Digital Agencies
Clash of the tech titans: it’s now Google Vs Microsoft
MUMBAI: Google’s Global Affairs senior VP Kent Walker has lashed out at software giant Microsoft in a blog post, accusing it of “reverting to its familiar playbook of attacking rivals” and “lobbying for regulations that benefit their own interests”.
This was after his counterpart Microsoft President Brad Smith dissed Google’s business policies while testifying before the United States congressional subcommittee hearing on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. Microsoft later also published the transcript of Smith's testimony on its blog titled ‘Technology and the Free Press: The Need for Healthy Journalism in a Healthy Democracy’, where he blamed Google's business model for "devouring" ad revenue on which news groups rely.
The heated war of words between the two conglomerates comes after Microsoft backed legislation that could force big tech companies in the US like Google and Facebook to pay to feature news on their platforms. Google and Facebook have resisted mandatory payments, while Microsoft has taken a more collaborative stance, even going so far as to lobby for other countries to follow Australia's lead in calling for news outlets to be paid for their online content. A move opposed by both the tech companies.
The software giant took on the search engine leader head on in its blog while talking about the accelerating crisis in news and journalism, that reflected the shift away from traditional advertising to digital advertising, enabled by the emergence of the internet. It goes on to say, “While Google and Facebook have gained the most revenue from the shift to digital advertising, Google in multiple ways is unique. Google has been the biggest winner, capturing about a third of all digital advertising revenue in US in the last year.”
It further adds, “Google’s full impact, however, is based not on its large numbers but its multiple roles. Google accesses and uses news in a way that is different from Facebook. More important, it is the dominant technology firm in virtually every corner of the digital advertising ecosystem. Google’s digital advertising business encompasses the entire internet. It enables Google to aggregate the content of others, attract users, harvest their data, and then directly target them with ads at an unprecedented scale.”
Only stopping short of suggesting that it has “unlawfully” built up its business, it concludes by saying, “Google’s business model is fed by the very content that these ailing news organisations create.”
Google, on its part, has launched a scathing counter-attack saying it was “no coincidence” that Microsoft’s interest in attacking the tech company came “at a moment when they’ve allowed tens of thousands of their customers- including government agencies in the US, NATO allies, banks, non-profits, telecommunications providers, public utilities, police, fire and rescue units, hospitals and, presumably, news organisations – to be actively hacked via major Microsoft vulnerabilities.” This was in reference to the SolarWinds Hack ransomware attack, which has left several companies reeling across the world.
The search engine colossus further states, “This important debate should be about the substance of the issue, and not derailed by naked corporate opportunism”, while also declaring Microsoft’s claims about Google’s business and how it work with news publishers are “just plain wrong”. It concludes by saying, “Microsoft’s attempts at distraction aside, we’ll continue to collaborate with news organisations and policymakers around the world to enable a strong future for journalism. “
BENGALURU: For years, creative teams have learned to live with ambiguity. Vague comments, last-minute changes, feedback that arrives without context, clarity, or conviction. It became part of the job – something teams worked around rather than getting it solved.
But as we head into 2026, that tolerance is wearing thin.
Creative work today moves faster, scales wider, and involves more stakeholders than before. Teams are producing more content across more formats, often with distributed collaborators and tighter timelines. In this environment, guesswork is no longer a harmless inconvenience. It’s a cost – to time, to budgets, and to creative mindspace.
The real problem isn’t feedback, it’s how it’s given
Most creative professionals you see today will tell you they’re not against feedback. In fact, they rely on it. Good feedback sharpens ideas, strengthens execution, and pushes work forward. The problem is ‘unclear’ feedback. When someone says “this doesn’t feel right” without context, they aren’t just revising – they’re basically decoding. They’re guessing what the problem might be, trying different directions, and burning time in the process. Multiply that by a few stakeholders and a few rounds, and suddenly days disappear.
In 2026, when teams are expected to deliver faster without compromising quality, interpretation is a luxury most can’t afford.
Scale has changed rverything
Creative projects used to be smaller and simpler. A designer, a manager, maybe one client contact. Feedback loops were short, even if they weren’t perfect.
Today, the same project might involve internal marketing teams, agencies, freelancers, brand reviewers, and regional teams. Everyone has a say. Everyone leaves comments. And often, those comments don’t agree. More people reviewing work means alignment matters more than ever. Clear feedback isn’t just about being nice to creative teams, it’s about keeping projects moving when complexity increases.
Guesswork quietly wears teams down
One of the less talked-about impacts of unclear feedback is what it does to people.
When feedback is vague or contradictory, creatives second-guess their decisions. They hesitate. They overwork. They keep extra time buffers “just in case.” Over time, confidence drops. Ownership fades. Work becomes safer, not stronger. Creative energy gets spent on managing uncertainty instead of pushing ideas forward. And in an industry already grappling with burnout, unclear feedback adds unnecessary mental load.
Actionable feedback is a shared skill
Clear feedback doesn’t mean controlling creative decisions or dictating every detail. It means being specific enough that someone knows what to do next.
Actionable feedback answers three basic questions:
What exactly needs attention?
Why does it matter?
What outcome are we aiming for?
This applies whether you’re reviewing a video frame, a design layout, or a copy draft. The clearer the feedback, the fewer follow-ups it creates. In 2026, teams that treat feedback as a skill and not an afterthought, will move faster with less friction.
Tools shape behaviour (whether we admit it or not)
The way feedback is delivered is often dictated by the tools teams use. Comments buried in long email threads, messages split across chat apps, or notes detached from the actual work all contribute to confusion.
When feedback lives outside the work, context often gets lost. When it’s disconnected from versions and timelines, decisions get questioned. When it’s scattered, accountability disappears. More teams are starting to realise that feedback problems aren’t just communication issues, they’re workflow issues. How work moves between people matters just as much as the work itself.
From Opinions To Alignment
One of the biggest shifts happening in creative teams is a move away from purely opinion-driven feedback. Instead of “I like this” or “I don’t,” teams are asking better questions:
● Does this meet the brief?
● Does this solve the problem?
● Does this align with the goal?
This change reduces unnecessary back-and-forth and helps feedback feel less personal and more productive. It also makes decisions easier to explain and defend. As creative work becomes more strategic, feedback has to support that shift.
2026 Is About Fewer Loops, Not Faster Loops
There’s a misconception that speed means moving through feedback cycles faster. In reality, the most creative teams aren’t just accelerating loops, they’re reducing them. Clear, actionable feedback upfront leads to fewer revisions later. Clear approval stages prevent last-minute surprises. Clear decisions stop work from circling endlessly.
In 2026, efficiency won’t come from working harder or longer. It will come from designing workflows that respect creative time and attention.
Ending guesswork is a mindset change
Ultimately, ending creative guesswork isn’t just about better tools or processes. It’s about mindset. It’s about recognising that clarity is an act of respect – for the work, for the people doing it, for the time invested and for the mindspace used. It’s about moving from “figure it out” to “here’s what we’re aiming for.”
Creative teams that embrace this shift will find themselves not only delivering faster, but also enjoying the process more. And in an industry built on imagination, that might be the most valuable outcome of all.
