Slashdot Mirror
Google v. Microsoft
ph43thon writes "The New York Times business section has an article, The Coming Search Wars, about Google and Microsoft. It's fairly long and pretty interesting. Oddly, the writer or somebody out there, seems to think that Google v. Microsoft is analogous to Netscape v. Microsoft. I wasn't aware that you needed to download special software to run this Google search application. Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will find this fight to be as easy."
Could do with some competition, Internet getting very dull
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Sure, anyone can type google.com into their browser, but for the 90% of the population who don't understand how the web works, pressing the Search button on their browser is the only option. The fact that Microsoft's search is getting better doesn't change anything though, as search.msn.com is already the IE default, and those people will be using that.
O'course MS can force users to use msn search this time just they did with IE. BTW, they already doing this. When you make a typo in a url (or the site is just slow to respond) you go to MSN search (with standard settings). Jou Beginner just thinks you search the internet only with MSN search and keeps using it. And if MS is really lame they block google in IE or render it incorrectly (only the goverment in the way for that)
Google doesn't require me to run Windows and use IE to use their search engine. :)
This space is not for rent.
Since when do you have to d/l special software to use MSN search? The only challenge here is building the engine. Getting people to switch is not a problem for Microsoft's marketing department.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will find this fight to be as easy.
Well, if it's anything like Microsoft's previous attempts at dominating a market, it may prove atrociously easy for them. As another article on The Economist (linked here just a day or two ago) stated, Microsoft can easily leverage their Windows marketshare to take over the Search market.
As the article said, all they really have to do is offer a new service as a free add-on to Windows, then simply build that service into the next version of Windows, citing it's popularity and need to be a core part of the OS. They did it with IE, and they can certainly do it with searching as well. Tie their engine to their OS, and why would the masses go out to the web to search anymore? They could just do it from the desktop.
All MS has to do is hard code in the next IE fixpacks a simple check to see if the URL is Google and do all kinds of bad things to the request, claim it was a "bug" but then not get around to fixing it for a couple of years.
Oddly, the writer or somebody out there, seems to think that Google v. Microsoft is analogous to Netscape v. Microsoft. I wasn't aware that you needed to download special software to run this Google search application.
This rather sarcastic remark somewhat misses the point. Not everyone is running Mozilla or a non-Microsoft OS. MS leapfrogged Netscape primarily because IE was 'good enough' (IE4 versus Netscape 4 was pretty even), it was quicker to load (thanks to MS integrating it into the OS), and because MS made it the default for everything.
Microsoft only has to make their new search 'good enough', and integrate it with Internet Explorer (or even as toolbars in other apps, like the Office suite), and Joe Public will use it just to make life simple.
When it was Netscape vs Microsoft, M$ could create it's properiaty standards and make bugs in Windows that could crash it and make it look like Netscape's fault. This is using their popularity to the advantage. But with google, they can't use the popularity. All they can do that I can think of is to make IE not allow the user to go to google.com and show some kind of 404 Error. Help me out here, but wouldn't be this kind of illegal?
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
What really matters in search engines are trust, relevance, speed and features. In other categories competition might be strong, but it is hard to see that Microsoft-branded search engine could easily be as trusted as google in near future.
My prediction is that Google will win hands down.
Vaadin - the best open source framework for building web applications in Java - no plug
Microsoft will undoubtedly make their own search engine the default when the browser loads, or will integrate it with their msn.com portal page, but even if they do this, they still have typically created pages that are slow to load and so full of stuff as to make them difficult to use. Google has always had a clean interface and massively quick load times. This helps.
Google is a household word. It's also becoming accepted as a slang verb (to google for something), and has a reputation of delivering good results. Teachers like it, and their students are encouraged to use it. Professionals like it because it's quick. This also helps.
If Microsoft attempts to sabotage or hijack connections to google to redirect to MSN search via Internet Explorer, Google can cry foul to the courts (because Microsoft was ruled a monopoly) and get that removed, or possibly even get Microsoft barred from putting their own search engine in by default. This could prove interesting.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Aside from this all being hashed over yesterday, people will generally use whichever search engine is better. Yahoo once had market dominance until Google proved to be a far better search engine. Microsoft will achieve dominance if they provide beter search results than Google. There's not many ways to sneakily force people to use your search engine, aside from defaulting the search button to your own search engine, which MS does already anyway.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
In Longhorn, they will just include their search engine as part of the OS itself, no need to ever type in www.google.com. Its all over.
People don't exist to serve systems, systems exist to serve people.
Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will find this fight to be as easy.
Same remarks could have been said in the context of MS Word against Wordperfect or IE against Netscape, Excel against Lotus, etc. MS always by attrition and patient and they monoply position to wait it out. Also, MS is in a good position to dominate because the own the distribution channel.
Be warned that this feature also turns up the illegal/nasty kind of porn also - even with generic porn searches. The authorities consider viewing these illegal images the same as downloading them.
It's just a matter of time before the MSN toolbar is included by default with IE.
That is how it similar to the Netscape wars. Search is going clientside and they want it specialized for YOUR needs. That's where the competition comes in.
Searching is still an evolving science. With all the google-bombing going on that manipulates search results, there remains a lot of work to be done. The key essence of searching is to either
a) retrieve the most relevant information
or
b) retrieve the most popular information
But the key is the user must never be confused as to which heuristic was used to return his/her results. This isn't happening right now.
Google is a star at the moment but so was Altavista and so were a couple other search engines. It is not inconceivable that Google can be displaced.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Google has indexed the internet. That data is ultimately more powerful than having software installed on the majority of desktops.
Google has already flexed this muscle with their text ads. By being able to rapidly spider a page, google can provide very directed and specific ads. These ads are successful because they are so focused to their assoicated page.
Without radically changing the way we view the web... Microsoft can not touch that aspect of google... yet.
Davak
What Microsoft has going for it is money. Google has lots of good ideas, but running that many searches is very expensive in bandwidth and hardware. Google might just have a hard time ever making a profit. Microsoft has a hard time not making a profit. Google can't just slap 'new version!' on a flagship product, and have people line up at the malls all over America to spend $400 on it.
So I'm thinking the superior product could lose out to the more profitable one. Wouldn't be the first time it happened.
But the fact is, that people are downloading the special software: the google bar is one of googles most successful products, and this must be making Microsoft go crazy, considering their MSN sites have been unleashing pop-up ads on their unsuspecting users for years now. Netscape lost to Microsoft because they (arguably) had what turned out to be an inferior product. Microsoft will lose to google for the exact same reason.
I always thought that the key to Google's success was: honesty, objectivity, staying uninvolved. And of course accuracy.
;)
The will to stay away from (at first glance) very lucrative ``search result position'' market, and clear distinction between search result and sponsored (unintrusive) links also helped Google entrench in its position.
Now take any word from the above paragraphs and try to put it in one sentence with Microsoft.
If you don't know what I mean, go to search.msn.com and type linux.
(What's noteworthy is that (in contrary to results from couple of months ago) it no longer returns any ``get rid of linux, install windows'' links to MSDN)
In short, MS would have to do something very unmicrosoftish -- actually give users good value for their money, and behave in a very honest, civilized way.
Where's the money in that?
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
I'd heard something about that for the next release of windows. So file searching and internet searching will be simple, don't even need to open a browser.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
MSN search is included in Internet Explorer for years, but Google was always used by people able to change the homepage. Why ? Loads quickly (not so important in broadband times), very easy (almost nothing on screen on the first page - this is important!), good results (better than MSN that does not give my homepage when I type my name, only pages that link to it?!?). Why should it change?
MSN must fight a competitor which:
- has a good reputation
- is well established
- can't be blocked at the user's computer (can't change the rendering of such a simple page without breaking millions of other sites; Google would adapt quickly; can't firewall its URL on all Windows computers without a PR disaster and problems with a court),
- does not want to be bought,
- does not interact directly with Windows or Office, hence can't be blocked by playing with incompatible standards,
- could probably strike back if attacked with patents.
This is typical from MS: they want to stay alone on the market. MS does not understand the notion of a free market with different players (do not forget Yahoo and many others).
Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
I think the easiest way to tell when Microsoft might be close is the day that the MSDN search feature provided by Microsoft is more accurate than using Google with site:msdn.microsoft.com .
If Microsoft can't make a search engine that works on a known set of like data to produce better results than a search engine that uses a "generic" search function, then they have problems.
The reaction of people like those found on Slashdot if Microsoft actually crafts a search engine that is demonstrably better than Google. Will people ignore that in favor of simple Microsoft bashing, or will they use it and acknowledge its superiority?
There's a certain element of trust that goes into something like this. MSN's new search technology could spit back more relevant and comprehensive results, but there would still be suspicion that MS was (a) using the search info in ways we wouldn't approve of, and (b) shaping the results to suit their priorities.
Since the search engine code will be proprietary, there's no way to prove otherwise, and many people will still be more inclined to use a company that they consider "safer."
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Yahoo also brings to bear a lot of traffic to any solution it picks on its own site, so watch Inktomi's star to rise again as it takes the 20% of traffic YAhoo was seding to Google.
The average user goes to Google because MSN Search sucks big time. If the default search engine for IE yielded better results, average users would not look anywhere else.
Of course, Microsoft still has to come up with a good search algorithm and structure (I don't think they can use 10,000 Windows boxes in a cluster in a manageable way) and will have to resist flooding the search results with meaningless advertising. That will be their real battle. As much as I hate to admit it, they don't really have to be as good as Google, because they can leverage IE and Windows.
FACT: Mozilla (Firebird) is being developed a lot faster than IE and now supercedes IE in all but the website compatibility issue.
FACT: Mozilla (Firebird) allows me to use the URL bar for search words and I can choose my preferred search engine.
FACT: IE is Microsoft's product and as far as I'm concerned, they can now do what they like with it.
FACT: For the forseeable future, I can still choose my preferred search engine.
So what's the problem?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
...that Microsoft's goal isn't to control searching the Internet but to control searching the Intranet?
Think about it. Microsoft's bread and butter is servers and workstations. Whenever Microsoft releases something to make it easier to get information from the servers to the workstations, it ends up making them money.
By allowing centralized "search servers" to extract data from the WinFS metadata store, a single add-on product for the Windows Server System can alow a user at his desk using Windows "Longhorn" to do a search and not only find out where the data is that he needs, but who has it, who created it, who has been working on it, etc.
If you think of the quantity of data in the WinFS metadata store on any individual resource as the "PageRank," you might see where Microsoft is REALLY going with this.
As for Internet search, it's just a bonus. Basically, if they get the Internet search working first, they can test and tune their algorithms using the Internet's userbase as a large testbed and possibly a small profit center.
RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
And then they will stagnate the instant google is killed.
See: IE.
I live in a giant bucket.
The only way Google will lose is if they do it to themselves. Now that they are supposed to be making an increasing amount of money every quarter (ie, impossible money) they will be pressured to do everything possible to gain money. Watch weird subscription services appear at first. Once no one buys into them expect more aggressive advertising. This will be their undoing.
I don't see why people have problems with self-suffecient companies. That is, make enough money to continue doing what you're doing and enough research to continue in the future. They are being measured too much by gains rather than gross. If Google stays at say, 70% of web searches for ten years, that would be amazing. Far more amazing than going up to 99% then failing.
One is clean, simple.
The other is packed, messy, covered in ad's, and preformatted for 800x600.
Windows 2006 will have "integrated" Internet search functionality. This will be pervasive throughout the help system, the file explorer, the Internet explorer, etc. However it will always use Microsoft's search engine.
2 years later, the FTC will notice and declare this is a violation of the 1994 Consent Decree. They will pass it on to the DOJ who will fuck around for 5 years and do absolutely goddamn nothing.
Microsoft will argue that they can't use any other search engine because of some inane reason. This will be despite massive amounts of evidence brought forth by search engine experts, and a patch floating around the Internet to use Google instead of Microsoft's search engine.
Bill Gates will go on a brainwashing campaign to convince the American Public (god bless their little hearts) that this is all about innovation! That Microsoft should be allowed to innovate in a patriotic demonstration of truth, liberty, and the American way. Millions of Microsoft cheerleaders will rally around Microsoft, saying that Google sucks and the Microsoft's search engine is clearly superior and that it's entirely unfair for the government to be outlawing innovation!
In 2013 Microsoft will be found guilty of violating the 1994 Consent Decree. As punishment they will be told not to do it again. Which they'll promise to do. Just like they promised the last two times.
By then it will be too late. Google will be dead.
Forgive my cynicism... but I've seen this all before!
I think we would have another antitrust case if Microsoft did so. Sure it would take years in court, but I think Google might decide to ignore the robots.txt file if they really believe it was illegal and a threat to Google. People picking side and creating robots.txt file probably isn't illegal, at least we are not facing an antitrust case there. Well, since Microsofts crawler haven't really found anything of interest on my site, and Google have already crawled most of it, I don't think there is yet any point in trying to give Google and advantage. They already have the advantage they need. Anyway how would things turn out if people starting placing this robots.txt on various webservers:
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Microsoft has a monopoly to leverage, to be sure. But their history shows that in general Microsoft doesn't make many business mistakes. They instead wait for their competition (like Netscape - a company that practically handed the lead to Microsoft on a silver platter) to shoot themselves in the foot. Every time they've faced a competitor that's in truly top form, Microsoft hasn't won.
Intuit has held off against repeated attacks from Microsoft.
The PlayStation hasn't been demolished by the XBox.
Microsoft hasn't even bothered trying to take on Adobe.
Oracle is not being destroyed by Microsoft.
In all of these cases, aggressive, competent companies have held off attacks from Microsoft by minimizing their mistakes and playing against Microsoft's weaknesses.
Google is not just about smart technology. This is a company that figured out how to make money with search. Remember back in the late 90s, when all of the kingpins of search decided that portals were the way to go? They were all wrong. Google, the late entrant, actually had it right and stuck to their core competency.
Microsoft faces a tough competitor in Google - one that's not likely to make the same kind of mistakes its predecessors did.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
MS pulled some damn dirty tricks out of their repertoire to win over users from Netscape because they couldn't win them over on quality...like some posters have suggested.
-MS couldn't compete with Netscape so they completely gave their browser away, free to use both personally and commercially. At the time, Netscape allowed free personal usage but required commercial usage to be licensed. (Free is always good, but in this case MS did it with the sole intent to squash competition. They had the revenue from their OS and a big bank account of course, while Netscape was a newcomer with only 1 product that was generating revenue from commercial licenses.)
-MS threatened the likes of Compaq (and others) by yanking their Windows license if they bundled Netscape into computers they were selling. Obviously, IE shipped with Windows but vendors weren't allowed to include Netscape. (Good way to stifle competition IMHO).
-MS integrated IE into the OS so it would load quicker and appear faster than Netscape.
-MS delayed API's to Netscape repeatedly.
Those were the big factors in sinking Netscape but none of them apply to Google. I know many people that can barely get around on a computer but if they want to search for something they use Google. It's so widely used that no one even blinks anymore if you tell them to "just google for it".
I think it's too late for MS to try and outpace Google. To compare MS vs Google to MS vs Netscape is unfair to say the least. Google doesn't need to be installed on the OS, it's free to use, and is so well known that it's name is a universally accepted word analogous to search.
-Pat
Often times people miss the concept that is so bloody oblivious and yet they still manage to continue on...
:-)
searches could do better at exclusions, as well as sticking to one language (even telling it English-only on advanced searches doesnt always help). Also, it seems like simple, yet specific, things which should yield many results dont produce results.
There is much room for improvement, but both Google and Microsoft have pretty smart people working for them. Competition is the best way to get those guys to work even harder, by trying to outdo each other.
One of the nice things about MS is that any improvements they come up with will eventually find their way into other products, like SQL (or even a future version of Windows). Anything Google learns only benefits Google.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
And Google is not? Froogle, Google News, Google Images, Google Translation... Google is a portal just as much as MSN, you seem to be ignoring this simply because Google has "cleaner lines" on their web site.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I like Google fine, but if we want to retain freedom to use our computers to do what we like, we need a system for searching that doesn't rely on a single source. The algorithms are for the most part public; someone needs to make a peer-to-peer search engine.
I don't have the expertise; do you?
mean quicker loading pages, less time spent hunting around for that obscure link in the corner of the page buried under a floating Flash ad, and a non-sellout image.
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
MS has already won; every copy of I.E. 5.5 and 6.0 use Microsoft's search by default. Even finding were to reset your search preferences is a challenge.
As proof of how effective this tactic is, I'd like to offer that a number of my co-workers (knowledge workers, but not particularly computer literate) Just assume that the IE search returns the best set of results for thier needs. Several of them never even try other search engines any more.
There is one similarity to the NS vs. IE battle. Back in those days, you'd have to go download Netscape whereas IE was quite soon not only free to download but force-fed along with Windows. That lead to people who didn't even understand the concept of a browser application, as IE \equal WWW for them -- which put NS to a quite unfair position.
With search engines, people still have to go to google.com. Getting a googlebar installed requires finding, downloading and installing it. When Microsoft adds a large "SEARCH INTERNET" button on the Windows desktop (in their next service pack or Windows Next), people don't even need to fire up IE to click the "SEARCH" button on its toolbar, not to mention go to a URL in order to make a web search. (I'm not familiar with the current Windows desktop, they might already have something like this.)
Many people will still find Google. Also, the 10KB Google frontpage is much less to download than the 10MB Netscape binary. However, there is an alarmingly high number of people who might once again lose the concept of a web-based search engine and go for "Internet Search" instead. Then again, it'll be hard for Google search engine and MSN search engine to compete, as people won't, by default, see or know of either.