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."

Comments

Good Luck!

[w.p.richardson]

Google is a brand at this point. It's a verb. It's as ingrained at this point as "Band Aid" for adhesive strip.

That being said, if anyone can compete, it's Microsoft. They have deep pockets, but they don't always win (see UltimateTV, e.g.).

Re:Good Luck!

[pubjames]

Google is a brand at this point. It's a verb. It's as ingrained at this point as "Band Aid" for adhesive strip.

I'm afraid that the fact that Google is associated with searching at the moment is not a very strong reason for it to remain. I remember when I would talk to people about the World Wide Web and they would say something like, "oh, you mean Netscape? I've got that on my computer!"

I hate to say it but microsoft are in an extremely strong position to crush Google. Just come up with something that is nearly as good and then integrate it completely into Internet Explorer and the OS. It will be another example of them leveraging their monopoly power, but since they've found they can get away with it, what's to stop them?

I once had a friend....

[Dark Paladin]

Who had a Microsoft rep in the office proposing the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars.

So my friend said "All right - let's have a test. I'm going to have Google look for this search string that deals with Microsoft technical information - and I'll have the Microsoft technical page do the same thing. And we'll see who has the most accurate and fastest results."

"But - but that's not a fair contest!" the Microsoft rep told him.

"No," my friend said, "It's not, because Google just returned the results for its entire current storage of the Internet, and the Micorosft Technet search engine is...still looking."

Should Google be worried? Naturally - always be paranoid about competition. The best thing it can do is keep going to businesses and say "What do you need to look up?" and figure out how to make their system work for them. "You want to search emails super fast? You have tons of documents you need to search through?"

To be honest, Microsoft has not succeeded very well outside the operating systems - look at handhelds, cable access - MSNBC is doing all right, but I attribute that to the NBC rather than the MS part of it.

Google has a lot of brand name, it has proven, cheap, realiable technology that is getting better. As long as they keep that edge, keep pushing the envelope, keep talking to businesses/consumers and find out what they want and deliver on it, MS will be left with YAMSP (Yet Another Money Sucking Project).

Of course, I could be wrong. But based on my Safari and Mozilla browser searching Google and my non-Geek wife actually using the words "I'll just Google that later", I'm not too worried.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

bottom line

[LuxFX]

The first thing that attracted me to Google, even before witnessing the quality of the search algorithm, was the sheer bareness of their main page. I heartily applaud any website that keeps their main page under 15Kb. Even more important, I applaud any website that values the goals of the users so much that their main page is essentially a single function with no fluff. I also applaud any website that maintains a zero ad banner and popup rule.

MS will never be able to compete with this. I would be very surprised if their main page will weigh in under 75Kb. It will be 90% fluff. And there will be ads all over it!

Google wins.

.

Re:No worries

[molarmass192]

Yeah, 'cause there's no such things as Windows-zealots right?

Windows has it's selling points, Linux has it's selling points, here's where I draw the lines:

Server: Linux is fantastic as a server OS, it beats any MS server OS 100% of the time. This due to the customizability of the kernel, hardware specific optimizations, and the fact the it runs headless.

Home Use Desktop: Microsoft OSes are fantastic as home desktop OSes, they beat Linux in 95% of home use situations. The only exceptions in favor of Linux is non-game, surf and email purposes and people who code as a hobby.

Corporate Desktop: Linux wins due to security and the homogeneous software environment in corporations. This is not a 100% of the time thing but perhaps in the 75% range due specifically to legacy software availability.

So what's my stance? Linux is great, Windows is great, but at different things. If you want a highly configurable OS that you can tweak and tune to extract all your hardware has to offer, use Linux and don't expect it to be easy. If you want to play Splinter Cell and don't know the difference between a sea shell and a c shell, then don't even look at Linux 'cause you ARE going to get stumped.

The other big problem is one of perception. The vast majority of Windows users (not all) are under the impression that they are technically savy because they know where to click their mouses. Throw them into a DOS shell and they choke. Put them in from of a Linux console and you're likely to hear "What is this???". Conversely, the vast majority of Linux users (not all) are quite techically savy and as such they tend to be elitist (and some are just jerks). This makes for an oil-and-water mix that will ALWAYS exist.

To close back on the post, Windows OSes don't necessarily suck, but low skill Windows-only admins (90%+), give the software the appearance of sucking. It's all in the know-how, and moving a mouse around some neon colored buttons ain't know-how. I also think the majority of Windows-zealots (and there are a buncha them) are specifically from this clueless group of folks.

Re:Why MSN will fail:

[danrees]

I love that MSN Search for "linux":

3. Alternatives to Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP
Learn about the Microsoft alternatives and how to move to them from open source products.
www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/migration

If that's not biased, I don't know what is... ;)

my sources say

[Tancred]

Google has been expecting this for a long time and are prepared for it. MS is the only company that has been considered a serious threat, at least for the last year. They've got the name recognition, browser control and financial resources to do it. But do they have the right technical people? Are they committed to buying their way in no matter the cost? How about overcoming some very ingrained company traits and playing fair?

Then there's the Google motto of "don't be evil" to contend with. Part of Google's success, I believe, is due to not being evil, and more than that, to being good. That covers things like clearly marking ads, keeping their home page simple (I wouldn't use it as my browser home page if it wasn't) and not accepting payments for rank improvement.

There are a lot of very smart people at Google and my sources say the management is very shrewd and realistic. I'll bet they weather this storm. The drubbing of Netscape was, I think, an easier thing to do. Google already gives away their service for free, and they've got immense mindshare. Netscape had good name recognition at the time, but back then there was a flood of new users that didn't know anything about the net. That was also at a time when there wasn't so much anti-Microsoft sentiment out there (yes, even the general public has had a taste of it due to the court cases).

Wow, I just about convinced myself to submit my resume!