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)
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.
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.
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
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'.
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.
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
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
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