Microsoft Challenges Google

Yahoo matches Google? by bfree · 2004-07-30 04:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re:Yahoo matches Google? by gotr00t · 2004-07-30 04:33 · Score: 4, Informative

Don't forget that Yahoo offers more than search, while google is really still just a search engine, with the possible exception of Gmail, which has not been made avaliable to the general public.
Then again, "market share" is a very vague term, and I take it to mean the overall market share of these webportals.
Re:Yahoo matches Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-30 04:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Keep in mind that the poll numbers were for multiple search engines. You must remember that Yahoo is one of the most popular web destinations. They already have a massive userbase. If a user is doing a search, and they're already on Yahoo, they will probably use Yahoo search. However, if they were not on Yahoo, the question is, will they use Yahoo or Google? This means that if they answer the poll, they will say "Yahoo and Google", even if they use Google more often than Yahoo (or vice versa.)

So while the poll says that the numbers are "close", the actual hard numbers (i.e., number of searches / number of users) may be much greater for Google than you might see right off the bat.
Re:Yahoo matches Google? by prostoalex · 2004-07-30 04:43 · Score: 4, Informative

Yahoo has far more reaching international appeal. While Google runs international Web front-ends in chosen language, portals like Yahoo! Singapore are separate business operations with their own marketing, sales and so on. Pretty big brand name in Asia, from what I've heard.

Oops, there's a typo. by Sj0 · 2004-07-30 04:32 · Score: 4, Funny

There's a typo right there. You misspelled "We're going to send jackbooted thugs to the google CO and we're going to hit their knees. We're going to break their knees very hard".

--
It's been a long time.

Re:Oops, there's a typo. by kerrbear · 2004-07-30 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

I get scared. I'm afraid the Microsoft will copy the Google ideas, "force" people to use it via their new OS, run Google out of business, then add in all the crap that Google left out (Ads, spyware, etc). But we won't be able to do anything about it because noone will be left to compete.

Google better watch out they don't extend themselves too far like Netscape did. Otherwise the nightmare scenario will come true again.
Re:Oops, there's a typo. by jared_hanson · 2004-07-30 05:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:Oops, there's a typo. by GoofyBoy · 2004-07-30 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

>Google left out (Ads

Google is a serious innovator in serving ads.

http://www.google.ca/ads/index.html

>But we won't be able to do anything about it because noone will be left to compete.

Why won't "we" be able to? You bring up the idea about how Netscape got crushed but what about Mozilla/Firebird? Have you've seen the excellent free content in Wikipedia?
There are alot of people in "we" and some of us don't feel like we are helpless unless some big corporation is on ourside.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

Image by Billobob · 2004-07-30 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just like Microsoft has became associated with "ease of use" (regardless of whether it's true), Google iw now associated with "accurate searches" in the mainstream media. It will be nearly impossible for Microsoft to over take them unless they have a truly revolutionary product - MSN only has such a high market share because it is IE's default homepage.

--
If you have to ask, you'll never know.

Re:Image by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-30 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

You mean just like the way Netscape is associated with the World Wide Web?
Re:Image by dpuu · 2004-07-30 04:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

This may be true, but I'm sure Google will not be so foolish as to believe it. When a company like Microsoft declares you as a high priority target, you have to take it as a serious threat.

--
Opinions my own, statements of fact may contain errors
Re:Image by SlashDread · 2004-07-30 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

"because it is IE's default"

Dont underestimate the power that is "IE default"

"/Dread"
Re:Image by chris_mahan · 2004-07-30 04:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

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."
Re:Image by gdr · 2004-07-30 04:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
No, Microsoft searches only have to be "good enough" so the average user sees no need to change the default search engine. Then Google is dead.
You might say that "it's easy to change your default search engine" but it's not always easy for the average user to do this. And Microsoft are hardly likely to make this any easier.
This is why anti-trust laws exist. Microsoft can destroy another company not by producing a better product, but by producing a slightly worse product and using their existing monopoly/monopolies to push their product down the customers throat.
I see three posibilities for the next five years.
- Microsoft decide that the search engine market is not profitable enough and pull out.
- The DOJ intervene and stop Microsoft from entering the search engine market.
- Google becomes the next Netscape.
Re:Image by Jugalator · 2004-07-30 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dont underestimate the power that is "IE default"

I think he meant that MSN Search is already the IE default but still has a lower share than Google, hence MS need to do something truly revolutionary to overtake Google's lead with its good reputation with accurate searches.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:Image by Krow10 · 2004-07-30 05:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dont underestimate the power that is "IE default"
Microsoft shouldn't overestimate it either, because recent security issues could take a huge chunk out of that IE dominance, not to mention the assumption by the unwashed that MS is successful because it's the best. Almost none of my family in the "free tech support" circle had asked me about alternatives to IE one year ago. Now almost every one has, with some asking me about alternatives to Windows as well. Microsoft can't put out a "good enough" product and expect it to become the standard just because it's the default search to for IE/MSN anymore. It will have to be perceived as better than Google. And that will be no simple task.
Cheers,
Craig

--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Image by dublin · 2004-07-30 07:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 ./ post

MSN search misleading by QuantumRiff · 2004-07-30 04:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Any Joe Sixpack who types in an incorrect domain name, because he's got too much BBQ Sauce on his fat fingers, does an MSN Search if there using IE.l..

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?

Google's Advantage by ziondreams · 2004-07-30 04:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

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.

--
01000001 01011001 01000010 01000001 01000010 01010100 01010101

Microsoft needs to remember one thing. by AltGrendel · 2004-07-30 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

MSN Newsbot provides tons of links

Quantity != quality. Especally on the Internet.

--
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

- Douglas Adams

Yahoo's popularity by BillsPetMonkey · 2004-07-30 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

is because Yahoo is the Internet to many people - in Japan!

Gosh. I feel exhilerated every time I get to add "in Japan" to my posts. But seriously, Japanese is the second most prolific language on the Internet and Yahoo is the most popular search engine for Japanese surfers.

--
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax

MSN percentages by Coryoth · 2004-07-30 04:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Scortched earth policy by ZurichPrague · 2004-07-30 04:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft has really never innovated but instead looked around at what was successful and duplicated it. The problem is, they often then bury the innovator in doing so. Now look at the state of the software industry. There are so players and innovation is stifled. I mean who wants to be Microsoft's R&D department. And they, in turn, have no one to duplicate. They think they're successful, but only in the near term. This type of scortched earth policy simply can't sustain itself.

and in other google news... by SuperBanana · 2004-07-30 04:37 · Score: 3, Informative

And in other google news you're not likely to see here on slash, the CFO of google is being investigated by the SEC. Seems his old employer, SkillSoft/SmartForce, had to restate...uh...3 and a half years of financial figures...something that earned them the loosing side of a $30M class action lawsuit.

The suit said SmartForce officers and directors, including Drummond, ''acted knowingly or in such a reckless manner as to constitute a fraud and deceit" upon shareholders. Drummond, as chief financial officer, had been responsible for SmartForce's financial reports.

Meet the new boss- same as the old boss.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:Others than Google? by A1miras · 2004-07-30 04:38 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm SICK and TIRED of people asking for information things that would take just 1/2 a second of googling to find. This is the last time:

Yahoo
msn

--
Take Care

A1miras

Early Preview by SuperKendall · 2004-07-30 04:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Even more detailed preview of new MS search technology.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

This is an advantage exactly how? by GuyMannDude · 2004-07-30 04:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Sherlock anyone? by raddan · 2004-07-30 04:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

question by JeanBaptiste · 2004-07-30 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why doesn't microsoft just buy Google?

Market Share - Hogwash by stevenmusumeche · 2004-07-30 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative

I control many sites with hundreds of thousands of visitors a day. Here are the stats for search engine referers:

google.com (54.8%)
yahoo.com (10.3%)
msn.com (4.2%)
aol.com (2.3%)
ask.com (1.8%)

disclaimer: MSN and Yahoo are inflated because of Overture PPC traffic.

Re:Google has won by mirko · 2004-07-30 04:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Yet another Bundling..er Bungling by ackthpt · 2004-07-30 04:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

How long before the first huge hole is found in this? Problems will be:

Find documents on the web with worms/trojans/virii and open them for you. How thoughtful!

Keep track of your favorite searches, so when it is exploited someone can sell this for marketing

Like the Windows search it will use up about 90% of your CPU while running, because Microsoft still doesn't get the multitasking thing.

Won't have multiple exclusions, so you always waste time searching through directories where you shouldn't be looking.

Will be too ambitious, searching multimedia, etc.

Will focus on Microsoft Friends first, 'inadvertently' avoid Microsoft Enemies ('Honest, we wouldn't have it avoid OSS/Linux/Sun/etc. sites, we'll look into it right away!'

Will be built into all office products, thus bloating them further, introducing more instability and requiring numbnut PHB's to shell big zorkmids to, yet again, upgrade.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Google has won by tlpalmer · 2004-07-30 04:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why does google expanding make it evil? I don't see the problem with it.

Google might be toast. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2004-07-30 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Think about this MSN in its crappy state that its in right now has 31%. Thats incredible, considering how terrible it is at finding relevent information. If they make it anywhere near Google or Yahoo's quality they will end up crushing them.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Am I the only one who thinks google sucks? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-30 04:46 · Score: 5, Informative

I use google quite actively. Google toolbar in Firefox, etc etc. But you have to admit, the google system, while it might be "the best" engine out there, does pretty much suck.

There are entirely too many stores being used in the search engine for results. You want to look up information for a DVD player model # and you'll get hundreds, if not thousands of links to stores before anything else.

And God knows how many sites are just spam houses instead of actual sites with content. I can't even name how many times I've searched for something, clicked the link to see something like "The Bottled Water Taco Bell is great with Viagra Dell Computers. It adds 100 to your Microsoft Xbox Vivid Video while your Sony Cable Descrambler downloads FREE SOFTWARE! cock shit pussy cunt fuck lesbian girl girl shit black interracial anal"

Google needs some competition, because they've been stagnating for way too long.

Re:Objetivity by proj_2501 · 2004-07-30 04:47 · Score: 3, Informative

top 5 results for 'linux' search
on google:
1.) linux.org
2.) linux.com
3.) redhat.com
4.) debian.org
5.) kernel.org
on msn:
1.) linux.org
2.) linux.com
3.) redhat.com
4.) kernel.org
5.) debian.org

msn even links to google's specialized linux search later on.

This could be very bad. by asoap · 2004-07-30 04:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

The hope that I have is that people have become so used to google, that they will ignore whatever Microsoft puts into there operating system.

But this scares me, like linux should scare Microsoft. The problem is that as long as Microsoft controls the root of people's machines, they can put there search ahead of google.

In other words, if people turn on there machine, and find a search box right on the desktop, they are going to start using that first before heading over to google. I really believe that the "average" (that's not the /. community) person won't give a damn about accurate results, because they won't be able to tell the difference. If that is the case, then Microsoft will have 0 problem overtaking google.

I hope that I'm not giving the average person enough credit to tell the difference between an accurate result and a non accurate result. Then again, I've seen news reporters claim that because they typed in the word "Botox" into google, that there are 750,000 sites of doctors that do Botox work. You would think that a reporter would be able to understand the basics of how a search engine works. They should obviously be a little smarter then the average bear.

Then again, I guess not.

-asoap

--
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros

Which is exactly why Google stock is a "Bad Idea" by wamatt · 2004-07-30 04:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hate them all you want, but dont underestimate Microsoft, when they want to get there way.

I think anyone who pays >$100 per share for a peice of Google is nuts. http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journali d=22356775&brk=1. They are #1 and only have direction to go.

History will repeat itself, remember when Web Crawler was king, then Yahoo tookover and looked to be "unstoppable".

What's MS going to need to compete with Google? by Enigma_Man · 2004-07-30 04:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Developers, developers, developers, developers...
DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!!!11ONEONE

-Shteeve

--
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.

DOC format advantage? by Doc+Ruby · 2004-07-30 04:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Not quite... by Azureflare · 2004-07-30 04:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

It really depends on what they were measuring on those search engines. Do those percentages represent the percentage of users who use that search engine, or the number of times they have used that search engine (i.e. outbound/inbound traffic to that site). If it measures hits/traffic, then it would be interesting to see the ratio of the users to the traffic; I'm guessing that it is harder for people to find things on MSN/Yahoo (gosh that sounds good together), so maybe that is why their numbers are so high, and don't reflect what we expect?

Also consider that many people do not use MSN search by choice; it is integrated into internet explorer.

The same could be said of firefox; google is integrated there, so perhaps as more people switch to firefox, we will see the google numbers climb?

I'd really like to see a better study than this one. This is a very interesting topic.

Hmm, this looks by sabNetwork · 2004-07-30 05:00 · Score: 3, Informative

familiar.

No one can blame Apple for being a little prophetic.

--

Isn't this how they crushed Netscape? by bretharder · 2004-07-30 05:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Who cares about market share? by rokzy · 2004-07-30 05:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

correction by SuperBanana · 2004-07-30 05:34 · Score: 4, Informative

CFO of google

Oops, had that wrong. Drummond is "vice president for corporate development, secretary, and general counsel" for Google.

--
Please help metamoderate.

Search results in URL names by rd_syringe · 2004-07-30 05:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

For the last year, search results have been close to useless for me, because I often get those "search_term_in_url.html" results. Google's algorithm places higher relevance on pages whose filenames contain your search terms, so this gets me a lot of completely irrelevant junk sites that are just spamming Google with their ugly URL names.

Google should disregard URL filenames. It's the content of the site that matters, right? Not the filename. Google does need some competition, and I bet Microsoft is just smart enough to provide.

Also, I wonder if anyone's made the connection that the new MSN search and the WinFS local search in Longhorn will probably share technologies? You'll probably be searching the web and searching your hard drive using the same engine.

Hotmail runs on NT by rd_syringe · 2004-07-30 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hotmail's been running on Windows servers for a long time now. Lots of rumors flew around about FreeBSD, but those were mostly relegated to Slashdot posts (of course).

Microsoft's been pretty open about the conversion process they undertook. They even wrote a paper about it and released it online.

Re: Apple and Google by jared_hanson · 2004-07-30 06:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

48 of 459 comments (clear)