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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
There's unlikely to be significant progress. Centralized information retrieval has run its course. We haven't seen anything really new in a while. Improvements will come from distributed/peer-to-peer/grid IR.
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.
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
I just got to wonder what this will do for the quality of results I see in the Microsoft product. What will it get, nothing but spammers as a result?
I mean, think about...
;)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
If you don't like Microsoft, fine, but to call them "no competition" is brutally ridiculous. Microsoft is competition in any area they wish to persue, because although their actual product is not always the best in its class, their ability to sell it is above anyone else out there. Plus, in the "real world" outside Slashdot, the name alone will garner a ton of interest as they delve into the search biz.
As much as everyone likes to abuse the term "monopoly" in regards to Microsoft, they never would have been in a position to abuse power if not for some pretty impressive corporate skills in several areas. If Google ignores that and thinks like you, it's at their own peril.
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
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
Microsoft would have to do more than design an efficient search algorithm to beat Google. MSN is a portal, not a search engine. In order to make the portal a better search engine than Google, they would have to first stop being a portal.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
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!
People seem to forget how Google became popular in the first place. It came out of nowhere to beat the likes of Altavista, Yahoo, and even Microsoft's built in search.
Why? While everyone else was busy making visitors suffer through "portals" full of annoying crap, Google has a plain bare-bones interface that just did what you came for - search.
I think that even more than it's accuracy was the reason it succeeded; and simple, clean interfaces that don't coat the user with cloying, butterfly-laden, happy, shiny GUI seems to be an anathema to Microsoft.
But then again, what is it that they want to accomplice? If it is to become the best searchengine, they have a lot off work to do..
But if the main point is to keep people inside their MSN network things are much easier. Just put a search field on every page and there you go. If the results are oke'ish, most people will be satisfied and MS can put their commercials and such. After all if the MS monopoly has proven anything it is that barely good enough is more than enough for a lot of people..
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
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.
And then they will stagnate the instant google is killed.
See: IE.
I live in a giant bucket.
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!
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
i totally agree. i think the point of the boycott is to reduce the breadth of the msn search results - not eliminate all sites from the engine.
breadth is important because it allows a search engine to say "x million sites indexed" - which to a lot of people is an indicator of a search engine's quality. additionally, breadth allows for better focusing of queries.
so, if msn gets all the commercial sites but misses out on the blogs and hobby sites that don't require revenue... all the better for google.
2 1337 4 u!
Often times people miss the concept that is so bloody oblivious and yet they still manage to continue on...
:-)
What does efficiency or quality of service got to do with anything? This is America. It's not about the better product. It's about who wins.
Google has no leverage over an operating system that is a gateway to its service. There are a million and one tricks that could be employed to cripple Google usage. So what if Google wins a court battle six months or a year (or longer) down the road? In the meantime, Google would sink. And you'd be assuming a lot about Google winning in court, given what we've seen the "Justice" department doing under the current administration.
Yeah, that'll work. That'll get us what we want.
Thank god you people are a minority. If MS wants to build a rival search engine, and hook it up to _THEIR_ operating system, good for them. If they both delivered the same quality of searches, and had the same ease of use, then the market will simply kill the one that is less efficent in meeting those metrics. This is how we evolve.
You think Netscape died because of MS properietary hooks and IE/win9x/win2k pre-installed? Hell no, their code sucked. Their app sucked. IE came along early on and was orders of magnitude faster. I remember those early days, when the first IE browser came out, it simply 'felt' more professional. The Netscape client felt hackish and slow. Programming for both had it's in's and outs, but Netscape quirks were the most annoying. IE4 was a major milestone, NS4 was simply broke.
Redmond _does_ innovate. research.microsoft.com is full of innovation. You can bitch that they 'stole' all their scientist from other research groups, or universities, but whats the point? If MS pays them more money and they enjoy the MS Research environment moreso than their previous environments, then MS is doing all of us a favor. They are encourging and supporting bright minds to make our life and our work easier.
I'd like to see them really take a shot at searching. Both on the collection side, the analysis side, and the User Interface side. All aspects of the process can benefit from cuttin-edge technology floating around the MS Research centers.
Who in their right mind other than a luddite would not want to see new innovation vieing for market share in something as essential as Search services? Are you saying your simply happy with the status quo of Google? Well good thing Sergey, Larry, and Craig didn't think that when they were getting donated machines and cash from Intel, DEC, SUN, NSF, NASA and DARPA to create their searching technology.
We need innovation, and if you want it to come at it's optimum and most efficent pace, you must have competition driving it.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
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
But then again, what is it that they want to accomplice? If it is to become the best searchengine, they have a lot off work to do.. But if the main point is to keep people inside their MSN network things are much easier. Just put a search field on every page and there you go. If the results are oke'ish, most people will be satisfied and MS can put their commercials and such. After all if the MS monopoly has proven anything it is that barely good enough is more than enough for a lot of people..
Precisely. Microsoft doesn't have to be the best search engine to beat google - it just has to convince people that it's "good enough" and that it's easy to use.
Think about it. People use IE not because it's a better browser, but because that's what comes up when they click on the "Browse the Web" desktop icon. They are too lazy, too uninformed, or simply lack the technical skills required to download and install netscape or mozilla. In other words, using any other browser besides IE has become a chore - you have to download it, install it, configure it, and learn how to use it.
If Microsoft makes typing in "www.google.com" a chore, no one will use it and M$ will have won. All they have to do is use some strategy in placing their search links. Put a search link on every Microsoft web page. Put one on the taskbar in Windows. Put one on the start menu. Put one on the IE menu, and lastly, redirect all entires in the URL bar to MSN search if it isn't a valid URL.
They don't have to be best, they have to be easiest and be "just good enough".
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
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
But, 1.0, and 2.0 were still basically rehashes and recompiles of Mosaic. When IE 3.0 came out which was built on new code, the competition truly gave use better technology. IE 4 was simply icing on the cake.
That's simply not true. The monopolies of the early 1900s were government subsidized. They were not free-market based. The gov't, through land grants, created a false economy for Rail Road companies (as just one industry example). I've yet to see a truly free economy, mainly because liberals seem preprogrammed at birth to screw it up, and put their hand into the system.
I don't think the US is a perfect model by any degree of a hands-off economy. Look at the steel tariffs we used when we were getting our asses handed to us in steel production (production was cheaper, _and_ the steel had to be shipped to the US, that's cheap).
Monopolies are _bad_. But the only Monopolies I've seen recently are government supported(Original AT&T), or occurred due to collusion among disparate companies (Music CD Prices).
Microsoft's very success in it's operating system line has laid the groundwork for it's position to eventually be overtaken. Their is such a value in having the 'Next Windows OS' replacement that venture funding will always roll the dice. The potential profit drives companies to constantly assail what some think as 'monopolistic' positions held by MS. If anything, Linux and the spread of it should show once and for all that Microsoft is _not_ a monopoly, and they do not exclusively control the operating system market.
Have MS collude with AMD or Intel, and a hard drive manufacture, and then come to me and say you believe they are part of a monopoly. Come to me when you buy a PC and can't put any other operating system on it (and that is _not_ palladium, so don't go there).
Until then, you simply feel you know better than everyone else that purchases MS software. You say Microsoft ground out their competition, but you hold it in such an ugly light because you fail to realize how much personel intrest you've put into anything not Microsoft. Microsoft can never fairly beat a competitor in your eyes. You will always rationalize that even a (in your eyes) superior product that fails to dislodge Microsoft fails not on the grounds it didn't fit the market, but instead on the grounds that MS somehow manipulated the market. Or you fall back on the position long held in the slashdot crowd, that the 'buyers' of the software are stupid, and simply don't know any better. And that is the key to why new software often fails to beat out MS software. MS doesnt think the business user is stupid. They simply think they are different, and market towards it. As long as they have that evolutionary trait, their products will continue to win out.
What can you bring to the game? Can you beat the current evolutionary alpha-male? What is their weakness? What is yours....
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage