Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck The Internet

The New Yahoo!, Google, MSN Et Al. Battleground 158

A reader writes: "Kelkoo sold to Yahoo for 575 million dollars!" That, in and of itself is not that interesting - but combine that with Google's inclusion of Froogle into the front page, and things become more interesting. The comparison shopping field, including places like PriceGrabber (Disclaimer: OSDN is an affiliate of PriceGrabber) in the US, Kelkoo/Yahoo! overseas, Froogle, and MSN is heating up in competition. Now that search has been monetized, the next battleground for big money is in comparison shopping, beyond MySimon and other smaller ones.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The New Yahoo!, Google, MSN Et Al. Battleground

Comments Filter:
  • Help Yahoo? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vijayiyer ( 728590 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:50PM (#8704323)
    I wonder if this will help Yahoo have a P/E ratio of better than their current 128. It seems like the tech bubble is back - Yahoo's stock price has more than doubled in the last year.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:50PM (#8704328)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:53PM (#8704352) Homepage
    Speaking as a denizen of the UK, Froogle sucks and Kelkoo is the clear winner.

    What I'd actually like to see is a search engine that can tell which companies will ship to my home country, and work out the actual price of the product based on shipping, currency conversion and possibly import duties payable. That would be a lot more useful than a single-country search system, particularly when I don't live in that country.
  • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cshark ( 673578 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:53PM (#8704358)
    We don't know that. Yahoo was king for several years. This recent sentament that google "owns" anything is stupid.

    In any case, I think the real winners in this one are going to be those of us that figure out how to leverage these services for our online shops.

    This is going to be a good holiday season :)
  • resellerratings.com (Score:5, Interesting)

    by enrico_suave ( 179651 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:54PM (#8704367) Homepage
    Ressellerratings.com [resellerratings.com] has some neat comparison shopping functionality. along with the the vendor rating info, it allows you to figure out what would be cheapest when buying several items including shipping.

    Sometimes buying the cheapest items (e.g. from a pricewatch search) spread across different stores costs more when you are done than if you were to take a different approach and lump some of the purchases together.

    another neat tool for amazon only is pricenoia [pricenoia.com] some products might be cheaper overseas even after shipping/exchange rate.

    *shrug* YMMV,

    e.

  • Yahoo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) <MONET minus painter> on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:57PM (#8704407) Journal
    Does anyone else find it funny that Yahoo is so cluttered and confusing (well, IMHO anyway) that it should really have a search engine just for itself?

    Heh, nothing worse than trying to get stuff done and having to use a site that's just got too damn much on it.

  • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:58PM (#8704419)
    its like 'kleenex' vs 'tissue paper' or 'xerox' vs 'facsimilie'

    once you have that sort of name recognition, its damn hard to lose in the marketplace...

    That's a bad thing not a good thing. The brand Kleenex is so diluted now that it simply means tissue. How'd you like it if you owned Kleenex and then heard everyone call every tissue Kleenex? All those tissues are benefitting from your trademark and you get nothing in return. That's why Google fought Webster's to have the verb form of Google taken out of the dictionary. They want to protect their trademark; not give it away to the public.

  • by Psychic Burrito ( 611532 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:04PM (#8704478)
    The "search through the webpages you've seen in the past 3 years" feature is a killer. I'm really looking forward using it.
    To be useful, for me it had to be:
    - Extremely low on the cpu
    - keep the database small (10'000 webpages in 50MB or less)
    - fast. Let me search in 2seconds tops.

    Anyobdy already working on this?
  • What is the point? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bwindle2 ( 519558 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:07PM (#8704511)
    I don't really understand these sites... Doing a search for a common product (such as a 2.8C Intel P4 Retail) shows you can get it about $5 cheaper than from, say, NewEgg.com. Now, NewEgg also gives you free 2nd-day shipping, and you are dealing with a company that you *know* and trust (if not, just check them out at ResellerRatings, they rock). Is the risk worth $5? I say no. I buy all my stuff from NewEgg, and have never looked back.
  • by Iscariot_ ( 166362 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:11PM (#8704558)
    All of this could be avoided if I had a user side application that indexed my browser cache. A local database of indexed webpages that I have already seen would heed the best results under the previous scenario. Such a scenario is not uncommon.

    Good idea, however it might be cooler if users were able to personalize google with their own name/pass and then it remembers where you've been on their end. (Maybe up to n-sites, n being greater than 5,000.) The more client-side data I have to tote around the more pain in the ass it becomes. I'd rather be able to get such features anywhere.

    The web needs to incorporate a Nielsen Ratings system.

    This idea I like also, but there's a big flaw in your solution. It is a little too slashdot-like. Not to say that slashdot doesn't have an excellent moderation scheme, but do I really want to rely on such a thing for data searching? Probably not. All too often comments get modded to 5 even though they are filled with erronious facts or lies. I'd prefer my searches to be as objective as possible.
  • by manmanic ( 662850 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:15PM (#8704596)
    Google do seem to be covering all their bases. Their release of the Web Alerts [google.com] doesn't seem to stop them supporting the efforts of Google Alert [googlealert.com] (which uses Google's Web APIs [google.com]). On Google Alert's FAQs [googlealert.com] it says "Google has encouraged us to develop, and agreed to let us charge for, a premium Google Alert service that will be released shortly."
  • by romcabrera ( 699616 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:15PM (#8704603) Homepage
    You are forgetting the added value of engines like PriceWatch, shopping.com, etc.: Knowing how good/bad are the stores you find out being with the lowest price. Google only let you find out about the stores and prices, but you have no means to know (besides doing other searches) if that specific store is a safe place to buy, or if it just another shop with terrible service, delivery, etc.
  • by suziewilkes ( 766406 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:21PM (#8704669)
    I think Google, MSN, and Yahoo are positioning themselves to be "all things to all people".

    MSN hinted today [mediapost.com] that it will be offering an online music service as well. I wonder if Google or Yahoo will follow suit...
  • Not interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:27PM (#8704729) Homepage
    I find it very interesting that a dot-com is selling for over half a billion dollars years after the dot-com bust.

    The must have a helluva cash flow to justify that kind of pricetag.
  • Froogle? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digidave ( 259925 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:38PM (#8704859)
    Froogle hasn't been put on the front page for google.ca and .com forwards me to .ca. What I wonder is why Froogle is limited to the US site. The Internet is worldwide and I've ordered from US online merchants before. What's stopping them from including Froogle on all their localized home pages and simply adding a note saying it only searches US merchants?

    I guess they don't believe in the global Internet economy.
  • Re:who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Phekko ( 619272 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:41PM (#8704912)
    You mean sorta like once it was called 'IBM PC' ? No? Ok, maybe the way it used to be called a 'hoover' instead of a vacuum cleaner? You CAN lose that kind of name recognition. It just gives you quite an edge on the competition. Remember the days when everyone was using Netscape?

    If you make bad decisions and your competition makes better ones, you'll end up losing someday. Look what happened in the war Intel vs AMD. Ofcourse you'll have quite a lead on the competition if you can spend, say, $10 BILLION making your product but nevertheless. If you keep making crap and the competition keeps on making a better product for a competitive price, you'll lose eventually. If you got heaps of money and a big propaganda machine like a certain Redmond company, that will probably be later, but at some point people will have had enough of buying crap for a high price when they don't really have to.

    Getting back to the google-stuff for a while, I remember a time when altavista was the only search engine anyone wanted to use or at least pretty damn close.
  • Froogle Spamming? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ripperbenz ( 766407 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:48PM (#8705010)
    Before the interception of Froogle, a friend of mine had this idea of a crawler that crawls the Web to find the best price for a desired product. One of the reasons I told him his idea might fail was that the spider cannot confirm that a product will actually be sold for the advertised price. Malicious sellers would then advertise products at ridiculous prices, just to top the list of results.

    Maybe that's why Froogle lists results by some secret "Best match" algorithm, but I suspect it would pretty quickly become the next target of rogue merchants, especially because Froogle has a consuming-oriented audience. We'll can only wait and see how Google's smarties fight back; maybe they'll created a database of trusted merchants, the way Google News works [google.com].

  • by mabu ( 178417 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:55PM (#8705099)
    A few years ago, I discovered one of my servers slowed to a crawl. Upon further inspection it was one of (the more prominent) price-grabber systems hammering various client sites collecting prices. Many of them seem to open tons of simultaneous connections and effectively DOS'd the server. We had to complain for two days to get them to back off. I'm not a big fan of these sites, and most of the time the shipping/availability as indicated isn't accurate.
  • by The-Dalai-LLama ( 755919 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:58PM (#8705138) Homepage Journal

    The free advertising is great, the problem comes when your quality name becomes widely associated with shoddy products.

    Example (completely fictitious and anecdotal): You spend a lot of time and resources to ensure that your Trampoline(tm) brand exercise products are fun and safe, but you don't pay enough attention to keep your trademarked name secure. The Profit-From-Kidz corporation releases a line of shoddy trampolines responsible for the deaths of 35 tots (really cute, photogenic tots). Global headlines trumpet the dangers of "trampolines", the market collapses, your company folds. If your trademarked name had been protected, headlines about the dangers of the Profit-From-Kidz Suspended Exercise Spring Mat would have had much less impact on your business.

    Why do you think the makers of a certain type of interlocking construction toy are so rabid about protecting their trademarks? [lego.com] The PR difference between a headline about a child choking on a "construction brick" and a child choking on a Lego(tm - please don't sue me) is huge.

    The Dalai Llama
    when my cult goes international, I'll want 25 cents everytime somebody says llama...

  • Re:who cares? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by jeet ( 172572 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:59PM (#8705143) Homepage Journal
    In India we have Life Insurance Corporation.. Life Insurance is always reffered as LIC no matter you are getting done from which agency.. Surely when the brand name substitutes a verb it better for the brand name.
  • Froogle. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ajutla ( 720182 ) <ajutla at gmail dot com> on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:45PM (#8705828) Homepage
    I've played around with Froogle a little; it seems prety accurate. It used to give you bogus prices when you'd search for a given item, though; lately it's gotten better.
  • by JasonKey ( 656223 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @03:54PM (#8706714) Homepage
    This is going to make a hell of a E-Commerce Aggregation Engine. Think of it this way, http://www.pricewatch.com is basically something similar, but with the power of Google, and this first step towards a standardized Merchant Data Feed [google.com] with Google helping set that standard, things could get quite interesting. Are we going to see Blogger get into the scramble here? Are we soon to see RSS/Atom feeds for product types / lines?

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Working...