[dsacco]

That's a false dichotomy, and it's also a very one dimensional take on what altruism means in the context of capitalism. There is a world of nuanced altruism between "has analytics that violate some peoples' privacy expectations" and "totally altruistic."

What's more, their analytics have nothing to do with the point at hand. Why even bring it up, except as an opportunity for a tangential soapbox? We're talking about disclosure timelines.

[jacquesm]

It has a lot to do with the point at hand because you can't really attack Microsoft on their web tracking because they don't do any.

So if Google wanted to attack MS on the subject of privacy they'd have to go all the way to Skype to get some traction. So instead they attack on a front where Google is strong and Microsoft slightly weaker.

Google is anything but altruistic, their each and every move is to improve the bottom line for Google and their shareholders. If something is really altruistic it likely falls in their PR budget.

[aptwebapps]

There are much greater concerns with browser exploits than just privacy unless you're being really literal-minded and saying that someone getting their bank account emptied just had an extreme privacy violation.

[jacquesm]

Scoping browser exploits in competitors products is not 'core business' for Google. Privacy violation is.