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..."
Google isn't competition for Microsoft. Google is a quality product that actually works. Totally different than anything Microsoft puts out.
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.
It'll be interesting to see if Google is really evil enough to beat Microsoft. Oh, and Microsoft's search engine really sucks (at least the few times I've used it), so it'll be good to see a version that doesn't.
"We see life as a less-than utopian user-experience. We aim to remove all question, doubt, pain, suffering, and freedom of choice from our prosepctive devotees. We feel that our God project, Diety 1.0, will present a truly enhanced
life for all, the benefits of which shall be obvious. Our product will overcome."
"We believe that we can provide consumers with a better product and a better user experience"
that means Microsoft will be making plans to buy google.
other than that, no, they really can't
Is there ANY record of a microsoft server project being used on this large a scale? I know that hotmail is now being served with MS software, but I also know that the MS server products that are being used to run it aren't doing half the job that BSD did. So, basically, is there anyone out there who can tell me whehter this is possible without a special OS, et cetera set up to do this job? (it's a pretty bold claim, I'm interested in it in a could this really happen sort of way.)
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.
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 think I just died of laughter.... what are they going to run their search engine on? MSSQL ?!!!!
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
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 don't know, let's seach Google to find out.
Simple question: How could you beat Google?
If I knew I'd be rich.
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.
If Steve "Uncle Fester" Balmy thinks he can produce a better product than Google, then I personally invite him to stick his neck out and do it!
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.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
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...
i use google exclusively for my searching. i use google to search microsoft sites. I use google to help me search MSDN. The people that write MSDN work in the same building as I do.
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.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
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...
An article month's PC Magazine mentioned this. The author shuddered at what a Microsoft Google would look like, perhaps something similar to the "teenage clutter" of MSN.
-- Who am I? How did I get here? My God, what have I done?!
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."
A Google representative could not be immediately reached for comment.
The rep was too busy cleaning up the coffee that he'd laughed out of his nose.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did you mean: Windows XP
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.
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.
Why is Google perceived by MS to be a competitor? Why does MS feel compelled to own everything? Why not admit that Google is excellent, that there's already lots of competition in the search engine niche, and get on with life?
:-), but they regularly come up with stuff like this, and it just disgusts me. They're like evil monkeys. Just can't stop fidgeting, fidgeting, fidgeting.
I try and try not to hate MS (I hate hating, and personally find it exhausting
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 don't know what your background is [Computer Science degrees for me] BUT it just seems like good business sense to constantly diversify. Microsoft sees a market that Google is currently dominating, but by no means invented, and wants a piece of it. Furthermore, this is a market they can more easily get their paws into than, say, apple juice manufacturing, because of their name brand recognition within the computer industry and their current control over the average user's browser selection. Microsoft is a company that has had some innovation but, more importantly for their stockholders, has made some really shrewd and often illegal business moves. These kind of moves are what a good company does to build their capital and continue to thrive.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
given that they use google for their own searches (www.google.com/microsoft), doesn't that just show that they believe google's search algorithm is better than their own? I assume google has this patented so what makes microsoft think they can make a better search engine without stealing ideas? Or are they thinking of making some sort of AI sentient search engine that can tell us what we are looking for? Seriously though, I can't see any reason for pursuing this course of action unless they come up with some truly revolutionary search algorithm.
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.
It seems to me that it would serve Microsoft quite well if the leading search engine ran Microsoft software, not something they have been denouncing as a toy or communism or whatever.
I'm not thinking about personal users, but businesses. The pointy-hairedest of managers knows how well Google works and has probably been hearing at least a little about how Microsoft products aren't quite the most secure or trustworthy. Maybe he'll think, 'If it works for Google, it should work here,' recommend using Linux in the company, and cost Microsoft some potential money.
Anyone agree this might be a motivating factor in the announcement, or am I just reading too far into this?
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!"Here is the funny thing about google adds. I read those, I sometimes click them, I have even bought stuff from them. This is far difrent then any other add on the internet. So it seems like not only do they get searches right they also have advertising right. If more people would fallow there path and not the microsoft path the world would be a better place.
Have you Googled for it?
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$'s strategy (and strange as this may sound, I don't mean that as a flame). If you have an ineffective DOJ, why not just keep utilizing your marketing and monopolistic strength to kill off competitors? Why is there any need to improve?
And sadly, this extends to a large degree to enterprise software as well. How smart is the typical CIO? Even more important, how much does the CEO know about software? Not much, which is why MS software is the safe choice for CIO's. Like the saying goes, buying MS doesn't get people fired (not *quite* true, but you get the idea).
A combination of FUD, astroturfing, buying shill journalists, buying out companies, market-killing monopoly extending has always been a good way for MS to win. Why would they stop now?
Quite frankly, I wouldn't do anything different from how they're doing it, except for their deranged obsession with piracy. If they ever figure out that widespread piracy does for them what they couldn't even LEGALLY DO (ie, dumping and undercutting to achieve market saturation), most of their OSS problems would disappear. Their arrogance in this area is one of the few things that could ever bring them down.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Are you talking about the paid links that appear to the side of the main results???
I was referring to pay-for-placement being not obvious from algorythmic results.
They have placement ads on the right and at the top. The ones at the top are barely differentiated from the search results, on purpose(The sponsored links). Believe me, this is part of why I use it.
Quoting Google: With Google AdWords you create your own ads, choose keywords to tell us where to show your ads and pay only when someone clicks on them.
Like I said, we spend thousand a month with just Google. I like google too, but they are just as "for sale" as the rest. Great. Im glad, because I am buying and I like what they are selling.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
My M$ Hotmail is such a good user experience that I am sure M$ will win this one folks.
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?
Get a free ipod.
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
I don't see it.
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 money to be the BIGGEST.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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 do. They make a better browser. The make a better word processor. They make the best mice and joysticks. They make great games. XP is an excellent OS. Not everything they make is great but no company has a perfect track record.
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.
Has anyone ever tried the Search box on www.microsoft.com? The few times I have tried, the search results for their own website were so poor that I ended up using Google with the site:microsoft.com search modifier.
Besides, Google stands for everything good, and Microsoft stands for everything evil.
I suppose that Microsoft would try to compete with Google to provide corporate customers with a search engine for their intranet and extranet sites. I doubt that they would get anywhere trying to make money with free web searches.
Go to google.com and do a search for
:)
The best search engine
now go to google and do a search for
The worst search engine.
Fun
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
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.
Google is already so powerful and so popular that it's already a verb in most people's vocabulary.
I can't wait for Microsoft to be used as a verb:
"Our company was microsofted so we'll have to let you all go."
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?
I have used OS X (we have a test box that runs OS X...I work in a Java shop so we have to test across platforms). I should have included a caveat in my original post stating I would use OS X over XP at work (at home, I need the games, man). When my company purchased a new computer for me they bought me a Dell. Fine machine, but I really lobbied for a G4 running OS X and was turned down. I continue to rag on the IT guys about it (one of whom uses a Mac as his primary computer!) so perhaps in the next upgrade cycle I'll get my wish...
Micorsoft taking on Google? This is like those Iraqi press conferences where they claim that they're going to lash out and smite the agressors. Sheesh.
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.
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.
Newsfollow.com
1) Annouce you're a competitor of google
2) ????
3) $$$$
Oh wait - this is Microsoft
1) $$$
2) ????
3) Announce you're a competitor of google
That's better.
......bastards.
please ignore sig on this point - you will be more likely to gain nirvana on your 2nd journey - me
(& apparently "there is no aitch in nirvana")
-- Mod me down. I am not a karma tart. ffs,gag
I find it ironic that Microsoft would say this, considering a recent (March 1, 2003) MSDN article about: Build Your Own Research Library with Office 2003 and the Google Web Service API.
google ads are NOT called 'placement'. The terms 'pay for placement' or 'paid placement' have very specific meanings in the search engine industry, and google does not use them.
My wife dissents. She doesn't believe that "aerodynamic" is a term one can apply to feminine hygeine products.
This sig no verb.
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.
Any one remember sidewalk.com? M$ lost soo much money on that they are still trying to figure out what happened, but then again they also screwed a lot of small biz out of lots of cash to get listed in it. another fine example of "build it and they will come" mentality, except nobody came. So the way i see it, google has nothing to worry about.
We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
A few months ago, you could type "go to hell" in Google's search box, and it would return www.microsoft.com as the first link. You can read more about this here, here and here.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Someone says, "I'm going to google you" and I'm cool with that. Someone else says, "I'm going to Microsoft you" and I'm likely to get the urge to smack 'em. Really hard, in fact.
Google has a really good reputation in the community, Microsoft does not. If judged by quality alone, Google's engine wins without a competition.
Unfortunately such things are not a bellweather for business success.
Everybody I know at Microsoft, where I work as a contractor, uses Google as their primary search engine. Here's an example of why: recently at work I wanted the syntax for the VBScript SELECT CASE statement. I already had an MSDN window open for something else, so I typed in "vbscript select case" and here's what it found. Not wanting to wade through this mass of irrelevance I typed the exact same thing into Google and got this, a whole page of exactly what I was looking for.
Rock on.
it's my homepage too! And only because it is FAST and un-bloated. You can guarantee that the microsoft version is going to be bloat city with loads of fancy graphics/logos/adverts?(for other microsoft services anyway!) and the results tucked away in a small window somewhere.
long live google!
Mark.
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
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 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 and Opera.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
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!
The main problem MS faces in competing with Google is that Google is part of the world zeitgist. Nobody is going to go on a date, then come home and "MSN her". To "Google" someone is actually a verb. Even people who don't know jack shit about the internet know to type in www.google.com when they need to look something up. Google's immense power, completely unthreatening simplicity, and unique style have combined to make it more of a global phenomenon rather than just another internet search engine. MS may be able to copy some of Google's features, like the clean interface, the huge index, the nice extra features, etc., but making it into the zeitgist is as much a matter of being in the right place at the right time as it is about having the right product. Google has mindshare on a massive level, and that is what MS will have to compete with. I don't see them succeeding at it any time soon.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
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.
Microsoft shouldn't feel left out - I use their name as a verb all the time. Granted, it's usually in sentences like: "I'm gonna Microsoft your datacenter back to the stone age." But still...