Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer On Microsoft's Search Goofs
An anonymous reader writes "AP reports on CEO Steve Ballmer's regret over Microsoft's failure to get into the search market early on. Best quote? 'I want to make sure (a user) can't get through ... an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad.' Nice to see they're still user-oriented."
"I want to make sure (a user) can't get through ... an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad," he said.
So, does not the recent 600 some odd millions dollar fine by the EU suggest anything to these guys? The USDOJ let them off the hook, but the rest of the world is proving not to be as forgiving. Perhaps they should be a little more humble?...........Nah.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"I want to make sure (a user) can't get through
They still don't get that to compete, not just with Open Source, you need quality products, not saturation advertising.
Trolling is a art,
'I want to make sure (a user) can't get through ... an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad.'
And that is exactly why MSN Search will never be bigger than Google.
BTW, timothy, just so you know - when inserting a clarifying phrase into a quote, one encloses it in square brackets and not normal brackets.
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
Can someone say "unhealthy obsession"?
Fanaticism? Jealousy? Envy? Mod me to -1 and take my pain away.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Microsoft's Ballmer has been known to augment "mistakes" to make it appear that the company has an "aw shucks gee whiz" normal company appearance. What isn't well known is that in 1998 when MSN was upgrading, Ballmer was spearheading a special internal group codenamed "Anser Albifrons" to look into search technology for embedded Windows CE. And this was BEFORE google and altavista.
Beware the purring tiger, that's what I always say.
Ohura
No need. Just use Mozilla and say, "I will make sure I never see a Microsoft ad again!"
Or _any_ ad for that matter.
" But Microsoft is now turning its considerable might toward catching up. It's a move that puts Microsoft head to head with Google, the world's most popular Web surfing vehicle, and Yahoo, the Internet's most popular destination, in what many see as an important, growing and lucrative market.
"I think you'll see some good competition in this area," Ballmer said. "
I'm not saying this is impossible, new things come up all the time, and users have no loyalty, they'll switch to whatever is easiest, but the problem with MS and Yahoo! is that they simply won't be as good as Google, Google is fast, simple, it loads fast, has good search results, once again I think both MS and Yahoo! will be focusing on good results, and, while a major thing, it is not everything, their pages will still be full of advertisements, long loads, and anything but simple.
Having said that I hope there will be a rival to Google, I've found Teoma and ZapMeta to be pretty good, and both going for the simple look.
--- I'll finish this after my cig. break
If the Internet is a religion, Google is its sacred text. Neither Microsoft, nor any other company, must be allowed the power to control the way we find information on the Web. We're lucky the creators of Google are as smart as they are good at repelling the urge to defile search results a la Yahoo, AOL, or MSN.
Apart from the wheely mouse (which I think HP invented), I can't think of *any* technologies that Microsoft got into early on. They missed TCP/IP, networking in general, the net (and the browser), etc.
Of their successes, with the honorable exception of their OS (copied from DR and then Apple) and their office suites (which they copied from, was it Lotus?), it's all been dubious business practices... Very successful company though they are, they are in no way innovative. Innovative isn't necessary for a monopolist position, and in fact is a bad business strategy - you might waste loads of cash, and you've got nothing to lose by preserving the status quo...
So it's just pure 100% Balmer, again...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
This is no different than Microsoft's usual business tactics; enter a market where there are strong competitors, and use your ubiquity to promote your own agenda. I won't be surprised if in the new version of windows the 'CTRL + ENTER' trick to enter the www. and .com in the address bar suddenly brings up and MSN search isntead of what you were looking for. [Incredifind anyone?] The only thing is I doubt they will be able to get really good footing with the Google-naut in the fray. Unless of course they lose their 'Page Rank' copyright lawsuit.
On a side note, the only time I actually though Microsoft's product was better was the IE vs. Netscape wars. I used to use netscape but then IE got better. I don't see that happening here.
It's no wonder they're behind in the search engine wars. Nobody wants to be intruded with ads they don't care about. I shouldn't get an ad for the newest version of Office when I'm looking up one of my favorite bands. And if I do get that ad I don't want it to be bigger and placed in front of my search results.
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
IE became the most popular browser primarily because you couldn't avoid it on any installation of Windows. Netscape, by contrast, you had to download, install, and -- in theory -- pay for.
Many Windows users will think it's too much to type in google.com and hit enter before they do a search, so Microsoft will once again use its monopoly to ruin a great product. Just like IE. Just like Windows Media. Just like Office. Just like Windows itself.
Remember, Microsoft's OS monopoly is so undermining precisely because Windows is the only thing most of the great unwashed computer users will ever see, and Microsoft controls what they see on that Windows computer. Well let's enjoy Google while it's still in business :-(
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
"I want to make sure (a user) can't get through ... an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad," he said.
X10 had this amazing new technology for years, didn't they? Let's hope Microsoft delves into this pursuit deeply and ends up with the same result as the X10 people did...
sig.
Microsofts entry into the search engine market is just part of capatilism. After their settlement with the DOJ Microsoft can no longer pressure OEM's into preloading Microsoft with the options Microsoft would prefer. If by some chance Microsoft is able to take over the search engine market it won't be based on some sort of evil monopolistic plan or because they are soo well known because Google gets more hits than any other web site. Put your tin foil hats back on and stop worrying.
"No need. Just use Mozilla and say, "I will make sure I never see a Microsoft ad again!"
Ah, so you turned off images?
"Derp de derp."
Considering how important Google has become (at least in my geek world), I'd like to see lots of competition. I love Google now, but I think it was better a couple of years ago. How much longer before new corporate interests bias the search results. As long as there are competing search engines, there will be innovation and other sources of information. I don't want to see all of the eggs in one basket, even if the basket is Google.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
"I want to make sure (a user) can't get through
He's not talking about the online experience a user gets from searching a current or future microsoft search engine technology... read the previous 2 one-sentence-paragraphs and you'll see that he's clearly talking about microsft advertising their products and services ELSEWHERE as they do now... he's talking to a crowd of online advertisers so it's about microsoft benefitting others, it all makes sense... also keep in mind that the butchered half-quote is within an article posted on a rival website that's according to the article stands to lose from microsoft future search efforts... yahoo! I think it's naughty of them to spin things to confuse people.
The quote in the blurb is taken totally out of context. It's presented as a way to convince the reader that Microsoft intends to do the following:
1.) Create a search engine that will be popular enough to rival Google.
2.) Create a method of forcing users to view unending advertisements each time they search, click, blink, etc.
3.) Profit unendingly.
What Ballmer was referring to was the amount of money Microsoft spends on advertising. He was using hyperbole to explain that many companies only spend 1% of their budget on advertising, and they should bring that up to 4-5%. He then said that when he gives money to his advertising people, he wants them to spend a metric shitload of it on online advertising, thus when people browse the web, even if they're not visiting Microsoft sites, they see Microsoft advertising.
He's not talking about abusing their own search engine to display ads but rather about spending their own money on advertising in the hopes it will net them more money.
That's not to say that I don't believe Microsoft deliberately manipulates their current search results and will continue to do so in the future in whatever incarnation their search engine may take, and it's not to say that I don't think Microsoft is a horrible company that breaks the law as much and as far as they can and that they need to be broken up in order to stop them from abusing the market any further, and finally it's not to say that they're not contributing to the downfall of capitalism and democracy and society as it is known for much of the Western world, but Jesus, if you're going to play ball, play fair. Only companies like Microsoft play unfair, and that's fucking wrong , and you can't say out one side of your mouth "Microsoft isn't playing fair!" and say out the other "Steve Ballmer rapes horses, with the dead bodies of children!"
Don't try to subvert truth like some neocon on a power trip.
While MS may be sitting on its cash reserve, Bill Gates is indeed doing a lot to better this world with his wealth. Please take a second look at his charitable works, especially his 3rd world health initiatives and his minority scholarship awards.
In the 7 billion they plan to spend on search technology, I hope they spend some money on fixing win XP's search within file option. For me, it sporatically works. I often have to use a windows 2000 box over the network to search an XP drive in order to "search within file".
the problem with this is the fact all those billions are in stocks. if he where to pull out even say 10% of his stocks, everyone would get scared, and pull out too, vastly dropping the costs of his stocks. and as for investing in new technologies with that money... take a look at the house he lives in now. take a look at all the various technologies that he had specifically invested into just so his house would be the way it is today. gates doesnt stay in the spotlight like everyone from hollywood, but sure enough, he is a person, and he does actually DO things. there is a constant stream of investments that he makes... but never anything such as fundaning an entire agancey the size of NASA.
When I saw the title "Microsoft's Search Goofs" I naively thought they might be apologizing for deliberately redirecting any searches for "xfree86" to porn.
Alas, I was not surprised to learn that they just want to send MORE ads our way.
MS has a long way to go before they can build a search engine that replaces Google in my regular use, especially if one of the main features of said engine is to send as many Microsoft ads at the consumer as possible. I use Google for its effectiveness and minimalistic site design. No popups, obtrusive banner ads, or flash ads to piss me off.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!" -Rush
Honestly, I almost think it is a good thing that Microsoft is joining the search engine fray. I have several reasons for this, but primarily, the first one is that search engine technology has seemed a big stagnant. Take Google, for example. With a great many websites participating in feeding search engines Spider Food, it is more difficult to find results that actually match what you are looking for. If microsoft manages to boost this, and cause a stream of activity in fixing these issues by providing a high powered level of competition, then I think its great.
Now, this does not mean I am advidly supporting Microsoft. This just means I'm supporting the addition of another wild card to the search engine battles that might have some good come out of it.
I certainly hope so at anyrate, as using Google gets to be more difficult with each passing day.
-- RJ
Really, what's wrong with this? Isn't it every companies responsibility to market itself? And, doesn't that mean getting your marketing material in front of your target customers? What's the bitch here?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Still, it's nice that he gives back and it's one thing I can respect about Bill Gates.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Hey, jackass.
Bill Gates is trying to do much better things than that with his 50 billion dollars.
Off the top of my head, he's trying to cure AIDS.
While I may hate some of his professional choices, if his charitable endeavors go even somewhat according to plan, I forgive him all his transgressions.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I don't think that's true. The AIDS research is just a by-product of trying to get the "Bill Gates" name on everything. Every time the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundatation" is mentioned, it gives people a warm fuzzy for Gates' name. In his mind, it's just advertising.
Notice how he never did this kind of thing until the DOJ went after him?
...isn't that there are bugs in Windows (plenty in FBSD and Linux and every other OS) ...isn;t that they are a monopoly (IBM has a stranglehold on big iron that makes MS grasp of PC's look like a hug) ....isn;t that they deploy a suite of back doors known as Office (nothing witty to insert here) ...it is that they are driven by their marketing department.
this is and always will be the core of what Slashdot zealots hate about them.
I won;t even bother to check this for typos because it will be labeled as troll by Slashdot dweebs who refuse to grow up... simply because it doesn't deamonize a large American software company that did well.
Crap look at the big pitcure and see that all computers and software is/are cool. Jesus fucking christ have things degraded so far that the readers of a tech web site can't see that????
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Viacom owns a lot of entertainment and media companies.
Interestingly, he dismissed the importance of the internet as not being useful to his company. I think this was in 1994 or so. He said it was only of interest to researchers and hobbyists. His only interest in the internet was the possibility of video on demand, which his company had done some market research with, and determined was not going to make viacom any money.
Anyway, the thing that Redstone said that really stuck with me, gave me a chill in fact, was:
You'd think he was being delusional except that he made it apparent in the rest of his speech that he had the means to achieve that goal, and by the looks of it I think he's well on his way their.It makes you want to go live on a desert island, doesn't it?
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Best quote? 'I want to make sure (a user) can't get through ... an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad.' Nice to see they're still user-oriented."
You joke, but judging from the Microsoft ads I see on slashdot every now and then, I'd say they're doing a pretty good job.
First of all. It's weird to talk about market share for Mosaic. Secondly, when they decided to stop development of Mosaic, and ended the program, it was the best browser available. That says something. Particularly about netscrape. Once they left acadamia and got all that venture capital behind them they couldn't keep up with the poorly funded academics who picked up where those who formed netscrape left off?! That's pretty bad.
At least Microsoft had an excuse. They had totally missed the boat, misunderstood the technology, the market and were desprately trying to catch up on all fronts. In spite of that by the time they hit IE 4 they'd won. And not just through better distribution. That's huge.
Christ, look at what some of the late commers like Opera, and Konq have done! If netscape with their money had that kind of innovation. IE would be a smoking crater of a dead end, and MS would have bought out Netscape for big bucks and then some.
What's wrong with helping our own people? I mean there are hundreds of thousands of poor kids in our own country that would benefit from that money as well. And why just minorities? There are tens of thousands of poor whites in poverty areas that don't have a chance at getting a lift out of there because they're not a minority. The color of your skin should not matter. It doesn't in the beginning or the end, it shouldn't in the middle either. Helping people should be a color blind matter.
Have you hugged your penguin today?
The thing is is that he made this money. And when I say made, I don't mean earned, I mean he and other stakeholders in Microsoft created that money from what would never have been. As in, far from "empty[ing] the pool", the pool of money is bigger because of what Microsoft is worth.
Maybe you understood it but forgot to make it clear, and maybe you didn't. The dollar value that is assigned to stocks is given by assuming that you can sell all of your holdings without affecting the stock price downward. You can only do this if you have a small enough portion of the overall stock to not create too much supply.
Given this definition, I disagree with your claim that BG made the money (out of what, whole cloth?). He created a company and built a demand for his stock. The belief (by investors) that MS will continue to do well (as measured by the bottom line) is what pushes the MS stock price up, and accounts for a significant portion of BG's worth.
Having all of your value tied up in stocks and bonds doesn't give you much liquidity. If you have "things" (cars, homes, paintings, furniture), it can take a while to find a seller, and sometimes you have to find a specialist to take care of that for you (which is why you hear about "liquidators" who have cheap furniture, or whatever).
The value that is in the stock market is not real money until you sell your holdings and get cash. I say then, that your statement
the pool of money is bigger because of what Microsoft is worth
is utter nonsense.
Thats quite true, and I agree with you on most of the aspects, but it WILL force the other companies to get their acts together or end up outof business.
I don't think that Google has exactly been sitting on its laurels. They've continued to innovate. Not all companies that have market share (in a competitive market) aren't aggressively trying to innovate. eBay is another example.
However, this approach has never been Microsoft's business model. Microsoft puts other companies out of business and has a tendency of stifling innovation. A good example is in the anti-virus business. All the software companies out there are more-or-less spending their energy trying to figure out how to make their user's dependent upon them in fear that MS will bundle antivirus software in their next major OS release and put them out of business.
MS doesn't "enter" a market. It hijacks it. Nobody's motivated to compete with a company who doesn't do so on a level playing field.
Do none of you know ANYTHING about marketing? Get your product in the customers head. There is no way around it. If you've got it (the money), flaunt it.
If you think this is immoral, too bad because that's life and everyone else lives by it.
Here comes the flamebait rating. Oh well.