Microsoft is being overly aggressive and has ulterior motives that don't align with their users. Very typical of their short-term Machiavellian style of thinking. Tactically they are making a questionable decision.
They are trying to break a very reasonable compromise that would have benefited almost everyone. Instead, as one of the largest tech companies that doesn't depend on advertising revenue, they are trying to use their power to cripple competitors. They won't win. Online advertisers are too powerful (and drive too much of the growth in the economy nowadays), legislation won't regulate the industry in a way that will hand Microsoft a victory. Meanwhile, IE's users will lose because their choice to be tracked will be ignored.
Should Microsoft not act in it's self-interest? If you are critiquing Microsoft for doing that, you should be critical of Google for tracking you -- after all, couldn't they just charge for services?
At the end of the day, consumers will know that "Do Not Track" is on, and that big advertising networks are igorning it. They won't know or care about the T's and C's of some agreement.
They'll also know (because Microsoft will tell them) that Bing, Outlook.com, etc will respect DNT.
I assume you railed equally against Google for making Android free given they don't depend on product or hardware sales for revenue but rather advertising? When you're a near monopoly, as MSFT was a decade ago, there might be some muster to your argument. When you're not, you'd be foolish to make a choice that came down on the side of making life easier for your competitors vs more challenging.
>When you're a near monopoly, as MSFT was a decade ago, there might be some muster to your argument.
I never made an argument that depends on their market position. Either way, I don't think your comparison is apt.
Competition isn't always good on its own; it has to increase global value/efficiency to be a valid, "good" strategy. Android increased global value, Microsoft's decision to go rogue on DNT will probably destroy value. Perhaps even their own.
A reasonable compromise? Advertisers know that most users won't change the default settings, which means that most users will be saying "please track me". How does that align with most user's wishes?
Defaulting tracking to off is only reasonable for advertisers.
They are trying to break a very reasonable compromise that would have benefited almost everyone. Instead, as one of the largest tech companies that doesn't depend on advertising revenue, they are trying to use their power to cripple competitors. They won't win. Online advertisers are too powerful (and drive too much of the growth in the economy nowadays), legislation won't regulate the industry in a way that will hand Microsoft a victory. Meanwhile, IE's users will lose because their choice to be tracked will be ignored.