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..."
No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Chris
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Informative)
Um, actually we spend thousands per month with Google's pay per click sponsored placement. Not as much as we spend on Overture's, but still a lot. They have had this program for about 6 months now. It is different than Overture's in that it combines your 'top bid' along with what it says is relevence, but believe me, its all in what you pay.
That said, it is a great system, cost effective, and generates high quality leads that 3 times more likely to covert than AOL or Lycos. MSN comes second, then Yahoo. Aol has always sucked for conversion (buys during the same browsing session that they clicked on the ad) in the 3 years that I have tracked it. They do generate a lot of traffic, its just traffic that doesn't buy anything.
So yea, Google wants to make money, too. Good for them.
Re:No I got it all right (Score:3, Informative)
I was referring to pay-for-placement being not obvious from algorythmic results.
They have placement ads on the right and at the top. The ones at the top are barely differentiated from the search results, on purpose(The sponsored links). Believe me, this is part of why I use it.
Quoting Google: With Google AdWords you create your own ads, choose keywords to tell us where to show your ads and pay only when someone clicks o
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:No I got it all right (Score:5, Informative)
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:5, Insightful)
New Microsoft Search Engine Errors (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft has no chance.
Can't you see the error messages when they leverage their search engine to promote IIS?
Clicking on a link, a popup window:
"Microsoft Search has detected that this page isn't running IIS, and therefore cannot verify the security of its ActiveX controls. Are you sure that you wish to continue? [default no] [Yes]"
I don't put it past them.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:4, Funny)
Everybody who generalizes sucks.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Funny)
Select Case User.Post
Case Microsoft.Generalization$
User.Karma = User.Karma + Moderation.Insightful
Case Google.Obvious$
User.Karma = User.Karma + Moderation.Insightful
Case Microsoft.ReasonableObservation$
User.Karm = User.Karma - Moderation.Troll
Case Else
User.Karma = User.Karma
End Select
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.
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 you got it all wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately it's still available in 2k and XP as "mplayer2." Far superior to the uber-bloated WMP of today.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to check out Media Player Classic [edensrising.com] (click on the MPC link) -- it's ol' Media Player, but with a whole whack of features such as DVD playback and a bunch of new supported file formats, including Ogg (audio/video), RealMedia & QuickTime.
Highly recommended. And no, I don't work them. I'm just a satisifed user! ;)
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...
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].
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: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
Re:They don't have to be better. (Score:4, Funny)
About half of 'em have a light click on when they see google for the first time, and the other half, well, there's a reason MCSEs have a bad name...
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.
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll quickly discover that Google searches Microsoft own websites better than Microsoft does!
Re:No you got it all wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: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: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.
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: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 li
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.
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.
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
Re:2 Shots of Vapor, One Shot of ... (Score:5, Insightful)
To beat google, you'll need something nice. REALLY nice.
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
Where you been? (Score:4, Informative)
Viewing Google as a competitor from the consumer viewpoint is a mistake.
Except M$ got where it is by not caring about security, ripping off others' innovations then killing their company, dabbling in all markets, and only viewing competitors from the consumer viewpoint.
Seriously, when has quality even been part of M$'s strategy (and strange as this may sound, I don't mean that as a flame). If you have an ineffective DOJ, why not just keep utilizing your marketing and monopolistic strength to kill off competitors? Why is there any need to improve?
And sadly, this extends to a large degree to enterprise software as well. How smart is the typical CIO? Even more important, how much does the CEO know about software? Not much, which is why MS software is the safe choice for CIO's. Like the saying goes, buying MS doesn't get people fired (not *quite* true, but you get the idea).
A combination of FUD, astroturfing, buying shill journalists, buying out companies, market-killing monopoly extending has always been a good way for MS to win. Why would they stop now?
Quite frankly, I wouldn't do anything different from how they're doing it, except for their deranged obsession with piracy. If they ever figure out that widespread piracy does for them what they couldn't even LEGALLY DO (ie, dumping and undercutting to achieve market saturation), most of their OSS problems would disappear. Their arrogance in this area is one of the few things that could ever bring them down.
I'm sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:3, Interesting)
This could be not bad. (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Some people are never satisfied (Score:5, Insightful)
Article Text (so you can read it here) (Score:4, Informative)
"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," Bob Visse, director of marketing for Microsoft's MSN Internet services division, said.
Visse said the company was making some significant investments in developing a better search engine. But the company has not offered specific plans.
Microsoft would not be the first Web portal provider to step into the Web search segment. Last month, Internet media company Yahoo Inc. closed its $235 million purchase of Internet-search company Inktomi Corp.
Microsoft has said its been searching for ways to capitalize on its various technologies, for example data retrieval and analysis, by entering new markets. It has also targeted security software.
Google, the No. 1 Web-search provider, has become so pervasive that it is not uncommon for people to refer to searching the Internet as "googling".
A Google representative could not be immediately reached for comment.
Google has been seen as a top IPO candidate despite a lagging economy, but a company co-founder recently told attendees at a high-tech conference that going public is not on the front burner for the Silicon Valley company.
a little too late (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Perhaps too obvious, but (Score:5, Informative)
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?
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.)
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 fo
if microsoft buys google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dies... (Score:5, Funny)
I'll give you user experience. (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism at it's best (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
google.com better than support.microsoft.com (Score:4, Insightful)
PC Magazine Quote (Score:3, Informative)
I'll bet Google is taking it really seriously (Score:4, Funny)
The rep was too busy cleaning up the coffee that he'd laughed out of his nose.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Mooglesoft Search: linux "open source" (Score:5, Funny)
Your search - linux "open source" - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "linux", "open source".
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
Also, you can try Mooglesoft Answers for expert help with your search.
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.
Re:Google: The Next Netscape (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Google: The Next Netscape (Score:5, Funny)
Why? (Score:5, Funny)
I try and try not to hate MS (I hate hating, and personally find it exhausting
Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
Crashed before they get off the ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Crashed before they get off the ground (Score:3, Funny)
You are right, Google doesn't - but maybe, he was referring to the "I'm feeling lucky" button, which, in case of M$' search engine will crash your machine 3 times out of 5?
Just a thought...
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.
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.
this is an IR problem (Score:4, Informative)
On a purely technical level, ignoring things like marketing, etc., the Google vs whatever contest is a matter of comparing metrics like precision and recall.
Guess what, it's at least theoretically possible to do better than Google.
Guess what, Microsoft Research has some top people in information retrieval (Susan Dumais [microsoft.com], one of the authors of Latent Semantic Analysis, for one).
If Microsoft wants to compete, it certainly has the ability to do so.
The flipside of this coin is that Google may be "good enough" (in the Yourdon [yourdon.com] sense of the word). But here is where Microsoft comes in with its convenient desktop and browser Monopoly.
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.
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.
Not Shock And Awe (Score:3, Funny)
Or Shock and Derision.
Or Shock and Loud Laughter That Echo's Through the Cube Farm and All The Way Down the Hallway.
User Experience? (Score:4, Funny)
Here are just a few of the great thing I have learned today?
1.) I was able to help out a coed who was low on cash, and had just bought a camera.
2.) I have found out how to refinance my House.
3.) I now can have up to 26 physical contractions during climax.
4.) I am considering the Get Bigger 100% Proven Results offer.
5.) I may be able to get rid of high credit card intrest
How could google beat these people?
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.
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.
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.
Re:I like Microsoft. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://forever-hacking.net/compare.html
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.
I wonder if MS are angry at this? (Score:5, Funny)
The best search engine
now go to google and do a search for
The worst search engine.
Fun
Jolyon
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.
This is like... (Score:4, Funny)
Come to think of it, are we really sure Bill Gates is alive? I mean, I'm sure it's him in those videotapes, but you really can't be sure of when they're made. You notice he never holds up a current newspaper when you see him on TV?
Seriously, one of the big reasons Google is popular is that it's not at all like Microsoft. It will be difficult for Microsoft to duplicate that formula.
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.
And the Truth is... (Score:5, Informative)
Rock on.
Re:Simple question (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Simple question (Score:5, Funny)
If I knew I'd be rich.
Re:A Report that Microsoft will buy Google (Score:4, Funny)
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
Re:Microsoft will just buy Google (Score:3, Insightful)
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 mone