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 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...
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.