Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Takes Aim At Google
TiredOfCrap writes "People are underestimating what Microsoft is doing with search technology, says Bill Gates.
The head of the software giant told the BBC that its ambition is to be bigger than Google in search.
"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Google is an enemy by choice. I get the impression that Google is a competitor simply because Gates thinks they are.
Is there a GoogleOS in our future?
Defecation occurs.
The article is expectedly mostly spin, but I'm surprised at how much rehash it is. Specifically:
I think that says a lot. Computers today are astronomically more powerful than ever before which is a natural consequence of the development and maturation of electronics and transistors, etc. But, Mr. Gates and Microsoft has promised year after year the power (delivered, but not because of Microsoft) but not the ease of use.
I do think (and of course this is just opinion) the software could have evolved much further than we see today if Microsoft hadn't been so dominant. There are/were hints of advances but often these were stunted early either by Microsoft essentially buying out companies and putting their own stamp on the technology (and sometimes actually advancing it), or by cooking up something similar and squashing the competition with price undercuts.
(Actually, technically, Mr. Gates is wrong here: you can talk to them. They won't do much, but you can still talk to them.)
I saw Mr. Gates say this same thing at a Expo Keynote speech in the '90s. I said it then, I'll say it now, we'll get real speech recognition in computers sort of, but it's not clear people really want to talk to them anyway. It's mostly amazing and a little disgusting Mr. Gates gets to get away with these promises year after year. I suppose it's partially the consuming public's fault for having a collective short memory and never calling Microsoft on this.
As for Mr. Gates' prediction MS is going to be bigger than Google, uh, hello, it already is. I think this is mostly code language for what they intend (hope) to do to Google. I'm not sure MS is positioned quite as nicely this time to accomplish this.
And, finally, from the article:
I'm not sure what Mr. Gates is implying here. But if I were on one of the U.S. campuses, I'd be pissed, and a little nervous.
Google has the name right now. Microsoft would have to completely abandon MSN because no one wants to search from MSN. One problem they have is that they don't appear to want to go head to head. Their move for AOL shows that they appear to have the idea if they can force AOL users to MSN unawares then their numbers will go up and they will appear to be competing. Just my observation. This whole battle seems to be more of Microsoft's idiology that if it's a technology, they should be the main player. Some might say this is business but business should be, "We can do it better" not "We should have what they have." Google is out there growing and coming up with new ideas. Microsoft is following. This isn't new. They did it with the browser market and the server market. They will build on the technology with new ideas (or bought ones?) once they conquer.
>>I think he just might have the resources to do it.
He may have the resources, but he'll never have the talent.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
for the less computer adept... having the company that "made their computer" say that their search engine is better than that college-startup named "Gafoogle" or whatever is pretty convincing. Not to mention it'll prolly be the default engine in the next version of IE and will probably search straight from the location bar. Google may be better, but MSN search is nothing to scoff at. I think they'll have their work cut out for them if they want to stay on top of the popularity curve.
Technically minded folks may flock to google over MS for the ethical reasons, but that's not the reason Google rules the roost right now. Google wins through better tech and ease of use. Technologies like search engines and anything else that depends on volume of use depend on public acceptance to be truely successful.
Techies drive tech advancement and improvement... but we don't drive wide-spread adoption, and we don't determine market success. The average Joe User does.
Most people don't care one bit over if the company they purchase from is "evil", just look to the success of Nike and WalMart to prove that point. They go with what works best, and Google works best.
That IS why Google's on top.
For example, Microsoft search can be adless (or charge less for ads) and hyperfast thanks a server farm 100x Google's size.
The other advantages you listed are substantial, but not this one I'm afraid. Google's searches are already on the order of 0.2 seconds. I can't imagine anyone "on the margin" switching to MS because they get their results in 0.002 seconds plus download time rather than 0.2 seconds plus download time. I could be wrong though: Are there people who do rapid searches in succession and can process the data from those searches at that speed?
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
You are wrong... it was AT&T Bell labs, but other than Bjarne Stroustrup, who went to Texas A&M, most of the Bell guys are now at Google. These are people Microsoft could never hire away, but Google did.
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
Google must show a profit in their endeavors
So must Microsoft. Microsoft won't try to dominate the search market if there is no money in it (either directly, or indirectly). But clearly there is money in it, and Google is the leader. That's a large reason why Google's market cap is so high.
Google owns the market right now. With regards to MS's ability to funnel money from other parts of the company, that just means MS can be the "competitor that won't go away", nothing more.
For example, Microsoft search can be adless [and a few other things...]
But MS won't do any of these things, so they are non-issues. It's sort of like saying MS can use Firefox as its default browser.
Plus, they can integrate it into their ownership of the OS and browser markets.
They already do this. I'm sure Vista will integrate MSN Search even greater.
Google has neither an endless mountain of cash
Google's market cap is just barely under $100 billion. Cash is not a problem, and as long as they stay ahead of the game, it won't be.
nor a 90% of the browsers, nor 90% of the desktops.
Google's services are more compatible with more browsers and more OS's than Microsoft's are.
The simple fact is that MS does not have to win - they can lose, and lose by a wide margin (in terms of profits) until Google is starved out of business. And then they win anyways by default.
That's not even remotely logical. If MS doesn't win "in terms of profits", but Google does, how, exactly, is that going to translate into an MS win over Google?
The only way Google loses in that scenario is if they lose their competitive edge over Microsoft. The ability for MS to funnel money from Office -> MSN Search doesn't mean MSN Search will outcompete Google, it just means MSN Search can stick around.
Imagine a poker game where the rich kid keeps buying himself in after repeatedly losing all his cash. Having more cash doesn't mean he's going to win. In order to win, he will actually have to learn the game and become good at it.
And that's exactly what MS is good at.