yet. They are keeping it under wraps as much as possible. Talk about anti-trust, jeez! I think they ought to allow a robots.txt option to disable this feature. Otherwise I'm going to be hand editing a whole lot of pages.
<also> I didn't mean to unfairly place QuickClick or FlySwat in the same category as Microsoft. They both run a seemingly fair ODP style booster pack library and I have even written my own.</also>
The only thing that ticks me is that Microsoft had a developer working on this rather than something more useful like implementing CSS2 features. Microsoft does claim that IE6 has a full implementation of CSS1.
I think the feature that some of the people here should be complaining about is that there is a feature that turns off <meta> refresh. That is going to hose some of your sites, and definitely something that that I'm going to use!
How do we deal with this?
(aside: can you ban a user agent from an .htaccess file?)
Besides, lets face it- most computer users are computer illiterate (politically correct term for "idiot") no offense intended.
All of my flyswat hits (100's of them) look like this:
208.184.175.99.flyswat.com (208.184.175.99)
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Win32)
They never leave a referal.
I checked flyswat.com and found this:
flyswat does its work on our remote servers, not your computer. And the amount of information flyswat transmits is negligible compared to the size of a typical web page.
I hope the same applies to Smart Tag.
any web site I create is copyrighted to me (or my client)...anything that alters the site or appears to alter the site legally requires my permission
it is surely illegal?
I really like the idea of the FREE code, that you can take YOUR time and effort to use to disallow .. "Hey, I'm going to steal traffic from you, but, heck, I'll let you work harder, so I can't." !@#$!@#$
"...to turn any word on any Web site into a link to Microsoft's own Web sites and services..."
"...Microsoft will be able, through the browser, to re-edit anybody's site, without the owner's knowledge or permission.."
MS are great at providing low cost software and then charging big bucks when you have become dependent on it. I have got no doubt that this is another disguised pernicious arrow in their strategy. I am seriously considering changing to Opera.
Can I then sue MS for linking me to a page I don't want to be affiliated with? I would think so, but then their comeback would be to "turn off smarttags in your pages."
Let's look at it the other way: how will spammers use this new technology to their advantage?
Spammers and hackers are going to have a field day with this. And I am sure that MS may even get bitten in the butt by recently 'dot commed' and bitter programmers.
This requires much study indeed...I want to learn exactly how to make a smart tag work on my sites so I will understand how it will be used against me.
In the words of SchoolHouse Rock "Knowledge is Power!"
-G
Edited by: grnidone
I like Opera but I don't want to pay for it. I don't want ads either.
It looks to me like what I said to myself about 2 years ago..."self you know this dot bom thing will all be smoke and mirrors...don't get discouraged. The big companies will shake out the little guys and outlast them and then recover all of the market share that's left."
There's still plenty of room for "micro-guys" like me who don't have any overhead other than hosting fees. I think most of the "little-guys" have fallen by now and quite a few of the "big-guys" weren't so adept at this web thing. Now we are going to start to see the giants with the money to ride out the storm rush in to recover the market share given up by the failures of others. They don't need VC money.
Deep down this "tag" thing sounds to me like bad business in the long run, although it is a serious attack on freedom on the web. I honestly think it will backfire and do nothing more than complete the polarization of public attitude...which will decidedly fall towards the anti-Microsoft side.
The time is ripe for a new OS. Linux isn't there yet, however consider this. Will most third world countries be paying to use MS Windows for their computers? What operating system is the world's banking system being developed on?
In the long run I think you will hear a giant sucking sound...and it won't be jobs moving to Mexico...it will be companies abandoning MS.
It seems the more people dislike MS...the nastier they get.
I hate to disagree, I agree in spirit.
Actually, the majority of the surfing public does not know, does not care/will not know, will not care. They did not know that the LoveBug virus was enabled by a MS security hole, in a "FEATURE" that less than 5% of the world knows how to use, and about the same knew how to turn off!
The number of webmasters and SEO professionals is far outnumbered by the number of casual surfers who may even be duped into thinking this is an enhancement, or added value.
<rant> Heck, I bet most of the MSN access subscribers don't even know all of their surfing is logged by MS - AND they agreed to it!
Microsoft will go as far as their money can buy them. After they win the current major lawsuit (it pains me to say that, but I truly think it will be a case of who runs out of money , or who gets paid off first. NOTHING to do with the Sherman Act, anticompetitive practices, OR fairness. Its all about who has the most persuasive lawyers) they will have free reign to do whatever they wish.
They are already flaunting the law, while they are in court. This industry is evolving at such a rate that the laws in place cannot keep up, basically because the learning curve is so steep that justices and legislators have no idea what is being done, until it is over.
"Hey, we're Micro#$%T, we don't care. We don't HAVE to, because so FEW people have any idea what we are doing to them."
And now, I will resume looking over my shoulder to see if Big Brother <billg> is watching me. </rant>
That is bad enough, the really bad part as I see it is:
"Microsoft also says that other companies, besides itself, will be able to create and distribute add-ons for the browser that will launch their own Smart Tags all over the Web, directing users to their sites. But these tags will be far harder to obtain than Microsoft's. And they will merely allow more companies to invasively re-edit others' sites. Ford would be able to impose its own links on Chevrolet's site, and Republicans could insert links on Democrats' sites. Once the hate groups, the spammers and the junk
marketers on the Web get their hands on these Smart Tags, they'll be plastering their links on everything."
Is it true that in order disable these from a site, will require a MS server DLL? If so, ms will wrestle control of the server market. Which I feel amounts too: game, set, match - ms owns the net.
Until the hackers exploit each new security flaw in the Microsoft operating system (browser included). Then it will be the hackers that own the net.
New Explorer to Add Outside Links:
[news.excite.com...]
No excuse needed... it's all about control... and it was always coming.
Lots of factors here. The Bush election result (no blame on you guys over there... we elected Thatcher!). The wounded bull (MS). The loss of 'advertising' control and some of 'the market' by major corporates.
I mentioned weeks ago (on another discussion) the danger that the web would end up like TV (budget driven) in terms of what our role actually is (marketing). THEY would never allow our previous non-budget freedom to continue unchecked forever.
I didn't actually see the avenue they would use to destroy it... but of course rectrospectively it is obvious. The browser itself (I incorrectly thought it would be via the long term elimination of 'free' search engines/directories)
Can it be stopped? Well yes it can. We can see their path to their promised land (destruction of the net and what it previously was)... and there are all sorts of possibilites to oppose it (technoligical, political, etc).
The first though has to be education... ensuring that more people realise what is going to be lost and why.
It will be a long haul - or at least as long as they give us. But it is possible to win... even though the odds are stacked, it is worth the fight. The fight surely must start now.
But as technically savvy as he is in his own field, he couldn't immediately see what the big deal is with this MS browser plan -- I really had to really walk him through it. I wonder if enough people can be educated fast enough to make a difference.
To most of us here, I assume, it seems obvious that this is a great and insidious infringement, even beyond a violation of copyright. Why we didn't protest QuickClick the minute it NBCi rolled it out? I know I didn't really give it much thought at the time.
I agree with Napoleon, it IS worth the fight. I'm just not sure what to do. It's going to take a BIG voice to educate enough people. It will also take a lot of money to counter this MS move. Who can and will step up to the plate?
Has anyone seen anything at the W3C about these tags?
SetEnvIfNoCase User-Agent "MSIE" no_msie=1
<FilesMatch "(.*)">
Order Allow,Deny
Allow from all
Deny from env=no_msie
</FilesMatch>
If one the guys who understand the technology could do this, myself and others could pick it up as a template, tweak it in different ways, and then promote (which obviously we could do pretty effectively!). Choice of keywords might be interesting of course.
It's only one route to start pressure, but it's something.
The class action is another... certainly worth looking at. Any other ideas?
The alternative is just to sit and watch it happen.
