Slashdot Mirror
MSN Planning to Take on Google?
asyn42 writes "CNet is reporting what should be no surprise, Microsoft appears to be readying itself to take on Google for a position as the top search engine. The long range impact on the relationship between MSN and Yahoo/Inktomi is likely at risk."
Unfortunately for Microsoft, this is one area where it will take real innovation to usurp the top player.
You can't make Windows somehow incompatible with Google to force Windows users to use Microsoft's search engine. Google will find a way around it.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
What does Microsoft think it has going to counter that sort of incredible power?
Let me just get these out of the way, so we can we get on with intelligent discussion...
MS sucks.
Google rules.
Feel no further need to repeat these mantras in this thread.
I remember Netscape being quite omnipresent at one time. If they tightly integrate their search engine with Windows while making it work well, things might change.
Unless they:
(a) are as fast as google (yea, right)
(b) are as clean as google -- no graphic ads, only small text ads (again, yea right)
(c) Take the same strong anti-censorship stands that Google has taken (big yea right here)
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
what i think is really interesting here is what will happen to the new functionality.
presumably, it'll be part of MSN. so who are they after, really?
the tech savvy don't use MSN. the tech ignorant use AOL. so who are they going for? it makes me nervous when ballmer & co set their sites on something and i don't understand the reasoning behind it.
it can't just be about longhorn search capabilities, can it?
ed
I don't know how this got modded down as it's the more or less the truth. There is nothing wrong with being blunt on topics. Sorry moderators, but the truth hurts.
Life is not for the lazy.
--Pat
If they tightly integrate their search engine with Windows while making it work well, things might change.
You mean things will stay the same.
We bitched about IE being a core part of the OS, now we get to bitch that MSN is. Antitrust lawsuits, here we come again!
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
This quote from the article raised a few red flags in my mind though:
Seriously, does anyone else see future security holes in this? Because I sure as hell do. Think of a misconfigured Longhorn box, open to the net, letting ANYONE browse through their entire computer. Think those Quicken docs are safe? How about your stored emails? Not that you can't already find this stuff on KaZaa et. al, but I see a more widespread problem here.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Good internationalization support. Contrast this with the Linux-run Google.
I'll bite: Google has one of the best internationalization support of all sites I have encountered. See this page
- In Memoriam: Jeroen de Bruin (1972-2004), bye bro
You're talking with a friend about some obscure topic, and to find out the answer, your friend says, "I'll google it." He fires up IE and heads to the MSNbot web page, at which point you say, "Dude, I thought you said you were going to google it."
This should be modded as insightful, not funny.
I am quite terrified, cause I am sure this will happen at some point.
http://use.perl.org
The only time I ever seem to use the MSN search is when I enter a URL into IE that it doesn't recognize (i.e. just about anything that doesn't either end in .com or start www).
Then it invariably brings up an MSN search page with, surprise!, my url right at the top. Hell, using that method they could become the leaders in much the same way that the MSN homepage is one of the most visited one on the internet (because so many users don't bother to change the default one loaded every time you open a new browser window).
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
BZZZT! Wrong Answer!
Good internationalization support:
Google supports 88 different languages, including Klingon for god's sake.
High speed returns:
BSD has nothing to do with Yahoo's slowness. Google runs on Linux, and is much faster than anything else. What is this magical force you are refering too that will somehow make a search engine running a Windows-based solution automatically faster?
Seamless OS integration:
Maybe for you. Not all of us use Windows. Besides, if you were willing to even *try* to look at other systems and/or browsers than Internet Expoliter, you would notice that Mozilla has seemless intergration with the search engine of your choosing and that some non-MS tools have completely intergrated the ability to search whatever you need to using whatever search engine you want. Heck, what about Google's searchbar for IE?
Standarization:
What a great idea! I don't need something that might fit my needs better, because whatever it is that MicroSoft decides is best will be so much better! I should love it when I type in something about Linux into MSN's search engine and get back a bad result because MicroSoft is pulling strings behind the scenes. I should love it when I search for DIVX and the DIVX website isn't at the top of the page, but instead buried farther down, and instead the first thing that pops up is an article (by MicroSoft) on how DIVX doesn't stack up well agenst thier Windows Media product (serously- try this! try searching MSN for DIVX and see what you get!). Yes, thank you for that pop-up too! I soooo needed to know about classmates.com for the thousanth time! I should purge such unclean thoughts that it's *possible* that the REASON THERE ARE DIFFERENT SEARCH ENGINES IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT NEEDS. Yes, MicroSoft, show me the one true way, and I will cast out any thought that something else might work better for my needs!
Dork. Sheesh.
Here is the registration info.
Registrant:
None
400 N University Ave.
Apt. 505
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
United States
Registered through: Go Daddy Software http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: MSNBOT.COM
Created on: 12-Apr-02
Expires on: 12-Apr-04
You can find the rest of the guy's personal details on the linked website.
Certainly helps, but there have been other "ubiquitous" brands that have significantly lost marketshare if not gone under. Frisbee doesn't make all the world's flying disks. People use Curad, too, instead of Band-Aid. People use Puffs probably more than Kleenex. Pepsi has marketshare, despite Coke being generic for "soft-drink" in some areas. I don't know what Xerox's marketshare is, but they have a great deal of competition.
The question becomes whether the verb google becomes detached from the site google.com. Hell, it's pretty much happened now with the noun Unix - people no longer (thank God!) associate it with a single product, despite the fact it once was (I know I'm glossing over some licensing issues here, but bear with me).
The point is, if the thing ends up getting "generic-ed," in the eyes of consumers if not lawyers, then being ubiquitous may not help their marketshare.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Microsoft Technet is not a revenue generator. Google is a revenue generator.
MSN search is/will be a revenue generator. Therefore they will actually spend money and effort on it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Most domain querys at netsol are just the top tier , a lot of registrars create a second tier (this helps cut down spam from crawlers that spam whois email records)
R .NET
so you often need to whois the registras servers to get the real owners details.
so thesedays to identify the owner you need to use netsol first then query the server that that returns (in this case whois.godaddy.com)
$ whois msnbot.com -h whois.godaddy.com
and that returns..........
Registrant:
None
400 N University Ave.
Apt. 505
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
United States
Registered through: Go Daddy Software (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: MSNBOT.COM
Created on: 12-Apr-02
Expires on: 12-Apr-04
Last Updated on: 29-Jan-03
Administrative Contact:
Ferguson, Jerryferguson_jerry@hotmail.com
None
400 N University Ave.
Apt. 505
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
United States
(501)-666-0626Fax --
Technical Contact:
Ferguson, Jerryferguson_jerry@hotmail.com
None
400 N University Ave.
Apt. 505
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
United States
(501)-666-0626Fax --
Domain servers in listed order:
PARK3.SECURESERVER.NET
PARK4.SECURESERVE
which seems to be a private individual
Yes, IE is in fact superior to a majority of the browsers out there.
It is second only to Gecko.
Um, it's already in Windows XP. Just click Start then Search. MSN is the default site (as expected, why would it not be?) but with two clicks you can change the default search site to Google, or a number of other search sites.
I think I'll stop here.
Dude, it's called The Google Toolbar.
Install it and watch her make the switch in a few days.
"linux" search on MSN; top site goes to Amazon, next two go to Microsoft.
"linux" search on Google; no microsoft links on the front page.
Bottomline: MSFT is not a credible source of information. I don't think that I'm the only one that thinks so.
--
$tar -xvf
Microsoft has clearly lost the Internet battle.
Microsoft's goal was to create a network in which they control all the protocols, all the formats and everybody has to pay a fee to put a site online.
But now we have a network with TCP/IP (Unix), http (neutral), html (neutral) where everybody can put up websites.
The whole browser-battle was just damage-control by Microsoft.
And in the next 5 years, with millions of online-capable PS3, millions of online-capable cellphones, millions of new Linux desktops (It's happening slowly, but it happens, just look at Munich and how 5 other cities around it also are looking into switching to Linux just a month after Munich's decision) and millions of Firebird or Opera users on Windows, IE's domination days are counted.
Sure, they will probably hold the majority of browsers for quite a while, but if only 30% are non-IE, it's a too large chunk to ignore and IE domination is over.
Once again my sum, I read my own post and think the key expression could easily be mistakten.
I want to say, your favorite OS depends on your needs!
If only most people would finally recoqnize that. And not favorite the OS thats optimal for them over others who have different needs, without taking aspects on their needs. (Of course people do you OSes which are not optimal for them, but you have to take aspects on their needs if doing advice and advertisment, and not syllogise from you on others.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Google's corporate ethic is diametrically opposed to Microsofts.
Therefore, Microsoft's corporate ethic will ALWAYS prevent a Microsoft Search Engine from producing reliable (ie. uncommercially biased) results.
Google's refusal to bias it's rankings based on ad revenue is it's strenght, and the very reason it become so popular, it decimated all competition. No matter how good your technology may be - if you poison your results with commercial bias, there will be roughly ZERO demand for that search service. Even if Microsoft leverages their monopoly to try to cram it down people's throats, it will still fail. Nobody wants another spam factory disguised as a search engine.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
All these replies, and I didn't see anybody mention, "What if it works better?"
Well, what if it works better? Would you switch? I would, in a heart beat. Yes, I have a growing dislike for MS, I'm a linux geek, which is why I know the golden rule; "Use the right tool for the right job" and if MS can do it better than google, then guess what, they are the better tool
I just did a search on msn for "linux", like someone here suggested.
The first non-paid for result was "below the fold" of my window. I have to scroll if I want to even see past the ads.
If I want an ad engine, I'll go visit double-click. Nothing wrong with some ads...but mostly true non paid for results are what it's all about. It should not be a chore to see past the ads.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Yeah, I think they can easily replicate that.
Google isn't even doing advanced clustering, it is just fancy load balancing on top of a ton of small cheap servers. You could easily do the same thing with a bunch of Windows 2000, or Windows 2003 .Net servers.
The one thing Google DOES get from running Linux is big cost savings. For Microsoft, that's a non-issue though since it's their own software.
Here is what will stop them - Google can and does keep up with the times, updating their engine. Even if MS had the competing technology today, they would have to get it integrated into the OS/Browser. It won't happen with the OS, people don't upgrade that often, and it takes MS a long time to come out with a new version. IE may be a better candidate, but everyone doesn't upgrade their browser very often. (mass majority)
How they would be able to compete is to change what is already integrated, like if they updated MSN. (which is probably what they are doing). So further integration into the OS won't help them, it will become outdated very quickly.
And if they try to take on Google in the centrally located search engine, they can't do it. MS cannot innovate as fast as Google, period.
That being said, Google won't last forever. I remember several other "kings" of the search engine - Yahoo, AltaVisa, NorthernLight, etc etc. Google has held on for a long time though, because they innovate. I think the only was MS could beat them would be to buy them. That is their MO anyway.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Check out this FAQ about MSNBot:
http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm
Some of the responses are rather disturbing.
Most posters here are overlooking the obvious.
As usual, this won't be a question of who as the superior technology or performance. It will be a question of which of the two (MS or Google) can force themselves upon the user first.
Obviously MS can, since it controls the computer. Most users are not technically saavy enough to choose a search engine. Most don't even understand they can type into the address bar.
When they go "onto the internet", they see MSN. MSN is the internet to them, the same way AOL has been the internet to a lot of unfortunate people over the last many years.
Of course, working against MS are the various spyware packages that help the user find things (via popups) that might not have appeared on MSN's search... chuckle.
To summarize, and no offense to non-saavy users (who won't read this anyway), but the sheep will be shepherded right thru MSN as usual.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Like this week's PC World magazine (I'm pretty sure it was PC World) says, when your name becomes a verb, something has gone very right. Google has had things going very right for a long time, and they're not trying to take over the entire world, which gives them cool points to boot!
But seriously, as a result of this, all of their products are incredibly useful and tolerable. You won't find much anti-Google sentiment out there because the services they offer are simply useful:
And, of course, the default Google search is customizable in particular ways. A search for link:slashdot.org tells me that nearly 31,000 web sites link to Slashdot. A search for site:microsoft.com netscape tells me that "netscape" is mentioned on at least 7,800 pages at Microsoft.com.
Sorry, but I don't think Microsoft can catch up to that. And even if Microsoft could, how would such a successful web venture as Google be hurt by it? If nothing else, a little competition might *slightly* reduce Google's load, allowing for even greater expansion of services...
I wrote far too much, but I'm in class, so I had a good excuse.
MS will win.
Want a list of victems?
Who was better? Now who is around?
Who are the current targets
MS can spend 1 billion dollars/month on the war and still make a profit. That's without touching the 50 or so billion it has in the bank. Some one mentioned 20 man years to recreate Google? Easy, they can hire 200 engineers and buy multiple server farms, each one the size of Google's entire installation. Out of petty cash.
MSN.COM: 42KB HTML, 48KB Images.
GOOGLE.COM: 5KB HTML, 8KB Images.
MSN is too commercial. The search technology doesn't matter. The reason why Google is attractive is because it's:
1) Simple
2) Simple
3) Simple
4) Ad Free
5) Accurate
MSN (and Microsoft) has none of these. If they get #5, they are still down 4 in my book. They can't get 1-4 done, they've already buried themselves knee-deep in editorials, audio, video, and syndicated content.
Moving away from their current setup will alienate their coveted "AOL types", and improving search technology will do nothing to gain the attention of "Google types".
It's not about the results alone, it's the atmosphere and the confidence!