Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Amazon Dumping Google for Microsoft? 126

Posted by Zonk
from the cold-stuff dept.
theodp writes "How do you reward Google for letting your CEO buy stock for six cents a share? If you're Amazon, you dump Google for Windows Live Search to power subsidiary Alexa, who has not yet commented on the switch. Other Windows Live Search sightings are being observed at Amazon subsidiary a9.com." From the Search Engine Lowdown article: "The Alexa toolbar's gotten Alexa a bad rap from privacy advocates, though in function it's effect on search results is similar to click stream data that Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask may or may not be using in their determinations of relevance. Wall points out that 'A9 is still powered by Google...' A9 is Amazon's primary search project. Wall wonders, however, if the change in Alexa indicates a larger coming change in Amazon's relationship to Google. I agree. In fact, I see the move as the first Google Dump in the post eBay's-seeking-partners-against-Google era."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Dumping Google for Microsoft?

Comments Filter:
  • by pla (258480) on Monday May 01, 2006 @07:33AM (#15235942) Journal
    The Alexa toolbar's gotten Alexa a bad rap from privacy advocates, though in function it's effect on search results is similar to click stream data that Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask may or may not be using in their determinations of relevance.

    While that may (or may not) hold true, the key difference there involves how much we trust the company getting the data.

    Google has proven itself, time and again, to act in the best interests of its users, even going up against the DoJ to fight for our privacy rights. Yahoo and MSN don't quite have the same good track record, but they at least don't have a reputation as outright spyware.

    But Alexa? C'mon, Amazon, give us a frickin' break here!
    • Allthough Google might have a better reputation then Yahoo or MSN (and certainly Alexa) they're not saints either. The privacy policy for Orkut for example wasn't all that too.

      Despite that, this sounds like a first class mindslip from amazon
    • by Anonymous Coward
      wrong. google wasn't protecting the privacy of its users, it was protecting itself from the potential public backlash once it was revealed the amount of detailed information they held on each user. And yes, if you use gmail, they can probably predict what you're going to do this upcoming weekend with accuracy.

      they were protecting themselves. you write as if you still believe in the tooth fairy. google has a great marketing strategy, and it's to let naive geeks like you spread misinformation about an angelic
      • by ajs (35943) <ajs.ajs@com> on Monday May 01, 2006 @09:19AM (#15236309) Homepage Journal
        How to detect loonies:

        "the most EVIL business ever... ADVERTISING"

        Ok, now step back, and think about that statement. In a world full of people who build nuclear weapons (e.g. G.E.); research fragrances by injecting bunnies with toxic chemicals; patent genetic sequences; squeeze the third world for cash in exchange for patented, life-saving drugs; grind up tons of sea life per day; build systems to gather all Internet traffic for domestic spying; etc. ... this guy chooses to point the finger at people who attempt to sway your opinion about what to buy as the "most EVIL business ever".

        Think about that.

        And why does he say this? Because it pains the average paranoid to have a large business that spends its time worrying about the impact of its actions.

        Keep in mind, Google has:

        * Moved the banner ad from Internet dominance to second-class status.
        * Contributed substantially to open source development efforts.
        * Countered the growing dominance of Microsoft on many fronts.
        * Revealed government efforts at privacy invasion (did MSN or Yahoo!?)

        Complaints about Google amount to: well, they could do MORE for me!

        If Google bothers you, you need to serious look at your priorities. Sure, they're large and public which makes them more of a source of concern than your average convinience store, but there are companies that spend their time and effort trying to KILL PEOPLE. Google doesn't show up on the evil company radar because there's already too many companies fighting for the right to be there.
        • This is why I still visit slashdot after all these years. What you said was very well put together and I applaud you. I don't agree with the parent user that Google is in the most evil business in the world and I expect many of you out there would feel the same. I expected to see a mish-mash of nasty comments and dirty slams but instead found only your comment. You refuted his obfuscated point very nicely.

          I wish it always worked like this.
        • by typical (886006) on Monday May 01, 2006 @10:00AM (#15236562) Journal
          I've decided that Google-bashing comes down to largely two areas:

          * SEO people and website proprietors bitter that they don't have a higher ranking.

          * People who are alarmed by the growing influence and power of Google and want to cap it.

          The "China thing" was possibly the most absurd slam I've ever seen, where people were complaining that Google was horrible because it followed a country's laws within that country. Good lord. Google doesn't finance private armies to overthrow China's leadership, either. Darn them for not forcibly spreading democracy and promoting revolution. [rolls eyes] I'll take Google's approach over Bush's approach any day, and let the mass of the Chinese people decide whether to revolt or not on their own.

          Google is making an incredibly useful set of products in a highly competitive market and still stomping the competition. While doing so, they are not using underhanded business tactics, they are providing funding to a number of highly-cost-effective open source efforts, and so forth. They have generally done a better job of advocating the privacy of their users than their competitors. They promote interesting CS development. They helped reverse the slide into unusable "media-rich" flashy, slow websites.

          As you said -- they may not be perfect, but they're one of the best things you're going to run into. Maybe someday, when the growth slows and they hit a (real) scandal or two, there will be good reasons to dislike them. Until them, I'm going to sit back and enjoy.
          • So if a company follows the law of a country they operate in, they are free of any ethical considerations? How bad must they get before it's enough? If their compliance directly results in the jailing and/or death of dissidents (go go yahoo), should we be okay with that? The almighty dollar and "shareholder responsibility" should not be a shield for any corporation aiding in the violation of human rights.

            Do we speak up only if Google's behavior directly and significantly impacts us? I suppose we should wai
            • by ajs (35943)
              "So if a company follows the law of a country they operate in, they are free of any ethical considerations?"

              Absolutely not! However, look at what Google did.

              They have agreed to provide a limited version of their search service to China. They didn't agree to modify the information in any other way.

              That's something that I would not be comfortable doing, but it's the only way they can be of any use in China, so it's one of those ugly sorts of situations that you just hope does more good than not.

              On the other h
              • When you consider that Google scans all websites in their database to see which ones the Chinese government is blocking, and then removes those from their database, I don't see them as doing anything wrong. If the average person can't get to the site, why show it? And anyone who knows how to get to those sites they want to see, will also know how to use Google.com instead of Google.cn to find the websites.
                • My mind isn't made up on the Google-in-China thing, but there's plenty that's not black and white. You say, regarding the methods Google uses to censor search results, "If the average person can't get to the site, why show it?" The reason why is that, absent the information, knowing that you are missing it is important. In fact, if you can be more exact about what information you are missing, you actually will have more information than otherwise.

                  Maybe I'm taking to fine a point. I'm not suggesting that Goo
            • by TheCrayfish (73892) on Monday May 01, 2006 @11:12AM (#15237126) Homepage
              So if a company follows the law of a country they operate in, they are free of any ethical considerations? How bad must they get before it's enough?

              From an ethical perspective, companies, like governments and individuals, must consider which actions result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In the case of China, most governments and companies have decided that engaging the Chinese government and its people helps more Chinese people than leaving China "to its own devices" would. Many people believe they are acting ethically when engaging in commerce with repressive regimes because they believe the exchange of goods and ideas will lead to more openness and less repression over time. Sure, you can question these beliefs -- and you may choose to believe that disengagement and isolation helps more people than engagement does. The point is, if you can on your beliefs as to what will cause the greatest good, and Google acts on their beliefs (though different from your own,) you are both acting ethically.
              • But don't you know, everyone on Slashdot is god and has the sole power to dictate what is good or evil, right or wrong, ethical or unethical, and everyone else has to do as they say or else?!?! [/sarcasm]

                It still bugs me when Slashdot people say that Google is being unethical and evil. Who are you to decide what is unethical and evil? I think it would be unethical of Google to remove their services from China, as many people seem to want. Why do you get to decide what is ethical, and not me?

                BTW, when I say
                • We all get to decide what is ethical or not. I would not take that ability from you, so why are you so willing to take it away from everybody else. Just because you are a employee or director of a corporation does not absent you from your moral responsibilities as an individual.

                  When you commit fraud (false advertising), support fraud or try to deny other people democracy for your own profit, it does make you immoral and hiding behind the mask of a corporation does not you any less immoral, it just demostr

                  • What other choice did Google have? Seriously, everyone bitches at Google, but what would you rather them do? I've asked Chinese people I work with this very question, and they say it would be absurd for Google to withdraw their Chinese services, and wouldn't help the Chinese people at all. If every single Chinese person I've asked supports Google's actions, why do people of other nationalities have so much trouble doing so?

                    Let's say Google withdrew from China and left people in China with a barely access
                    • Why choose to make any moral decision that is not a legal requirement because if will all did it this world would not be worth living in.

                      Having profit or greed as a motive might be the excuse de rigueur of corporations but by no stretch of the imagination does it make it acceptable and customers are fully enitled to express their disapproval and withdraw their support.

                      With Google becoming a portal, their image is their life, when they damage it for short term profit don't be surpised when it leads to me

                    • 1. Google's involvement in China isn't expected to bring Google any profit whatsoever in the short term, and it hurt their stock price, so I fail to see how it was done for short term gain. Please explain.

                      2. Your first sentence makes so little sense that simply trying to understand it is giving me a migraine.

                      3. I never said anything about Google being involved in politics, or whether or not I thought their involvement in politics was acceptable. i'm not sure where you are going with that to be perfectly hon
        • General Electric builds nuclear weapons?
          • "General Electric builds nuclear weapons?"

            I feel like I should have Prof. Farnsworth's voice when I say, "Oh my, yes!" Though they claim to have moved out of that business in recent years (keep in mind that their involvement was always considered a national secret), they continue to be one of the major U.S. military contractors. On the public record, the only hardware they supply is aircraft engines today, though they still manufacture nuclear power plants.

            "In 1987, GE was the United States' second largest

        • Keep in mind, Google has:

          * Moved the banner ad from Internet dominance to second-class status.

          The poster you call a loonie has a great point and that's that Google has become an advertising company first and foremost.
          That's why I'll bet you'll see them move banner ads back to first-class status if that's what'll increase growth for them.

          Take a look at this: Not only is Google bringing Flash Ads to their AdSense network; now also video ads [searchenginejournal.com] has been spotted on AdSense sites. Also take a look at yesterday's

          • "I'll bet you'll see them move banner ads back to first-class status if that's what'll increase growth for them."

            I'll bet you that you're wrong.

            That's not because I'm a Google cheerleader, but because they made a very interesting play when they went public. They wrote their famous line into their S-1 (AKA "red herring"): "don't be evil".

            Now, I know that any company CAN decide to be evil, even if they've written down their intention to do otherwise, but if that were the goal, Google would have written it dow
    • Google has proven itself, time and again, to act in the best interests of its users
      Unless they're Chinese "dissidents" searching for words like "democracy", "freedom" or "Tiananmen Square."

      But, hey, we're all right jack, so the Chinese can whistle.
    • fight for our privacy rights

      yeah right. let's just see what they do so they can operate in china. maybe with all the new ridiculous laws about data retention nowadays, it won't be long before the government will be getting their data without our knowledge (like at&t)
  • Google or MS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417)
    Google or MS
    Sony or Toshiba
    Reps or Dems

    Is it me or does pretty much any "choice" we have look like choosing between hanging and shooting?
    • Re:Google or MS (Score:1, Informative)

      by EuphoricaL (567958)
      We only ever really have a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich!!!
      • You kids today! You're so lucky and you don't even know it. When we were growing up, we used to dream about Giant Douches and Turd Sandwiches! Now you just take them for granted.
    • Feel free to continue limiting yourself to the minimum possible of two choices. Others are quite capable of making decisions involving more than two choices.

       
    • Re:Google or MS (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LilGuy (150110)
      Hot or Cold
      Bright or Dark
      Sane or Insane

      There are always two extremes to any choice but that doesn't limit the gamut of your decisions.
    • Everyone makes comparisons as if there's only two companies to buy from. You can choose between google, MS, yahoo and a whole lot of other companies. Just because these are the most popular doesn't make them the only choices. And the same thing, if you haven't figured it out yet, goes for 3rd party candidates. If you don't like democrats or republicans, don't vote for either. The constitution doesn't have 2 party system in it, I blame Americans for that.
      • The constitution doesn't have 2 party system in it, I blame Americans for that.

        Actually, it does, because of its winner-takes-all scheme, and the fact that it doesn't have any type of proportional representation, run-off voting, etc. The Constitution was a fine document in its day, but the whole voting scheme needs to be completely re-engineered (as an Amendment would be fine). The problem is the two parties in power like things as they are.

        You can vote for a 3rd party if you want, but unless half the pop
        • You not only need 50 percent of the voters to choose you, you need to have them distributed all over the country, too. It ain't worth jack if you get 50 percent of the US population to vote for you if those 50 percent happen to be all in the same states.

          The voting system was all right in the 1800s, but it is by no means a true way of representing the opinion of the population. And that's what the idea behind it was.
          • Exactly. The country is very different from what it was in the late 1700s when this system was devised, and the voting system needs to changed along with the times. Far superior systems using more advanced mathematics have been devised, and could easily be implemented with computerized voting systems (with a paper trail, of course!).

            Other democratic governments in the world haven't been around as long as us, but since they don't have the legacy baggage we have, they have better systems of electing their g
            • It certainly offers a lot of variety to the party pool of a country. You don't have to go for either-or, you actually truely have a choice.

              Just don't go overboard like it's been for a long time in Italy. There, the "bar" to overcome to get into the parlament was SO low that they had like 20 parties in the parlament. No wonder that no government survived the legislative period 'til recently. You had to find coalitions with 4, 5 or even more parties.

              Here, as far as I know, it's 5%. You got 5% of the voters, y
      • True, there are still a few options when it comes to search engines.

        For the rest, I don't see an alternative. More and more "choice" gets redefined as "choosing the lesser of two evils".
  • by Kamran (109309) on Monday May 01, 2006 @07:34AM (#15235947)
    a9 is also now powered by windows live search.
    Jeff Bezos shouldn't be criticised for buying class a stock at 6 cents. it wasn't a gift from Google, at the time it was Google needing his money.
  • For several reasons I tend to buy a lot of books from Amazon so I used the A9 site to gain my slice of Pi discount. I quite like the interface and it was giving me Google results anyway.

    In case its relevant I'm in Australia.

    I saw this change straight away... The "powered by Windows live" left a sick feeling in my stomach. So I switched immediately to the visible option for "powered by Google".

    Today the Google option is no longer available. Even in the more choices section. I'm considering buying my books el
    • by Lewisham (239493) on Monday May 01, 2006 @08:37AM (#15236131)
      I too, was one of the A9 crew. I loved having web results/image results/wikipedia all in one search. When Windows Live came up, I switched Google back. Now they've abandoned Google completely, and you can't search for web-wide images (from *anyone*) at all anymore.

      I tried to live with Windows Live search, although it's results weren't so great. But the loss of image results as well was a deal-breaker.

      A9 has lost it's edge in some bizarre powerplay. They should have been shouting about their service, and instead you got there by accident from IMDb or Amazon. Now I have to go back to Google, and it's oh-so-bland results.

      *sigh*
    • If you want to buy books, use the services at www.addall.com. They don't sell books but with one query, will search dozens of online bookstores for the best price for your book. For those in the US, it will add in the shipping cost and rank by overall price.
  • Google vs. Amazon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Metabolife (961249) on Monday May 01, 2006 @07:36AM (#15235953)
    Froogle is quickly becoming a popular selling portal, I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon believes that Google might overtake it eventually. I for one love the increased competition.
  • Disgusting. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rachel Lucid (964267) on Monday May 01, 2006 @07:38AM (#15235957) Homepage Journal
    Does anyone actually FOLLOW Alexa?

    My guess is that this is (the first of) a heavy-handed backlash at Google, orchestrated more by Microsoft and others trying to regain their momentum versus any actual competence for a change on Microsoft's part.

    With the exception of Google Calendar, almost everything Google's done has been high-quality, search-related, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face applications, and to dump Google for their core product (indexing the internet and keeping track of data, something that Google should PERSONALLY be in the best position to execute, is at best a misguided executive decision to get a kickback from Microsoft and at worse a direct pimp-slap to Google for pure spite.
  • Rotten tomatoes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by broothal (186066) <christian@fabel.dk> on Monday May 01, 2006 @07:47AM (#15235977) Homepage Journal
    I wonder what they have to offer. It's dead slow - try for your self [live.com] and if you manage to get an actual search through, it will prompt with a javascript error.

    Oh - they do have one thing that reminds me of google - the small "Beta" in their logo :)
    • You know, what I actually hate most about it is the fact that the image buttons (Web, News, Images, etc.) are not links. Only the text is a link. I wonder why they forgot to make the images links, since it's rather confusing that the images DO have a special roll-over image.
      • You know, what I actually hate most about it is the fact that the image buttons (Web, News, Images, etc.) are not links. Only the text is a link.

        What image buttons? All I get is the Beta logo, an entry field, and a magnifying glass icon next to it. Otherwise, a blank page. Which is incidentally also what I get if I enter some search terms and hit ENTER. The last time I tried I also got this very mac-boot-spinner kind of small graphic, so I'm not even sure if this is an improvement or not.

        I can't possi

        • No idea... All I get is an endless reload of a blank page with what looks to be a search box. No matter if I type or click, I get back to a blank box.

          Seems broken to me.
    • Its not so much the errors. Its the results that are stupid.

      For example. After getting Live to work I asked it this question.

      "Which is better windows or linux?"

      The first result is
      "Linux sucks..." - Written in 2001.
      http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/873.html [aplawrence.com]

      I tried the same on google.
      "Windows vs Linux comparison" - Last updated 2006.
      http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.ht ml [michaelhorowitz.com]

      Swapping Windows + Linux gets different results however Google appeared to understand what I was searching for and more up to date
      • I don't know why you say that first link is not relevant. I wrote it, and it IS political commentary on the difference between Linux and Windows. As to up to date, that article has comments as recent as April of this year, so it is "up to date" in that sense.

        The article itself is a little out of date in that Linux has improved since 2001, but Windows has not (at least for the points I made there about being able to do difficult tasks), so the article still has validity.

        But.. like you, I prefer Google sear
        • > As to up to date, that article has
          > comments as recent as April of this year,
          > so it is "up to date" in that sense.

          Ahh ok sorry bout that. Most blog'ish type sites have the latest information at the top. Having "Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 08:35:04 -0400" at the top of the page makes it look just out of date and most wouldn't bother reading further if they are given more up to date information.
    • I thought you were kidding when you said it was slow. So I tried it out for myself, the iframe-ish search results is unusable. I can't even look at the results beyond the first page...
  • Alexa is spyware? (Score:3, Informative)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Monday May 01, 2006 @07:47AM (#15235978)
    I remember doing a spyware search and removing Alexa since it was deemed spyware.

    You can read this page [imilly.com] to figure out how to configure it, or if you can just remove it altogether which was much easier to do.
  • by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Monday May 01, 2006 @07:57AM (#15235999) Journal
    "How do you reward Google for letting your CEO buy stock for six cents a share? If you're Amazon, you dump Google for Windows Live Search to power subsidiary Alexa, who has not yet commented on the switch.

    Jeff Bezos is not the sole proprietor of Amazon. It would be unethical for Bezos to award business to Google in exchange for a personal favor that made him more wealthy. As head of Amazon, Bezos has a responsibility to the other shareholders of Amazon. If dumping Google for Windows Live Search to power Alexa is going to maximize shareholder value, then so be it.

    Just because Halliburton gets no bid sweetheart contracts from friends in the government doesn't mean that this is how business should be run.
    • If 95% of people drop amazon for their choice then how is chosing MSLIVE a better
      shareholder ROI ?

      Just because this quarters revenue is up 50% doesnt mean 3 years down you will be even around!!

      Look at altavista!!! tiny pie
      • That may or may not be the case. I wasn't discussing whether or not this would be good for Amazon.

        I was discussing the impropriety of the quid pro quo that the summary suggests should occur. Which search engine a publicly traded company uses should be based on what is best for the company, not based on favors and material rewards given to the leader of that company by one of the search engine competitors.

    • Do some research before spinning. Clinton gave out his own share of no bid contracts. This is how the US Gov't does things simply because trying to research and find the best price and best company takes time and effort. Something that can't always be done due to time constraints.
      • Just because Clinton did something doesn't mean it's right: look at the DMCA. Why do Republicans always trot out Clinton every time someone criticizes them?

        The Democrats really suck. They just don't suck quite as bad as the Republicans. Wonderful two-party system we have: we can choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
      • I think it's quite telling that I make a criticism of government in general, and you take it as a criticism of your precious Bush Administration, trotting out the old "Blame Clinton for everything" argument.

        For the record, I'm a registered Republican. I oppose Bush. He's doing such a crappy job that he's vastly increasing Senator Clinton's chances in 2008.
  • Seems like I read something years ago about Microsoft buying part of Amazon or something. Seems like it would be the logical decision, especially if you are out to kill google [google.com]
  • by TrappedByMyself (861094) on Monday May 01, 2006 @08:15AM (#15236061)
    Is there anyway to filter out topics with summaries that end in a '?'
  • Partners... (Score:4, Informative)

    by kibbled_bits (808617) on Monday May 01, 2006 @08:40AM (#15236144) Homepage

    If anyone hasn't read the Google interview in Linux Format (Chris DiBona) I highly recommend it. It really does a good job of conveying Google's position on many issues. Regardless I can't see how most people on this forum would consider Google <= M$.

    In a nutshell:

    LXF: In what ways would you say that Google is sponsoring open source?

    CD: Actually I don't like the word 'sponsoring'. I don't like sponsoring, I don't like 'subsidising', I don't like 'giving back'. The words I like are 'working with' them. We see them as our peers in computer science...

    Maybe you don't believe this is 100% true, you can at least agree that Microsoft's position are opposite of this. Not only they not our peers in computer science, but they seem arrogant enough to think they can dictate computer science.

  • by tji (74570) on Monday May 01, 2006 @08:48AM (#15236180)
    > How do you reward Google for letting your CEO buy stock for six cents a share?

    Either this is an intentional troll, or you have no clue about financial matters.

    Bezos was an early investor in Google, when they were just getting off the ground. He gave them money ('angel funding') to allow them to expand. The agreement in that situation is that Mr. Bezos then owns a percentage of the company, giving him stock at a low price after an IPO.

    Google didn't "let him buy" stock. Bezos invested in Google very early on, and he got big $$ when Google's stock went through the roof.
    • Either this is an intentional troll, or you have no clue about financial matters.

      Well, there are non-capitalist economic systems. But, yeah.

      Not only that -- even more impressive, look at the date on the top of the news article. :-)
  • Web by Live.com is initially checked. they dont even list google as a choice.
  • by cuteseal (794590)
    Google must have p***ed someone off royally... either that or Gates is in bed with Bezos *shudder*
  • Why are people more scared of Google than M$? I always thought it should be the other way around. Internet companies should be banning together to take down M$ it seems.
  • by Wylfing (144940) <brian AT wylfing DOT net> on Monday May 01, 2006 @09:25AM (#15236347) Homepage Journal
    This is the shape the additional spending for 2007 will take: paying people loads of cash to sign exclusive contracts to use Windows Live. That is how Microsoft "competes."

  • Kylix (Score:2, Interesting)

    It is known and Microsoft will not give up with their evil marketing tactics.

    This move, however, will not hurt the community as much as the 'kylix'. Borland has dropped support/development of this wonderful product for Linux due to the pressure from Microsoft.

    Read This [freebyte.com]

    From TFA:

    Needless to say, this step is a heavy blow for all companies and individuals which have invested time and money in Kylix-based projects on Linux.

    It has been claimed that this was the result of a non-public agreement with Mi

  • Google is competing with everyone now: shopping, news, maps, entertainment, and (obviously) search. As the Google tentacles creep into more markets, current and potential partners will flee. Most of Google's revenue is from sponsored links; if partners drop, so does revenue. Their growth is self-limiting.
    • You make an excellent point, but Google won't mind shifting its ad revenue from partner sites (EBay, A9, etc) to Content sites ( davidsouther.com [davidsouther.com], euclideanspace.com [euclideanspace.com]), eg. the little man that has a blog/personal website with some content, and advertises with adsense.

      If Google does this well, they will have their own little "Google Base" that includes a bunch of smaller websites, some buying and some selling ads, all through Google. Their brand loyalty will ensure that Google always has enough money to cont

    • I wish they'd hurry up and extend one of those tentacles into an auction site, and another tentacle into a Paypal-like site. Ebay and Paypal suck, and we need a real alternative here.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Hello, I have been a customer of Amazon.com for a few years. It has been brought to my attention that Amazon now uses the A9 Web Search which is powered by "Microsoft Windows Live". I do not use or support Microsoft products. In my opinion their business practices are horrible. I do not support companies who act the way they do. How can I expect to get reliable results when searching for example the word "Linux" when Microsoft does everything in their power to stifle competition? I work in computer
  • If you search on A9.com.. you get a nice "Web Results by Windows Live".... So yes, they did dump Google, strange idea, why go for an inferior search engine?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft is trying to do anything they can to cut out google. Google helps many open source projects and Microsoft does not want any of these to catch on because they will lose money. Microsoft is very PO'd about losing some its best talent to Google. Balmer is even known to go into mad fits when anyone mentions google. I don't hate Microsoft but I do hate how they do business and how they are a monopoly but will not admit it. I suspect that Amazon got a lot of money to switch. Most business runs on the bo
  • Because Google is (one of the?) most popular search engine, I am finding it less and less relevant when I do searches. The top 10-20 results are more spam than relevant and good information. MSN, on the other hand, is starting to be my preferred search tool because it doesn't seem as "keyword stuffed" as the Google responses. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but almost all the geeks I know are starting to shift away from Google en masse. I much prefer Google as a company, of course, but just being #1 (or close to it) seems to make it a target for the spammers, sploggers and Made-for-CPC websites.

    I'm not hoping for a shift for anyone to Microsoft's search technology but if Google continues to lose the battle to PageRank chasers, they'll find themselves slipping as users automatically attach Google to spam sites rather than relevant sites.

    My home page is still Google (due to the customized interface), but I am more often using other search engines to combat the spammers. Is Amazon seeing a similar problem?
  • by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@kei[ ]ead.org ['rst' in gap]> on Monday May 01, 2006 @11:36AM (#15237344) Homepage

    Wall points out that 'A9 is still powered by Google...' A9 is Amazon's primary search project

    Doesn't look like it to me [a9.com]

    Top right corner - "Powered by Windows Live"

    There isn't even the ability to add Google anymore. And their news search is now MSN News rather than Google News.

  • by pavera (320634) on Monday May 01, 2006 @11:52AM (#15237475) Homepage Journal
    Ok, so I'm a programmer, I write code in at least 10 different languages and often times I'll forget "How do you do X in Y?"... Well I just ran through my last 10 such searches on google... ran the exact same searches on a9, and directly at live.com.... Yeah so "determine distance between zip codes", Google results: first 5 hits open source, freely available code to perform that calculation in PHP, python, perl, and C. Windows Live: 1 hit on the first page that was PHP related however, its a $200 closed source script, all others pay for web sites that offer a form to type in 2 zips and get the distance, but nothing that would allow me to understand how to do it.

    The other 9 searches were similar. On google, I never go past the first 10 results to find the answer I'm looking for, regardless of language, technology, whatever Google always has the answer. On windows live, the first page is stuff with people who are paying for their links, or just by MS's bias they list "commercial" sites first in an effort to hold open source down. I never have used A9 but I never will now.
  • I would expect to see Microsoft spending alot of cash to purchase views for its advertisers in the near future. They need to make MSN something other than an also-ran so using the tactics which helped them destroy the Netscape Navigator marketshare will work here too. Microsoft will also be spending cash to purchase marketshare for its web server too since it was constantly losing marketshare to Apache and also looking like an also-ran. I'd also expect to see Microsoft take more of a loss on the Xbox when
  • I won't be surprised to find Microsoft cutting deals like this with other major sites. A lot of people don't know how terrible search engines were before Google -- results were ridiculous, I'd expect to shift through 4 pages of irrelevant or minor hits on AltaVista to get something moderately useful. Google was flat out better and it deserved to become #1. However, it's not entirely clear that it's results are that much better anymore. It will be far easier for Microsoft to steal search engine share now a

"The geeks shall inherit the earth." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...