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.
...then it'll finally own the only decent way to navigate microsoft's own website
668: Neighbour of the Beast
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.
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.
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.)
"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 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?
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.