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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
for those of you who don't want to subscribe to the times just click on Google News
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
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
But the fact is, that people are downloading the special software: the google bar is one of googles most successful products, and this must be making Microsoft go crazy, considering their MSN sites have been unleashing pop-up ads on their unsuspecting users for years now. Netscape lost to Microsoft because they (arguably) had what turned out to be an inferior product. Microsoft will lose to google for the exact same reason.
I 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.
I always thought that the key to Google's success was: honesty, objectivity, staying uninvolved. And of course accuracy.
;)
The will to stay away from (at first glance) very lucrative ``search result position'' market, and clear distinction between search result and sponsored (unintrusive) links also helped Google entrench in its position.
Now take any word from the above paragraphs and try to put it in one sentence with Microsoft.
If you don't know what I mean, go to search.msn.com and type linux.
(What's noteworthy is that (in contrary to results from couple of months ago) it no longer returns any ``get rid of linux, install windows'' links to MSDN)
In short, MS would have to do something very unmicrosoftish -- actually give users good value for their money, and behave in a very honest, civilized way.
Where's the money in that?
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
I'd heard something about that for the next release of windows. So file searching and internet searching will be simple, don't even need to open a browser.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
One is clean, simple.
The other is packed, messy, covered in ad's, and preformatted for 800x600.
Windows 2006 will have "integrated" Internet search functionality. This will be pervasive throughout the help system, the file explorer, the Internet explorer, etc. However it will always use Microsoft's search engine.
2 years later, the FTC will notice and declare this is a violation of the 1994 Consent Decree. They will pass it on to the DOJ who will fuck around for 5 years and do absolutely goddamn nothing.
Microsoft will argue that they can't use any other search engine because of some inane reason. This will be despite massive amounts of evidence brought forth by search engine experts, and a patch floating around the Internet to use Google instead of Microsoft's search engine.
Bill Gates will go on a brainwashing campaign to convince the American Public (god bless their little hearts) that this is all about innovation! That Microsoft should be allowed to innovate in a patriotic demonstration of truth, liberty, and the American way. Millions of Microsoft cheerleaders will rally around Microsoft, saying that Google sucks and the Microsoft's search engine is clearly superior and that it's entirely unfair for the government to be outlawing innovation!
In 2013 Microsoft will be found guilty of violating the 1994 Consent Decree. As punishment they will be told not to do it again. Which they'll promise to do. Just like they promised the last two times.
By then it will be too late. Google will be dead.
Forgive my cynicism... but I've seen this all before!
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 satis
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
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...
:-)
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.
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");
...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
"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?
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.
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.
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.
MS has already won; every copy of I.E. 5.5 and 6.0 use Microsoft's search by default. Even finding were to reset your search preferences is a challenge.
As proof of how effective this tactic is, I'd like to offer that a number of my co-workers (knowledge workers, but not particularly computer literate) Just assume that the IE search returns the best set of results for thier needs. Several of them never even try other search engines any more.
There is one similarity to the NS vs. IE battle. Back in those days, you'd have to go download Netscape whereas IE was quite soon not only free to download but force-fed along with Windows. That lead to people who didn't even understand the concept of a browser application, as IE \equal WWW for them -- which put NS to a quite unfair position.
With search engines, people still have to go to google.com. Getting a googlebar installed requires finding, downloading and installing it. When Microsoft adds a large "SEARCH INTERNET" button on the Windows desktop (in their next service pack or Windows Next), people don't even need to fire up IE to click the "SEARCH" button on its toolbar, not to mention go to a URL in order to make a web search. (I'm not familiar with the current Windows desktop, they might already have something like this.)
Many people will still find Google. Also, the 10KB Google frontpage is much less to download than the 10MB Netscape binary. However, there is an alarmingly high number of people who might once again lose the concept of a web-based search engine and go for "Internet Search" instead. Then again, it'll be hard for Google search engine and MSN search engine to compete, as people won't, by default, see or know of either.
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
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.