Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Introduces Competition For Google News
Romeo E. Cabrera writes "In advance of an imminent launch of its own search engine, Microsoft has launched its own version of the popular Google News service. Based initially on feeds from the Moreover news aggregation service, the new beta service (known as MSN Newsbot) aims to provide news on a range of subjects including World, Sports, Entertainment, Science and Technology."
As long as it is not exacltly the same news on other sites (like Google), I would be willing to give it a try. I find too much recycled news on the internet these days, and it would be nice to have something new. Of course, if it is the same news over and over again (or blatently Microsoft propeganda), then it isnt worth the bother.
Save Sam and Max!
I wonder if they will be as impartial as the Google news generator. The first two "most popular" articles on their service are the same one: Microsoft Tests Web News Service
Wasn't a REAL news website good enough? Now they have to be in competition with THEMSELVES?
At first glance I thought it was a new place to search usenet news. This new "news site" is just plain worthless. It reminds me of the USAToday site.
I am still going to use google. It is a nice quick way to see the day's major events for technology and business. It works and is very orgnaized. Better to encourage the orginal creator to create more then to encourage the copier to copy more.
M$ launches news service
.. the only success they have achieved thus far is by buying existing leaders (think HotMail).
M$ launches new search engine
M$ launches music download servive
it seems like M$ is scrambling a little bit, not quite sure what to do anymore. coming to the market second or third works when you can leverage your existing user-base in a controlled environment (think IE or Office).
the trouble is the internet is not really a controlled environment like their os. even with a browser monopoly M$ hasn't really figured out what to do online
so as far as I am concerned as long as M$ is mired up trying to develop their own online services in-house the world is safe.
So, I looked at the NewsBot site and I suppose it's swell, but I still like GoogleNews better. Why? Maybe because deep inside I like Google and their business model better. I think Microsoft, who is not really loved among the masses (and I am a Windows user; I like XP although I use OpenOffice instead of Office XP/'03) doesn't really do much for itself when it slaps its brand on a product. Also, I have to wonder if MSN will make the classic mistake of making it overbloated like the rest of its sites. I see that now there is no advertising on it but when will that change? Also, I see the cheesie MSN banner on it. When will MSN start forcing you to sign into passport or worse Hotmail (gag) to get the news. Google is simple. Low bandwith (with an option for lower bandwidth yet if you want). There is no advertising on the news page. There is no need to sign into the collective.
Almost every beta page released my M$, is introduced first in Microsoft UK.
If Google or Microsoft wished to truly compete in one segment (sports, politics, videogames, etc.) they would have to hire editors to manage those sections and provide a personal touch as well as specialized features for those sections.
I am an Editor at GameTab which is in essence an aggregate site for videogame news and reviews. We are a portal site (much like the Google/MSN news sites) which means that we're trying to be a jumping point for gamers to venture out into other sites. We don't create news ourselves, we merely report what news other sites are presenting and do useful manipulation on the data. In addition we present relevant information such as price deals, developer and fan created box art, torrent files, etc.
For generic news these sites run by corporations are great. They are a strong challenge to outlets such as CNN or MSN.com itself. However, for the many areas of news people will always want that custom feel that they only receive when information is tailored specifically to their tastes.
Personally I don't care whether or not a company has innovated in the "here's something totally new that you've never seen before" - if they can take something and make it better, then I (as a punter) will chose it.
To innovate doesn't have to have the pre-requsit of "start from scratch". It's perfectly possible to take something that isn't particulary new and then add new features and claim that to be innovative.
Other companies in all markets have been doing that for years. It's not something limited to Microsoft.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Don't confuse innovation with invention. Let's see what they bring to the table when these services are in full swing to see how they've innovated on an existing concept to make it better for the consumer, industry, or their own bottom line. Any one of these, among others, would make it an innovation.
At the risk of being troll or falimbait; Microsoft is pissing me off. Every day I come to /. and I see some new story about how Microsoft is ripping ideas off of everyone else. Their MSN music service coming out, this news thing, their "matrix" shot at linux, its just rediculous. Perhaps if MS would come up with some actual innovation, other than new marketing techniques, they could actually have a good product. They have a good start, and given a little time with some good programmers, it could be a "secure" (as secure as anything really can be anyways) solution to many people's computer problems. As it is, more often than not it only compounds those problems. I lost faith in the "American System" long ago, and MS is only making cynics of more and more people. Why is it, that a company with as much power as they have (reguardless of whether or not you want to admit it) does all it can to belch out mediocre software? It takes money to make money, they say; and appearantly that money only spawns the want of more money. Call me prude, old-fasioned, whaever, but a company such as microsoft, with such a huge impact on the lives of many people, should at least try to put out something that is useful, and not allready available.
Game Overdrive - Gaming News
Google News search for "MSN Newsbot"
vs.
MSN Newsbot search for "Google News"
It's a very telling search that compares the two services rather nicely.
IBM once held a monopoly. Then Microsoft got 'em.
Now Microsoft has a monopoly and the inertia will eventually kill them. My only question is, can I pick the stock of the next contender to the throne? That my friend is the American way.
Now Microsoft has a monopoly and the inertia will eventually kill them. My only question is, can I pick the stock of the next contender to the throne? That my friend is the American way.
What's interesting is IBM lost its PC monopoly because of the openness of the hardware. I think it would be rather ironic if MS loses their monopoly because the, albeit different, open architecture of OSS.
Beware blue cats moving at
Pro-linux
Anti-microsoft
"I think the U.N. is going to find that the blame lies with all the Sudanese rap music that glamorizes genocide."
It seems like that was a good part of your message:
/. and I see some new story about how Microsoft is ripping ideas off of everyone else. Their MSN music service coming out, this news thing, their "matrix" shot at linux, its just rediculous. Perhaps if MS would come up with some actual innovation, other than new marketing techniques, they could actually have a good product.
At the risk of being troll or falimbait; Microsoft is pissing me off. Every day I come to
That being said, I'll get responding to the point you say you were trying to make, and this post. As you said yourself, they "have a good start". But you seem to be under the impression that Microsoft's software is stagnant and that it's not improving.
The only issue you call out specifically is security. Microsoft HAS improved on that (compare Server2k3 w/ Server2k exploit rates, for example) and is still doing more. Security asise if you just look at what Microsoft has done over time (95->98->XP) there have been significant improvements in both UI (The original 95's UI sucks ass out of the box) and stability (the former traditional Microsoft sucks rallying point; these days it's security). I also find it extremely interesting that typically there is "one big thing" Microsoft gets slammed for at a time. And I say if your detractors can only find one major (where major=encompassing design flaws) bad thing about your products you're doing pretty good.
You also say you "would like to see augmentations to their existing software, instead of making new software to get more money." I just don't understand what the difference is. Microsoft adds new stuff to their software to sell more copies. If they don't then people won't upgrade. There's still a large amount of people using Win 98 (~30% I belive last time I looked at Google's stats, and it was about equal to XP). Apparently XP wasn't compelling enough for them to upgrade. So they're continuing to add new stuff. But it's not like during this time period Microsoft doesn't refine their existing products. Win98 is still supported today and gets patches. What other desktop operating systems still support the version released in 98? I don't think it's Apple, and I don't think it's any of the Linux vendors, and I know it's not Be.
So can MS's software improve? Sure, and I think they wouldn't disagree. But is it really just "good enough"? There are markets (IBM seems to think information worker is one of them) where Microsoft rules. Really no one can touch them: not Linux, not MacOS w/ a non-MS office suite. And while some of that may be interoperability, a lot of it is the staggering amount of functionality that Office brings to the table. Even slashdoters will quote areas where there's no compelling alternative. So I'm not so sure it's mediocre. But like everything it can certainly improve, after all, nothing is perfect.
From an early age Americans are taught to consume news from corporations. Too few pause to ask, "What might these giant concerns wish me to learn today? What might they not?" As we see in just the past few years alone, our news industry is as content to serve as a conduit for profitable lies as was the Hearst empire back in its yellowest days. Did you know the sky's the limit for Enron stock, and that the minarets of Baghdad conceal nukes pointing at us?
For the descendents of the people who gave us luminous skeptics of power such as Twain, Bierce and Nast to suck at these monied teats is one thing. For them to suck their fill and think themselves "informed" is risibly quite another.
I don't think it was openness alone, but that they gave Microsoft exclusive rights to DOS for the clones. Then all the clones ran with the same MS-DOS, which was nearly identical to IBM's PC-DOS variant. So Microsoft got the software profits on the clones. It was a very, very smart move. I don't think that many big companies would have anticipated the consequences, given that Microsoft was a tiny company selling Basic.
True. They probably aren't *currently* skewing results to favor a competitive business agenda . But their standard approach is to start out with something decent, build it into something good. And then use it to abuse or mislead the users, preferably without their noticing it. I'd rather just skip that whole operation.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.