Microsoft Introduces Competition For Google News 312
Romeo E. Cabrera writes "In advance of an imminent launch of its own search engine, Microsoft has launched its own version of the popular Google News service. Based initially on feeds from the Moreover news aggregation service, the new beta service (known as MSN Newsbot) aims to provide news on a range of subjects including World, Sports, Entertainment, Science and Technology."
As long as it is not the same stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
Impartiality (Score:5, Insightful)
What about MSNBC??? (Score:5, Insightful)
At first glance I thought it was a new place to search usenet news. This new "news site" is just plain worthless. It reminds me of the USAToday site.
Still using google (Score:2, Insightful)
second to the punch (Score:5, Insightful)
M$ launches new search engine
M$ launches music download servive
it seems like M$ is scrambling a little bit, not quite sure what to do anymore. coming to the market second or third works when you can leverage your existing user-base in a controlled environment (think IE or Office).
the trouble is the internet is not really a controlled environment like their os. even with a browser monopoly M$ hasn't really figured out what to do online
so as far as I am concerned as long as M$ is mired up trying to develop their own online services in-house the world is safe.
Re:Impartiality (Score:5, Insightful)
The more important thing here is this may push google to drop the "our news site is an experimental beta test which can be dropped at any time" attitude and start to really pour some resources in. One thing about competition is that it will help hone the product and google's news site has not really changed since it's inception a while back. I was hoping for some interface tweaks and other enhancements that could make it the killer web app.
Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone question why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Specialized News Aggregate Sites (Score:3, Insightful)
If Google or Microsoft wished to truly compete in one segment (sports, politics, videogames, etc.) they would have to hire editors to manage those sections and provide a personal touch as well as specialized features for those sections.
I am an Editor at GameTab [gametab.com] which is in essence an aggregate site for videogame news and reviews. We are a portal site (much like the Google/MSN news sites) which means that we're trying to be a jumping point for gamers to venture out into other sites. We don't create news ourselves, we merely report what news other sites are presenting and do useful manipulation on the data. In addition we present relevant information such as price deals, developer and fan created box art, torrent files, etc.
For generic news these sites run by corporations are great. They are a strong challenge to outlets such as CNN or MSN.com itself. However, for the many areas of news people will always want that custom feel that they only receive when information is tailored specifically to their tastes.
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I don't care whether or not a company has innovated in the "here's something totally new that you've never seen before" - if they can take something and make it better, then I (as a punter) will chose it.
To innovate doesn't have to have the pre-requsit of "start from scratch". It's perfectly possible to take something that isn't particulary new and then add new features and claim that to be innovative.
Other companies in all markets have been doing that for years. It's not something limited to Microsoft.
Re:Oddly Enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paranoid? Maybe not.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
vs.
MSN Newsbot search for "Google News" [msn.com]
It's a very telling search that compares the two services rather nicely.
Re:Paranoid? Maybe not.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now Microsoft has a monopoly and the inertia will eventually kill them. My only question is, can I pick the stock of the next contender to the throne? That my friend is the American way.
Re:Paranoid? Maybe not.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now Microsoft has a monopoly and the inertia will eventually kill them. My only question is, can I pick the stock of the next contender to the throne? That my friend is the American way.
What's interesting is IBM lost its PC monopoly because of the openness of the hardware. I think it would be rather ironic if MS loses their monopoly because the, albeit different, open architecture of OSS.
Haven't you people ever seen MSNBC? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pro-linux [msnbc.com]
Anti-microsoft [msnbc.com]
Re:Paranoid? Maybe not.. (Score:2, Insightful)
At the risk of being troll or falimbait; Microsoft is pissing me off. Every day I come to
That being said, I'll get responding to the point you say you were trying to make, and this post. As you said yourself, they "have a good start". But you seem to be under the impression that Microsoft's software is stagnant and that it's not improving.
The only issue you call out specifically is security. Microsoft HAS improved on that (compare Server2k3 w/ Server2k exploit rates, for example) and is still doing more [microsoft.com]. Security asise if you just look at what Microsoft has done over time (95->98->XP) there have been significant improvements in both UI (The original 95's UI sucks ass out of the box) and stability (the former traditional Microsoft sucks rallying point; these days it's security). I also find it extremely interesting that typically there is "one big thing" Microsoft gets slammed for at a time. And I say if your detractors can only find one major (where major=encompassing design flaws) bad thing about your products you're doing pretty good.
You also say you "would like to see augmentations to their existing software, instead of making new software to get more money." I just don't understand what the difference is. Microsoft adds new stuff to their software to sell more copies. If they don't then people won't upgrade. There's still a large amount of people using Win 98 (~30% I belive last time I looked at Google's stats, and it was about equal to XP). Apparently XP wasn't compelling enough for them to upgrade. So they're continuing to add new stuff. But it's not like during this time period Microsoft doesn't refine their existing products. Win98 is still supported today and gets patches. What other desktop operating systems still support the version released in 98? I don't think it's Apple, and I don't think it's any of the Linux vendors, and I know it's not Be.
So can MS's software improve? Sure, and I think they wouldn't disagree. But is it really just "good enough"? There are markets (IBM seems to think information worker is one of them) where Microsoft rules. Really no one can touch them: not Linux, not MacOS w/ a non-MS office suite. And while some of that may be interoperability, a lot of it is the staggering amount of functionality that Office brings to the table. Even slashdoters will quote areas where there's no compelling alternative. So I'm not so sure it's mediocre. But like everything it can certainly improve, after all, nothing is perfect.
How little do you want to know today? (Score:3, Insightful)
From an early age Americans are taught to consume news from corporations. Too few pause to ask, "What might these giant concerns wish me to learn today? What might they not?" As we see in just the past few years alone, our news industry is as content to serve as a conduit for profitable lies as was the Hearst empire back in its yellowest days. Did you know the sky's the limit for Enron stock, and that the minarets of Baghdad conceal nukes pointing at us?
For the descendents of the people who gave us luminous skeptics of power such as Twain, Bierce and Nast to suck at these monied teats is one thing. For them to suck their fill and think themselves "informed" is risibly quite another.
Re:Paranoid? Maybe not.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paranoid? Maybe not.. (Score:3, Insightful)