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?""

Comments

Marketing is the problem

[chris09876]

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.

Re:Marketing is the problem

[dtfinch]

If MS wants to win, they should focus on having a quality product, and not worry so much about promoting it.

They didn't become the world's biggest software company by simply having the best quality product.

Re:Marketing is the problem

[Illserve]

I'm no great fan of Windows, I use it because I have to.

But don't tar the entire MS line with the same brush. If MS Office is such shit, why is Open Office practically a feature by feature clone of it? (I'm sure I'll get roasted for that one but from what I've seen of it...)

Face it, MS Office for all the times it makes you want to jump out a window because Excel chart font sizes are determined by a random number generator when you shift the window size, is a very solid suite. The ability to double click on a chart in a power point presentation, open up the underlying excel spreadsheet and fix problems, or just create a new chart, is absolutely fantastic.

Even some academic journals are now allowing .doc submissions as an alternative to latex or pdf.

Although really, of the big trio: Excel, Word and Powerpoint, Word is clearly the worst of them, and by a big margin.

Again I'm not saying they don't have their quirks, but the office suite has certainly revolutionized (to a minor extent) the way many people do publishing and presentations.

Irony: As I type this message praising MS software, the delete key has stopped working in this IE window.

Too Late

[TedCheshireAcad]

It's too late. Google is already a verb.

People will never say, "don't ask me, Microsoft it."

Re:Too Late

[Antonymous Flower]

Microsoft v. - to acquire with monopolistic intent SYNONYM: assimilate

Re:Too Late

[Chess_the_cat]

Maybe not but I have heard MSN used as a verb in the context of instant messaging. "MSN me later." And since the name of the search engine is MSN Search I can definitely see people say MSN it. Conversely, I can see people use the word "google" to mean any type of online search which is precisely why Google fought to keep out of the dictionary. They saw that brands like Kleenex, Escalator, and Hoover became generic and have lost a lot of meaning. In fact, Escalator had to be given up by Otis Elevator because a judge ruled that it had entered the popular language and could no longer be protected as a trademark. So I can see 5 years from now people saying "google it" but heading to MSN Search or whatnot.

Here's a great article about how worried Google is about their brand becoming a generic term.

Re:Too Late

[That's Unpossible!]

Words come and go. A few years ago everybody would have said "don't ask me, check on Yahoo". Then it was "check on Altavista". Then "google for it". Do someone really think this will last forever?

Hey buddy, shut your heretical mouth and pass me a kleenex.

Re:Too Late

[ad0gg]

Umm... 3 years ago google was responsible for 70% of all searches on the internet. Last stat I saw, they are now at 47% and that was before the launch of Microsofts new search engine. Inktomi(yahoo) was been rising and now makes up 27% of all searches.

It might if you keep advertizing it ever y day

[Arcturax]

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

Re:It might if you keep advertizing it ever y day

[JaredOfEuropa]

They just aren't adding enough new value to make it worth breaking a 5 year long habit of typing google.com

That's the key point, I think. I just read about a study that showed most people are loyal to their current search engine to an almost unreasonable degree. Bear in mind that 'most people' does not mean technofreaks like the regular Slashdot reader, but just your average computer user. And even I (technofreak) took a long long time to switch from Altavista to Google, even when Google's advantages became apparent.

Microsofts engine will have to be phenominally good in order to get people to switch. Google (and Altavista in an earlier stage) could beat the competition by having a really simple and quick-loading interface, along with a good, attractive format to display results in. They could have beaten the competition even if their search results were on par with competing systems (they were better). It will be quite hard to beat Google on either the user experience or search engine.

Here's one of those nice little features of Google: try searching for "5 cc to cubic inches". Google gives you the answer right away... and it also works for converting, say, furlongs to lightyears.

Drawing Parallels

[American AC in Paris]

Before we get too much into the IE vs. Netscape comparisons here, I want to point out one of the major differences between the Browser War and whatever Search Engine War may or may not be brewing:

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.

Re:Drawing Parallels

[Mr_Silver]

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.

Exactly. Let us not forget that a very large number of geeks actually moved from Netscape to IE not because it came bundled but because IE 3 (or 4, I can't remember) was actually better than Netscape 4.

I moved from IE to Firefox for the same reason.

Microsoft's big problem

[deanj]

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.

it begs the question

[Threni]

No, it raises the question.

Hardly

[M3rk1n_Muffl3y]

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.

Why I dislike MSN search already...

[jmcmunn]

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).

Begs the question

[Catskul]

No damn it. It doesnt beg the question. Begging the question is a logical falacy.

The old does not have to supplant the new

[Timesprout]

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.

Untrue.

[cybersaga]

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.

Re:Untrue.

[chris09876]

I think in something like search engines, the tech crowd dictates what people use. It's easy to switch your homepage. If there's a new better browser out there, tech people will use it, and inform their non-tech friends about it too. How much does google spend on marketing?? When's the last time you saw a google TV ad?

Re:Untrue.

[Ubergrendle]

Google has been very successful at using 'soft' marketing to establish their brand, especially early in their corporate history. Everyone KNOWS that gmail is ready for public launch, but having private invites gives it a cachet. Clever advertising for job postings gets it additional media coverage. Clever IPO process gets it additional media coverage. But sooner or later Google will have to compete in the 'real' marketing space -- traditional media, to reach a wider audience.

As for tech crowd dictating what's good and what isn't, lets think about this, shall we?

1. Beta vs VHS?
2. Original Mac vis IBM PC/XT/AT?
3. Wagons/Hatchbacks vs SUVs? (same storage capacity, better fuel economy)
4. .ogg vs .mp3 or .wmv?
5. Extended warranties from Best Buy?!?!

Marketing is for the suckers...and that's where the money is.

Re:Untrue.

[HuguesT]

1. Beta had a better image but with VHS you could record more than 60 minutes at a time. Everyone forgets this little point BTW. Case closed.

2. Mac vs IBM. Cost as soon as clones came in. Still the same issue BTW by and large. IBMs had IBM behind it, and that's why it became a success with business, thanks to Lotus as well). Who cares about the OS, it's all about the applications, even today.

3. Cars are status symbols and a lot of irrational issue surround them. Few people buy cars on technical terms, otherwise no one would have ever bought an Alfa Romeo for instance.

4. Ogg originally required a floating point unit, and so wouldn't run on low-end players. MP3 was first to market. Few people can actually hear the difference between MP3 and Ogg and most don't care. The quality of either is much much better than either FM radio or tapes.

5. Extended warranties are popular with many products such as Apple computers for instance, where it does make sense because after 3 years the computer is still worth something.

Marketing works to some extent but are not the be-all and end-all of everything. Perhaps you've heard of the term "hype" ?

They already are using it...

[PornMaster]

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.

duh

[erikharrison]

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 . . .

Alternative viewpoint.

[Faust7]

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.

Re:Alternative viewpoint.

[agurkan]

What in the world does trying to be a domain registrar have to do with increasing their search capabilities?

If they have access to information of who registered what domain name, they can weed out link farmers much more easily.

Precedents...

[catdevnull]

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.

And

[Safety Cap]

Like how Microsoft beat the hell out of Apple in the portable music player market.

WMP r00lz, AAC teh suck!

Microsoft has to, gulp, innovate to win

[saddino]

1) The UI problem. As many have noticed, MSN Search is a near copy of Google's interface: even the "Settings" look identical. At best, making Google "switchers" comfortable will aid in driving traffic, but at worst it's an admission that "Google has done it right, and it can't be done better."

• Innovation: Microsoft should research how to make the UI
• better than Google. If it's possible, they should do it. It'll pay off even if people have to learn a new paradigm (ugh, hate that word).
  

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.

• Innovation: Come up with a new name for your search technology, advertise the hell out of it (and per 2 above buy a single word domain for it) and then Google will be worried. If you build it, they will come.

Re:Microsoft has to, gulp, innovate to win

[cpghost]

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.

Who says that users must type search.msn.com in their URL text entry field? Microsoft could modify the apps so that everything that doesn't look like a URL will be automatically redirected towards search.msn.com. It would be actually even easier for users to search stuff: just type in what you need and voila, MSN search spits out a page of results.

That's the "beauty" of desktop dominance.

Neat google trick...

[shird]

Go to Google Suggest and type the words "msn search" in the search box and nothing more...

Take a look at the bottom suggestion....

This is not a desktop application

[betelgeuse68]

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

"They can't bundle it with their OS"

[Catullus]

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...

"Microsoft" is already a verb

[artemis67]

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."

Ugh.

[i41Overlord]

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.

Depends on what you think of Britney Spears...

[P-Frank]

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).

Re:Of course

[flyingsquid]

Breaking even is not a success. If you invest 500 million into something (arbitrary figure) and get 500 million back over the lifetime of the product, it was a bad investment.

Depends. If you crush the life out of your competition such that in the future you'll be able to get their market and prevent them from moving into yours, then it was a good investment. Giving away IE to suck the life out of Netscape, for instance.

Ugh... MSN is too slow!

[dep01]

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."