Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wants to Take on Google
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..."
If MSN want's a better search engine then Google then just make it and let the users judge it. Viewing Google as a competitor from the consumer viewpoint is a mistake. Google is a streamlined efficient search engine while MSN is a hodgepodge of Internet services for the masses.
Maybe Microsoft is disappointed that google will not have an IPO anytime soon, 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.
...but can they leave ANYTHING alone? What's next? I won't be surprised if they branch out into other markets...Oh, GM is selling a lot of cars, we view them as a competitor. Sheesh.
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
Google is already so powerful and so popular that it's already a verb in most people's vocabulary. It is unlikely that Microsoft would be able to overcome this popularity so late in the game, especially since Google is totally platform independent.
Exactly. Anything Microsoft puts out to compete is going to be so full of bloat that it will be a complete hastle to use. Why is Google so popular? Two words: simplicity and power.
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.
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.
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
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?
...then it'll finally own the only decent way to navigate microsoft's own website
668: Neighbour of the Beast
I don't want a ****ing 'user experience' out of my search engine. I want a page that loads fast and gives me the answers I'm looking for.
I think that historically, "trying to build the better mouse trap", has produced numbers of new and innovative products. It's very important to the future of technology that other companies evaluate the status quo and try to improve on it. If Microsoft or any other company can develop a search engine that better's Google approach, then that's great and we'll all use it.
In Microsoft's case it's simple: If you can't beat them - buy them.
I think this is a precursor to a hostile takeover sometime in the future. Buy Google, integrate it into MSN and assign a low rating to anything that has the word Linux in it.
In many ways, I see this as a good thing. If MS wants to build a better search engine with a "better product and a better user experience", more power to them. They can't do anything to make me stop using Google, so why should I be worried if they see Google as a competitor?
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.
Cue The Sun...
Google is successful because it yields accurate and pertinant results, not because it loads fast on 56K. Google also is successful because it doesn't have pay-for-placement results. Google has some ads (unobtrusive at that), but if MS was running a search engine, they can afford to have no paid links, and no annoying ads.
Do you really need to be evil in order to destroy evil? Is open source evil enough to beat MS?
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."
I want to know why the hell I have a better chance of finding the microsoft support document I need with google then I do searching directly from support.microsoft.com...
I found this less funny than Slashdot's attempt at an April's Fools prank. But required Microsoft bashing aside (for the record: no, I'm not a Linux zealot or anything, it was strictly for humor purposes), I say good luck to Microsoft. Not because I think that they'll fail or anything, but because if the competition's good enough, it'll hopefully inspire Google to come up with even more of their creative tools that I enjoy playing with so much.
"Programming is like sex - one mistake and you'll have to support it for the rest of your life."
Everyone is missing the point here... Let's assume that Micro$oft could actually create a search engine 70% as good as Google. Then they bundle it into their OS and IE. Then market the crap out of it. Do you really think that the normal Windows user will continue to use Google? This is the whole problem with those bastards controlling the desktop OS which 90% of the world uses. They really can do this kind of stuff and get away with it. Remember Netscape, WordPerfect, etc. Be afraid. Be very afraid. And since I am in a good mood I will give a few suggestions for helping to change this situation:
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.
Microsoft really can't tolerate anyone else anywhere near the industry. The sad part is that by having the evil empire even express interest in putting Google out of business, they will probably screw Googles chance at a decent IPO.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
I think you meant not just because it loads fast on a 56K. The mere thought of using another search engine while on dial-up chills my blood. I'd wager that a fair few Googlers out there use it primarily because it takes zero seconds to finish loading.
- Chris
If Microsoft does try to offer a "search portal" I think their key selling point will product integration.
..and asumming they play fair and don't let their desktop default to their portal.
If there's one driving force behind Microsoft "invovation" it's trying to connect everything to everything else (all be it a select "everything else" has an "MS" preceding it).
Idealy, this is a very cool concept. It's one of the key elements that made Office so damn sucessful
But Microsoft can take it a bit too far at times. (What the hell were they thinking when they decided a movie player is a core componet of an OS?)
I can only imagine that they'd try a similar thing with a vast database of webpages.
If they're sucessful, your average everyday consumer will end up with a lot of new easy to use tools for web research... it effectly would open the door of spiders, web crawlers and agents to your ordinary MS user... as to how sucessufly they can pull somthing like this off.
Ultimately I think it will come down to a question of usablity for your average user.
That and how much money they're willing to throw at it...
or IE jump to it with every 404...
ah hell.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
"We believe that we can provide consumers with a better product and a better user experience."
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 better than this?
Even as a "portal" (more so than before), Google still does a better job than the others.
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 for another example. Both are decent products. Microsoft can do decent if they really have to. Alas.
That's what they normally do. And it usually works. The only question in my mind is whether Microsoft really can capture this market. The incumbent is good, widespread and it's unclear whether Microsoft's strength on the desktop even, can allow them to capture it. Indeed, it's not even clear whether it's worth them trying- nobody knows how much money Google makes on it; or how much money Microsoft could make.
Anyway, back to the original question: can Microsoft do the right thing enough to get the market? Yes, and worse still, there's no guarantee that they would continue to do the right thing.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Microsoft is certainly capable of putting out a supperior product, but it wouldn't fit their bottom line. Their whole business model is different. They do write some good software though. They've made some (read: a lot of) trash and are the epitome of evil corporations, but they can and do sometimes write excellent software.
What about just building a single or a handful of good products, supporting them, and being the best in the business at what you do? People will buy quality. As long as you make a good product, customers will stay with it. In many cases, if you make a mediocre product people will still stay with it. Why? It is simply too much trouble to change without a compelling reason.
This is one reason why SGI has lasted as long as it has. Same with Apple. Apple can't compete in price (and some say with speed), but they can compete with quality. Apple certainly isn't a struggling business.
The problem is companies continually want more. They want to capture more market and can't be satisfied with what they've got. It's not about making a living, it's about being the richest kid in town. That is why companies "diversify." Make one good product, have a loyal customer base, and a good income? Or make hundreds of lousy products, use marketing tactics and monopoly power to force people to use those products, and have a huge income (for a while)? Unfortunately, if you have shareholders, the latter choice inevitably wins.
Good for us. I don't think MS will suceed, but if they do, we'll have an even better search engine. If they don't, well, then they might well spur futher improvements at Google. Really, the money MS spends on this project is money spend for our benefit
Take Media Player 6.4. It's one of the only Microsoft programs that I really like. It's simple, compact, efficient, and *gasp* not bloated!
If everyone casts their mind back just a few years, there was this browser called 'Netscape' which had the browser market pretty much tied up. Then a company called Microsoft came along and released a buggy, bloated piece of code called 'Internet Explorer'. A chorus of 'they'll never beat Netscape' rang out around the world.
Fast forward to today and that buggy, bloated piece of software called 'Internet Explorer' is still here, only now it commands over 90% of the browser market.
Or for those with longer memories, there once was these two programs called 'WordStar' and 'Wordperfect'..........
It's all about the money...to stupid people. I'm not at all convinced that Google will sell. If it was making a buck, they could have done that years ago.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
There's a reason IE was well on the way to displacing Netscape long before it was "integrated" into Windows...
Microsoft doesn't make products or services better...
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?
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.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
but MS products generally are better than competing products...
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.
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.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
If that were true, you might have a point, but Google takes about 0.2 seconds to return results. Even if MSN can manage 0.01, you'd never notice the difference. But you would notice all the huge, long-loading images they're bound to have on the front page.
All it takes is nukes and nerves.
Frankly, I really don't think Microsoft is capable of providing the product that Google does. One of the major reasons that I switched to Google in the first place, and the main reason that I continue using it, is that Google is a very simple product that does what it is supposed to. It is a search engine, and it returns results. Sure, new features have been added, but they don't clutter the original product. There is no "bloat", so to speak.
Microsoft's products, on the other hand, seem to be designed from the ground up for bloat. Just take a look at how Hotmail changed after Microsoft took over. Not that I have anything against Microsoft...hell, I'm using WinXP right now...but I just don't think they could restrain themselves. I think the urge to tinker/improve/bloat would be too strong.
I'm sure Microsoft could come up with a decent search engine, but I'm equally sure they'd bog it down with un-necessary features and integrate it into everything they can. We'd have adds all over the place...and links into Microsoft's product database...and then Windows would be modified to use the search site exclusively, and the "Find Files" button wouldn't work without an Internet connection.
I just don't honestly believe that Microsoft could produce something that simple, streamlined, and effective.
yrs,
Ephemeriis
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.
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?
Well I don't like MS much, but this certainly isn't Microsoft's fault alone. You could have said the same thing about numerous other free on-line mail services a few years ago. But most or all of them are doing various pop-up/whatever advertising schemes these days too. The business climate changed, and these services had to start making a profit. And non-paying customers only have limited economic power to change things. Take Yahoo as a case in point.
but MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL, you'll need MS Windows, MS IE and an MS Passport to use it!
Long live MS!
That was classic intercourse!
I interviewed with M$. And they were working on a search engine. It was supposed to be trying to add more advanced search algorithms.
So, yes they can compete... I guess....
It seemed to me that M$ is annoyed that MSN sucks so bad. They want to make MSN more visible.
Google is:
- Fast
- Efficient
- Powerful
- Accurate
- Largely Bug Free
These are features which oppose Microsoft's core ideology, and so they have no chance in hell of beating Google at its game.
MS' track record in this area is absolutely appalling. MSN's search feature is slow and returns some ridiculously irrelevant results at times. Microsoft's homepage is even worse, the search box is confusing, it is slow as hell (Microsoft were dumb enough to use Windows / IIS on their web servers - fools), and it returns results which are about as useful to the user as a pro-Microsoft story on Slashdot.
MS can want to take on Google all they want to, but as long as MSN remains a mess of clashing colors, pictues, advertising, pop-ups, and unnrealated information, it will just remain another crappy ISP's attempt to build a portal that can convince AOL.com junkies to switch. And given MSN's history of screwing up pretty much everything, that will not happen.
What Pharmboy is describing it not "pay-for-placement results". The ads he's buying don't appear in the search results listings. They appear off to the side or in a space below the masthead, and in either case they're clearly marked as 'Sponsored Links.'
In other words, they are not search results. They're just ads.
At the same time, I'm disappointed that he, and anyone involved in new media advertising, still looks at conversions as an indicator of how effective an ad is. Few people ever click-through on an ad they see and make an immediate purchase. Expectations for web ads ought to be no greater than any other kind of print or broadcast ad; it's not an opportunity to make a quick sale, just an opportunity to spread the word about what you're selling. Impressions are what matter.