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/
.... is how fast you can get to good porn. And so far Google has everything beat hands down. Cmon, http://images.google.com, turn off mature filter, search for 'teen boobs' or something like that and BAM, you are all set! Lets see MS beat that!
No I didnt spell check this post...
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.
Microsoft leveraged Windows to popularize IE. They'll try to do the same with MSN, leveraging it to promote their search engine. So there is that similiarity. And Netscape was free, and so is Google, and so that contest should go to whomever has the deepest pockets, but...
Google is different than Netscape in that it is very high quality, something Microsoft isn't likely to match (I am continually amazed at how badly the search engine at microsoft.com sucks) and also because Google actually has a business model, i.e., they have customers, e.g., people willing to pay them money to do stuff.
The way I see it, it's Google's to lose. They can still mess up in execution. They're expanding into other areas very quickly... perhaps too quickly. And they wield a tremendous amount of power in that search engine, so much so that I doubt that the feds haven't already requested "special access" to the query logs, and maybe one day, the power to alter result listings. (Yeah, you'd be laughing if I told you that the feds made Adobe put anti-counterfeiting code in Photoshop too I bet.)
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
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.
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
Google sits in an excellent spot, but there are not many barriers to entry in the search engine arena; who uses altavista, excite or lycos anymore? As long as people start surfing from windows, I would not bet against Microsoft. Maybe an aliance between Nokia and Google could make a dent into Bills armour.
The main reason it's similar is that MS sees a potential serious competitor within a market it wants to own. MS wants to ringfence the desktop and datacentre market (well, it's got to gain the datacentre market first, but it was on the way to doing that before Linux became popular).
It's the argument that searching is about to become really important to them as a business sales technique - the new filesystem is a database, the integration of a web search engine makes your PC behave like a cache of the 'net. Etc. Owning the 'search' territory will help their marketing significantly, so they'll be serious about trying to get it.
I wouldn't write them off either - just because we all use google now doesn't mean we won't switch at the drop of a hat if something "better" (better can be 'easier to use' rather than 'more appropriate results') comes along. Altavista, anyone ?
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I use the google toolbar. Last week I got an email from msnbeta to try out the msn toolbar toolbar.msn.com. HEY MSN toolbar and google toolbar look and do the same thing!.
Sorry but I'll stick with google's toolbar.
I think the internet needs google to remain independent from Microsoft, yahoo, Sun, etc...
In this corner, weighing in at 110lbs a small, geeky nerd who has cornered the entire computer industry with its crippling monopoly software.
And in the other, weighing in at a thousand terabytes, a small, simple, yet incredibly efficient search engine, who has become a household name for internet searches.
I know who I'd place my money on.
(PS: I am aware of the fact that my numbers are inaccurate.)
The fight is very easy for Microsoft. All they have to do is make a better search engine. There is no cost nor effort for me to switch search engines.
Microsoft can have the "search" button on their browser go to their own search engine by default. Or point you to their search engine when you mistype a URL. The average user may not care enough specifically go to Google even if they know it. Most people knew and used Netscape when IE came out, and with the help of being the default browser in Windows, IE started winning the browser war even before Netscape's software quality went down.
It won't be relegated to just the browser .... it'll be integrated into the desktop and available from the taskbar. Google has released their deskband search tool, and Microsoft is sure to do the same. Early screens from Longhorn show the functionality.
I wasn't aware that you needed to download special software to run this Google search application
True. However, it is a fact (I think) that for a long time, Netscape was one of the busiest sites on the internet thanks to the number of users who had that as their homepage.
The reason they had that as their homepage was that they didn't even consider that they could change it, let alone look into how to do it.
MS will get a lot of inital acceptance simply by making IE default to their own search site.
what if microsoft will claim ovnership of IP of the search engine and will sue google for 3 B dollars?
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.
"I wasn't aware that you needed to download special software to run this Google search application." Even if this is the case, when you open Internet Explorer for the first time, Microsoft asks you if you want use msn.com as your homepage. Most users will just click yes. This gives Microsoft an edge. If you want to use google, the user actually has to do work and type "www.google.com" in the address bar. This is just like Netscape versus IE. It all has to do with the convience of just being there. I know everyone in my family except me uses the msn for this reason. Even when I tell them that google is better, they just ignore me, because it is just easier to use msn.
It's pretty easy to see what they can do - embed a microsoft search function into the toolbar sort of like how Safari does it with Google right now. Then, they can "accidentally" make Google's website not render correctly in future releases of IE. I think this time they're going to find that people are going to get really pissed off and instead of switching to Microsoft's service they're going to find a web browser that does work with Google correctly.
Here's hoping,
Matt Fahrenbacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Ironically, heres a link using google news search to the article so you can avoid the NYT signup.
The Coming Search War
Microsoft gets to preload the OS with their preference (a browser that defaults to the MS search engine). There may not be a 20MB download that stands in the way of Joe User choosing a different search engine, but given the choice between a search box in the browser and having to type in "www.google.com", I think most users will choose the former.
I'm not saying the users can't make another choice, I'm just saying they won't bother.
Microsoft.com has the worst search software I've seen it's fooking terrible. They should get their own $h!t together first.
No offence but slashdot is 2nd.
As the next generation of search technologies hit the market it is very possible that google will find itself playing catch up (particually when the share holders are calling the shots).
I am not religious about my search technologies. I do primarily use google but this isnt because I have loyalty to google, it is because google seem to provide the most relevant responses to my queries at present.
I would have nothing against a Microsoft search tech if it was unbias and relevant but I have a sneaking suspicion that we would begin to see that priority in search results would be given to information that was supported directly by microsoft.
They will clearly use any headway in search technology to put their products above everyone elses.
Personally, I would tend to lean towards search engines that are backed by companies that dont have their fingers in as many pies as microsoft. Will the general internet populas agree?
I definately won't be using a biased search engine. I might go as far as to say censored:
Number of results for the search "linux"
at http://www.google.com/ : "about 12,500,000."
at http://search.msn.com/ : "about 429"
That's way more than a little difference. That's a ratio of about 431034:1.
I'm bored so let's try the same thing with "microsoft":
google: "about 9,470,000"
msn: "about 3856"
This time it's a ratio of about 24559:1 . Draw your own conclusions. At the very least I think msn is just a shitty search.
And yes I'm biased! I LOVE IT!
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
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?
Assuming, of course, that Microsoft builds a better search engine, of course.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
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
will it take for a company to rear its head with a patent on searching?
Without music, life would be a mistake. --- Nietzsche
Microsoft has had years to take the search market. The pos MSN start page that IE defaults to is one of the first default settings in IE to get changed by new users. What really cracks me up is two of the internet's biggest success stories are also two of the ugliest websites: google and ebay! I hope MS's marketing department designs the page... it will continue to be too pretty to succeed.
-- $G
I'm not so sure.
Yes, Microsoft did use their desktop OS monopoly to get IE onto everyone's computer, but they did it at just the right time -- Netscape had gone way downhill, and people wanted a browser that worked half decently.
Even if they integrate MSN Search, people will still use Google because it is lightyears better -- Google is even a verb now because of it.
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.
being able to administer thousands of machines
remotely.
No, not just simply administering thousands
remotely, but also being able to administer
them incredibly well and easy.
since I don't see that happening, I look forward
to seeing this MS-project crash and burn...
(this is great for future google stock)
______________________________________________
sigamajig...
The problem with the antitrust cases against MS so far have been that they've taken place after the illegal activity. I feel pretty strongly that Google should sue for a preliminary injunction against MS promoting any new search engine via any media embedded in the client (desktop icons, homepage, et cetera.) Such a judgement might come along in time for it to be useful, and it would leave them on much more even footing.
It might be hard to get though because such a judgement would necessarily drive a wedge between MS's network services (MSN, messenger, passport, hotmail, et cetera) and their OS/application software. For example, it might mean that if MS wanted to embed their new search engine in MSN, they couldn't use it as IE's default homepage anymore. They'd have to pick between using MSN to promote the search engine and using IE to promote MSN.
I think that would be a Good Thing, but a judge could see it as a strong argument against such an injunction.
for those of you who don't want to subscribe to the times just click on Google News
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.
If you think about how internet "applications" are becoming embedded into programs and other web services, there's a whole new area Microsoft could be fighting for ground on.
.net services, they'd have a solid start there. Microsoft does excel at documentation and ease of use for programmers. They know there if something isn't ready, their audience will know and avoid.
.net arena. I'm not sure what the current status is of the open .net compilers but Windows has the head start.
The free Google API isn't really as good as it could be. It works but I suspect if Microsoft incorporated their search engine into Visual Studio, or even just through the existing lists of available
Google doesn't use windows servers. That would certainly limit their ability to compete in the
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
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.
I think the application comes into picture via the Google Toolbar and also the need to somehow organize all the Google Services & Tools. & Google has also gotten into one-click Blogging via Blogger.
In addition there are tools that visually organize the Google Search results, SearchDay - Visualizing the Web with Google - 8 January 2003
When you start having a book called Google Hacks , you know that there are a lot of HPI's (like API's but for H-Hacking), you know that there is a better way to offer access to these hacks via well organized tools. That is the form and function of the application.
Of course there are other applications like Copernic ( a longer listing here Search Tools), but I think the current applications have miniscule following. What will come from Microsoft or Google will flood the market.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
>>Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will find this fight to be as easy."
Until the next emergency hotfix modifies your DNS to have google.com to resolve to search.msn.com. Sure, you can edit your hosts file, but how many users even know what a hosts file is?
Of course, this will all be done for your convenience and safety, mind you. All part of MS' new focus on protecting you from spam and malicious ne'er-do-wells. After all, you never really know who's on the other side of that web site you're surfing to. Better to leave the driving to us.
Yeah, yeah, I know. It would never happen. Then again, no one would ever make a web browser an "integral" part of an operating system, either.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
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.
Some of you slashweenies are so out of touch with the real world it's not true, and one wonders how you manage to drive the system well enough to eat.
In many jurisdictions it is the legal duty of a board of directors to maximise shareholder value - that's what a company is, that's what it does, and if it did anything different the shareholders would sue.
So, criticising a company for trying to make money is completely stupid.
I like Google because it is fast, real fast and uncluttered, but the results are not better that Teoma or AllTheWeb. The link analysis that was unique to Google, 6 years ago, was the real quantum leap forward. But now everybody else has caught up. It appears to me that the differentiation is fast, bug-free quality of service and a clean UI.
Short of another breakthrough from Google, I think Microsoft could still clobber Google. Google has got no stickiness.
Anybody who presses the 'Search' button on a logitech keyboard should get google by default, so in some cases it can be helpful.
:P
Of course, MS keyboards would do the opposite
is it common for big companies to 'announce' their intention to enter an market, and scare existing competitions enough to eventually surrender to a (cheaper) buy-out?
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
because I am simply not going to use Microsoft search. --ever.
At work, I do have to use their products, but everywhere else it is Open Software. I see a growing number of users downloading little widgets that make search a bit quicker, so there is some room for Microsoft to play. It is not hard to just ask for Google though, so I can't see these affecting the audience as much as, say shipping a free browser.
Google has a very high mindshare right now. Most computer users, who know anything about what they are doing, know what Google is. Since a fair number of those users are actually running Microsoft stuff, intergration will grab some of them, but it will only stick if the quality rises above what it is now. (Something I seriously doubt will happen in the near term.) Factor in word of mouth combined with slow upgrade cycles and Microsoft does not have an easy task set in front of them.
Microsoft can grab the noobs and clueless users who won't know or can't know the differences early on. Longer term, this is a problem because Google needs to continue to attract new users. I suppose the lack of new bodies will cause Google some longer term grief, but quality matters here, so I imagine they will still get their share. It is not that tough to try out different search services, unlike browsers.
Given these things, I just can't see Microsoft taking over Internet search. If they spend enough, they will get an audience, then what? Ads? Subscriptions? Intergration? They are going to have to work hard to provide a lot of value in order to profit. The simple, quality message coming from Google is going to be hard to beat.
I'll bet they are going to try and claim to have search be part of the 'Microsoft Office System' brand they are pimping right now. They have already done it with Placeware, why not search? This has a chance with the business crowd and might steal revenue from the Google Ad Words program. Maybe this is the area they are looking hard at. Making money from ads delivered to noobs and the casual/clueless is not going to make anyone rich, but getting the attention of businesses trying to run targeted marketing efforts online would. Microsoft might actually have a chance at this.
In the end, still a non-issue. Still am not going to use their search, even if it happens to be a bit better. Will spend a lot of time letting others know why also.
Blogging because I can...
Welcome to Internet Explorer v. Longhorn. What would you like to do?
* Search the web for the content you want to find. You can enter the name of the site or a partial url here. (recommended)
* Search the web for music, movies, or on demand video/audio content.
* Search the web for products and/or services to buy.
* Enter the exact URL of the site you want (advanced)
Microsoft always missed the clue-train, for multimedia, for the Internet, etc.
They are of the school of thought that throwing money at a problem is the best way to solve it.
Microsoft is UNABLE to understand open-source, interoperabilit, standards and all what makes Science go. All Microsoft is about money-grubbing, market domineering and the bottom-line.
Microsoft will never understand what Google is about.
Yes, when you search for "linux", it says there are 429 results. But as you flip through the pages of results, the total changes to 408, 407, 369, etc. At the 18th page or so, the listed total shoots up to 14190051. It's crappy estimation, yes, but the search isn't biased the way it appears.
How in the deep blue hell do you know what Microsoft understands? If you're basing anything upon the fact that they don't embrace open-source, etc., since when are 'agreement with' and 'understanding of' synonymous with each other? Microsoft probably understands those things just fine, thinks they're stupid, and goes in other directions.
So, this is basically you stating that, because they don't agree with the same things as you, they've "missed the clue-train". Let's see, they are worth tens of billions of dollars, are a household name and basically have a licence to print another X billion dollars. Meanwhile, you're posting to Slashdot. Who's missing what train?
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
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).
Yes, competition is good, but Microsoft is not about competition. Microsoft kill of competitors using their status as the world largest supplier of operating systems. They use their monopoly status to make sure that other companies can't compete. Since they pretty much killed of Netscape they haven't improved Internet Explorer or even fixed serious bug like defect CSS support.
First and foremost, Google is a RESEARCH COMPANY. They've hired a cadre of engineers, mathematicians, and I've even been told psychologists. Their own stated goal is nothing less than the complete mastery of the world's information.
Conversely, Microsoft is interested in branding itself into the public consciousness, and collecting a tidy profit.
To these ends, Microsoft will continue to buy out assets that it feels it can mold into a blunt weapon. Google comes off as a sort of diabolical genius, sneaking behind the scenes, signing unholy licensing pacts, and so forth.
I know it's highly unfashionable to speak ill of Google, but you're a fan of tinfoil hats, I would think you had more to fear from Google than Microsoft.
MS wants to corner the search market so that it can sell higher search result rates to companies that pay them; alter the ebb and flow of results to cater to its money schemes. Expect MS to bundle a search engine, a blog interface and means to have your "ms_myspace," the MS version of a Friendster.
You need to download reshacker aka. resource hacker and hack shdoclc.dll. Look for the string "ieautosearch", and you'll find the url that IE uses to do searchs from the address bar. In my version of the dll, its at string table 76, entry 1211.
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.
By adding "porn" I found this. Now what?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Is this what you tell your grandmother when you see her using MSN search?
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.
MSN: litigious bastards
Google: litigious bastards
I definitely prefer MSN's results.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
A bigger picture you can have is when you look at the investors behind each of Google, AOL, Sun, Netscape, Macromedia, and many more. Kliener Perkins Caufield & Byers is one of the leading Venture Capital firms out here, and they're behind every one of those companies! And they're not shy about talking about the "collective strength and experience" that they encourage among their portfolio.
I think it's really the cultural difference that makes Silicon Valley strong. Companies like Microsoft grow by becoming having zillions of divisions that do some of everything. In the bay area, perhaps no single piece can compete with microsoft as a hole, but the combined plays of all these slighlty related companies really becomes significant. In Microsoft, each of those functions is a division that is shelterd by the parent organization. In Silicon Valley, each is a separate company that has to survive on its own merits. If one fails, and the market segment it focused on is still important, another may be funded to take its place.
...and being synonymous with an net search, Google also becoming a dictionary word (i.e. googling, etc). It's like Napster, despite the lack of anything happening for years since it got closed down it still has it's name in the public consciousness.
On the other hand Microsoft's main brand (being Windows) relates to 'occasional' crashing, i.e. mud sticks, but in the case of Google they're the goose that makes the golden eggs... (they could almost be a monopoly themselves?)... everyone will still think of Google first when it comes to searchs, even if competitors do develop better search technology.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
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
Netscape v. Microsoft would have turned out very differently if it weren't for Netscape literally self-destructing. Netscape did a better job of tearing itself apart than MS did. All MS did was hasten the process along by cutting the legs out from under Netscape's revenue model.
This won't work with google. Google's already on a very minimal advertising-based revenue model and they don't seem to be set to be making any huge mistakes. They've been having trouble of late but those troubles aren't due to internal mistakes, they're due to people purposefully trying to cheat at pagerank. If MS becomes even the slightest bit popular, people will be cheating at MS-Search as well so that won't happen.
Remember, ATM MS-Search is just vaporware. And google seems to have the sense that they will be ready for whatever MS throws at them.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Why do they need to rip off and own everything that succeeds?
Why cant there be other big players in the market aside from MS without them trying to push them out / take them over.
And how can you Microphiles even say that MS isnt sqwashing competitiveness.
emt 377 emt 4
Netscape used to have 90% of the browser market share until IE starting coming around. How did they lose this market share? One argument is that people simply used the default browser IE. While this is true it does not absolve Netscape of their failures as a business.
Netscape simply didn't make a browser with a SIGNIFICANT competetive advantage. I am sure if Netscape had a browser on par with the calibre of Firebird/Opera they would have trumped MS. But they didn't. They screamed monopoly, and all that belly aching accomplished nothing. This, combing with a lack of advertising and poor product development, killed them.
Google is in a good position since they clearly have a better product. Providing they can transmit this competetive advantage to their target markets they will be just fine. That's right Google, you may actually have to ADVERTISE.
MS's strength hasn't been in monopoly but never overestimating the intelligence of their target market.
In any case any competetition is good competetion. If MS truly does make a better search engine I will be the first to use it.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
This is just what MS was so afraif of when netscape came out and became popular. A browser and a webserver practically removes the only real advantage MS has over other, the vast numbers of applications made for Windows. The real reason they fought the browser and java war was that a new application delivery system who was platform agnostic would take away MS biggest selling point.
I cant really imagine how MS could win against google. Its a web page and not very well suited to be a normal local application. In this war they cant really use their desktop to deliver their product, people will still use google or some other search engine.
HTTP/1.1 400
Is there any information about Project Ocean out there? It was mentioned in the article as a secret Gutenburg knockoff in cahoots with Stanford, but I can't find any details on it.
Google has a lot of backing because they've always found a way to make money and keep people's trust. MS isn't going to win this the way they won netscape. They've got 3 options
1: Buy it out, inwhich case everyone'll know and stop using it if the search results begin to get biased and reports start flooding in that they're not being honest about their results.
2: Smush it out, inwhich case they'll use some immoral and probably illegal method of defeating google such as incorperating things into the eula's in their new patches like "you agree not to use google.com" and enforcing it with software, or simply hire some black ops and destroy the building itself or completly screw their search engine up. They've also got patent portfolios they can use to play with google, or they can win the SCO lawsuite, really piss off some nerds, and then sue google for IP fraud and run them into bankruptsy.
3: Play it out. They can build something that can compete with and beat google, and if they at any point faulter and become dishonest, we'll still have google around to do searching on.
This isn't the same battle as IE Vs Netscape. We're talking about something on the internet for one, and for two it's a completly different tech. Frankly I think MS is dillusional if they think they'll be able to smush out google like they did to Netscape. Few people actually ran out and baught winxp when it first came out, fewer still are going to run out in droves and buy whatever they're releasing next especially with all the talk of lockdown.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
The claims that it was superior search technology that made google a succes. I think this was only one factor. To me the graphical design was very important. The google pages are not full of ads, in the beginning there were no ads at all. And now they are tasteful and dont compete for my attention when I look at my search results. The clean design gave an impression of integrety and a belief that search results was unbiased by economical interests.I think it will be hard for Microsoft to match.
So if Microsoft was to beat google, how would they do it? They could use local tools on the OS that collects user information, e.g. scanning office documents and downloaded e-mail to get a user profile that could be fed into the search engine to get better quality of search results. However, such things could backfire seriously if users felt that their personal privacy was at stake.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
1. copy link location (here: "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/ and so on...") :-)
2. google search for the URL: search for "http:// and so on"
3. ignore that you got no search results and click on the link below "If the URL is valid, try visiting that web page by clicking on the following link: " (and yes, it is the same link!)
4. enjoy reading
He would hate MSN just because it's microsoft, but he'd be pretty much powerless to change it, not knowing how.
PS. If anyone wants to drop him a line to tell him the site looks good but needs better organization...I would greatly appreciate it...he won't listen to his son. ;-)
There are two problems:
1. You have broadband to download Mozilla, people who have dial-up will never be able to get it. If you don't have an ISP at all, IE comes installed out of the box.
2. You know how, where, and why to use Mozilla. Manny users can only install virii that comes attached to email on their systems.
Don't be a fool! Monopoly is an almost unbeatable advantage.
Let us not forget that the battle is for Mr Average internet user, not for cluefull slashdot readers
Most internet users have no reason to miss-trust microsoft, and it will not occur to them that Microsoft will do anything other than provide the best search engine they can. They will not attribute to malice, what could be attributed to incompetence. We know that Microsoft will skew the search results away from their competitors, and in favor of the paid for listings, but most people will not think of that.
Mr Average will chose a search engine based on
anyway, I don't want to register, no way, can someone post it here?
------- In the end there are no begining
The IT staff at your company just might have something to say about which OS and browser you use. I believe business users still count for a big hunk of the browser/search population.
Several earlier posts here claims that Microsoft will simply win by putting MSN Search on the taskbar. That may be so but they have an even more powerful card up their sleeve. I think that if they would combine personal search, company search and global search into this MSN Search toolbar, Google is as fried as a toast in a toaster. This way, Microsoft would not only leverage Windows to compete with Google, but also users and company private MS Office or MS Outlook content, which most users have plenty of. If Google is ever going to win, they must start provide similar tools at once.
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.
If so, googles spider data doesn't really help them out much.
Item "SearchURL"
I changed mine to read:
http://www.google.com/search?q=
This way it will fall to google, a far superior search tool, when entering into the address bar.
One of these day's I'll understand how to add it to the search button... one day...
In my experience, Joe Average seems to have no problem filling up his PC with gigs worth of spyware and pr0n over a dial-up connection so 13MB of Mozilla won't make much difference.
If you don't have an ISP at all, IE comes installed out of the box.
If you don't have an ISP, you don't have an Internet connection so you can't do an Internet search. (Did you really mean "ISP"?)
2. You know how, where, and why to use Mozilla. Manny users can only install virii that comes attached to email on their systems.
Ignorance is no excuse. "Joe Average" seems to have little problem investing lots of money and time into learning to drive a car. It costs less to buy a few decent computer books and/or attend a PC course.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
One is clean, simple.
The other is packed, messy, covered in ad's, and preformatted for 800x600.
The Coming Search Wars By JOHN MARKOFF Published: February 1, 2004 PALO ALTO, Calif. AT the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last week, Microsoft, the software heavyweight, and Google, the scrappy Internet search company, eyed each other like wary prizefighters entering the ring. Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, stated his admiration for the "high level of I.Q." of Google's designers. "We took an approach that I now realize was wrong,'' he said of his company's earlier decision to ignore the search market. But, he added pointedly, "we will catch them.'' The four top Google executives attending the forum, at the ski resort of Davos, were no less obsessed with Mr. Gates's every move. "We had many opportunities to see Bill and Microsoft here in Davos," Eric E. Schmidt, Google's chief executive, wrote in an e-mail message to a colleague that was distributed to employees through an internal company mailing list. Microsoft is intently poring over Google's portfolio of patents, hunting for potential vulnerabilities, Mr. Schmidt contended. And because Google is running its business using Linux - the free open source software that has become the biggest challenger of Windows - Microsoft is concerned that it may be at a competitive disadvantage. "Based on their visceral reactions to any discussions about 'open source,' '' Mr. Schmidt wrote in his e-mail message, "they are obsessed with open source as a business model.'' Get ready for Microsoft vs. Silicon Valley, Round 2. The last time around, in the mid-1990's, Netscape Communications, another brash, high-tech start-up from the Bay Area, commercialized the Web browser, touching off the dot-com gold rush. The company told anyone who would listen that its newfangled software program would reduce Microsoft's flagship Windows operating system to a "slightly buggy set of device drivers.'' As it turned out, Microsoft - based in the Seattle suburb of Redmond, far from Silicon Valley, the heart of the nation's technology industry - was listening. Mr. Gates, belatedly waking up to the threat that the Internet posed to his business, aimed Microsoft's firepower at Netscape and flattened his rival, which was later acquired by America Online and is now a shadow of its former self in an obscure corner of Time Warner. As a consequence, however, he brought a federal antitrust lawsuit down upon his company, raising the specter of a Microsoft breakup. In the end, Microsoft escaped with little more than a requirement that it operate under a relatively mild court-ordered consent decree. Today, nearly everyone in Silicon Valley, from venture capitalists and chip engineers to real estate agents and restaurateurs, has begun to ask: Will Google become the next Netscape? Mr. Gates, who for more than a decade has promised - but not yet delivered - "information at your fingertips" for his customers, has decided that the Internet search business is both a serious threat and a valuable opportunity. The co-founder and now the chief software architect of his company, Mr. Gates readily acknowledges these days that Microsoft "blew it" in the market for Internet search. Despite his early grand vision, he displayed little inclination to deploy software that would improve the ability of computer users to find information - until he saw the dollars in the business. THAT opportunity fell to two Stanford computer science graduate students, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who disregarded the industry's common wisdom that search technology would become an inexpensive, marginal commodity. While the Internet's dominant companies fought one another over Web portals, the promise of e-commerce and access to providers like America Online, Google developed a speedy search engine that soon became almost a universal first step onto the Internet. It displaced earlier search engines because the technology invented by Mr. Brin and Mr. Page did a measurably better job in returning results that satisfied Web surfers' requests. As a result, Google now has an immense number of users, with 200 million searches on a
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
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!
And when it doesn't find what I'm looking for, I use one of the links to other search engines at the bottom of the results page.
Trying to diminish my dependance on google; they've been getting worse for a while and I've discovered pretty decent alternatives (AlltheWeb, Teoma, Gigablast, etc) -- not as good all the time, but most of the time.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
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.
I think the article is addressing the scope for greater integration into the OS of search functionality. Such as, making search functionality directly avaiable from Word or any other productivity app instead of having to switch to a browser and having the results returned in a format properly formatted for that app (such as Excel). Of course, it will be tied directly to MSN Search.
People are forgetting that "Google" is already widely known - it's not just with the /. crowd. I've heard the term "Googled" while watching C.S.I. and Letterman, for Pete's sake!
They've already got the mindshare - it's not at all like Netscape vs. Microsoft.
#DeleteChrome
See DQSD. Google (in beta?), Hotbot and others are now offering this feature. It's open source.
So you're saying we need an open source search engine? Maybe we could achieve it if it were P2P...
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Booble will rock your world, beeotch... wait, I mean Google will rock your world, bitch!
Is Microsoft tring to head off the Google IPO at the pass? It appears to me that MS might be worried that some heavy institutional investors my decided to drop some of the MSFT in favor of Google stock and if that happens on one day, it could cut billions off the market cap of MS which could then cause a number of smaller investors to drop their shares too.
"Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will find this fight to be as easy."
What's Microsoft's net worth again? Oh, that's right.... ^_^
You need a FREE iPod Nano
The truth of the matter is Microsoft falls on its face as often as it succeeds when it is branching into new markets -- even ones related to desktop computing. The whole 'evil monopolistic power abuser' thing seems more like a convenient excuse for the shortcomings of Netscape and Linux as a desktop computer than a real phenomenon to me. Microsoft are certainly no angels when it comes to business practices, but that's no reason for people to let misperceptions about the real cause of market success or failure to cloud their judgements.
Do you really think Microsoft is above hijacking their own browser and sending you to McGoogle.com when you try to go to Google?
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
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...
:-)
That is what may be at stake people. Now for a few dollars more your result can come up in the search first (invisible to the user with respect to search engine).
It sounds like a great way to get advert dollars. Companies will switch ....they need to pump as much into their advertising dollar and get the most for their buck. Think about it 95% of the desktops already! Do the math! They are getting hit all over for Office and Corporate productivity software.
Match that up with DRM. Now those pesky open source software binaries will have trouble getting on MS desktops (keeping in mind most people will not be as savy as Slashdotters). A pristine Windows environment once again. It may slow down GNU/Linux on the desktop.
It isn't just MS paranoia or is it?
"They say travel broadens the mind, so I went over the falls in a barrel." -Thomas Dolby
Fedora+Mozilla works just fine. Well...as fine as the MSN search engine is, anyway.
MSN does appear to bring up more retail type links first.
Search on "recumbent" (as in recumbent bicycles). Not a really common search, but not 'weird'.
Google shows more informational links, whereas MSN brings up eBay, DealTime, Sears, Amazon, etc. among the first set of links, along with a few informational ones.
I wasn't aware that you needed to download special software to run this Google search application.
yes, well, just wait until microsoft incorporates web seaching into their operating system. imagine if you could merely alt-click on any word to get an msn-search. etc, etc, etc.
BUT, you say, msn-searches are inferior.
gosh, we've never seen microsoft crush superior technology before, have we?
is if the next release of IE or the next XP patch blocks access to google, or it redirects to msn search, then I think people would be incredibly pissed off at microsoft.
There are some key items in the article summarized in my (rejected) post. They give a good indication of where the market is headed. They also highlight and give clues about some of the competitive challenges that Microsoft will face while trying to take Google's market share.
2004-02-01 00:12:36
The Coming Search Wars: Microsoft vs. Google (articles,internet)
The New York Times' John Markoff reports on the coming Internet search engine wars between Microsoft and Google. Markoff draws parallels between Google and another mid-1990s upstart company: Netscape. The feature also provides some historical context on how Google filled a niche that the giants ignored while pursuing Web portals. A few story items stand out. (1) When Microsoft Research demonstrated its new search technology that will take on Google, former Digital Equipment Internet search pioneer 'Mike Burrows ... who later helped design Microsoft's experimental search engine, quietly defected' to Google. (2) Further, 'Google has been quietly developing what industry experts consider to be the world's largest computing facility' with over 100,000 computers in at least a dozen data centers around the world. (3) Finally, 'Microsoft is concerned that it may be at a competitive disadvantage' due to Google's use of Linux and open source technologies, according to an internal e-mail from Google CEO Eric Schmidt who describes Microsoft as 'obsessed with open source as a business model.' Not bad for a company that had negligible revenue in 2001 and now has $1 billion in annual sales and a $350 million profit.
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.
Google will loose millions of IPO money, just because Microsoft, SCO, and some greedy sects, etc. tell that they are going to compete/sue Google.
Sure it isn't needed, but it sure seems everyone has a toolbar they want us to install. Google included.
Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
I suspect that as anti-Microsoft sentiment rises outside America (which is inevitable as anti-American sentiment rises) the fact that linux web browsers might start setting google as the default search engine could be really significant for Google.
then their marketing team will go into overdrive saying that they do a better than google, faster and easier, too.
the best bit is that the ineffectiveness of the US anti-trust laws won't need to be brought into play, because if google were to be put out of business by the above "scam", microsoft's own "search" engine would also coincidentally fail.
"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."
Then why don't "we" beat them to it? Let Mozilla, Konqueror, Firebird, OpenOffice etc. have a Google search bar (as default on install, so that less experienced users don't have to look for add-ons)?
Microsofts next launch is absolutely focused on "search". The entire filesystem metaphor in Longhorn revolves around data and association. The 'Stuff like this' (?) demo is a bit like Dashboard, it brings up relevant info from all your personal data, and the internet.
When users are trying to find something like 'funny billy goatse photo' their hard drive and Microsoft's search engine will be used together. Unknowingly, MSN search will be a part of everyday life.
Microsofts next monopoly abuse is pretty clear already, their technology demos show it too. They will integrate and before you can say 'Anti-trust investigation' the world at large will be using MSN search for _everything_ - information is power too.
Keep close tabs on Microsoft's actions, unfortunately when they are punished by EU/USA its too late.
puts ("Python r0cks\n");
When you "google" something, you search for it or find it.
"I googled knoppix, and found a good ISO link"
When you "Microsoft" something, you destroy it, take it over, hoard it or crash it.
"CowboyNeal is microsofting all the cheetos"
Microsoft is definitly on the wrong side of this popularity battle.
Newspeak is working for the good guys... Double plus good.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Even if Microsoft had it, and whilst certainly true innovation is often a killing business idea, intangibles such as trustworthiness, accuracy, transparency, friendliness, low cost and good quality generally are good reasons to come back to a supplier. I don't think Microsoft usually scores high on any of these- their strengths ultimately relate only to concepts like 'lock-in'.
That works only as long as the lock-in lasts- Linux and other businesses and governments appear to be attacking this reasonably strongly.
But 'google' is the BBC of the internet search engines; high quality, high trust, high transparency. Like the BBC, it's not that google always does the right thing, but when they do the wrong thing, you can often see why they did what they did, and empathise. Nobody really empathises with Microsoft.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"It will if IE suddenly stops playing well with Google.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You can do EVERYTHING in windows remotely using scripting, WMI and ADSI and command line (that "net" command - it can do a lot more than you think it can). Just because you don't know this doesn't mean the technologies aren't there.
What kind of battle this is will determine who wins.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Microsoft's last resort is hiring all of their competitor's smartest people. That's what they did to Novell.
So, if Google IPO's, that will buy Google a couple/few years while their employee's options vest, depending on the schedule. They can and will grant more options of course, but the fact is, Google is (supposedly) worth about $12 billion, and MS has $50 billion in cash alone. They could easily gather up all the smart folk at Google and effectively buy much of what makes Google Google for a tiny fraction of Google's worth.
...worse than Google's. Now imagine that technology is not worse, and they have a ridiculously large server farm sitting on a ridiculously fat pipe that indexes the internet twice as fast as google using better algorithms. "Can't happen", you say? "Why?" I'll ask. Maybe not in the first version, but I have no doubt MS can beat the crap out of Google with technology alone. Heck, I know at least two other search engines that aren't worse than Google, and they don't even have Google's resources, whereas MS has 10x the resources, monetary, IP and other.
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
in other news... booble.com installed a bedroom cam in the Gates' Master Bedroom. Neilson's Netratings Shoot Up instantly as SuperBowl Ratings take a dump. No word yet on how many of booble's hits are generated by Teenager Mike Rowe, who settled with MS for an Xbox to give up his domain name "MikeRoweSoft.com".
----
djzooky.com
I Like Cheese.
"I wasn't aware that you needed to download special software to run this Google search application."
That may be true now, but will the page still render in upcoming versions of IE?
http://toolbar.msn.com/
Need I say more?
http://www.fsckin.com/
Integrate the application into the operating system => no need to fire up IE to http://www.google.com to do searches.
Fair or not, Microsoft's plans for search go beyond what Google can deliver as a remote internet application. Microsoft wants to treat search as a single domain application (e.g., searching local or remote resources are done through the same application). This is EXACTLY the same play they ran against Netscape.
Google may be falling for it. I've read several articles recently that indicate Google's head may be starting to weigh too much for its shoulders.
Happy Trails,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
Simple strategy for MS:
:-( I hope the above never happens.
1) kill all browsers on the most popular computing platform. Result, IE sole available browser (oh, wait, they already did this).
2) make IE automatically point google.* URL requests to msn-search.
QED.
Darn, I just spelled out the obvious. Now the evil doesn't even have the excuse of stupidity
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.
This is just like Netscape vs. IE. Just wait until longhorn comes out. MS's search engine will be integrated into windows (where it will undoubtedly function as not only a search engine but it will handle all memory access as well, so it can't be removed). It will have the entire web cached and right there waiting for you. It will then use your spare bandwidth to update itself continuously. Who will want to go all the way to google.com to do a search when the entire web is available right on your own computer? Google is doomed for sure.
~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
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?
Game consoles? Nope. Microsoft Phone? Nope. Interactive TV? Nope. MSN? Nope.
MS is not exactly scoring a 100% with the products it releases. The OS and office suit do well. So do their PDA's although this is because everyone else is really screwing up.
Lets not forget that netscape lost because it couldn't keep up. Linux users will remember being lumbered with Netscape 4.2. Windows users just switched to IE.
So does google loose? Maybe if they screw up but I don't think the bundling thing is going to help MS all that much. MSN is bundled and has so far totally failed to take over the market or turn a profit.
Of course one tiny little detail is that MS doesn't need to make a profit. I cleans out its consumers so much on the OS and office suit it can afford to have several money drains going on at once. MS can afford to screw up countless times. I doubt google has that luxury.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
software"
That will probably be step one:
1) Break Google on Longhorn.
2) Default to msn search when Google breaks.
3) Profit.
Google an advocate of open source? I don't think so. Can't see any google source anywhere... The approach here is that at a certain point the sale value of code approaches zero. OS code sale price? Zero. Search code price? Non-zero. If MS can add value they will survive, if not then they won't.
We have been working for years to get to the top position in our main keyword on Google, but cannot do so, even though we are the most popular site -- by far -- on our keyword and should be in the top five. Google continues to give higher rank to sites that are MUCH less popular than us.
If MS can make a search engine that tracks actual visitor usage of sites and publish it OPENLY (such as Alexa.com does, but on a larger scale) instead of the CLOSED SOURCE Google PR algorithm then I will gladly sign up.
I am sure many other Webmasters agree.
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
From my own personal survey, 500+ users have proven me right, with only a half-dozen bothering to use Google. That does not bode well for the future.
========
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Netscape wasn't inferior to Internet Explorer at the time they were battling. I believe what really did Netscape in was Microsoft getting their DOM included as part of the W3C standard.
Suddenly <layers> were not just the netscape way of doing things, they were officially non-standard. Netscape had to scrap parts of their core rendering engine to comply with DOM. If you were going to write a web page, you used to have to write a different version for each browser if it was anything other then a basic page. Fed up designers go with standards - and MS made sure their browser became that standard.
Now Mozilla is up and running, kicking ass once again. Finally after years of IE5/6 (no noticable change?) we have some real innovation happening in browsers again.
Google shouldn't have any problems with standards. Browsers are the universal client. They can be extended to talk to just about any server or service.
MS will have to come up with better search technology or use monopoly to force MSN on people - oh yeah, they already do that.
I very much doubt that MS' search engine can outdo google. My experience with MS is that they use as many effects as possible to make it look good, without caring for those with low bandwidth.
Google = Small, simple, powerfull, and does not require 353495mbit connection to use.
MS = Big, colorful, allways shows MS' own sites as the most irelevant, lots of disco/teletubbies effects, HTML code and images > 1024Mb. Atleast this is what i assume it would be like, after watching MS' other projects.
this is probably the most boring sig in the world
Some people have mentioned the possibility of MSN search overpowering google mainly due to Microsoft's sheer muscle in the desktop market.
Ain't gonna happen. You know why? Despite what a lot of you have said about Microsoft having a lot of money and time to throw at the problem of being better than google, they show no interest at all in improving their search results. Worse, they appear to deliberately skew their search results. Try searching for "Apache" on both google and search.msn.com. One gives an "Oil and natural gas development Company" as the first result, another gives the software foundation. Guess which engine does which? And guess which site more people search for.
Yeah. If Microsoft really wanted to, they could probably challenge Google. Looks like they'd rather control what hits get back to the clueless lusers though. "MSN Search -- More Useful Everyday" , my ass.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
People are starting to get way to good at optimizing their sites for Google. The search results I get from Google are getting worse and worse. This isn't because Google is getting worse, it's because they staying the same. They are a victim of their own success and have too many people trying to cheat the system to make a buck from Google traffic. I'm starting to see more and more "Google Spam" in my search results. It's pretty annoying to search for "foo," and then have to wade through several pages of "We have the best foo and the best prices on bar! Come check out our bar and see all of our great foo, laptops, pda's, foo, bar, goats, creamcheese and foo!" Google is still (in my opinion) the best search engine on the web, but they are slipping. They need to improve their algorithm to filter out all the crap. The most used search engine a year from now will be the one that gives users the most accurate and useful results, whether it's owned by Google, Microsoft, SCO, goatse.cx, or anyone else.
Hmm... I don't know where you are, but here in the US, the XBox is quite successful. It didn't beat out the PS2, but then again, Internet Explorer 1 wasn't too successful either. Doesn't mean Microsoft doesn't have the opportunity to take the title in the future. They've firmly planted themselves as a serious contender.
Again, I don't know where you get your numbers from... MSN is the #2 dial-up ISP in the US, and that's at $3/month more than the much superior Earthlink.
Umm, do you know just how much money Google has? It may not be so massive when compared to Microsoft, but damn!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
lets face it...if google wants to survive they need to play just as dirty as MS! For starts, they should stop providing results for microsoft.com...after all, it's quicker and easier to use google to search MS' own website!!!! until MS fixes that basic "misuse" of google, google will always win in mindshare!!!
MS has already won; every copy of I.E. 5.5 and 6.0 use Microsoft's search by default. Even finding were to reset your search preferences is a challenge.
As proof of how effective this tactic is, I'd like to offer that a number of my co-workers (knowledge workers, but not particularly computer literate) Just assume that the IE search returns the best set of results for thier needs. Several of them never even try other search engines any more.
and it looks like a combination of Google Toolbar and Yahoo Companion. The usual search items but you can also go to 'my msn' etc. geez, I was wondering when M$ would tackle that one...
I mean, go to the machine of your average "joe user" and look at the system tray. There are usually 10-15 icons in there -- windows media player (9, not 7), real player, quicktime, and a whole ton of other things. It's disgustingly crowded, but they have found a way to download lots of crap that makes the system take 4 minutes to boot up and fill their entire 128 MB of RAM.
So people do go download a bunch of crap that clogs up their systems, so I'd expect they may well have the Google toolbar already installed.
Yup. Make no mistake. There is no 'monopoly' here. If Google dies it will be because MS had a better product, better advertising, or Google made a mistake.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
Finally, someone who gets it. Microsoft beats their competeitors not through some illusory 'monopoly', but by either releasing a better product, better marketing, or their competetitor's make a mistake.
This is why Oracle, pdfs, Apache, ICQ, AIM, etc. still exist. These are good companies with good products. And they all have a significant competetive advantages.
Make no mistake, if Google dies it will not be because of monopoly. As soon as you stop believing this lie and analyzing the market with an unbiased eye you will realize this.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
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.
I believe Google Calculator is one of the more useful obscured features of Google.
:)
You can enter anything maths (like 2(5 * 30) ^ 2 or whatever), conversions (20 feet to in, etc), has constants predefined (pi, e, speed of light, mach, etc), and even does binary, hexidecimal, octal, and roman numerals (convert 1354 to binary, convert 0b11001 to roman), and more.
Has to be one of the most useful tools ever
Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
"' That is an obscure feature. Only my ubergeek friends know about it. "
Google does not advertise. Their popularity has come from word of mouth. This feature like all others will spread through word of mouth too. So far it's worked well for them.
"well, parsing and recognizing such strings and acting on them is a -lot- easier than catching up on search technology. There's no barrier to entry that Google as set up."
True enough. MS has never innovated. They always steal other peoples ideas and technology. No doubt they will steal that one too.
"By the way, Google as a search engine is really starting to suck. I use Teoma mostly"
Good for you. For me nothing even comes close. I love searching for something and then hitting the groups tab and seeing what the newsgroups say too.
War is necrophilia.
Base on my experience, searching on www.microsoft.com is best done on Google... ;)
(n/t)
Lots of posts in this thread seem to be focusing on Google's diminishing value with the sheer size of results, and link farms etc, serving only to reduce its effectiveness, thus leaving room for other players to seize a niche and perhaps the whole search engine game in the future.
I think the best way to make Google better is to introduce a peer moderation system, much like we have here, only centered around the search results pages you get. That way, the link farms will be modded into oblivion while good search results begin to filter upwards with "positive" karma, so to speak.
If you implemented such a system you would have to prevent the same link farm/commercial players from distorting results, but again this could be done much like slashdot by modding the moderators. After all, millions of people use Google every day, and the ratio of those people to the commercial players is heavily weighted in the people's favour.
Google, in the spirit of copyleft, I am giving you this idea for free, to use as you see fit.
Visceral Psyche Films
It's unfortunate that such a well thought out post isn't modded up.
I'm divided on the cause. Is it that slashdotters, who tend to be fiscaly conservative, don't like to read well developed arguments that flow agaist their beleief system? Probably not.
I think my parents post was probably just a little too off topic and a little too old.
Let's hope Google responds by getting into the Office business. Love to see them do a makeover on Open Office with their own brand name!
It would be valid that competition in this area would be a great thing for the consumer. However Microsoft are not going to make a competition that will benefit the end user. As a developer at least a few times a week I need to look up an article about some code method or api call on the internet to give me a reference. Now microsoft almost always has the article that I want. So you would think it best to go to MSDN and have a search on their own site which is indexing their own pages and gives you lots of great advanced options to filter on specific programming languages and areas of Microsoft's web sites.
NO. Instead after spending quiet some time setting all the options you want and searching your results return a fair bit of marketing, usually a pile of stuff from the japanese site and some totally unrelated links about why you should upgrade to the latest system / software.
What do I do now. Go to google, and almost everytime find the relevant microsoft page within the first 20 results on google.
Google indexes Microsoft's pages better than Microsoft does so how can one even begin to believe that Microsoft can index anyone elses site.
Oh and how many of you out there have you homepage set as www.google.com I know I do it on every computer I have as it means the load time is quick and I'm at the web page I use by far the most often.
Why should google get defensive? i think Google should get offensive and release The Google Internet Browser, that competes head on with IE. (may be its possible! who knows?)
Why does yahoo do this
When will people learn to think ahead more than 5 minutes?
M$ wants to own everything, dominate all markets, and have you pay a monthly fee to use a computer. If they could, they would stop all innovation right now and concentrate on money-making and monopolizing. That is a fact.
Once you realize this, technical matters become irrelevant. Not using M$ is not some grand ideological battle, it's simple self-defense.
Assume M$ gives you a better search engine. But then, when you use it, there will be no search engines in 5 years. So how, exactly, is that a better search engine?
It's a sucker deal.
Microsoft has the same advantage it had over netscape, and it's a big one. They can integrate their searches into their desktop software. As much as I hate Microsoft (and that's a lot), I'm pretty sure that all they have to do is cleverly integrate their web searches with Office and the Windows desktop and they will win this battle too.
.Net C# system. Hell, a little MSN search field built into the windows taskbar would probably win over the majority of Windows/google users.
They are in a very good position to do this with their
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.
You might need to download special software to undo Microsoft's fuxory. All they'd have to do is change the default configuration of Windows to redirect any attempt to use a competing search engine. Windows XP's next service pack could sent all requests to google.com to search.msn.com, it would be very easy for them to do and hard for most mundanes to undo.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
They can't, that's why they tried to by it. It's just like everything else Microsoft. They wait for a "market" to mature and buy their way into it. The results are never first rate because they never have the same concerns that creators have. They only care about money, performance is not the goal.
Had they bought Google, it would go the way of Hotmail, full of adverts, slow and used for Microsoft's strange world domination plans.
Having failed to buy Google, they will go down the road of trying to destroy Google. This is generally how Microsoft competes. The case of DrDOS is the best documented, but the Windows world is littered with aps M$ broke. There are two ways to break Google. The first is to set up websites and engage in Google bombing. The second is to incorrectly render or time out on Google searches. I expect Microsoft to do both.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
MS can easily make their search services more attractive by making it the most accessible and fastest service: something they can do by placing it in a very accessible area in Internet Explorer and by running software on the desktop machines that caches searches locally. If it were to also download results that it thinks you may try next (based upon studying other users) it would react blindigly fast when compared to Google.
Whether they can actually pull it off is another matter. It could easily become another Hotmail fiasco.
Powered by onion juice.
As at 2004/02/02 22:59 KST, both return the same page...
L
Looking at the archived AltaVista (the ones from 2000-2003 mainly) all I see are stuff that Google also has. The only exception is Google spreads them out onto several pages, whereas AltaVista put them all on the main page. Search, direction, news, etc., it's all there on both sites.
~CGameProgrammer( );
Man I remember IE 3.0 quite fondly. NOT!
At the time I was trying to do digital certificate-based security and IE simply sucked for handling certs. Export? Whuzzat?
IE *ONLY* succeeded becuase they were able to throw over $1 billion at trying to get it right and run the competitor off the field. Please point me to the "technologically superior" piece of software that led MS to write a letter to Compaq (at that time the #1 OEM PC seller) informing them that their Windows license was going to be cancelled unless they stopped hiding the IE icon and promoting Netscape.
No, IE has become a decent piece of software that I use only when I absolutely have to. (Mainly to test that my pages do display under IE or use something that requires ActiveX.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Just from my own experience, looking at the referrers in the log files of the 4 sites I operate, Google delivers right around 4.5 times the traffic to my sites that MSN does. In fact Google gives a little more than all the other search engines put together. This is anecdotal (x4, though, and the logs generally agree in this regard) but it seems like MSN, AOL, Yahoo, and the rest of them have a ways to go before they're used as commonly as Google.
every stain tells a story