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..."
This could be not bad. (Score:3, Interesting)
Quick Question (Score:2, Interesting)
Fine... Let 'em try! (Score:5, Interesting)
However, he should bear in mind that whatever MS creates:
(1) Will have to have a noticeable lack of any sort of banner ads or popups.
(2) Will have to have a clean, simple, easy-to-use interface that's compatible with ANY BROWSER, from the text-based Lynx on up to the latest version of Opera, Netscape, or IE.
(3) Will have to be fully compatible with text-based screen readers, such as those used by vision-impaired folks.
(4) Will actually have to work as well as, or better than, Google if MS wants it to have a ghost of a chance.
Right now, Google completely fulfills requirements 1-3. I will be watching with great amusement as Uncle Steve and his Cronies try to add "value" to the search engine "experience," and most likely fall flat on their collective arses doing it.
this one kind of surprised me.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think google is the stuff and i rarely see a need to use anything else. it is -Exactly- the interface that i want and it is lightning fast with no distractions.
perhaps there is some breakthough in searching/indexing technology that MS thinks they can make. I'd buy that - there are lots of bright people here that really understand interesting problems with other approaches and can turn that understanding into solid products.
or perhaps someone decided google isn't "friendly" enough (i.e. not filled with crap, ads, marketing tie-ins, etc etc) and needs to be cluttered up and "popularized". maybe someone simply wants MS to have the #1 search and thats driving the whole story..
My worry is that whatever comes out of this, it will end up being 800kb of dhtml and popups and shitty ads. I don't think anything will ever replace google for what the majority of people use it for unless it is as simple and stripped down as google is, interface wise. i mean, i have a vested financial interest in MS products doing well but i still find myself using what i feel is the right tool for the job which fits my usage habits best, and for basically all searching tasks thats google.
Re:2 Shots of Vapor, One Shot of ... (Score:5, Interesting)
But they don't need a better search engine to beat Google. They just need to neatly integrate their SE into Windows XP2 or whatever, really push it on sites such as Hotmail and MSN and other high-visibility sites, things like that. They are Microsoft, they don't need to have the better product to beat the competition.
In fact, I think their history shows that it is in fact the other way around - MS managed to get the upper hand many times with an inferior product.
Of course, it's Google. It's got both quality and enormous brand recognition - not an easy target, not even for Microsoft
Why? For Money (Score:2, Interesting)
Another point. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps too obvious, but (Score:5, Interesting)
# Amazon.com
Buy Linux software at the Amazon.com software store.
# Introducing Linux (at tech.msn.com)
Find the latest news and information on this operating system.
# Alternatives to Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP (at microsoft.com)
Learn about the Microsoft alternatives and how to move to them from open source products.
The three after it are all sponsor links. They're marked as such, but not clearly. After that, it continues with some more links, which are of somewhat better quality. In contrast, Google's top three results are linux.org, linux.com, and redhat.com.
Until MS separates out the advertising a bit better and stops skewing the top links quite so much to suit its own opinion, people aren't going to use their search site. Oh, and they need to lose the advertising image and simplify their page.
Re:Alltheweb.com (Score:2, Interesting)
Does Linux have to do with this? (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems to me that it would serve Microsoft quite well if the leading search engine ran Microsoft software, not something they have been denouncing as a toy or communism or whatever.
I'm not thinking about personal users, but businesses. The pointy-hairedest of managers knows how well Google works and has probably been hearing at least a little about how Microsoft products aren't quite the most secure or trustworthy. Maybe he'll think, 'If it works for Google, it should work here,' recommend using Linux in the company, and cost Microsoft some potential money.
Anyone agree this might be a motivating factor in the announcement, or am I just reading too far into this?
This is just R&D and Marketing. Good for them. (Score:2, Interesting)
They dont have to become more popular than Google, all they have to do to win is to be able to pump out that WHITE PAPER proving them to be faster and cheaper per transaction than Linux. If they do that, then they win, period.
This sucker is probably going to be nothing but a huge test bed for the next SQL Server, and for .NET Services. They DONT have to have anywhere near the popularity of Google to make it more than worth the effort. Too many of you geeks dont understand Marketing.
I expect that what they will do; is try to make a positive Cost/Benefit Analysis for running .NET Server in the Enterprise on lots of smaller boxes rather than Linux for companies leaning in that direction. Microsoft is trying to get lots of .NET Server adoption in this critical phase for them as they phase out support for NT Server.
Many of those companies that are going to migrate are right now looking at Linux solutions. They need some compelling reasons for these companies to invest in those .NET and SQL licences going forward.
It is a drop in the bucket as far as what it will cost them, they will gain experience in these kinds of architectures in a way that they couldnt otherwise, and if successful, it becomes a new potential revenue stream.
Looks like a win-win for Microsoft, and I expect that Google will be moving up that IPO right quick.
Re:Quick Question (Score:5, Interesting)
how do you know that ?
is there some document that says so ? did some "reputable source" tell you ? are you just sure that BSD was doing such a better job ?
i've talked to the people involved at hotmail (and now at MS) about exactly how the transistion went. i have a good idea (from what internal documents i've read and conversations i've had) at what the old picture was and what the new picture was. i know a little bit about some of the problems and some of the successes, from essentially 1st hand sources
do you have this info ? care to share it with us all to justify your claim ?
i'll tell you what i can, and it may surprise you. the majority of freebsd front-door boxes were converted to win2k. the freebsd that was in use was essentially fully custom at that point, and not much like the stock freebsd (this would be the "special os" you mention). the w2k replacements are stock (perhaps settings tweaked) win2k servers, nothing "magic" about them. in general, the w2k boxes are outperforming the freebsd's they replaced by a statistically significant margin. not to mention other benefits (beleive it or not - reliability was one of them). note that this is on the same hardware - freebsd was replaced with w2k
some people will say "netcraft still says its freebsd!" and they're partially correct. there are still some freebsd boxes that remain at hotmail last time i talked to anybody about it. additionally, the Back end mailstore machines were neither windows or freebsd - they were giant sun boxes that were already purchased and too expensive to simply throw away only on the gorunds of doing it all "the windows way"... although i understand that converting them is now underway or coming soon..
initally, i didn't beleive it either when i read the documents. turns out the hotmail conversion really shaped a lot of w2k because they started working on it early. w2k is partially what it is today because it had to exceed freebsd enough to make the conversion not only possible, but worthwhile.
you should keep a few things in mind when making blanket statements about what windows can and cant do
Microsoft WILL beat Google. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the way Microsoft can beat Google: legal partnerships to restrict the flow of data to all competitors except Microsoft.
Stay tuned. Microsoft can't win on technology, but they can win with deep pockets and monopolistic practices every time.
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google: The Next Netscape (Score:5, Interesting)
A) This is why we have patents. Google has novel technology and they have (hopefully strong) patents on it. It's not very likely that MS will find a method that is as good without walking into a lawsuit. Netscape had no strong IP--they bet on their market penetration and headstart.
B) There's not much MS can do to google short of blatantly re-jiggering IE to stop functioning with google (and google's inevitable responses). Unlike the situation with Netscape, google does not have to contend with network effects. They don't have to install anything on the users machine and they don't have much exposure to MS' API antics. There's not much that MS can "add" over and above what Google does. MS can try to embed their own search engine interface into IE (I think they already do by default)--but it's a nominal advantage and something that can easily be matched by 3rd party tools.
I can't stand MS, but fortunately Google is one of the few companies that MS can't kill with their traditional techniques. Their best option would be to try to acquire it, but given Google's popularity and MS's lack of leverage on them, they'd take a huge hit (mucho dinero) to do so. That and I don't think Google really threatens MS so there'd be little incentive for them to do so.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:2, Interesting)
1. They lie about their products. The A928 definitely does not contain a "Hardware SoundBlaster Pro for real-mode DOS legacy compatible" - the only sound card it has is a SiS 7012, which lacks even basic SB emulation drivers. The machine seemed pretty solid otherwise, though I only had it for a day or two.
2. They have the crappiest customer service imaginable - when I told them the above (and pointed out the lack of drivers) their only response (a week later) was
"DID YOU CONTACT YOUR VENDOR??(sic)
Thank you for using ECS products,
ECSUSA Technical Support Department"
Of course, DirectPC [directpc.ca]was amazingly pathetic as well. Restocking fee my ass...
3. They're only slightly cheaper than a regular laptop (and without the battery).
Google could return fire (Score:1, Interesting)
Heres my thinking: Microsoft will no doubt start trying to advertise their search engine on new versions of windows and new windows service packs, as well as making it their default IE start page everytime you take a windows update.
Solution? Get everybody to switch to linux, then we all win
They could start by making their google toolbar available for other web browsers than IE.
Bad. (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft spends $$$$$ on a search engine to compete with Google. It sucks, but it becomes the default for IE, the default for MSN customers, and the default for the new 'windows internet search' feature (which won't explicitly tie in the browser). 90% of the population will use this shitty search which is based on commercial presence, Google will close shop, and the web will become an even worse wasteland of ads and sales sites.
Microsoft seldom spends money to be the BEST, they spend money to be the BIGGEST.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, despite (still?) running on BSD (Free I recall) for years. Despite being so stupid as to let their domain registration run out. Despite most people receiving tons of spam. Despite annoying every other non-hotmail person with an email account by being, besides AOL and know the far east, THE source of spam. Despite having outages of days.
Some people by the percentages are stupid. That means there are a LOT of stupid people.
The upside? They still don't control the email market. iow, let them compete. It'll drain their bank accounts when they find they can't corner the market.
The downside? The only way they can compete is using patents. They'll buy them. Make up crap ones. They'll use what they have to threaten others of less financial capital. They'll tie up competitors in lawsuits and drain them, esp. given that they have monopoly power and market mass such that they use their options (people buy their stock which they simply spend) to hammer down the competition.
Fortunately, the only way they'll pull a IE vs. Netscape on this one is if they force the URL field of IE whenever it sees "google.com/" to go to whatever they're pushing.
btw, why do you think they brought up Google now, of all times? Because of the recent talk of IPO. Whether or not google does it soon, the mere shot that MS might be in there will have investors thinking twice. Maybe a small affect, but a swing of $100 million or so due to dubious (hmm, what is this worth in 2 years if MS gets in?) may be just the effect MS intended.
They're already doing it (Score:5, Interesting)
For the last several weeks, my web server logs have shown that my sites have been crawled heavily by bots from Microsoft-owned IP addresses. (I know they're bots because, even though they don't identify themselves, they DO pick up robots.txt and obey it.)
This has been going on since, oh, about mid-February.
Aside from not identifying themselves, the bots are well-behaved: they pick up and obey robots.txt, and they only request a single page at a time and take a few minutes between requests so as to not overtax my servers.
So, yeah...this announcement is no big surprise to me.
Re:Microsoft will win (Score:5, Interesting)
But google also have an advantage... it still evolving, still having new very features, and there is still a lot of place for improvements. But they must do them before Microsoft is it jump to the search engines field.
In features, anyway, there is a danger. Some search engines, like Teoma [teoma.com], did some advancements in the main google fields, like enhancing results focusing in the subject of the search and communities, and Kartoo [kartoo.com] introduced a visual way to search that could fit more in Microsoft goals and way to do things. Microsoft just need to buy/license that kind of technologies (or just copy, as they did countless times before), and that Google don't advance a lot and they could have a chance.
I like Microsoft. (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in grad school (starting in '93) I was anti-MS, for no good reason other than they were so big. When I bought a new computer I strongly considered geting OS/2 for it (phew...dodged that bullet). I bought the WordPerfect suite to write my thesis with. I used Navigator to surf the web on my PC. You know, a funny thing happened. WordPerfect was ok for small documents but for something like my modest thesis with images it sucked. I gave MS Office a go (I had never used it before then) and was sold...it got the job done. After I left grad school IE3 was released...the first version to exceed NN. IE has never looked back. For an OS, I have XP at work and home (in addition to an installation of Linux via VMWare for testing) and it works. It doesn't crash, runs fine. One of my Linux zealot coworkers seems to be forever downloading the latest build of something or looking for a better widget, all while Linux looks more and more like Windows on the desktop. I do use OpenOffice.org suite on my home computer, because I gave my wife my copy of Office XP to use on her computer. For simple spreadsheet work and basic letter writing it's fine. It's still no match for Office though.
So years ago I gave up the pro-this, anti-that stance and took one that's pro-me. I use what works best for me. Period. Best search engine? Google (which is not a verb, you trying-to-be-cool buzzword compliant geeks). If another search engine is better for me, than great, I'll use it. Same goes for other products. I don't have time to waste on half-assed products just to make a point. I want to spend less time wrestling with software and more time getting things done (which translates to more time with my family). I know it's sacrilege to say so here in the geek hive, but MS products generally are better than competing products.
Microsoft isn't in the same league as Google (Score:2, Interesting)
Has anyone ever tried the Search box on www.microsoft.com? The few times I have tried, the search results for their own website were so poor that I ended up using Google with the site:microsoft.com search modifier.
Besides, Google stands for everything good, and Microsoft stands for everything evil.
I suppose that Microsoft would try to compete with Google to provide corporate customers with a search engine for their intranet and extranet sites. I doubt that they would get anywhere trying to make money with free web searches.
Re:I like Microsoft. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://forever-hacking.net/compare.html
Re:I like Microsoft, I've haven't seen OS X yet. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I like Microsoft. (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the other issues, not all of them are relevant. "Skinning"? Whoopee. "Sidebar support"? Hmmm, isn't that a Mozilla unique feature? Why not add a "feature": "Is named Mozilla?".
Seriously, though, through the power of Proxomitron [proxomitron.org] and Cookie Cop [pcmag.com] I get more configurability than I know what to do with. Throw in POPFile [sourceforge.net] and I've got the power, baby. As for security I've never had a virus, never been hacked, never had any problems. I keep my stuff patched, run a good cheap virus scanner [my-etrust.com] and, oh yeah, use common sense.
Microsoft is probably going after paid search (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets face it, Google has algorithmic search sewn up for now, and MSN's search sucks so bad, that they are going to have a heck of a time convincing people to use a "new improved" MSN search.
Let's assume that 50% of American users are already online... If you'e buying books and you've been on the web for more that 1 year, you've pretty much narrowed it down to one or two sites where you're going to ever buy books online. Similarly, you've narrowed down your search preferences.
My landlord loves Dogpile and will never switch even though he knows that Google is better.
My point is that Microsoft will have to aim their search at that 5% of the 50% of US users that are total newbies. And they're going to have to force them to do it through the IE browser and other nefarious means.
The US search market is already well segmented, and unless they are heading for China or India (or post Sadaam Iraq), then I wish them luck.
Ironic Considering MSDN Article (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I like Microsoft. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I like Microsoft. (Score:1, Interesting)
They make a better browser.
Are you kidding? IE is the bane of my existence, I spend around 60% of my day finding workarounds for its bugs (I'm a web developer). Functionally, it does nothing special. Technically, it can't be called a web browser, because it violates fundamental parts of HTTP (i.e. MUST NOTs).
The make a better word processor. They make the best mice and joysticks. They make great games. XP is an excellent OS. Not everything they make is great but no company has a perfect track record.
Hang about. Don't justify Microsoft's past with "no company has a perfect track record". It's like saying (Godwin forgive me) "Not everything Hitler did was good, but hey, nobody's perfect."
Look at Microsoft's track record. They attempt to extinguish up-and-coming companies that create innovative or competing products at every opportunity. Netscape. Java. Stacker. DR-DOS. Look at their products. A mediocre OS, a mediocre productivity suite, both of which rely on their market share to get by. Look at the truly decent things they come out with (peripherals, mainly). Is this a company that is good for the computer industry?
Back in grad school (starting in '93) I was anti-MS, for no good reason other than they were so big.
Then you were an idiot, plain and simple. I'm not saying a lot of the anti-Microsoft sentiment you see isn't stupid stuff like that, but there are legitimate reasons for avoiding Microsoft as much as possible.
After I left grad school IE3 was released...the first version to exceed NN. IE has never looked back.
I'm sure you preferred IE3, but the competition with Netscape didn't really take off until the fourth generation browsers came out, and it was a combination of two factors that killed netscape:
Notice how neither of the factors actually involved Microsoft actually doing anything beneficial for the end-user?
One of my Linux zealot coworkers seems to be forever downloading the latest build of something or looking for a better widget, all while Linux looks more and more like Windows on the desktop.
Thinly-disguised "see, Linux is copying Windows, Windows must be better!"
There is no one "look and feel" to Linux, if your co-worker chooses to use something that resembles Windows, he can. And if he wants to stay on the cutting edge by downloading all the latest releases, he can. These are not bad things.
So years ago I gave up the pro-this, anti-that stance and took one that's pro-me.
Good for you, glad to see you have caught up with the eight-year-olds.
Best search engine? Google (which is not a verb, you trying-to-be-cool buzzword compliant geeks).
Google lends itself very nicely to that phrasing, it's nothing to do with trying to be cool. What's easier to say:
I know it's sacrilege to say so here in the geek hive, but MS products generally are better than competing products.
Microsoft has a very high market saturation. Whilst it may be your personal opinion that Microsoft create better software, we've all used that software - and, at least in my own personal experience, you couldn't be further from the truth. Stating it as a fact just makes you look like an idiot.
Now, in case you have missed the discussion here, let me summarise:
Microsoft have expressed an interest in the search engine market. From past behaviour, we all expect Microsoft to use its market share to crush or buy Google, resulting in people being stuck with an inferior product.
Google, on the other hand, has consistently shown itself to be a Good Guy. They excel at what they do, and it seems like everything they touch turns to gold. People have taken notice of that fact, and take offense when they see that Good Guy threatened by a business as plainly agressive as Microsoft.
Simple enough for you?
Monopoly vs monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
MS has the only OS that matters in the world and the most important business software in the world. Not to mention its inroads into the server market and how its web and email apps are how most people interface with the internet.
Google has web indexing, searching, USENET, news, and soon will the the first and last word in blogs.
These are two very powerful companies that contain a great deal of the world's computing applications. They're both insanely huge in importance and dominate their respective markets.
I know theres a lot of Google cheerleading here, but at the end of the day its just a company. There was just as much MS cheerleading when Bill was seen as the sole nerd against an army of suits at IBM.
MS attacking google can be a very good thing. It'll put more pressure on Google to deliver the goods (wheres my NLP search and regional searches?). Google should attack MS as well. They could get into the Office Suite business. Imagine a google branded version of Open Office or StarOffice with some cool proprietary google add-ons free for download. Now would be a great time, Joe Sixpack can't copy the boss's XP Office license anymore.
Ideally, I'd rather see open formats and more companies coming in with new and better ideas, but in a world of brands and product loyalty (google cheerleaders you know who you are) monopoly vs monopoly may be the best we can hope for.
Any one remember... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I like Microsoft. (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think it'd be considered nit-picking to say that kde and gnome are looking more and more like the windows gui. I'm using flux-box and it's different in a lot of ways. I'm not a huge fan of icons cluttering the desktop and that big ugly kicker panel
and from flux-boxes site heres a few other interesting features going in a different direction from windows
# Configurable window tabs.
# Wheel scroll changes workspace
# Configurable titlebar (placement of buttons, new buttons etc)
# New native integrated keygrabber (supports emacs like keychains)
# Maximize over slit option
That being said, I don't think it's a bad idea to use elements from windows' interface that work well.
(also, I'm not affiliated with flux-box development or anything.)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Google is platformed on Python. Python is a great language for rapid development of stable applications.
Google didn't become strong because they had great algorithms or ideas. They became strong because they were able to implement them overnight, and on a whim.
What language that comes with Microsoft Visual Studio shares the simplicity, stability, and power of Python? That is Microsoft's weaknesses.
We users of free software community have a checkmate over Microsoft because our tools are simply far better than anything Microsoft can ever have. Companies who use Free Software just don't switch back, or if they do, they suffer big time.
This is a battle Microsoft can't win (without breaking some serious rules). I would like to see them waste their money trying, anyway.
Re:even with lots of bandwidth (Score:2, Interesting)
long live google!
Mark.
What's your definition of Bug? Of bloated? (Score:5, Interesting)
As to why it is common, if you recall the anti-trust trial in the U.S. where Microsoft was found guilty and the appeal where the verdict of guilty was upheld, you'll find that among the records is the fact the MSIE gained market because it was bundled with MS-Windows.
If left to compete on technical merits, MSIE will fall out of the market place and disappear. MSIE has fallen so far behind [eweek.com] in technology, usability and security that it's a marketing wonder that any corporate intranets allow it at all. Perhaps offering a Google-like competitor is the only way to keep from losing all ground to Mozilla, Opera and others.
Microsoft could easily shut out any normal search service by further leveraging their desktop monopoly. Simply add searching functions in MSIE that make it hard to use anything than their own service, much the same way that HTTP error messages have been co-opted in MSIE.
Makers of embedded devices and other systems are quite aware of this and have been turning to Mozilla [mozilla.org] and Opera [opera.com].
Re:And the Truth is... (Score:2, Interesting)
If you just type 'select case' instead then this [microsoft.com] is the first hit.
And you really don't want to use MSDN web's search - you want an offline MSDN's index which I can't see on the web version. Type 'select case' into that and you get: (mangled since I can't table)the third of which is what you want. Better still, use context help in Visual Studio.NET and I think it'll even pick the right one for you.
And Microsoft's documentation is very good in general - I'd pick MSDN over most third parties for things like that.
Microsoft's insurmountable challenge (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Conversion is only one consideration. We get only 10% or less of our sales from direct conversion. Its a guide. I can compare one place to another using conversion, but it also has to be tempered with:
1) demographics of the engine
2) the particular ad (if different on the sites)
3) type of ad (banner, word ad, horz. banner)
4) particular keyword
So, since AOL gets me about the same number of HITS as MSN, but MSN converts about 12% and AOL converts about 0%, I can figure that I get more "tire kickers" from AOL and more serious buyers from MSN. I still sell stuff from the AOL ads, but it takes 10x the ads to sell one unit on AOL, vs MSN. This means I am willing to pay 10x on MSN, because my net result (selling one unit) has the same net cost.
Whether someone converts instantly depends on many things: the items costs, the demo's of the product (age/race/gender), the complexity of the item (stand alone or other item dependant like a scanner) and whether the item is durable (made to last 5+ years) or disposable (5 years). But on the same item, same demos, etc. you CAN compare coversion rates and get a ROUGH idea of how effective a search engine is at reaching YOUR demos. Click through rate, well thats a different coversation........