Slashdot Mirror
Can Microsoft Beat Google?
An anonymous reader writes "With all the hype surrounding the recent release of MSN Search, are the search engine wars heating up? There's an interesting article that states, "As the veteran Microsoft enters the already flooded search engine industry, and Google still being fresh and refreshing to most people, it begs the question: can the old supplant the new?""
It will be just like how Microsoft beat AOL at the ISP game.
And just like Microsoft beat Sony in the game box market.
I have a friend who works on the MSN Search team as an intern. He said their marketing budget is massive. The article says that MS invested hundreds of millions of dollars, but I'm guessing most of that is for marketing - NOT the research and development that is needed to come up with a truly innovative search technology. If MS wants to win, they should focus on having a quality product, and not worry so much about promoting it. If they really do make something better, people will use it.
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
google
(156 000 000 results)
versus
microsoft
(188 000 000 results)
The winner is: microsoft
Damn! I guess they can...
It's too late. Google is already a verb.
People will never say, "don't ask me, Microsoft it."
Seriously, I think 90% of the hype has been here on /.
As for overtaking, I don't think it will. They just aren't adding enough new value to make it worth breaking a 5 year long habit of typing google.com
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
IE didn't win the browser war as much as Netscape lost the browser war.
Simply put, Netscape sat on their laurels and watched as Microsoft yanked the rug out from under them. Yes, there was underhandedness involved, but at root, Netscape shoulders most of the blame for having lost the browser war.
Thus far, I don't see any indication that Google is going to repeat Netscape's mistakes. Google continues to run a service that is fast, reliable, and modern. They're aggressively broadening their service base, they've attained the pinnacle of name recognition, and they're not showing any signs of letting up.
Whatever comes, this will not be a simple rehash of Netscape vs. IE.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Microsoft's in an interesting position. They can't really take advantage of their OS they way they did to wipe out Netscape.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a web search added to the regular Windows search. Yes, I know they have a beta of desktop search too. I just don't think they'll be able to effectively pull it off.
I like google because I don't like to be bombarded with crap until after I push the search button.
Surely whoever beats Google is likely to have more power and information (or gain it later) than Google themselves? That would really solve your problem.
Google has a head-start, and are presently unencumbered by the bonehead marketers that have ensured that Microsoft produces such sloppy software.
In order to out-take Google, Microsoft would have to adopt it's strictly logical, scientific modus operandi.
Google frontpage: ~4KB HTML
MSN frontpage: umbteen kilobytes of clutter, flash, and totally irrelevant BS.
guess which one im gonna pull up for a simple web search.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Microsoft dominating Apple in the operating system market wasn't really a David and Goliath Battle.
Apple was essentially the Google of the early 80's to late 80's.
Google overcame many GREAT & Powerful names - the main being Yahoo and Lycos to come out on top.
Apple overcame Compaq/HP/IBM (for a while) and was at the 50% of all computers sold for a certain period of time and far greater % in education.
Microsoft has the muscle now and has always had the brute force or dominating power to overcome anyone they set their minds on.
That said, I think Google has the name - MSN Search just doesn't roll off the tongue.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
No, it raises the question.
There is a lot of room for improvement in today's search engines. Whoever helps people find the stuff they are looking for best, people will use them. That is how google won in the first place. I'm thinking the next step will be more along the lines of artificial intelligence moreso than pure number crunching.
search.msn.com is not a verb.
Put that in your pipe and Swiff(tm) it.
Google is attracting the talent M$ can only dream of. Somehow I doubt that they will manage to find any hardcore search geeks to develop new search apps for them. As far as search goes M$ are n00bs not the veterans and they won't be catching up. Their so called "new" search produces less relavant results than Yahoo and on top of that they are very vulnerable to manupulation by SEOs.
nice try, but no cigar.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
Because they feel the need to crawl web pages roughly 5 times as much as Google does. I swear their spider has nothing better to do with it's like than to visit my web page for some reason. I only have a few pages, and I get better than 50 hits a day just from the MS spider. Google seems to only hit each page once a day at most. I could see how that could get out of hand if you had a large site, with tons of pages.
Don't get me wrong, I am not worried about bandwidth because of the spider or anything, I just think they could tone down a little. Obviously if I were worried I could do something about it (maybe, depending on how nice it is).
No damn it. It doesnt beg the question. Begging the question is a logical falacy.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Well to beat google M$ would have to leverage its monopoly on the desk top to gain a competitive advantage. They wouldn't do that; that's illegal.
Google is the next Alta Vista.
All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
Google only stands one chance or their lifespan is
limited to a year or two at best. They have to get
as much stuff on the desktop as they can because MS will integrate their search into the OS. They have got to push firefox now, they need to find a way to own a spot on everbodies desktop and right now firefox is the way to do that.
Got Code?
Just provide a viable alternative to google as hopefully others such as Yahoo will also do. It's really not in our interests for Google to monopolize searching.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
If they really do make something better, people will use it.
Not true. Marketing is everything these days. Why is Britney Spears popular? Quality product? hehe...
Marketing will get them their users, but users that don't know any better. For the tech crowd, yes, Microsoft will have to come up with a better product, though I find that just as amusing as Britney Spears selling records.
Web Design Tips
I personally think it is unlikely that M$ will ever dominate Google no matter how much money they throw at it for a number of reasons.
#1) Google has been branded into people's consciousness as THE way to search the net. While the landscape of search engines is littered with now fallen former champs ala altavista, Google has a ton of momentum behind it as a brand.
As long as they continue to innovate and return the most relevant results, it is very unlikely MSN search will achieve much penetration of this market. Why would people switch otherwise?
#2) M$ has rarely been an innovator in ANYTHING. In the world of search engines, being one step behind just isn't going to cut it. Google has consistently shown themselves to have a bold, creative overall vision. M$ has always lacked one and still does.
#3) Google is now flush with cash after a very successful IPO. Earnings are going gangbusters and look like they will do so for the forseeable future. They are going to be in a financial position to execute on their game plan. M$ may also have a cash hoarde, but Google's stock price and cash give them the tools necessary to challenge M$ on their own turf if so desired.
Momentum is a powerful force, look at Ebay's domination of the auction market. As long as Google continues to lead, and M$ flails along behind, Mr. Softee will remain flaccid in the search engine market.
Seriously, why do you think it's worth it for Microsoft to bother getting into search? It's not because billg's interested in the technology, it's because they have millions of eyeballs anyway because MSN is set as the default homepage in millions of browsers.
They are using their own search with their own advertising system to monetize that advantage. They don't have to be better than Google for that to work, just not completely suck donkeys.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Sure, hits are probably the most important aspect to a search engine; but, Microsoft just doesn't understand what makes Google what it is.
I use Google because it gives me accurate search results without all the added crap. I am emphatically uninterested in having an ad for the latest version of Office display when it's totally unrelated to my search material.
Unless Microsoft can think about something other than money for a change, it's not going to happen for them. You and I both know this will never happen.
My lame blog.
Supplanting Google isn't even hard, relatively speaking. Just be better - total cost of migrating from Google to another search engine approaches nill.
The question, of course, is can MS supplant Google? I doubt it. The reasons:
* Microsoft can't pull a MS Works or similar trick - namely they can't undersell on a poorer product until it hits market saturation
* They can't use proprietary API's or file formats for lock in
* They can't bundle it with their OS
* They can bundle it with their other web services, but when Google trashed Yahoo! many moons ago, it was made clear that superior search engine beats stack of web services.
* MS has no skill making a successful web service. Hotmail and MSNBC are strategic grabs of other services or content (anyone have a counterexample?).
* MS does not seem to have a corporate philosophy that would easily lend itself to Google type ads, which are the only search engine ads I have ever been lulled by. How will MS make a profit?
Of course one has to wonder why they entered the search engine market anyway. I suspect it is simply because it's cool, and much though you may loath them you've got to get MS that. They go where it's cool, even if it's not profitable all the time - they can afford it. Of course, once they are king of a market, they are ruthless about squeezing the rock for all it's water . . .
Google continues to run a service that is fast, reliable, and modern. They're aggressively broadening their service base, they've attained the pinnacle of name recognition, and they're not showing any signs of letting up.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be that Google is trying to do too much, too fast. What in the world does trying to be a domain registrar have to do with increasing their search capabilities? Plus, Google's research into search AI is not at the level of Microsoft's. (Never, ever underestimate the power of Microsoft Research.) There are some indications that Google may indeed "sit on their laurels" and let Microsoft pass them by.
You have to realize that Microsoft is a very big, very powerful company with an enormous R&D department and a gigantic marketing machine. Google has won both market share and mind share, but both can be taken. Microsoft is in a position to do it. One underestimates at one's own risk.
The coolest voice ever.
Let's take a look into the recent past:
How did MS's IE beat Netscape? By integrating IE it into Windows. Don't you think that the MS plans to make this search technology 'hard wired' into future (or even current) Windows releases to circumvent users's access or choice in using Google?
Netscape also had some serious quality control issues which was the final nail into its coffin. I suspect, however, that Google is in a much better position to compete than Netscape ever was. But, they're going to have a serious fight on their hands--it's not about quality, it's all about quantity to Microsoft. The more drones out there who start using MS's search engines because the next Windows iteration pushes Google aside will start to erode at Google's profitability and they will play a long hard war of attrition.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
I prefer to be believe that Microsoft will put a bunch of money at into it, then throw a fit and give up. Their following will never grow much beyond the MSN customers that don't know any better.
If people are now treating google as a verb, bringing us tantalizingly close to a content-addressable web, how can Microsoft possibly usurp that kind of common recognition? Microsoft is already a verb, too; to do something expensively wrong (perhaps not in as common use as googling).
If all this 'fan-fare' isn't just Microsoft's own manufactured hype, which I believe it is, this will have a polarizing effect on the search industry. Expect AOL and Yahoo to publicly bring in (or restore) one search technology or the other, leaving people like Inktomi in the cold.
WMP r00lz, AAC teh suck!
Yeah, right.
2) The domain problem. For those few who do not have a Google bookmark (or have a built-in window a la Safari and Firefox), they can likely type "google.com" into their browser faster than...(they're already typing in their query). "search.msn.com" is just, for lack of a better word, ugly.
Innovation: Microsoft should buy a simple domain as a home for their search. Which brings us to...
3) The branding problem. For a company has huge and rich as Microsoft, they are strangely conservative about protecting the amazingly well-entrenched brand "Windows" (whether that's a valid trademark is an other issue). It's almost as if Microsoft has given up on branding and just "wings it" (Windows Movie Maker? Windows Media 9?). Face it, just adding "Windows" or "Microsoft" or "msn" (ooh, that rolls of the tongue) breaks all the rules of branding. Google is a verb because it is fanciful.
Another point: Using the fisher-price colours and theme of Windows XP was a clever choice by MS.
A lot more people are going to trust and use the ms search because it looks like it is part of the OS and "official" in terms of looking like the OS portal to the rest of the Internet. Pretty wise move.
But again, the url is crap. You can "google" a search term. "just google it" etc. But you can't do the same with msn.search.
I.O.U One Sig.
This is a trick question, right?
HANDLE ResolveAddress(LPSTR lpstrAddress)
{
if( strcmp(lpstrAddress,"www.google.com") == 0)
{
strcpy(lpstrAddress,"www.msn.com");
}
return ResolveToIPAddress(lpstrAddress);
}
The internet did change some things, and one of them is that in a sense the net does not play by some traditional economic rules. We're not in a zero-sum game any longer. There's no reason why google and MSN search cannot both thrive, despite what the binary thinkers here feel. In a sense, there's no google vs. ms argument because users do not need to commit to one or another. I use both every day.
That's why it's not the same as the browser wars: people do not use two browsers simultaneously. But they can easily use two search engines in two different windows.
The main thing that will keep stopping me from using MSN search is the size of the page that the search box is hosted on.
I don't want to load a web portal or a news website, I just want a search box with a "go" button.
Microsoft needs to register www.microsearch.com or something and put a minimalist, google style interface up there.
Go to Google Suggest and type the words "msn search" in the search box and nothing more...
Take a look at the bottom suggestion....
I.O.U One Sig.
When will we see an IE7 with a "Search" button which uses MSN search by default with no alternatives or requires several obscure registry keys to be hacked to use an alternative search engine?
Imposter says MS can't beat Google (as he types at his Commodore 64, looks at his spiffy Edsel and drinks his Moxie). Imposter chimes, "Google has the headstart. No one can catch up."
They could use the same tactics they used so that IE beat Netscape. OK so they would lose a court case but they're prepared to pay a few bucks on the way to global domination.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
How about the consumer? With all these companies vying for our attention, there's bound to be a few really great innovations along the way.
It is possible to beat Microsoft.
A perfect example of this is Intuit. They've managed to keep Microsoft at bay despite fierce competition. Those flames were fanned when an acquisition of Intuit fell through therefore strengthening Microsoft's resolve.
Nevertheless Intuit is still with unlike lots of MS road kill that comes to mind.
This question to some degree seems pointless. It assumes that somehow Microsoft's desktop monopoly will mean that people will stop using a web application (search) with a brand that has become incredibly powerful.
This seems like a variation on all the claims that Apple was on its death bed eight years ago. In fact I remember seeing NBC News running a story that seemed to echo this industry consensus.
And despite Microsoft's desktop domination, it seems most Microsoft employees (much to the chagrin of MS management) are opting to patronize Apple with its latest creation, the iPod. The story in Wired was featured in Slashdot just recently.
Google is incredibly entrenched in people's minds. It has become a powerful brand. Evidence of this is the fact that people readily use its name as a verb.
Microsoft setting its search engine as the default for whatever future browser they release will *not* cause people to stop using Google.
-M
Actually, they can to a certain extent - at least, they can integrate MSN search into their desktop search tool, and all their apps. "It looks like you're searching for something. Would you like to use MSN to search the Internet?".
Also, I personally think that they don't really want to be in the search engine market - they just don't want to risk Google's brand becoming predominant over theirs...
First Guy: "Dood, what happened to your server?"
Second Guy: "Oh, that. It Microsofted last night."
First Guy: "Hey, I thought you said your files were secure!"
Second Guy: "Well, somebody Microsofted me over the internet."
First Guy: "You look awful! What the hell happened?"
Second Guy: "I was walking down this dark alley and a couple of punks Microsofted me."
Hello passengers- we've reached our cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. I am going to switch the seat belt sign off in a moment so feel free to stretch and move about the cabin. Those of you on the right can look out the windows and see the Grand Canyon, while those of you on the left can look up and see the OP's comments, passing harmlessly above the heads of the unsuspecting.
Google automatically starts out ahead in the game: The percentage of people out there that have favorable thoughts associated with the name "Google" is higher (probably on the order of a few magnitude) than those who think positive thoughts of "Microsoft".
Simply because I strongly dislike Microsoft (and thus everything associated with them), I will continue to use Google.
Microsoft would have to seriously surpass Google in order for me to switch, and I suspect the same goes for many others.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!
Regarding search quality, MSN bombing is already starting, without involving Google searches. If you search for 'merda' (italian word for feces, unpolite), the first result is a Vatican City congregation.
E.g., http://search.msn.it/results.aspx?q=merda.
Too many people are forgetting that although 99.99% of people on here are proper computer geeks, we make up about 0.001% of all the people that use computers and the internet.
The majority of computer users know of no reason why they should hate Microsoft, when you consider how many people still don't even know what spy/mal/parasiteware is, or the amount of people who don't know what a firewall is or have an up to date virus checker etc.
People are quite happy to use whatever tool is first there (why else would they download so many spyware toolbars?), many millions of people in this world have MSN as their homepage either because they don't know how to change it or they actually use the search functions on there.
Yes Google is very very well known, as is Microsoft and MSN. While the marketing ploy wont work with us geeks, I'll quite happily bet it'll affect large numbers of 'ordinary' computer users.
I love the slick, clean and crisp design of Google but it's amazing the amount of people who prefer a site such as MSN because it's got pretty flashing lights, lots of colour and all the rest of the shit on it.
Just because we're geeks doesn't mean that everyone else thinks like us.
"The power and information google has and will continue to imporve upon is scary." Here's a crazy idea: if you don't like Google's business practices, don't use it. I don't remember anyone holding a gun to my head if I wanted to use yahoo's search
What is the product? The music? Of course not. One argument is that the product is herself. Britney's body. Britney's voice. Britney's sugary production. Britney's image. It's a total package.
Then we have the "Britney as medium" argument that I quite like. Britney has become a medium for content delivery unto her own. She delivers a musical production. She delivers the lyrics of others. She is the box that the product comes in, the item inside the box and the marketing splash on the front of the box (Yes, I do enjoy talking about Britney's box, thanks for asking).
Then we get to Windows as portal. Let us assume that the non-intuitive nature of Windows is ingrained so much into us that it has become intuitive. It is transparent and no longer about using windows, it is about what it brings to us. Movies. Music. Word Processors. The Internet. Now MSN Search is a way to frame the Internet by Microsoft, which is quite ingenius. Google has already begun doing this, GMail, blogger, froogle, answers. The search page has become a way to deliver their product (Much like Windows delivers Microsoft product).
Other players would like to take some of this revenue. The inclusion of indexing of pages that don't buy ads is just the necessary come-on to entice viewers to use the search engine when doing product-oriented lookups.
If Microsoft can undermine Google and Yahoo in the ad word business it will cut off their "air supply" and they will no longer be able to afford to provide such extensive free indexing services.
I wonder how hard it would be to create a little applicaton which does a GET on all the paid ads in a search results page and causes the click-through payment model to fail?
The new ad blocking features in Firefox have already altered the interest in banner and popup ads.
-- Robert D Feinman Landscapes, Panoramas, Photoshop Tips and Musings on Society
People (A9.com, MSN search, etc) don't seem to understand that the reason why most people use Google is because of it's lightning-fast interface. It's simple... It's quick... The second I hit MSN's search page, i though, "Ugh... Look at all the CRAP that has to load every time I want to go here."
"hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
Shows how much you know even with a 5 digit slashdot account! The original mac had colour and shipped with at least 1 game, had some upgradebility. It also had a GUI, something which no other computer had at the time. Call yourself a geek? :p
Jonathanjk.com
Google is a good search engine but they've been completely owned by 'optimizers' [I have a slightly less polite term for them] for years now. Google really needs to radically change Pagerank soon, the worse their results get the more vulnerable they are to a competitor with better technology. It happened to us when I worked at AltaVista, we tried adding a bunch of features instead of improving core search results and we got completely killed by Google which had almost no features, just better results.
Windows server: Sure, some folks buy it, but plenty don't. So far, Microsoft only has about one third of this space, and Linux is nipping at its heels. They knifed Windows for Itanium, to the disappointment of both Itanium users.
Server appications: IIS has lost market share to Apache in recent years, and Exchange isn't ubiquitous yet either. SQL server enjoys showing the web its limits.
Windows CE/Mobile/Tablet/whatever: Still no monopoly, and since sales of PDAs are shrinking and tablet PC's haven't really caught on, even if MS did take over this market...
Game Consoles: XBox did just have its first profitable quarter. Ever. But it doesn't seem to sell so well overseas, and Nintendo and Sony haven't been persuaded to go away yet.
Media: Media Center PC's aren't selling so well, and in a world with iTuneszilla stomping around, Windows Media suddenly seems less likely to rule the universe than it did a few years ago, even with "PlaysForSure."
Internet Services: Even with its added features, MSN Messenger doesn't seem to be destroying AIM or Yahoo Messenger. MSN doesn't seem to be destroying anybody in general, even if Verizon throws it in free with DSL, and even if MSN is the homepage for Internet Explorer. Now Microsoft wants to go after Google, too.
It's pretty interesting to consider that Windows Client and Office are so frickin' profitable that Microsoft can afford to throw gobs of money at their unprofitable products and divisions (which are pretty much everything but Windows Client and Office) and still have huge heaps of cash left over.
(Oh, and I left off Apple, because if 95% of the world abruptly switched to Apple, Microsoft is second only to Apple itself in Mac software development, and would still be one of the most profitable companies out there, on sales of Office for Mac, VirtualPC, etc. Also, because as long as Apple is out there, and isn't owned by Microsoft, Microsoft can point at it and say "look, there are other choices, we're not that much of a monopoly!" :)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
There was a time when I would agree with you, but now I find myself frustrated, yelling at my IMAP server to support a "labels" system. It's a more logical mapping of categorisation to a mail system.