Microsoft Wants to Take on Google 1073
blenderking writes "We do view Google more and more as a competitor. We believe that we can provide consumers with a better product and a better user experience. That's something that we're actively looking at doing,", says Bob Visse, director of marketing for Microsoft's MSN Internet services division, said. Full article at: Yahoo. This could have fit in with yesterday's April Fool's stories..."
2 Shots of Vapor, One Shot of ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe Microsoft is disappointed that google will not have an IPO anytime soon [slashdot.org], reducing possibility to easily buy Google and plug it into MSN.
If Microsoft wants to ensure their long term future they need to improve the server OS's and innovate in client software, not worry about being everything to everyone.
I'm sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
My big stick isn't as big as yours (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people are never satisfied (Score:5, Insightful)
a little too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google takes no time at all to load over a 56k modem, unlike most search engines, and makes searching incredibly simple.
Microsoft has no chance.
Perhaps too obvious, but (Score:5, Insightful)
In contrast, Microsoft is selling a world view -- theirs. I can't even imagine searching for gcc, or Java, or "Linus Torvalds" on Microogle and expecting to get useful information. You don't ask a plumber if your pipes need fixing.
Definition of better (Score:5, Insightful)
From past experience Microsoft's idea of better is more packed with features. I use Google because it is fast, efficient, and has unobtrusive advertising. Can you honestly see Microsoft competing on those terms?
if microsoft buys google... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll give you user experience. (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism at it's best (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple question (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this is a precursor to a hostile takeover sometime in the future. Buy Google, integrate it into MSN and assign a low rating to anything that has the word Linux in it.
Good Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Should MS, by some miracle, come up with a better search engine and a better interface, then I'll use it because it's the best for me. If they come up with a new feature that I like, I'll use it. I don't really care who's engine it is, so long as it finds the results I'm looking for. If it sucks (as I suspect it will), then that's a few million dollars less for Bill and Steve. Either way, we the users win.
Competition at work: may the best search engine win.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This could be not bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously haven't been taking your propaganda pills lately.
Yeah, yeah, the Spaceballs quotation, but I prefer MLK:
"Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that."
google.com better than support.microsoft.com (Score:4, Insightful)
meh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Google: The Next Netscape (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Write a windows worm / virus
2) Contribute to the linux kernel, kde, gnome, etc.
3) Teach your friends and family how to actually use Linux.
Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft will win (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Microsoft deserves to, but there's only so much you can do to hold off the 600 lb gorilla that controls the OS and browser used by 95% of PC owners.
Every member of my extended family already uses MSN search just because Internet Explorer defaults to it... and they are Mac users!
Microsoft could produce manure in paper bags and people would eat it as long as it was bundled.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Chris
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll quickly discover that Google searches Microsoft own websites better than Microsoft does!
Microsoft's Possible Plan (Score:1, Insightful)
If there's one driving force behind Microsoft "invovation" it's trying to connect everything to everything else (all be it a select "everything else" has an "MS" preceding it).
Idealy, this is a very cool concept. It's one of the key elements that made Office so damn sucessful
But Microsoft can take it a bit too far at times. (What the hell were they thinking when they decided a movie player is a core componet of an OS?)
I can only imagine that they'd try a similar thing with a vast database of webpages.
If they're sucessful, your average everyday consumer will end up with a lot of new easy to use tools for web research... it effectly would open the door of spiders, web crawlers and agents to your ordinary MS user... as to how sucessufly they can pull somthing like this off.
Ultimately I think it will come down to a question of usablity for your average user.
That and how much money they're willing to throw at it...
or IE jump to it with every 404...
ah hell.
Crashed before they get off the ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definition of better (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll add something to that -- Google is one of the very few sites that receives ad clicks from me! There are (at least) two big mistakes that so many web ads are prone to: 1) no personal relevance to the viewer and 2) they're damned annoying. Either of these is a deal-breaker for me.
Google manages to avoid the first failing by tying ads to the search topic. Thus if you're doing product research via Google, you're likely to encounter some relevant advertiser links.
Similarly, Google maintains control over the ad format. This dodges the second failing by ensuring that the ads are consistent with the unclutered nature of the site, are visually inoffensive, and are distinct from the search content. (Hmm... that seems oddly similar to sponsored placements on NPR stations. Go fig.)
Technical issues aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd imagine that means having links to hotmail, articles on other MSN-related sites, advertisements, having to log in (and out for those using public computers), etc.
I seriously don't understand how anyone can actually think that these things provide a "better experience" for a search system than a box for entering search terms and a button to start the search, all resulting in a simple list of relevant results. How is this [msn.com] better than this [google.com]?
Even as a "portal" (more so than before), Google still does a better job than the others.
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
That just happened in my neighborhood. The mom and pop joint has far better burgers, and real milkshakes, but when the zombie masses see the golden arches they act as if their decision has been made for them and go for the Big Macs.
Result: Mom and Pop are now losing money and will soon close their burger joint, one that's been there for almost 30 years. So Sad.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most schools use Microsoft because -- and almost solely because -- most businesses do. So the education market neither helps nor hurts the assertion.
As to why most businesses use Microsoft, the reason now is of course the self-fulfilling market share. Why did more business end up usng Microsoft? Because for most of history, the primary expense of a computer system was the hardware, and MS ran on dirt-cheap hardware compared to micros or Apple.
It's not really a sign of quality, per se. And I use XP in a heavy environment, too, and not a day goes by without at least one 2-minute hangup.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it hace 90% of the desktop market. A few reasons actually. 1. competition -- MS has eliminated virtually all competition through (often) less than legit ways. 2. userbase -- people know windows, people accept windows. not seeing that there are better options, they don't switch. 3. 3rd part products -- originally, windows cheap and standard environment allowed for programmers to design program that lots of people could run. So they built up a monopoly of 3rd party support. However with the rise of such things as OpenGL, windows might soon feel the burn. After all, there really isn't that much that windows can do and linux can't EXCEPT play the latest games. With the continuing development of OpenGL and important programmers like John Carmack supporting OpenGL, it's only a matter of time before Windows starts to collapse under its own weight.
So, your system doesn't ever crash? You must be some kind of voodoo, witch doctor, because we ALL know that windows WILL crash. Just give it a little bit of time. It always does.
Hope that answers your questions.
Re:a little too late (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes Re:Definition of better (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I can. Microsoft are quite comfortable with simply buying a market. They just pour money onto it, embrace and extend it, FUD it; and ship it with their OS, and then finally they own it (usually). Check out IE. Other browsers are a tiny percentage of the market. Check out Microsoft Word for another example. Both are decent products. Microsoft can do decent if they really have to. Alas.
That's what they normally do. And it usually works. The only question in my mind is whether Microsoft really can capture this market. The incumbent is good, widespread and it's unclear whether Microsoft's strength on the desktop even, can allow them to capture it. Indeed, it's not even clear whether it's worth them trying- nobody knows how much money Google makes on it; or how much money Microsoft could make.
Anyway, back to the original question: can Microsoft do the right thing enough to get the market? Yes, and worse still, there's no guarantee that they would continue to do the right thing.
Re:2 Shots of Vapor, One Shot of ... (Score:2, Insightful)
What exactly do you mean when you say that Microsoft has succeeded, despite producing poor products? Please cite some examples that reinforce your point. If you say Linux or MacOS, you lose.
Doesn't have to be better. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, 90% of the people where I work still have MSN.com as their start page, the way it shipped with IE. When I ask why they haven't changed it, they just say "Eh, why bother? It's alright the way it is." This is at a software development company.
Likewise, when people complain about how much popups suck, I tell them "Fine, so run Mozilla, and it's not a problem" they sound really enthused, but when I ask them a month later, "Eh, I never got around to it."
If your stuff is installed by default on every shipping computer, you don't have to be the best, or even very good. Most people will just never bother to change it even if it's just a matter of clicking a checkbox.
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, while this is somewhat saddening, this is actually rational behavior on the part of the "zombies". The quality of McD's product is fairly constant, and although not superlative, has low associated risk. The mom and pop store involves risk, in this case it's better, but you don't know that in advance, and it can take alot of time trying out all the little places to find better stuff.
aka sharpe's ratio [google.com].
-- p
p.z. i hope m$ tries to take on google; as long as there is no unfair bundling with the OS, competition will only spur more innovation by both parties.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I bought a Toshiba notebook. Can you tell me where I can buy a laptop without an OS?
Re:Google: The Next Netscape (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or better yet, read the giant Slashdot thread [slashdot.org] where many of those points were shredded.
Google-Watch is basically one giant troll by an embittered webmaster with paranoid delusions. And actually, I don't give a shit about Google's Linux boxes - it's the obvious technical solution for their needs, so I don't see why it's a big deal. I like Google because it fucking works, and because it's simple.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it works. So does a Yugo. Big deal.
Microsoft has used illegal tactics to force their products down the throats of millions of people. This isn't FUD: this is proven fact. They were convicted, in two courts of law.
This strong-arming has set the computing industry back 12 years, easily. (For example, compare a NeXT to any MS-Windows product before Win2k. The NeXT was more stable, easier to use, and faster, on older hardware.) This effect is so bad, you had to compare MS-Windows XP (about a year old) to MacOS 9 (the worst release of MacOS since the 6.0 days), which is several years old.
Microsoft hopes to use the same domination techniques (the ones they used to conquer the desktop) to take over web services. Unfortunately, their own products aren't up to the task, as demonstrated by the ongoing Hotmail fiasco, their inability to take on AOL in;a;meaningful manner; the extremely rapid growth of Linux in the server space, a space for which Microsoft has been angling for years; and any number of other large projects (especially in the database arena).
Microsoft is discovering the entrenched networking services realm is not as easy to crush as the desktop, because the distribution channels are not easily controlled (which is the method they used to eliminate desktop competition), and the people creating these services are not mid-level managers (Microsoft's bread and butter), but technically savvy individuals who can compare products based on merit, not on what dim-witted pundits say. (Such moronic tripe as, " yeah, I guesse that would explain why microsoft has 90% of the desktop market." Do you realize that Budweiser is the number one selling beer in America, and the Ford Pinto was once the best-selling car? WHO THE FUCK CARES? Popularity is hardly based on quality, as I learned in high school.)
Anyway, I'd just like to wrap my rant up by saying, Google isn't a DR-DOS. Google currently is the search leader, with an entrenched user base (and not just end-users, either).
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2 Shots of Vapor, One Shot of ... (Score:5, Insightful)
To beat google, you'll need something nice. REALLY nice.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:1, Insightful)
On top of that, you can find a handful of apps that will run forever, without causing any crashes, on almost any operating system. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the operating system.
Finally, nobody with any sense of reality says that Microsoft software doesn't work _at all_; it just generally doesn't work _well_. Microsoft has a long history of making mediocre products, and promoting them as if they are the best programs ever made. IOW, in almost every case, there are other products that work as well or better than Microsoft's offering and that cost less in the long run. Microsoft's success is more a result of their marketing and criminal business tactics than a result of the quality of their software.
Re:They don't have to be better. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats not exactly true. Most people think Windows IS better at what is important for them, ease of use. I love Linux and insist on it for servers, but honestly, its still too rough for the desktop for me. I try, but I just can't get the job done for ME. You are just MS bashing (or karma whoring/trolling) with no specific claim, just a general statement. Windows sucks in many ways, but its pretty easy to use, most people prefer it, lots of software runs on it, now runs fairly stable (xp). You know this. Everyone knows this. We all hope that soon day soon Linux will catch up on the desktop. That day isn't tomorrow. Maybe next week.
The difference is that all those 95% of the market computers come with MSN as the default home page NOW. They have for years. Yet Goggle has grown more market share in the last two years by a large margin, while MSN has grown at a more modest clip.
Its easy to change your search engine. No so for your OS. Alta Vista used to be a hot engine, too. HotBot was too. Lycos was years ago. Next year, who knows. Same for Yahoo. For now its Google. $10 says in two years it will be someone else. Thats a good thing, its called competition.
Re:Why? For Money (Score:2, Insightful)
This is one reason why SGI has lasted as long as it has. Same with Apple. Apple can't compete in price (and some say with speed), but they can compete with quality. Apple certainly isn't a struggling business.
The problem is companies continually want more. They want to capture more market and can't be satisfied with what they've got. It's not about making a living, it's about being the richest kid in town. That is why companies "diversify." Make one good product, have a loyal customer base, and a good income? Or make hundreds of lousy products, use marketing tactics and monopoly power to force people to use those products, and have a huge income (for a while)? Unfortunately, if you have shareholders, the latter choice inevitably wins.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
NeXT is, I think, not an entirely accurate example to give to show that MS got where they are solely through strongarm tactics. In 91-92, I remember drooling over a NeXT machine where I was working as a research assistant. It was $11,000 or so at a time when I was making $10,000 a year. Just a wee bit out of my price range, no matter how good it was. A hand-built PC was what the budget decreed, and since this was before I knew about linux (386BSD came out shortly after I had put that system together, which pre-dated my knowledge of linux by several months), DOS/Windows was what I used.
Price, rather than strongarming, is where MS got their foot into the door of the market. The way that they were able to offer a low price product, however, was by glossing over such things as security and reliability.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
What does Microsoft dislike about Google's dominance? the fact that such a flagship search engine isn't running Windows 2000. Google is built around a clustering model that goes against the Microsoft approach of having big fat servers.
Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Fast forward to today and that buggy, bloated piece of software called 'Internet Explorer' is still here, only now it commands over 90% of the browser market.
Or for those with longer memories, there once was these two programs called 'WordStar' and 'Wordperfect'..........
Re:Microsoft will just buy Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a reason IE was well on the way to displacing Netscape long before it was "integrated" into Windows...
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:2, Insightful)
After your post will be numerous follow-ups on the same general premise--mock Microsoft in some sarcastic way that has been done thousands and thousands of times over all these years at Slashdot.
I will either be modded down, someone will reply attempting to point out some hypocrisy they feel I possess, a Linux newbie who just installed Mandrake for the first time will describe some anecdotal experience justifying the original poster's baseless criticism against Microsoft...or I will be ignored. In any case, it is also likely an Anonymous Coward who is mad that I criticized one of their posts today will log out of his or her account and post drivel as a response.
Continue, please.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember this little thing called Hotmail?
Remember when there were no pop up ads? No terms of service changes that require you to check your options 3 times daily to ensure you haven't automatically been requested to share your personal info, and where it was a reliable service?
Re:Microsoft will win ??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet I'm supposed to believe that when MS can't squash a rival OS, it can suddenly conquer Google, even though Google is already starting with a huge user base and popularity?
Umm, yeah.
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me of the time we stopped in Jarretsville, MD. Just one piece of advice: don't. Ditto for Sperryville, VA (unless you want to go to what looked like a really fancy sit-down, which I didn't check out). The Sperryville experience actually involved me pulling away from the store, taking a bite of the sandwhich, and spitting it out because the meat tasted spoiled. That almost never happens at nationwide chains, and if it does, and you take it back, you'll get a quality replacement. I knew it was pointless to turn around, because they had pulled this spoiled meat from a big thing. That was their standard of quality. Then there was the raw pork barbecue in South Florida. Don't get me started on that.
Some general advice about mom-n-pops: Tables with square bent metal and vinyl covered chairs are a bad sign. If you've traveled the east coast of the US, you know the kind of chairs I'm talking about. I think whenever a nasty restaurant closes down, the next nasty restaurant picks these chairs up at the close-out.
Next, make sure the food preparation area is either totally obscured, or totally out in the open. My theory on this? If it's totally out in the open, they are proud of their process. If it's totally closed, the place is sufficiently upscale to separate the kitchen from the dining experience. At places where the food preparation is "semi-obscured" it means that they couldn't afford ambience, and they aren't proud of what they're doing.
Next, know your region. I don't think I've ever had bad bar-b-que in Texas. It's probably a capital offense to serve bad bbq there. If you walk into a Salvadoran restaurant, and see Salvadorans eating there, you are probably OK. Ditto for any other ethnic restaurant. Avoid places on "US" or state highways where there is little or no competition. Note, on the interstate system, competition may not exist at an exit, but if it exists 5 miles down the road you are probably OK.
Finally, learn from bad experiences and develop your "sense" of what's going to be good. Use your nose. Ask for a menu, and don't be afraid to turn around if you can't check the place out. Look at the people sitting there. Are they clean people? Dirty restaurants tend to attract dirty people.
Bottom line? When you're on the road and you're hungry, the safe mediocrity of McDonalds can be unbeatable.
Re:this is an IR problem (Score:3, Insightful)
MS could do technically better than Google, yes. If their technical people were left alone to do the job. That won't happen. MS will want to either monetize the search results or otherwise take advantage of them. And they'll flop precisely because people use Google to avoid exactly that.
Re:2 Shots of Vapor, One Shot of ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would gues the whatever is longhorn.. It's main conceptual improvement being touted is the 'filesystem is a (searchable) database'. How easy would it be to extend your local search to 'Search the web for [term]'. If they would go that route
No chance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google takes no time at all to load over a 56k modem, unlike most search engines, and makes searching incredibly simple.
Microsoft has no chance.
Microsoft has Internet Explorer, the browser most people use to access these sites. Type in any common text at the top of IE -- it will act as a search for MSN if not disabled. Most people don't know how to change their home page from MSN and really don't care to.
Microsoft has Windows. This is a prime advertising space, the perfect place for "Try MSN search now!" pop-up ads to come up when first used and every now and then if not disabled.
Microsoft has more money now than Google ever will. They can blanket the airwaves with MSN-search specific ads and it will be no more of a bother to them than discarding pocket change.
Microsoft has clout. There will be no lack of tech reviews comparing MSN Search and Google.
Microsoft has every chance.
Re:No I got it all right (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is constitutionally incapable of doing things that way. Google gives you search results, MS wants to give you a "user experience". I've already had all the Microsoft experiences I care for.
Re:I like Microsoft, I've haven't seen OS X yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's OK. It's not your fault that you've had limited exposure to quality products.
I guess if people don't use Mac OS X they can muddle along with M$ dreck and
homegrown Linux. I'm almost envious that you'll be able to visit an Apple Store
nearby and discover anew how wonderful computing can really be. It will be
a whole new enlightening experience. Come join us.
Why Microsoft sucks. (Yes, really.) (Score:5, Insightful)
Put simply: they try to be everything and everyone. They are always trying to be the "next big thing", but not by putting all their efforts into making their current endeavours into quality results, but instead trying to spread their manpower (and therefore their streams of income) over the vast technology market.
Oh, sure other companies do this too, but not the way MS does. Apple, for example, doesn't have their own database software (anthough they do have their own browser now). Sun doesn't have their own search engine. Redhat doesn't have a special online service. And Google does not have their own OS.
Seriously, as the largest software company in the world, Microsoft could still make it to step three (if you've been under a rock for 2 years: "Profit!") without trying to be the one and only market leader for everything technology related. They need to make Windows, and perhaps their Office Suite, and make them good, and less expensive. They need to work with other developers, even if those developers aren't paying them top dollar to be part of the MSDN. Open Standards. Simplicity.
Quality.
And this is why we hate Microsoft. Greed before quality.
Re:Technical issues aside... (Score:2, Insightful)
But Google doesn't provide a "product" to consumers. Doing a search is recieving a "service," but it's not buying a product. Consumers don't pay a cent! Google makes money and does well because it only provides "product," in the form of advertising, to, well, advertisers.
This comment indicates to me that Microsoft's long term plan is to provide a search as a product, that is, you have to pay for it. So obviously Google's got to go.
"Don't go to the local library to borrow a book... come to Microsofts Wunder-Library - you get so much more for your money!"
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
stating the obvious is insightful? (Score:1, Insightful)
MSN search WILL have to be better, otherwise people will continue to switch to Google. Sub-par and cluttered MSN search will turn people off and perpetuate the association of the word "search" with "Google".
Don't think Microsoft can do it. (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft's products, on the other hand, seem to be designed from the ground up for bloat. Just take a look at how Hotmail changed after Microsoft took over. Not that I have anything against Microsoft...hell, I'm using WinXP right now...but I just don't think they could restrain themselves. I think the urge to tinker/improve/bloat would be too strong.
I'm sure Microsoft could come up with a decent search engine, but I'm equally sure they'd bog it down with un-necessary features and integrate it into everything they can. We'd have adds all over the place...and links into Microsoft's product database...and then Windows would be modified to use the search site exclusively, and the "Find Files" button wouldn't work without an Internet connection.
I just don't honestly believe that Microsoft could produce something that simple, streamlined, and effective.
yrs,
Ephemeriis
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why doesn't anyone do somthing about this? Even if they completely bomb the first few versions, they have unlimited money to throw at it til they can get it right (see XBox, DirectX).
It doesn't look like they intend on stopping anywhere, either. On a side note, I'm not really anti-MS and I like the operating system overall, but the other products havn't amazed me the slightest.
Re:No I got it all right (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely disagree. The pay-for-placement links are very obviously removed from the normal search results.
I did two quick searches. The first was for "linux". Below the Google header / navigation bar is our first sponsored link. This link is encased in a pink box and clearly labled "sponsored link". Below that is a category listing. Below that is a few lines of news items related to Linux from google news. Then comes the search results on the left flanked on the far right by two sponsored links in their own blue boxes and clearly labled "sponsored links".
I performed another search - this time for "athlon". Two seperately labled "sponsored links" encased in blue and orange boxes respectfully. A category listing. Then comes search results flanked on the far-right by four clearly labled "sponsored links" each in their own green box.
Google CLEARLY seperates their sponsored content from their normal search results. Other search engines selling placement have intermixed search results with sponsored content with the sponsored bits coming up earlier in the listing and no labeling or seperation. This is very different than what Google does.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember when there were no pop up ads? No terms of service changes that require you to check your options 3 times daily to ensure you haven't automatically been requested to share your personal info, and where it was a reliable service?
Well I don't like MS much, but this certainly isn't Microsoft's fault alone. You could have said the same thing about numerous other free on-line mail services a few years ago. But most or all of them are doing various pop-up/whatever advertising schemes these days too. The business climate changed, and these services had to start making a profit. And non-paying customers only have limited economic power to change things. Take Yahoo as a case in point.
Re:even with lots of bandwidth (Score:2, Insightful)
Long live MS!
Re:No chance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Marketing is about
1. finding out what the customer wants/need
2. finding out how much the custmer will pay for what he wants/needs.
3. finding out where the customer will go to get what he wants/need.
then pushing to get what the customer wants/needs to where the custmer will buy what he wants/needs for the price that the customer will think is fair.
advertising is about getting the customer to think what you have is what they need/want, going to where it's convienent for you to sell it at and pay what will make you the most profit.
Generaly if personel are dividing time between marketing and advertising, no real marketing is done.
If the VP is in charge of both marketing and advertising, no real marketing is done
If you want to add personel to marketing and two people have a degree majoring in marketing, the one with dual minors in statistics and sociology will do real marketing, the one with a minor in graphics design or communications wiil do advertising.
Back in 1998 (Score:1, Insightful)
So, yes they can compete... I guess....
It seemed to me that M$ is annoyed that MSN sucks so bad. They want to make MSN more visible.
MS vs. Google - What has Bill been smoking. (Score:3, Insightful)
- Fast
- Efficient
- Powerful
- Accurate
- Largely Bug Free
These are features which oppose Microsoft's core ideology, and so they have no chance in hell of beating Google at its game.
MS' track record in this area is absolutely appalling. MSN's search feature is slow and returns some ridiculously irrelevant results at times. Microsoft's homepage is even worse, the search box is confusing, it is slow as hell (Microsoft were dumb enough to use Windows / IIS on their web servers - fools), and it returns results which are about as useful to the user as a pro-Microsoft story on Slashdot.
Wanting versus doing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
What Pharmboy is describing it not "pay-for-placement results". The ads he's buying don't appear in the search results listings. They appear off to the side or in a space below the masthead, and in either case they're clearly marked as 'Sponsored Links.'
In other words, they are not search results. They're just ads.
At the same time, I'm disappointed that he, and anyone involved in new media advertising, still looks at conversions as an indicator of how effective an ad is. Few people ever click-through on an ad they see and make an immediate purchase. Expectations for web ads ought to be no greater than any other kind of print or broadcast ad; it's not an opportunity to make a quick sale, just an opportunity to spread the word about what you're selling. Impressions are what matter.