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."
.... 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.
The Internet is definatly getting dull since Goatse was shutdown.
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?
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.
Google staff themselves have already shown much progress with little or no serious competition. Their search engine has nothing to do with the old yahoo and altavista that were returning 50% advertisement and 49% uninteresting results.
And sincerely, I doubt Microsoft will come up with anything more efficient that Google.
Progress? That's Google's job. Competition? Microsoft is no competition in this area. Google wins by having a well-thought search system that beats anything else.
Yes, I am biased. Google is "da shit" =)
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
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
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.)
Microsoft will undoubtedly make their own search engine the default when the browser loads, or will integrate it with their msn.com portal page, but even if they do this, they still have typically created pages that are slow to load and so full of stuff as to make them difficult to use. Google has always had a clean interface and massively quick load times. This helps.
Google is a household word. It's also becoming accepted as a slang verb (to google for something), and has a reputation of delivering good results. Teachers like it, and their students are encouraged to use it. Professionals like it because it's quick. This also helps.
If Microsoft attempts to sabotage or hijack connections to google to redirect to MSN search via Internet Explorer, Google can cry foul to the courts (because Microsoft was ruled a monopoly) and get that removed, or possibly even get Microsoft barred from putting their own search engine in by default. This could prove interesting.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
There's unlikely to be significant progress. Centralized information retrieval has run its course. We haven't seen anything really new in a while. Improvements will come from distributed/peer-to-peer/grid IR.
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".
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
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 just got to wonder what this will do for the quality of results I see in the Microsoft product. What will it get, nothing but spammers as a result?
I mean, think about...
;)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
But the fact is, that people are downloading the special software: the google bar is one of googles most successful products, and this must be making Microsoft go crazy, considering their MSN sites have been unleashing pop-up ads on their unsuspecting users for years now. Netscape lost to Microsoft because they (arguably) had what turned out to be an inferior product. Microsoft will lose to google for the exact same reason.
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.
If you don't like Microsoft, fine, but to call them "no competition" is brutally ridiculous. Microsoft is competition in any area they wish to persue, because although their actual product is not always the best in its class, their ability to sell it is above anyone else out there. Plus, in the "real world" outside Slashdot, the name alone will garner a ton of interest as they delve into the search biz.
As much as everyone likes to abuse the term "monopoly" in regards to Microsoft, they never would have been in a position to abuse power if not for some pretty impressive corporate skills in several areas. If Google ignores that and thinks like you, it's at their own peril.
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
I always thought that the key to Google's success was: honesty, objectivity, staying uninvolved. And of course accuracy.
;)
The will to stay away from (at first glance) very lucrative ``search result position'' market, and clear distinction between search result and sponsored (unintrusive) links also helped Google entrench in its position.
Now take any word from the above paragraphs and try to put it in one sentence with Microsoft.
If you don't know what I mean, go to search.msn.com and type linux.
(What's noteworthy is that (in contrary to results from couple of months ago) it no longer returns any ``get rid of linux, install windows'' links to MSDN)
In short, MS would have to do something very unmicrosoftish -- actually give users good value for their money, and behave in a very honest, civilized way.
Where's the money in that?
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Microsoft would have to do more than design an efficient search algorithm to beat Google. MSN is a portal, not a search engine. In order to make the portal a better search engine than Google, they would have to first stop being a portal.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
I'd heard something about that for the next release of windows. So file searching and internet searching will be simple, don't even need to open a browser.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
People seem to forget how Google became popular in the first place. It came out of nowhere to beat the likes of Altavista, Yahoo, and even Microsoft's built in search.
Why? While everyone else was busy making visitors suffer through "portals" full of annoying crap, Google has a plain bare-bones interface that just did what you came for - search.
I think that even more than it's accuracy was the reason it succeeded; and simple, clean interfaces that don't coat the user with cloying, butterfly-laden, happy, shiny GUI seems to be an anathema to Microsoft.
But then again, what is it that they want to accomplice? If it is to become the best searchengine, they have a lot off work to do..
But if the main point is to keep people inside their MSN network things are much easier. Just put a search field on every page and there you go. If the results are oke'ish, most people will be satisfied and MS can put their commercials and such. After all if the MS monopoly has proven anything it is that barely good enough is more than enough for a lot of people..
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
Yahoo also brings to bear a lot of traffic to any solution it picks on its own site, so watch Inktomi's star to rise again as it takes the 20% of traffic YAhoo was seding to Google.
By adding "porn" I found this. Now what?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
i'm proclaiming google the winner because i am actively working against the microsoft search by participating in the boycott
if you have a website and want to participate in the boycott it's darn simple.
User-agent: MSNBOT
Disallow: /
then, sit back in triumph that you have struck another blow to the jugular of the beast of redmond.
no. really.
2 1337 4 u!
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.
You've sure stuck "another blow" alright. Where will I get my fix of whiny tech-bloggers if your site isn't available on MSN?
Oh, right, EVERYWHERE ELSE.
Idealogically, a boycot against MSN is a fnatastic idea, the problem is that from a marketing perspective (for commercial sites) its suicide.
Each free click a site receives is invaluable, to the point that a whole industry is built upon manipulating search results (generally those of google, because thats where the vast majority of traffic comes from) in favor of bettering the positioning of their clients. Try googling for "seo","search enging optimization","search engine placement" and the like and you will notice the sheer number of results speak for themselves.
Ironically enough, results provided via this industry often cost more and perform worse then google adwords (first because it takes some odd months for any results to show, and second because googles sorting algorithm change every month or two and maintaining good position takes constant manipulation), but the point is, that the top five results in any engine, be it google or msn, is money in the pocket. As such business entities will set idealology aside; disallowing msnbot is not a viable solution for any commercial entity.
How do I keep track of people who are fingering
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
You forgot a step. Before doing this, you should take a look at your own website. If the content is crap that nobody wants to read, you should block google's spider instead fo MSN's. That way, MSN search results turn out to be useless and frustrating. :-)
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Microsoft has a monopoly to leverage, to be sure. But their history shows that in general Microsoft doesn't make many business mistakes. They instead wait for their competition (like Netscape - a company that practically handed the lead to Microsoft on a silver platter) to shoot themselves in the foot. Every time they've faced a competitor that's in truly top form, Microsoft hasn't won.
Intuit has held off against repeated attacks from Microsoft.
The PlayStation hasn't been demolished by the XBox.
Microsoft hasn't even bothered trying to take on Adobe.
Oracle is not being destroyed by Microsoft.
In all of these cases, aggressive, competent companies have held off attacks from Microsoft by minimizing their mistakes and playing against Microsoft's weaknesses.
Google is not just about smart technology. This is a company that figured out how to make money with search. Remember back in the late 90s, when all of the kingpins of search decided that portals were the way to go? They were all wrong. Google, the late entrant, actually had it right and stuck to their core competency.
Microsoft faces a tough competitor in Google - one that's not likely to make the same kind of mistakes its predecessors did.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
MS pulled some damn dirty tricks out of their repertoire to win over users from Netscape because they couldn't win them over on quality...like some posters have suggested.
-MS couldn't compete with Netscape so they completely gave their browser away, free to use both personally and commercially. At the time, Netscape allowed free personal usage but required commercial usage to be licensed. (Free is always good, but in this case MS did it with the sole intent to squash competition. They had the revenue from their OS and a big bank account of course, while Netscape was a newcomer with only 1 product that was generating revenue from commercial licenses.)
-MS threatened the likes of Compaq (and others) by yanking their Windows license if they bundled Netscape into computers they were selling. Obviously, IE shipped with Windows but vendors weren't allowed to include Netscape. (Good way to stifle competition IMHO).
-MS integrated IE into the OS so it would load quicker and appear faster than Netscape.
-MS delayed API's to Netscape repeatedly.
Those were the big factors in sinking Netscape but none of them apply to Google. I know many people that can barely get around on a computer but if they want to search for something they use Google. It's so widely used that no one even blinks anymore if you tell them to "just google for it".
I think it's too late for MS to try and outpace Google. To compare MS vs Google to MS vs Netscape is unfair to say the least. Google doesn't need to be installed on the OS, it's free to use, and is so well known that it's name is a universally accepted word analogous to search.
-Pat
i totally agree. i think the point of the boycott is to reduce the breadth of the msn search results - not eliminate all sites from the engine.
breadth is important because it allows a search engine to say "x million sites indexed" - which to a lot of people is an indicator of a search engine's quality. additionally, breadth allows for better focusing of queries.
so, if msn gets all the commercial sites but misses out on the blogs and hobby sites that don't require revenue... all the better for google.
2 1337 4 u!
Often times people miss the concept that is so bloody oblivious and yet they still manage to continue on...
:-)
What does efficiency or quality of service got to do with anything? This is America. It's not about the better product. It's about who wins.
Google has no leverage over an operating system that is a gateway to its service. There are a million and one tricks that could be employed to cripple Google usage. So what if Google wins a court battle six months or a year (or longer) down the road? In the meantime, Google would sink. And you'd be assuming a lot about Google winning in court, given what we've seen the "Justice" department doing under the current administration.
Think not? Just take a look at their history. They stared very simple, sure, but each year the search gets smaller and smaller while the crap gets deeper and deeper. "Portal mode" peaks around 2000 and starts back down as they try to win back some of the Google converts.
Yeah, that'll work. That'll get us what we want.
Thank god you people are a minority. If MS wants to build a rival search engine, and hook it up to _THEIR_ operating system, good for them. If they both delivered the same quality of searches, and had the same ease of use, then the market will simply kill the one that is less efficent in meeting those metrics. This is how we evolve.
You think Netscape died because of MS properietary hooks and IE/win9x/win2k pre-installed? Hell no, their code sucked. Their app sucked. IE came along early on and was orders of magnitude faster. I remember those early days, when the first IE browser came out, it simply 'felt' more professional. The Netscape client felt hackish and slow. Programming for both had it's in's and outs, but Netscape quirks were the most annoying. IE4 was a major milestone, NS4 was simply broke.
Redmond _does_ innovate. research.microsoft.com is full of innovation. You can bitch that they 'stole' all their scientist from other research groups, or universities, but whats the point? If MS pays them more money and they enjoy the MS Research environment moreso than their previous environments, then MS is doing all of us a favor. They are encourging and supporting bright minds to make our life and our work easier.
I'd like to see them really take a shot at searching. Both on the collection side, the analysis side, and the User Interface side. All aspects of the process can benefit from cuttin-edge technology floating around the MS Research centers.
Who in their right mind other than a luddite would not want to see new innovation vieing for market share in something as essential as Search services? Are you saying your simply happy with the status quo of Google? Well good thing Sergey, Larry, and Craig didn't think that when they were getting donated machines and cash from Intel, DEC, SUN, NSF, NASA and DARPA to create their searching technology.
We need innovation, and if you want it to come at it's optimum and most efficent pace, you must have competition driving it.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
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");
a. Go to http://search.msn.com
b. Type in the keywork "linux"
c. Click "Search"
d. Examine the top 2 results:
1. Buy Linux software at the Amazon.com software store.
2. Find great deals on Linux software and accessories. Also find millions of other items in over 18,000 categories.
It was even funnier a few months ago: one of the top search results was some "migrating from Linux to Windows" article.
Microsoft's search engine will undoubtedly be geared towards selling their products and the products of businesses that have a strategic alliance with Microsoft. Doesn't sound like a comprtehensive tool to me.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
For most sites, boycotting MSN now would be like telling a deaf blind person that they can't listen to your music or watch your movies.
Google visits my site once or twice a week. Altavista and Inkomi both make regular monthly visits. MSN has paid someone them for that data, because while I have no record of their site's visit, I can find my site on theirs if I look really specifically.
As for searches, I've had 43 visits thank to google for my piddly non-commercial homepage. Most of my visitors have actually come from Slashdot (unfortunately, my client is not altogether accurate knowing that everything ending in "slashdot.org" is actually the same site, so I don't have an accurate count).
I believe this is a microcosm of how it is for most sites with respect to google and Microsoft: they do not have an effective search engine.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
And Google is not? Froogle, Google News, Google Images, Google Translation... Google is a portal just as much as MSN, you seem to be ignoring this simply because Google has "cleaner lines" on their web site.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
But then again, what is it that they want to accomplice? If it is to become the best searchengine, they have a lot off work to do.. But if the main point is to keep people inside their MSN network things are much easier. Just put a search field on every page and there you go. If the results are oke'ish, most people will be satisfied and MS can put their commercials and such. After all if the MS monopoly has proven anything it is that barely good enough is more than enough for a lot of people..
Precisely. Microsoft doesn't have to be the best search engine to beat google - it just has to convince people that it's "good enough" and that it's easy to use.
Think about it. People use IE not because it's a better browser, but because that's what comes up when they click on the "Browse the Web" desktop icon. They are too lazy, too uninformed, or simply lack the technical skills required to download and install netscape or mozilla. In other words, using any other browser besides IE has become a chore - you have to download it, install it, configure it, and learn how to use it.
If Microsoft makes typing in "www.google.com" a chore, no one will use it and M$ will have won. All they have to do is use some strategy in placing their search links. Put a search link on every Microsoft web page. Put one on the taskbar in Windows. Put one on the start menu. Put one on the IE menu, and lastly, redirect all entires in the URL bar to MSN search if it isn't a valid URL.
They don't have to be best, they have to be easiest and be "just good enough".
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
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?
Put one on the IE menu, and lastly, redirect all entires in the URL bar to MSN search if it isn't a valid URL.
already done. Actually, if you have the address bar enabled in the explorer windows (as I do, since I like being able to switch directories by typing in a new path instead of clicking with the mouse for a while), you discover that there's also an option to "search from the address bar" that needs to be shut off.
Evil, evil, evil. I want 404s or 'not found' or 'invalid path', not MSN Search (or worse one of the 8 million XyzSearch websites that are out there squatting on misspelled domain names...)
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
I think the herd mentality can often lead to good choices. I wouldn't say optimal, look at Mozilla vs. IE. The problem is that companies are always throwing out as much disinformation as possible (aka advertising). As an example, a few years ago Google was a great source for product reviews; you could type in a product name and have 2 or 3 hits on the first page that would be good, factual reviews of products. Now you will see 70% junk because companies have figured out how to rig it.
What I'm really looking forward to is a decent reputation-based opinions system that is open-standards. There has to be a new kind of moderation system to weed out the 99% of all things posted on the internet that are crap, like my post. Slashdot moderation system doesn't cut it. I hardly read Slashdot any more because most of the +5 posts are neither insightful, nor informative, although they are sometimes funny.
I'm a libertarian at heart, so I understand where you're coming from. At the same time, I'm really disappointed with the free market's failure at developing an information-filtering system like I described that is worth anything. I imagine the solution will probably come from some government-funded grad student working for almost nothing.
Still. Look at Google.
Switching their title graphic constitutes a complete redesign.
But, 1.0, and 2.0 were still basically rehashes and recompiles of Mosaic. When IE 3.0 came out which was built on new code, the competition truly gave use better technology. IE 4 was simply icing on the cake.
That's simply not true. The monopolies of the early 1900s were government subsidized. They were not free-market based. The gov't, through land grants, created a false economy for Rail Road companies (as just one industry example). I've yet to see a truly free economy, mainly because liberals seem preprogrammed at birth to screw it up, and put their hand into the system.
I don't think the US is a perfect model by any degree of a hands-off economy. Look at the steel tariffs we used when we were getting our asses handed to us in steel production (production was cheaper, _and_ the steel had to be shipped to the US, that's cheap).
Monopolies are _bad_. But the only Monopolies I've seen recently are government supported(Original AT&T), or occurred due to collusion among disparate companies (Music CD Prices).
Microsoft's very success in it's operating system line has laid the groundwork for it's position to eventually be overtaken. Their is such a value in having the 'Next Windows OS' replacement that venture funding will always roll the dice. The potential profit drives companies to constantly assail what some think as 'monopolistic' positions held by MS. If anything, Linux and the spread of it should show once and for all that Microsoft is _not_ a monopoly, and they do not exclusively control the operating system market.
Have MS collude with AMD or Intel, and a hard drive manufacture, and then come to me and say you believe they are part of a monopoly. Come to me when you buy a PC and can't put any other operating system on it (and that is _not_ palladium, so don't go there).
Until then, you simply feel you know better than everyone else that purchases MS software. You say Microsoft ground out their competition, but you hold it in such an ugly light because you fail to realize how much personel intrest you've put into anything not Microsoft. Microsoft can never fairly beat a competitor in your eyes. You will always rationalize that even a (in your eyes) superior product that fails to dislodge Microsoft fails not on the grounds it didn't fit the market, but instead on the grounds that MS somehow manipulated the market. Or you fall back on the position long held in the slashdot crowd, that the 'buyers' of the software are stupid, and simply don't know any better. And that is the key to why new software often fails to beat out MS software. MS doesnt think the business user is stupid. They simply think they are different, and market towards it. As long as they have that evolutionary trait, their products will continue to win out.
What can you bring to the game? Can you beat the current evolutionary alpha-male? What is their weakness? What is yours....
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage