Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Challenges Google
prostoalex writes "Microsoft's MSN division previewed a tool for desktop document search extending into the Web search, Reuters reports from Redmond, WA. The message to Google was clearly articulated in Steve Ballmer's speech: 'There's a lot of Google fascination out there and we share it, and we're going to compete. We're going to compete very, very hard.' Google News points to 63 more articles on the topics, MSN Newsbot provides tons of links as well. ComScore estimates Google's market share at 42.2%, Yahoo's at 38.8% and MSN's at 31.8% (numbers do not add up to 100%, since Internet users rely on multiple engines)."
I can't believe Yahoo is in the same ballpark as google! Better go check my rankings over there!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
So how much of that MSN percentage is coming from all the Internet Explorer users who automatically end up searching MSN whenever they mistype a web address etc.? Surely that's pushing the numbers up a little.
ITFacts.biz just gave results, with nothing on methodology (did they just count hits or what?)
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Google is where it is, because its search engine is as objective as possible, without post-processing and/or filtering of the output.
MSN Search on the other hand, only returns whatever MS wants you to see.
Try yourself to look for, say, 'Linux' on MSN and on Google.
-P@
signal_connect(0, "test_top.dut.my_sig", "clk");
This looks an awful lot like the big push for push technologies several years back, there was no real need then and the market collapsed. Users just didn't want content shoved down their throats. Likewise I doubt users want new tools shoved onto their desktops (Longhorn) that do things they don't need.
I don't know how many times I've given out my gmail address to geeks the gotten the response "Oh, cool. Gmail!" But, to the average person, it just means nothing.
Let me get this straight: you are claiming that the fact that Google has no name-recognition with the average person is some sort of advantage in ensuring the majority market share?
Google embraces the things that geeks love to have in a company. This is something that Microsoft just doesn't get and will not in the near future, IMHO. The only ground that MS has to compete on is that of the "average" soccer mom computer user that doesn't know about Google.
There are more "average soccer moms" then "geeks". If Google concentrated on embracing things that geeks love and Microsoft has superior name recognition among soccer moms, Google will lose.
GMD
watch this
Apple did this awhile back with Sherlock... 1997, I think? On my computer, though, (200 MHz 603e) it was abyssimally slow. Apparently you can still do this and more with Apple's new Sherlock in OSX. It would be nice to integrate the Finder search with email search, but I'm pretty happy with Apple Mail's search capabilities as it is...
Your comment reminds me of Netscape's supporters comment, years ago...
Of course, Nestcape 3 was the most advanced and MSIE3 would not achieve a better penetration rate...
We all know what happened, then...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Why does google expanding make it evil? I don't see the problem with it.
From a technology perspective, Microsoft cannot compete with google.
The problem is the culture of Microsoft. All outside ideas are rejected. You are a worthless grunt until you have worked at Microsoft at least 4-6 years.
It doesn't matter how much experience you have at other companies. So assume MSFT hires 5 top guys from google.
They will get inside the company and the manager/architect with 10 years experience drawing icons will override all their technical input.
That's the Microsoft way. And it sucks to work here.
yeah. like it wasn't one before.
You think that just because bouncy ballmer announces competition the google team will get all frazzled? They've been competing with the likes of MS for 5 years now (and putting the boots on to deliver the proverbial kick in the pants).
I just think that ballmer is saying this to appease skittish shareholders.
"Piter, too, is dead."
Since Microsoft keeps changing their (Word) DOC format, and hasn't documented it completely, does that give them an advantage over Google, and others, in searching that type of data?
--
make install -not war
It being wrong for Google to expand outside the 'just search' business.
In the last few weeks I've started regularly reading Google News and have found it more rewarding than any website I've found in a really long time. It's useful, good at what it does, a pleasure to use, and, well, it has made me happy. I now load Google News much more often than Google itself. If Google's additional expansions are of the same quality as this, I say they should go for it.
(That said: How exactly, if at all, does Google make money from Google News? I don't see any ads.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
They bundled IE with Windows to crush Netscape.
Now they're bundling a web search into the desktop to crush Google.
If MS really wanted to be innovative they would
let the user choose one or more search engin(s)
to use with this feature.
Me too I have enough spare time, and have just found out that something is terribly wrong out there... expanding your investigation I searched for "windows" on both of them... guess what happened...
MSN : Results 1-15 of about 34568019 containing "windows"
Google : Results 1 - 100 of approximately 121,000,000 for windows. (0.22 segundos)
I guess google are being seduced by the dark side ???
... from the forgotten corner in europe
This is very true. Google recently bought Picasa which makes a Windows-based photo organizer. The Windows desktop application space is one where Google could sink a lot of money they can't recover simply because it would be too hard to compete with Microsoft on Microsoft's OS.
Personally, I think Google and Apple should form a partnership to cross promote and integrate their products. iTunes and iPhoto are wonderful organizing and searching tools for personal media. Similarly, the upcoming Spotlight looks to be good for general computer-wide searches. Those things and Google make life much more simple. A partnership would link those technologies with Google and Google could promote them to their users.
It also seems like the two companies philosophies are one in the same. Each strives for minimalist and simple to use interfaces. In addition, it would be much harder for Apple to directly target Google as they don't have the same resources MS does.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
Yes, competition is good. However, what kind of competition is there going to be when Microsoft throws its weight (i.e. $$$) around? That's what I'm worried about. Is Google going to be able to keep up if MS throws money at this new search technology like it has at the X-Box? Because, let's face it, the X-Box is still here because MS is still funding it. MS refuses to be beaten, and I have a feeling the "search war" is going to turn out similarly.
This is not a new idea. Read this Wired.com piece, Google vs. Evil. Subhead: "Now the geek icon is finding that moral compromise is just the cost of doing big business." Or anti-Google sites like Google Watch. I'm not saying Google is evil, but they're doing things that start to raise eyebrows.
Anyone ever try to search for the "best search engine" on the Web. I find that Google and MSN have something interesting to say about that.
Not even Google presumes to put themselves as the first search result (a.k.a. the "I'm Feeling Lucky" link). The winner is a somewhat informative article that breaks down each engines strength depending on what you are looking for.
Not so at MSN. Google Google Google. That is their chant for the best engine. Now is that a bug or a feature?
I don't think it's unreasonable to state as fact that Google is better than MSN and will be for at least the near future.
even if MSN could get their speed and accuracy comparable to Google, they will NEVER produce such a clean and simple interface as Google because it just isn't what they do.
and even if they did, I'd still use Google because it's integrated into Firefox. even if hell froze over and they integrated it into Firefox, I'd still stick with Google because I trust them more than MS.
basically, MS is unwilling and/or unable to provide what I want. I will continue to use Google, just like I will continue to use linux. and to be honest I don't give a sh*t what the "average user" uses. whether Google has 1% or 100% market share, I will be one of the ones using it.
maybe if lots of "ignorant" people start using MSN, tw*t webmasters will focus on cheating their algorithm instead of Google's and it will get even better?
You've forgot links to: local search engines! Any word in Google will show you pages like You've searched for product ... No results found.
That's a very interesting idea, and as an Apple user I'd certainly like to see more alliances of that sort. However, I question the practicality of an Apple-Google relationship, because Apple clearly is already working on their own desktop search functions to integrate into Tiger. Why gerry-rig someone else's program to fit your needs when you can write your own from scratch?
That being said, maybe Apple could use something like Google's algorithms for ranking results, so that the more useful documents get returned first. Not sure how well that would translate to the desktop, however. After all, Google does what it does so well because it relies on PageRank. There's no similar hyperlink structure among documents on a hard drive. The only thing you could maybe base a ranking system on would be the number of times a specific document has been opened. (But maybe Tiger already has something like that, I don't know.)
> the "average" soccer mom computer user that doesn't know about Google
I don't know where you are but I'll say this, Google is ALL the rage with Northern Alabama Grandmoms. And that is saying a LOT.
My mother's (a granny lady, 60 years plus) favorite phrase for a while was, "Why Yahoo! when you can Google".
In the spring when she isn't surfing the web she's entertaining herself by picking the tater bugs off her potato plants (she has an acre of the darn things). I kid you not! Poisons no longer work if you're wondering why...
We are talking about people who grew up with no electricity or in-home plumbing are embracing Google as much as they do Walmart. It's not just geeks.
If MS can present a clean, uncluttered, unbiased search then they MIGHT stand a chance. What's the likelihood of that happening though?
Caution: Contents under pressure
Slashdot, where Windows users go for all their Microsoft news! There are at least three Microsoft news postings every day, most of them innaccurate or incendiary.
Isn't there anything going on in the OSS world? What about those new GNOME 2.8 screenshots that were posted on OSNews? How about something regarding the kernel? Anything at all?
I cant help but wonder what would be the impact on the internet as a whole if Microsoft were to take over google's position.
.. who knows ?
.iso 's is a filtered search term; and its impossible to find an alternative unbiased search engine because MSN decided to omit those results from your search.
here are a few random thoughts and speculative stab's in the dark.
I think that the first sign of a downward turn in googles fortune might be an increased reliance on advertising. Advertising on google is handled very well. As soon a someone like Microsoft start to eat into google's revenue margins; I'd predict google depending more and more on advertising to recoup the losses. In turn that will drive users away. In other words competition from Microsoft could make google shit.
Joe Sixpack , Soccer Mom, and Fred Bloggs; dont care about unbiased and accurate results will continue to use MSN Search none the wiser. They will never have the pain of even knowing or understanding that their default search engine is a hodge, podge of paid-for rankings and Market Influencing (In the favor of big corps) search filters. They'll never question otherwise, they dont expect anything else.
There is'nt a whole lot that can be done by us geeks to avoid the sad fact that there are more dumb computer users than there are geeks, hackers and developers. Sure Sys Admins and "Local Geek's" can continue to install systems for businesses and friends and set Google up to be the default home page, but if the time comes when google is not a sound choice any more then what ?
Very few people realise the importance of Googles unbiased and accurate search result. Its impact however is much more than that. It is, in effect a gateway to the internet, to such an extent that some people regard google as "the internet".
I think that if Microsoft were allowed to dominate the Search world its impact on the internet as a whole would be far reaching and difficult to imagine. Its not just a case of anti-microsoft on my part; but I feel that we cannot allow a corporation , any corporation (not just microsoft) that has its fingers in so many pies to distort the only remaining level playing field we have left. Nobody should have the right to pick, choose, and influence Internet search to the kind of degree that MSN does and will. It is giving up control and giving up freedom. Its just a terrible thing that so many people who live in this world have the belief that we live in a free world; when quite frankly we dont. Many people might say but we do live in a free world (well most people in the western world!); that is just perception, and so long as there are people that perceive they live in freedom there will be less reason for them to fight for the cause of true freedom. Maybe when they start to realise that every where they go and everything they , and every eletronics gizmo they buy has Microsoft stamped on it; they might start to think about freedom and choice again
Imagine a world without google, where search results filter out websites such as this one, or those of people developing Open Source Programs? Imagine a world where searching for
Okay these thoughts may be a tad sensationalist. But if just one or two of those things happened on however small a scale. Ask yourself , who to do you want to trust today ?
Nick...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Now there's an idea: a Google-branded browser, based on Firefox.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=116309&cid=984 5392
:)
The "GoogleFox"?
It simply would make a lot of sense, especially with IE stagnating and msn being its default. If Google wanted to contribute back to the OS community, they'd get more geek cred (not that they actually need more...)
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Why Google would try to compete with MS on the desktop is beyond me. They have the greatest distributed file system (or "super computer") in commercial use today (see gmail). Challenging MS on the desktop would put to sleep Google's best asset, which COULD be used compete WITH the OS instead of having to DEPEND on it. Google WILL become the next Netscape if they don't leverage the tools they already have. Here's a thought: Google has a complete copy of the internet under their roof; why not build on that vision? 1 GB email is great... why not 20GB of "free" file storage? Use their massive distributed capabilities to get off of the desktop instead of developing new technologies to get on it.
This was a good idea until you mentioned iPhoto. Picasa is iPhoto times a hundred. Seriously, I didn't believe it until I tried it, but even Apple could learn a thing or two. It's beautiful like iPhoto, but more importantly, it's _blazing fast_ even with thousands of pictures on five-year-old hardware.
Glad you find my comment interesting. I wanted to address some points you made.
Why gerry-rig someone else's program to fit your needs when you can write your own from scratch?
I think the issue at hand is that computer-wide searches will be much more relevant the more closely they can be tied to the OS. For example, updating the index when a file changes would be easiest if you can get notifications from the base level. As such, Google doesn't have a consumer OS, only Microsoft and Apple do. I'm disregarding Linux for now as I don't find it "consumer ready," but I do run it along with Mac OS X myself.
That being the case, Google can choose to write its own desktop search, without direct access to an OS, or it can choose to partner. An Apple partnership makes more sense to me than a Microsoft one. Sure, Apple has done a lot of work in this area, but the point of the partnership is to bring two companies together. Google, I'm sure, could come up with some killer ideas for Spotlight, and Spotlight could have a "Powered by Google" logo slapped on it. Its a win for both Google and Apple. In addition, searches done locally could be linked to Google with a simple button click (I'm thinking the arrow iTunes uses to go to artist and album pages on the store).
The page rank doesn't translate directly to most local documents, but that leaves room for innovation. Based on personal habits, I usually have related documents open at the same time. Keeping statistics of what documents are open at the same time, and cross-referencing that info, could lead to a pseudo-PageRank sort of indexing scheme. That's just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
MSN Search is for the people who don't change their IE start page (if they use IE at all), or people that entered mistyped domains that haven't been taken by the cybersquatters and porn redirectors. Yahoo! is used by Joe Surfer for ease of use. I use Yahoo! Mail and Briefcase for homework, but I personally prefer Google as a search engine. Google is used by the web-surfers who know what they're doing and want to find what they're looking for. Everything else (Excite, Lycos) is just niche surfing.
I find it fascinating that MS has managed to get such a large market share just by setting the IE default homepage to MSN. Just think what will happen when Longhorn comes out, with its so called integrated internet services. There will always be an MSN search field on your desktop. It'll be there when you're using Excel, Word, Powerpoint. It'll be there when you're editing graphics in Photoshop. It'll be there when you're watching porn. Make no mistake, MS is taking it to the next level with Longhorn. The days of IE defaults are over. It's now going to be part of your desktop, shoved in your face. Can anyone stand up to that. If the average computer user knew more about their computer than my dog, perhaps. But they don't.
Oh, come on. Do you really believe that the bloated piece of junk known as Netscape 4 was somehow better than IE4?
I don't just believe it, I *know* it. I was Software Program Manager half of Dell's brands when MS forced the not-ready-for-prime-time IE4 on the market so they could get it in place as "an integrated part of the OS" before the DoJ could stop them. IE4 is and was unquestionably one of the lowest-quality pieces of code ever to be publicly released, and if you had any idea how bad we knew it really was, you'd be shocked. (In fact, it was ethical problems like this that led me to leave the company after I was ordered to ship code that was *known* to corrupt hard disks.)
NN4 had warts, to be sure, but was *clearly* better than IE4. You've got to remember, most people think of IE as the later versions, and even those thinking of IE4 forget that there were dozens of huge "updates" that more or less totally replaced the original IE4 (along with ripping up and replacing huge chunks of the Win9x operating systems, too.) In reality, IE4 was an unmitigated pile of crap. A very pretty pile of crap, maybe, but that's all. (Remember, the chief goals of IE4 were to establish it as the dominant browser through OEM bundling (thus killing Netscape and non-poisoned Java as alternative application platforms), and to kill PointCast and other "push" thechnologies via Active Desktop. It succeeded marvelously at both, setting the stage for later similar conquests by Media Player and its ilk.
It's popular to bash NN4 now, because it's still distressingly widely used and mangles web standards, but it I think you can make a legitimate claim that it was the best browser out there until IE5.5. There is no question that it was more functional and stable than IE4.
Even Mozilla is only just now starting to really get better than IE6, and IMO Firefox and Thunderbird still have a long way to go - Firefox is an impressive start, but only supports a subset of the functionality of either Mozilla or IE. I say that as someone who has been in the Netscape/Mozilla camp through the entire battle - I have never used IE as my primary browser for more than two weeks at a time, since real bookmarks support is too important.
(Bookmark management was area where NN4 really shined - it's bookmarks support was the best ever in any browser: even Mozilla/NS6/7 are missing important bookmarks functionality that was in the old Navigator code. Don't believe me? Try this: With a non-trivial bookmarks file using multiple levels of folders, search for a bookmark. Now tell me which folder it was found in: There is NO WAY to get that information in Mozilla-based browsers, but it was easily visible in a tree-viewer in the old NN3/4. There are many more similar botches in Mozilla-based bookmarks code, but it's still somewhat better than IE's hamstrung "Favorites".)
Not all that's new is better - IMO, Mozilla has just finally caught up with where it should have been years ago - and we're still missing things like SVG support or any reasonable way to search e-mail messages other than having to re-do searches to look in multiple files or mail servers. Let's hope we finally get 2000-worthy browsers by 2006 or so...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
My impression was that NS4 didn't "mangle" web standards; it merely pre-dated the new ones we want (XHTML, HTML4, CSS). They bet on the wrong horse (layers and such), and were left with their pants down when they couldn't update quickly enough.
When competing against Microsoft, and when Microsoft has determined that it will gain your marketshare, you must play a perfect game just to survive. You mess up, you start down the slippery slope to obsolesence.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
I'm surprised nobody mention this... but is this a well-timed pres release from Redmond, or what! I wonder what that will do to GOOG's IPO price. It's good to have competition.
Simpy
I work mostly as a contractor on projects for Microsoft on Microsoft dev platforms. To find documentation on various MS widgets, I type the name of the object/method/whatever into Google and it returns a wealth of useful references. A lot of these point to MSDN, but MSDN's own search engine returns a load of useless irrelevant crap. Ballmer will have to do a lot more than make a speech to convince me that Microsoft has figured out how to write a decent search engine.
You're right that the original IE 4.00 was a horrendous piece of shit. However by the time it got to IE 4.01 SP1 (which shipped with Win98), it was clearly way above and beyond Netscape in terms of both speed and stability. This was all done in a fairly short period of time - maybe a year at most.
... 4.5, 4.51... 4.6 ... 4.7 ... and even after it's users had suffered a gazillion new versions for years and years, the browser never stopped leaking tons of memory and crashing all the time. Netscape just wore out its users and caused them to lose faith. Finally, when Netscape 6 shipped in a totally broken state, the last diehards gave up, and their marketshare dropped almost immediately from ~20% to 2%, where it is today.
Meanwhile Netscape users suffered through 4.00 (also totally unusable), 4.01, 4.02, 4.03
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.